The Double Event

[Geddy2112]

Time will tell if he ever returns.

Steve

He lives on in us all....

[Elamarna]

No one man is bigger than the site. It was turning into Pierrebook.

As approached to Lechbook..
However the point is fair to a great degree.

Steve

[Harry D]

No one man is bigger than the site. It was turning into Pierrebook.

[Elamarna]

Admin could perhaps let you know why, though its likely not too hard too imagine why.

I would suspect it was a cumulative thing, lots of his not naming but hinting.
Some others who were attacking him very openly and in my view rudely, were I think lucky to escape.

Time will tell if he ever returns.

Steve

[Michael W Richards]

Admin could perhaps let you know why, though its likely not too hard too imagine why.

[Pcdunn]

Whatever it was that happened to Pierre I missed it.

So did we all, I think. Pierre simply stopped posting one day, and is no longer listed as a member of the forums. I figured he had been banned, but I don't know that for a fact.

[MysterySinger]

Whatever it was that happened to Pierre I missed it.

[Michael W Richards]

I believe that most everyone would agree that Annie Chapmans murder can be associated with the unknown killer "Jack". What happened to her was unique when comparing it with the average street kills of the period. We all likely have common ground there.

If that is the case, then we have a measuring stick for at least the kill previous to Annie, and the subsequent Double Event murders. Considering the relatively short time elapse from Polly to Annie, then almost a month wait until the next attributed kills, many things may have changed by the time Liz Stride is killed. And she was killed in a manner inconsistent with our measuring stick, in almost every relative category.

The real mystery here isn't a Double Event, its a murder that may have been made to appear as if created by the monster at large. You see I agree that there wasn't a bunch of mad killers on the loose simultaneously, there was a monster and other men who killed living together in a crime ridden ghetto.

[Michael W Richards]

Just to restate the point that I've made on a number of occasions: Jackson's mutations were probably ritualistic; Chapman's were probably driven by practicalities, i.e on the basis that she was emaciated; MJK represents a killer who was attempting to destroy the body in a frenzied attack, demonstrating no skill whatsoever.

And if Chapman's mutilations were ritualistic, why was the same ritual absent with Eddowes, or for that matter, Nichols?

The venue John, that's what would explain the lack of pm mutilations comparatively.

[Fisherman]

Christer
I was not comparing you as individuals; just the data sources that were not disclosed.
And I wanted to show that it was not personally but a position I take with all.

There is no comparison at all between you two as you must know.

Steve

The I would rather you avoided it - you could have made the point without using Pierre, right?

By the way, donīt listen too closely to Johnīs ramblings. The 1873 victim was every bit as neatly disarticulated at the joints as the later victims, as per the Lancet:
"Contrary to the popular opinion, the body has not been hacked, but dexterously cut up; the joints have been opened, and the bones neatly disarticulated, even the complicated joints at the ankle and the elbow, and it is only at the articulations of the hip-joint and shoulder that the bones have been sawn through. In the trunk the sections have all been made in the most favourable parts. This is clearly shown on the left side of the trunk, for after the body had been divided longitudinally, the right side was severed into three portions, а thoracic, an abdominal, and a pelvic."

What one does not know, one should not comment on. John has a tedious habit of violating that rule.

What everybody with an interest in the case should take to heart here is that the articulations at the hip-joint and the shoulder included the bones being sawed off.

Once you understand what the killer was up to, you will immediately realize why this was so.

Once you donīt, you are at a disadvantage to comprehend it.

Very Pierre, Iīm sure.

Goodnight.

[Elamarna]

Very true, and I have never said anything else. But I could do without any comparison with Pierre. Otherwise I shall have to find comparisons for you, Steve. I really think we could keep a better level than so, or...?

Christer
I was not comparing you as individuals; just the data sources that were not disclosed.
And I wanted to show that it was not personally but a position I take with all.

There is no comparison at all between you two as you must know.

Steve

[Fisherman]

No, it's not ignorance! Are you seriously suggesting again that Kelly was expertly mutilated again? And, as I've explained to you many times, Chapman's emaciated state meant that her perpetrator probably had little alternative but to mutilate her in the way he did. I also note that you have never even attempted to counter these arguments, presumably because they're so destructive to your theories. No, you're now in full retreat and, as with approach to David's excellent posts, all you can do is resort to silly insults: truly the last refuge of the desperate.

Believe me, it gives me no pleasure to criticize your theories in such a vehement fashion, and if you were simply a "cadet", desperately trying to promote a suspect, I wouldn't. But your not.

And I note that your attempts to recruit the estimable Paul Begg to your increasingly bizarre theory has met with total failure!

No, sorry - not interested. Nothing to see, nothing to offer, nothing at all. And that IS what I call ignorance.

The thing about the truly ignorant people is that they are happy enough in their lack of insight. That is why people say that ignorance is bliss.

In that respect, you are a very lucky man indeed.

If you wish to prolong this "debate", feel free to do so. Before you have anything of value to say I will not answer, though. Lifeīs too short. Just make sure that you do not lie about me anymore, like you do about the "expert mutilation" of Kelly, and we shall both be fine.

[John G]

John
I await the disclosure of details on the earlier Torso killing with as much anticipation as I awaited Pierre to reveal details of his sources.

Much the same argument applies to Christer on this particular issue.
That is from an historical perspective until such details are disclosed they do not exist.

Steve

Hello Steve,

Debra Arif's excellent research has highlighted the fact that the latter Torso victims-Rainham, Jackson, Whitehall, Pinchin Street-were dismembered in an extremely unusual way, i.e. the removal of the joints through the limbs. That strongly suggests a single perpetrator. However, there's not a shred of evidence that any other dismemberment victim was dismembered in such a way and, remember, this type of crime wasn't that rare.

[John G]

I really canīt be arsed to bother with your ignorance, John, but since it amuses me: It wasnīt.

Thatīs all you are going to get. You shall have to spend the rest of the discussion posting your meaningless twaddle. I donīt mind, Iīm used to it.

No, it's not ignorance! Are you seriously suggesting again that Kelly was expertly mutilated again? And, as I've explained to you many times, Chapman's emaciated state meant that her perpetrator probably had little alternative but to mutilate her in the way he did. I also note that you have never even attempted to counter these arguments, presumably because they're so destructive to your theories. No, you're now in full retreat and, as with approach to David's excellent posts, all you can do is resort to silly insults: truly the last refuge of the desperate.

Believe me, it gives me no pleasure to criticize your theories in such a vehement fashion, and if you were simply a "cadet", desperately trying to promote a suspect, I wouldn't. But your not.

And I note that your attempts to recruit the estimable Paul Begg to your increasingly bizarre theory has met with total failure!

[Fisherman]

John
I await the disclosure of details on the earlier Torso killing with as much anticipation as I awaited Pierre to reveal details of his sources.

Much the same argument applies to Christer on this particular issue.
That is from an historical perspective until such details are disclosed they do not exist.

Steve

Very true, and I have never said anything else. But I could do without any comparison with Pierre. Otherwise I shall have to find comparisons for you, Steve. I really think we could keep a better level than so, or...?