Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The **** are the men.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Tecs View Post
    Dear all,

    Thanks for the replies.

    The truth is we could debate the GSG forever and still end up back where we started.

    One point to note though is the idea that the killer would not hang around unneccessarily writing nonsense on a wall when his life depended on it.

    But it seems that he did exactly that, in a tighter spot at Mitre Square when he inflicted the totally unneccessary cuts on Catherine's face, eyelids nicked through etc. If you consider that, then his hanging around the wall writing the message perhaps was not that dangerous if he felt that in a moment he could throw the chalk away and walk off unconnected to the graffiti. Or quickly enter one of the nearby doors? And didn't one of Kosminski's relatives allegedly live in one?

    regards,
    Hi friend,I think we can all agree that this will be debated for another hundred years or so.We are all trying to make sense out of some one who is quite obviously not thinking in a rational way to say the least.
    Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
      Hi friend,I think we can all agree that this will be debated for another hundred years or so.We are all trying to make sense out of some one who is quite obviously not thinking in a rational way to say the least.
      Thanks Pinkfriend,

      That was the point I made on another thread, namely it's pointless trying to assess a killer's motives with reference to our own (generally) rational thoughts. If somebody was unstable to the point that they genuinely believed that there were green rabbits on the surface of Pluto planning an invasion of earth and he became convinced that the only way to prevent it happening was to murder five women, then that was a real motive to him.

      It doesn't matter how crazy it sounds to the rest of us, it was real to him and the proof is that the earth didn't get invaded so his plan worked.

      We can't look for rational motives where there aren't any, or at least which don't look like it to us.

      regards,
      If I have seen further it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
        Hi friend,I think we can all agree that this will be debated for another hundred years or so.We are all trying to make sense out of some one who is quite obviously not thinking in a rational way to say the least.
        Everyone thinks in a rational way. The trick is to know the operating conditions. Just like computers. Computers always do what you ask them to do. The trick is knowing what you asked them to do.
        The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

        Comment


        • #19
          Tecs,

          I think one thing can be said about the face value of the writing on the wall, without resorting to attempts at understanding the context of the message, or why it was written.....it was not written by a killer seeking to claim victims that evening. There is no reference at all to murders, or kills, and both women who were killed were not Jewish.

          So.....the person who wrote the message seems to be interested in making a statement about Jews, and then the word "blame" then seems to figure prominently in the messages intent. Avoidance of blame, perhaps.

          Earlier that night a group of immigrant Jews, anarchists, and not well thought of by the police or the gentiles in the neighborhood, had a murder committed on their property which they were actively seeking to avoid blame for. Isnt it possible that this is the context?

          Cheers
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Tecs View Post
            Dear all,

            Watching Ripper Street last night got me thinking. In the programme when the anti semitic graffiti appeared around Whitechapel, the words used to describe the Jews were all derogatory and offensive.

            With apologies for using those words, they were saying things like "Kike" and "Yids" etc to describe them.

            Linking this with Martin Fido's view that the graffiti was just a disgruntled customer moaning that a Jewish trader wouldn't give him a refund or some other slight and it was just by chance that the piece of apron appeared at that point, wouldn't an angry Eastender expressing their anger use one of the words above instead of the polite "Jews?"

            If we assume that a truly disgruntled customer wouldn't hold back and would write "Those Y*d ba****ds" or "Robbing K***s" instead of a nice polite "The Jews," does that lend support to the idea that the graffiti was put there by somebody else?

            Ultimately leading to the question of whether it could have been put there by the Ripper?

            Any thoughts?

            regards,
            Good point.

            Regards, Pierre

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Tecs View Post
              Dear all,

              Thanks for the replies.

              The truth is we could debate the GSG forever and still end up back where we started.

              One point to note though is the idea that the killer would not hang around unneccessarily writing nonsense on a wall when his life depended on it.

              But it seems that he did exactly that, in a tighter spot at Mitre Square when he inflicted the totally unneccessary cuts on Catherine's face, eyelids nicked through etc. If you consider that, then his hanging around the wall writing the message perhaps was not that dangerous if he felt that in a moment he could throw the chalk away and walk off unconnected to the graffiti. Or quickly enter one of the nearby doors? And didn't one of Kosminski's relatives allegedly live in one?

              regards,
              So the cuts and the writing were important.

              Regards, Pierre

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                So the cuts and the writing were important.

                Regards, Pierre
                No, the cuts were incidental, no meaning other than the killers going further than in previous murders, especially if disturbed on Stride. And it is still debatable if she was a victim of the killer, or if he was disturbed.
                The writing had nothing to do with the murders.

                Steve

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                  No, the cuts were incidental, no meaning other than the killers going further than in previous murders, especially if disturbed on Stride. And it is still debatable if she was a victim of the killer, or if he was disturbed.
                  The writing had nothing to do with the murders.

                  Steve
                  Another contradiction. Begins with the word "no". Ends with "nothing to do with...".

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                    Another contradiction. Begins with the word "no". Ends with "nothing to do with...".
                    Pierre

                    That what someone says if they disagree with a post.

                    And your point?

                    Steve

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                      So the cuts and the writing were important.

                      Regards, Pierre
                      One of the very few things that you have right.

                      Then again,give enough monkeys typewriters.........
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                        Pierre

                        That what someone says if they disagree with a post.

                        And your point?

                        Steve
                        That nothing grows in the desert.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by DJA View Post
                          One of the very few things that you have right.

                          Then again,give enough monkeys typewriters.........
                          Thank you. But at least we are higher up than cockroaches.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            [QUOTE=Elamarna;378694]
                            No, the cuts were incidental, no meaning other than the killers going further than in previous murders, especially if disturbed on Stride.
                            The cuts were well planned and well performed.

                            Do you think the killer would have chosen the International Working Men's Educational Club as the site for performing extensive mutilations?

                            If you donīt think so, why do you think he chose the site?

                            Regards, Pierre

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Hello Pierre,

                              We don't know for a fact that Jack (if it was Jack and I think it was) chose the site. It might have been chosen by Liz. It is also possible that his desire to kill right there and then caused him to choose a site that in retrospect could have been better for his desired purposes, i.e., mutilation.

                              It is also possible that since at this point there had been previous murders that he would have been reluctant to be too persistent in his attempt to suggest a site that was more to his liking since this might have aroused suspicion in his victim.

                              c.d.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                [QUOTE=Pierre;378837]
                                Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                                The cuts were well planned and well performed.

                                Do you think the killer would have chosen the International Working Men's Educational Club as the site for performing extensive mutilations?

                                If you donīt think so, why do you think he chose the site?

                                Regards, Pierre
                                Re the cuts

                                That is your opinion , which you are entitled to, however please refrain from presenting it as a fact, it is not!

                                It is not certain that Stride was killed by the same killer as Eddowes, highly possible but there does remain a doubt.

                                I do not believe that he chose the sites. that is again your opinion, peddle it has much as you want.

                                regards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X