Dr Timothy R. Killeen

[Fisherman]

I am not pointing at anyone specific, all through this ripper mystery, there are researchers who clearly readily accept without question the content and accuracy of newspapers articles to prop up theories.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Oh, okay. So you just felt it was a nice send-off in your post, sort of? To say "It seems some are desperate to prop up their theories" and log off? Pointing at noone, just making a general observation and feeling it ought to be posted for the benefit of all of us?

Maybe I should try something along the same lines?

It seems some are predestined to get things wrong, no matter how hard they try.

I dunno. Doesn´t do much for me...

[harry]

No Fisherman,you are the one printing the lie that Killeen made such a statement.There is no doubt that your phrasing of the claim, was to suggest the wording of the claim 'A penknife could not penetrate the sternum',came directly from Killeen,when you now admit you were using newspaper reports.Hearsay evidence.The disgrace is with you.It was a deliberate attempt to mislead,so wriggle all you like,it was a lie.
Correct Trevor.and I might also add,and you may agree,be wary of relying too much on so called,'Expert witnesses',and,so called journalists.

[Fisherman]

For as old a man as you are, Harry, one would have thought you ought perhaps have advanced a tad longer in your understanding of things. The notion that Killeen meant that the lesser blade would not have been able to pierce the sternum is a very old one. I did not invent it, it is instead accepted by scores of students of the case as a possibility. On this thread alone, you can see that f ex R J Palmer and Gary Barnett work from the possibility that Killeen may have meant this, which is why they have noted that they believe Killeen was probably wrong on it.

Are you calling them too "deliberate liars"? Are you in fact calling each and every one who has accepted that Killleen may have meant this liars - although it is a perfectly plausible interpretation of what Killeen said?

If so, I suggest that you contact the administrators of the boards and ask them to have us all banished from the site until we adjust to your demands. Because we do not want liars on the site, do we?

You astonishingly also add that I "now admit" that I am using newspaper reports to establish my beliefs in the Tabram case.
Eh ... yes. Yes, I do. And the reason for it is that there is nothing else to use, but for newspaper reports. The official material is lost to history. Which means that whatever claim you make to call half ot the boards liars must also be based on what the newspaper reports said.

In fact, the bulk of what we know or think we know - about the Ripper case is based on nwespaper reports.

It´s absolutely true, Harry! I´m not lying to you!!!

[MrBarnett]

Headline in newspaper:

TRAIN CRASH - 100 KILLED

Response of 99.999% of readers:

’OMG! That’s terrible.’

Response of the illuminati:

’That’s just hearsay.’

Over on JTRForums at the moment, the poster previously known as Pierre is insisting that pretty much all source material is untrustworthy: press reports, passenger lists, police statements, inquest testimony, infirmary admission records and death registers, death certificates, burial registers... at least those that contradict her theory.

Perhaps we should all give up and go home.

[MrBarnett]

In the Daily Blurb:

‘The victim had suffered 39 punctured wounds, 38 seemingly caused by a hat pin and one by a pick axe.’

Reader 1: My medical expert tells me its impossible to tell the difference.

Reader 2: Bah, hearsay! For all we know she might have been strangled.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Headline in newspaper:

TRAIN CRASH - 100 KILLED

Response of 99.999% of readers:

’OMG! That’s terrible.’

Response of the illuminati:

’That’s just hearsay.’

Over on JTRForums at the moment, the poster previously known as Pierre is insisting that pretty much all source material is untrustworthy: press reports, passenger lists, police statements, inquest testimony, infirmary admission records and death registers, death certificates, burial registers... at least those that contradict her theory.

Perhaps we should all give up and go home.

Sorry Gary, but your not a historian, so not only are you not qualified to criticise Kristina "Pierre" Nordqvist, you couldn't even begin to understand the historical sources she used. That's why the HMR initials at murder sites looks like chance. And why the "code" by the entry in the deaths registers appears - to the untrained eye - to be a reference to anything other than a man dying of pneumonia cutting his own throat and being buried without inquest. And why Henry appears - to the untrained eye - to be on a ship to India at the time of MJK's murder. If you had a degree in history, you'd grasp these simple concepts, the unquestionable "sources" that do not lie, and see, clear as day, that this case is now solved. Yet again.

( And remember, fellow Ripperologists, we've got to keep the bandwagon rolling at all costs. I shudder to think of the money I'll lose from all those books I've never written, the walks I've never hosted, the TV appearances I've never made. We'll shut this upstart down. No one stops the gravy train.)

[MrBarnett]

Sorry Gary, but your not a historian, so not only are you not qualified to criticise Kristina "Pierre" Nordqvist, you couldn't even begin to understand the historical sources she used. That's why the HMR initials at murder sites looks like chance. And why the "code" by the entry in the deaths registers appears - to the untrained eye - to be a reference to anything other than a man dying of pneumonia cutting his own throat and being buried without inquest. And why Henry appears - to the untrained eye - to be on a ship to India at the time of MJK's murder. If you had a degree in history, you'd grasp these simple concepts, the unquestionable "sources" that do not lie, and see, clear as day, that this case is now solved. Yet again.

( And remember, fellow Ripperologists, we've got to keep the bandwagon rolling at all costs. I shudder to think of the money I'll lose from all those books I've never written, the walks I've never hosted, the TV appearances I've never made. We'll shut this upstart down. No one stops the gravy train.)

I point blank refuse to give up on my suspect... er... old wotsisname. If Chris’s theory prevails, I shall conduct a nocturnal guerilla campaign and spray paint ‘wotsisname isn’t innocent OK’ all over Whitechapel.

Either that or I’ll start doing guided Biddy the Chiver walks.

[harry]

Wrong again Fisherman.None of the others have used the words 'A penknife could not have made the wound in the sternum' ,and none has ,to my knowledge,tried to mislead,like you did,nor has any one used my age ,as you are doing,to suggest that is a factor in my thinking,nor has any other poster resorted to abuse and ridicule like you have.So no,there is no cause to accuse any one else.
Go to the administrators? Never,I am quite up to dealing with you,your lies,and your childish behaviour.
So keep addressing me in your posts,I like the challenge.You and your theory is good for a laugh,if nothing else.
Again,we do not know what Killeen said or wrote,and we do not know what he thought,so'The notion that Killeen meant the lesser blade would not pierce the sternum',is invalid.Surely you can see that,so why write such nonsense? You young people surely do need guidance.

[Fisherman]

Perhaps we should all give up and go home.

Indeed! Maybe the papers will even write about it: "Ripperology as we know it dead"

Then again, why would anybody believe what´s in the papers only?

[Fisherman]

Wrong again Fisherman.None of the others have used the words 'A penknife could not have made the wound in the sternum' ,and none has ,to my knowledge,tried to mislead,like you did,nor has any one used my age ,as you are doing,to suggest that is a factor in my thinking,nor has any other poster resorted to abuse and ridicule like you have.So no,there is no cause to accuse any one else.
Go to the administrators? Never,I am quite up to dealing with you,your lies,and your childish behaviour.
So keep addressing me in your posts,I like the challenge.You and your theory is good for a laugh,if nothing else.
Again,we do not know what Killeen said or wrote,and we do not know what he thought,so'The notion that Killeen meant the lesser blade would not pierce the sternum',is invalid.Surely you can see that,so why write such nonsense? You young people surely do need guidance.

ALL of the others have accepted that this was what Killeen may well have meant, though. Just as I have accepted it. If you get your magnifying glass out and read what I said, I did not say that a pen-knife cannot pierce the sternum. I said that Killeen seems to have made this assumption going by what was reported. And one again, hundreds and thousands of the students of the case have made the exact same reflection. If you cannot see the relevance of that, it is your problem, not mine.

You sometimes make me think of a journeyman boxer, Harry; totally out of his depth but with no other strategy to employ, always returning on wobbly legs to have his nose bloodied again.

But since you claim to enjoy it, enjoy away.

[Fisherman]

Over on JTRForums at the moment, the poster previously known as Pierre is insisting that pretty much all source material is untrustworthy: press reports, passenger lists, police statements, inquest testimony, infirmary admission records and death registers, death certificates, burial registers... at least those that contradict her theory.

I´ve been reading up on that debate, and I am now in a position to prove that "Pierre" beat you and won the debate at a relatively early stage, although you do not seem to have grasped it as yet.

Here it is: YOU were the one to make post 73 in the debate, and 73 denotes suicide by way of sharp violence!

Why the debate has gone on afterwards beats me. You´re dead, bro.

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=MrBarnett;n736979][QUOTE=Michael W Richards;n736975]

Logic dictates either two men or one man with two knives. Neither is illogical to me. 1 man two knives is probably statistically less likely, but not so much so that it is illogical to suggest.



Yes, we obviously differ on this. I can imagine a situation where an enraged attacker might lash out with whatever instrument comes first to hand. He doesn’t mull his choice of weapon over before he begins his attack. But as his rage subsides and he realises his initial weapon of choice is inadequate, he uses a second instrument.

The example I posted above is very similar. The wife stabbed the husband several times with a flimsy knife that broke and then obtained a second one to finish the job. The pathologist posited two weapons based on the wounds he observed, and that was corroborated by the discovery of a second bloody knife. If the two weapons hadn’t been found, some might have pointed to the illogicality of two knives having been used and questioned the pathologist’s opinion.

You did mention that the pathologist had his suspicions confirmed by the discovery of the 2nd knife Mr B, which suggests that he saw some differences in the wounds alone, mentioned in specific detail or not, that led him to suspect 2 weapons. It could be something minute that the eye recorded but was in and of itself not worthy of singling out.

I suggest that there is a great deal of difference between what a pen-knife could do and what a dagger or bayonet could do to flesh and that just one of all those stabs is singled out by Killeen's eye is noteworthy. There would have been overlapping wounds, wounds with pressures applied in a variety of angles, a really cornucopia of stabs. The sternum stab has finality written all over it. So its back to the same question I asked a few times....if we can accept 2 weapons, is it really plausible that the pen knife stabber stabs 38 times and then decides, only for his last stab, to use a bayonet or dagger that he had on him all along?

[harry]

I have gone one better,Fisherman,and used my microscope,and guess what,I do see a slight difference in the sternum wound.Now you can carry on and have the last word,while i'll have the last laugh.

[harry]

No! just one more thing.Hundreds and thousands of the students of the case have made the exact same reflextion.I surrender,the opposition is too overwhelming.Hundreds and thousands.My god,must exhausted you counting them.

[Fisherman]

No! just one more thing.Hundreds and thousands of the students of the case have made the exact same reflextion.I surrender,the opposition is too overwhelming.Hundreds and thousands.My god,must exhausted you counting them.

You´ve earned a lie-down and a rest, Harry. A good, VERY long one.