Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Need some help for school

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

  • Soothsayer
    replied
    Originally posted by BrianL View Post
    Dear everybody,

    I am happy to say I am FINALLY done with the writing portion if my paper. ...

    Thank you to everyone who weighed in advice, it was REALLY helpful.

    I will be back in about a week!!

    ByeBye Casebook until then!

    Regards,
    BrianL
    Now there is one seriously satisfied customer.

    Too much to hope that Maybrick made it in right at the last, I guess?

    Leave a comment:


  • BrianL
    replied
    Dear everybody,

    I am happy to say I am FINALLY done with the writing portion if my paper. I now have to focus on editing and formatting it correctly, but that can wait. Now that the bulk of the work is done, I need to focus on a couple other projects so I'm pushing this paper to a back burner for about a week. It is due on Monday the 7th so sometime before then I will come on and contact those of you interested in reading it. I only ask that those of you who I share it with take it easy on me. I admittedly didn't do sufficient research to actually solve the case, I just did enough to complete the assignment. I am glad I chose JTR as my research topic but holy **** was it tough!

    Thank you to everyone who weighed in advice, it was REALLY helpful.

    I will be back in about a week!!

    ByeBye Casebook until then!

    Regards,
    BrianL

    Leave a comment:


  • corey123
    replied
    basics

    ♣Jack the ℜipper♣I am a ripperologist, a expert or junior expert
    on the "jack the ripper" murder spree of 1888."jack the ripper" lived
    in East End , London during the murders. Eleven murders were under the
    classification of the "whitechapel murders". Five of those eleven
    became known as the "jack the ripper" victems. These victems;Mary Ann
    nichols killed on august 31 on bucks row,Annie chapmen killed on
    September 8th in the backyard of No.29 hanbury street,Elizabeth stride
    found on berner street and Catherine eddowes found in mitre square
    both killed on September 30th,and finaly Mary Jane Kelly killed on
    November 9th in her home at No.13 millers court on dorset street.
    Those five are called by most ripperologists as the 'canonical five'.
    The 'canonical' were linked by a cut throat and in four of the five
    differing degrees of abdominal mutilations. The only victem to not
    suffer from post-mortem abdominal mutilation was Elizabeth
    stride,which I assume that the ripper was interupted and didn't get to
    finish his "ritual aspect of the crime" so he searched for another
    victem who is Catherine eddowes who was killed a quater of a mile away
    from stride. All murders but the eddowes murder fell into the
    metropolitan police juristiction. Eddowes was killed in the city of
    London police boundary and the two forces teamed in the hunt for the
    ripper. The murders of "jack the ripper" spanned over nine weeks and
    all murders took place on the week end.(I.e. Friday Saturday Sunday)
    which points out that whoever the ripper was held a weekly job.
    Descriptions of the ripper came in as usually 5'7" tall with a small
    mustache. Some report he is shabbily dressed then others report well
    dressed. The degree of the mutilations increased with experiance
    resulting in the last victem to be unreconisable. The unsub took
    various "trophies" from his victems(various organs) and kept them. The
    mutations showed that the ripper held some anatomical knowledge.
    There were over 100 alledged "ripper letters" sent into the police,
    most of them deemed hoaxs but three in particular strike an errie
    remenisince to the killer. The three being named the "dear
    boss","saucy Jacky",and "from hell" aka"lusk letter" are by some
    experts believed to be real. The one striking the most is the "lusk
    letter" which was sent to George lusk the president of the whitechapel
    vilegence commity at the time along with a portion of a left kidney.
    This is strangly similar to the report of how the ripper removed
    Catherine eddowes left kidney. The name "jack the ripper" was first
    used in the letter "dear boss". This would later be used as a
    signiture in future ripper letters. There are various suspects,three
    belived to be the Scotland yards top suspects at the time as mentioned
    in the "macnaughten memoranda". These suspects:dr.Francis
    tumberty,montigue druitt,and arron kosminski.back to the victems,the
    ripper picked his victems from these critera;prostitute and heavy
    drinker.he murdered them in the early morning hours. Jack the ripper
    was never apprihended. I believe the metrapoliton and city police
    departments did all they could but they weren't ready for such a
    series of serial murders. They were unprepared and caught off gaurd
    without the experence and knowledge to catch the perpetrater. I am
    writing this as a basis for new ripperologist as it is the basics of
    the case. Thank you for reading. May you have much luck on the case.
    Yours truly
    Corey J. Browning

    Leave a comment:


  • The Grave Maurice
    replied
    Originally posted by BrianL View Post
    When it is complete if you would like to read it and weigh in with your opinions or just see what i have laid out there, i would be happy to email it to anyone.
    Well I'd certainly like to read it. Barnett isn't, perhaps, the best suspect you could have picked; on the other hand, he's a long way from being the worst.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    reasons

    Hello Brian. Many of the purported ripper sightings indicate a chap about 5' 6" plus or minus an inch. Tumblety was close to 6'. He was also about 15-20 years older than the ripper was thought to be--again, based on reported sightings.

    Then, too, his being gay is thought, in some quarters, to count against his candidacy.

    The best.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • BrianL
    replied
    Originally posted by George Hutchinson View Post
    Hi Brian.

    To show why someone CAN'T be Jack the Ripper is what a lot of us here like to do.

    PHILIP


    ok so in that case, let me ask you this...

    what are everyones favorite arguments against Francis Tumblety? He was my second choice so as part of my paper I'm explaining why he wasn't the Ripper...
    Last edited by BrianL; 11-27-2009, 02:33 AM. Reason: ::::

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    good point

    Hello George. Good point, well taken. Even more reason to chuck that silly theory.

    The best.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • George Hutchinson
    replied
    Hi Brian.

    Almost ANYONE, regardless of experience, would have a hard job approaching suspectology from the direction you've chosen. To show why someone could be the Ripper (whilst ignoring evidence to the contrary) has been the number one game since 1888. To show why someone CAN'T be Jack the Ripper is what a lot of us here like to do. To show why someone WAS Jack the Ripper by disproving the reasons why they can't be is going to be virtually impossible. I'd suggest you backtrack as the road ahead is going to be blocked.

    To follow on from Lynn's post, if this stupid notion that Joe killed prostitutes to stop Mary from selling herself is true, you could go even further and say 'Why KILL them?' - why not just assault them, extort money - anything minor to stop your beloved from doing it? It is, of course, a very silly theory as to concur with it, you have to accept someone would be comfortable being a serial killer just to prevent someone doing something they disapproved of and then, when it didn't work, kill them as well. You would have to swing from a love so strong they would kill others to prove a point, to an exasperation so intense they would then waste all that 'work' and kill the very reason why they'd done it in the first place.

    PHILIP

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    argument

    Hello Brian. One argument I have seen against Barnett is based on the common notion that he killed the first 4 as a warning to Mary. These were supposed to scare her out of her life of prostitution. When they failed to change her, he decided to kill Mary.

    The argument is this. Why not just kill them? Why the unnecessary mutilation?

    I hope this grossly oversimplified snippet is of service.

    The best.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • BrianL
    replied
    im sorry for reviving such an old thread but i come hoping for a little assistance.

    before i ask my questions, let me tell you where i'm at:

    I picked Joseph Barnett as who i believe did it. In reality, i dont actually know if he did it or not but it seemed like one of the easier suspects to pick to be able to write my paper on. i detailed the FBI profile done in 1988 and then related it to the killings and Barnett.

    i made clear the three characteristics that fit most (if not all) murder crimes. Motive, method, and opportunity.

    I then used some of the eye witness accounts that could support Barnett being JTR.

    From there i spent a decent portion of the paper discrediting Walter Sickert. The only background my teacher had on the case is from Cromwell and he bought into it just as so many others have.

    Now i am completely stumped as to what to say next and still need a full 2-3 pages...

    I was going to find why many people like to say Barnett was not JTR and then prove why those opinions are not entirely valid, but i was having a hard time formulating my thoughts...

    Again, all help is greatly appreciated, and i CANNOT wait until this paper is done... When it is complete if you would like to read it and weigh in with your opinions or just see what i have laid out there, i would be happy to email it to anyone.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrianL
    replied
    this paper is kicking my but... there are so many factors that play into this case...

    again thanks all for your help, this is gonna take A LOT of work... LOONNGGG week ahead

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert
    replied
    Suzi, sorry to hear you have the flu.

    Why did you catch it? You're not supposed to do that.

    Can't you see that catching flu is a mistake?

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Originally posted by Suzi View Post
    From mi bed of flu/pain-...... Where's Brian L ?
    Despite the flu- I'M PeterPan! x
    Get well soon Suzi... try reading Robert's deadpan, pardon the pun, jokes... quality assurance approved..lol

    New blood indeed... that was clever ! :-)

    best wishes

    Phil

    Leave a comment:


  • Suzi
    replied
    From mi bed of flu/pain-...... Where's Brian L ?
    Despite the flu- I'M PeterPan! x

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert
    replied
    Indeed Phil. JTR always needs new blood. I mean...well, you know what I mean.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X