2 ?'s For Ripperologists

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Blue Wizzard,

I didn't choose to respond to your questions because they were either erroneous or were hypothetical.

Who knows if MJK was actually a victim of the ripper. Asking it is useless, you'll get a different response from everyone. If Jack killed Mary and Jack wanted to leave messages on the wall, he probably would have. Which if you believe that you should then discount the GSG and conclude that if Jack killed Mary Jack didn't tend to write messages. There is no proof that Jack actually wrote letters, any of the letters so what was written in them is erroneous for attempting to determine what Jack did in the room.

Ally,

If you didn't choose to respond to my questions because they were either erroneous or were hypothetical.

Then why did you respond at all?

How can you be so sure that he did not write to the press?

Would you recognize his hand writing?

BW

Ally I was responding to M&P about kelly not to you, you were too busy arguing.

[perrymason]

It's the people who go around acting like total dicks and then crying when they are called it that really make me nuts.

Nice touch...

...from the total dick people get pissed at when some statements he makes cannot be disproven by others using actual evidence. Opinions without evidentiary foundation.. but with "honorable" behaviour, win this round I guess, huh?

And thanks for the confirmation post for my earlier comments...you must hate proving me correct in any way, that had to be hard.

See ya

[caz]

Hi Perry,

I don't think it works that way. If you make a statement that can't be disproved by any of us using the case evidence, it's still only your unsupported opinion unless you can prove it using the case evidence.

You must admit you do get really cross when people react strongly to being told to disprove some rather weird (in my humble opinion) ideas that you place before us as if factual - eg that the ripper was in the business of obtaining organs from desperately unhealthy older females he'd just killed in risky outdoor locations for the purpose, in which case the younger Mary was killed in a risky indoor location by someone else for an entirely different purpose.

How about the idea that none of us knows what the purpose was of Mary's murder and mutilation, nor that of Polly, Annie or Kate? How about the idea that even their killer may not really have known either?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

Blue Wizzard,

You're cute. When you grow up and are able to follow the continuity of a thread from beginning to end without having to have the obvious pointed out to you, I'll be back to speak to you. Ta for now.


Perry,

Well, excellent avoidance of answering any of the particulars of my post, or you know, simply having the balls to admit you were wrong. I think precedent suggests that would have been too much to expect.

As for my "proving you correct", I realize that you are also suffering from a case of the hysterical ninnies and can't actually be expected to deal rationally on this matter, so you are overlooking what you don't want to see, and contorting statements into something that fits your parameters of what you want them to say.

And as hysterical ranting can't be argued against, it can only be pointed at and laughed at, etc. I think I'll confine myself to mocking you from now on rather than discussing anything with you. It's really much more fun.

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Ally,

Like I said in my last reply, I was not talking to you.

Maybe you should read the thread from beginning to end without having to have the obvious pointed out to you, and please do not get back to me for a chat, you are too vile and immature. You do not know me well enough to speak to me as if I were your son.

BW