Originally posted by Wickerman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The name's Bond
Collapse
X
-
He lived at 7 The Sanctuary,Westminster,.
Some gaff,take a look on Google.
I tried to post link earlier in the thread,I reckon there's a good chance he killed the woman and got her husband hanged.
I think he got a taste for amputation in the Austro Prussian war,cold bodies weren't enough for him,because he liked cutting warm flesh.
I think he had a god complex,is hugely judgemental of the 'undeserving poor' and goes around killing them.I think he's pulled the wool over our eyes all this time,don't trust him.
Comment
-
If I'm right about Mylett,it probably reveals how Jack killed his victims,and Bond suppresses the information with bs about the collar.He has to keep that hidden because he doesn't want it linked to the WCM.
Have you ever looked at Mary's photos and thought it looked like she was hit by a train?Bond was a consultant surgeon for the railways and wrote papers on railway injuries.If I'm wrong I'll eat my socks
Comment
-
Originally posted by elmore 77 View PostHe started at the Hospital in'73,Battersea is roughly 2 miles west.I reckon he could be Pierre's suspect,take a look at Mylett ,I think he killed her,don't trust a word he says
There's nothing coincidental there.Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
The year coincides with him starting at the hospital,he had a practice in Westminster before that.Battersea Park was used by prostitutes and one of the 80s victims was sleeping in there(if memory serves).The point is whoever the perp is he, hunts on that stretch of the river.There was another one at Putney in 1874. But I don't think they would need to be on the game,I think he could have killed anyone
Comment
-
The main point of my theory is that Bond is a liar who obscures the evidence and throws up a smokescreen to hide behind.In the Ripper case,Mylett and the one that I mentioned earlier in the thread.I believe JTR wrote his own offender profile and in doing so put himself beyond suspicion and that the agenda with the mutilations to Eddowes and Kelly was to obscure the killers obvious surgical abilities
Comment
-
Originally posted by elmore 77 View PostThe main point of my theory is that Bond is a liar who obscures the evidence and throws up a smokescreen to hide behind.In the Ripper case,Mylett and the one that I mentioned earlier in the thread.I believe JTR wrote his own offender profile and in doing so put himself beyond suspicion and that the agenda with the mutilations to Eddowes annd Kelly was to obscure the killers obvious surgical abilities
Comment
-
Hello elmore77.
You do realize you are claiming that it was a common site for many to see Dr Bond out street walking with prostitutes in the middle of the night, right? That he would be accustomed to taking unfortunate girls 'round corners, walk Elizabeth Stride up and down Berner street for an hour, and run the risk of having to return to the scene of MJKs murder only hours after he was possibly witnessed 'there'...there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
Comment
-
Originally posted by SirJohnFalstaff View PostHow old was Hitler in 1888?Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
---------------
Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
---------------
Comment
-
In 3 separate cases Bond contradicts the other doctors,how do you account for that?When he says the man didn't have the skills of a butcher,it is a blatant lie,dressed as an opinion.We have the testimony of two real doctors,Phillips and Brown who are telling us the killer had anatomical knowledge,so he was at least a butcher.That is the truth.Why do you believe this man over the other doctors?You are thinking what he wants you to think,that the culprit was one of the herd.If you are taken in by this,he becomes one in a cast of thousands.If you believe Brown and Phillips,the field is narrowed down considerably,and the police can focus their inquiries,therefore he isn't ruled out completely.
He estimates Kelly's TOD to muddy the waters and create doubt,another lie dressed as opinion
The whole case comes down to this question,do you believe Bond or do you believe all the other doctors.That is up to you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by elmore 77 View PostIn 3 separate cases Bond contradicts the other doctors,how do you account for that?When he says the man didn't have the skills of a butcher,it is a blatant lie,dressed as an opinion.We have the testimony of two real doctors,Phillips and Brown who are telling us the killer had anatomical knowledge,so he was at least a butcher.That is the truth.Why do you believe this man over the other doctors?You are thinking what he wants you to think,that the culprit was one of the herd.If you are taken in by this,he becomes one in a cast of thousands.If you believe Brown and Phillips,the field is narrowed down considerably,and the police can focus their inquiries,therefore he isn't ruled out completely.
He estimates Kelly's TOD to muddy the waters and create doubt,another lie dressed as opinion
The whole case comes down to this question,do you believe Bond or do you believe all the other doctors.That is up to you.
So if one Dr disagrees wth other doctors, he is either right or a liar?
Is that really your suggestion?G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
I cant seem to follow the logic: since Bond disagreed with the other doctors, that makes him the Ripper, what?
I mean, i see what you're doing, tying him to the murders thru his profile, but is there anything beyond profile that ties him to the murders (for you)?there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
Comment
Comment