Advice please....

[Monty]

Ah, I never wanted the job anyway Tom. Besides, cant live without you.

Suffice to say Mac, Tom and I go way back. And whilst we have fought toe to toe at times he holds my respect for his approach on all things.....almost.

We just disagree and Stride...the wall writing...the apron....and Glee.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Mac. I'm not sure I have or ever will have an 'end theory', but I've figured an awful lot out regarding the Berner Street murder and have a couple essays published on it and another coming out this month. I think the most likely suspect to date is Charles Le Grand and am starting work on a book about him and the murders. In about 5 or 10 years time, he'll be a very popular suspect. Probably the most popular.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fleetwood Mac]

Tom,

Is this in reference to his access to the victims or the freedom to commit the act?

Monty

Freedom to commit the act Monty. It's too much of a stretch to me that a murderer who seems pretty daring would actively choose not to murder during the week.

Any thoughts/ideas?

I don't think he had a choice.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Mac. Regarding the C5, I believe the evidence is quite strong that all five were killed by the same man/men, however I imagine the body count to be larger than five, whereas Monty all but exonerates Jack for the crime of murder, as he subscribes to the minimalistic idea that the Ripper only killed one or two women, if that. I personally think that's silly, but that's the kind of disparate opinion you'll find on the Casebook.

If you're familiar with Jim Tully's book on Kelly, then I guess you're pretty well read.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Well Tom - I've been reading this board for the last week and found it fascinating - regardless of opinion.

In terms of the double murder - I'd imagine that the fact that the only murder (C5 murder) was committed outside of the area on the same night as another murder - means it's more likely than not that it's the same killer. Simply because if you've set out to mutilate you'd want to accomplish this before calling it a night and some breathing space would make sense.

Oh and I read your Schwartz connection with the club - I'd agree. The fact no one else saw these people at a busy time tells a story. And the murder inside the gate? Well someone witnessing a struggle (not the knifing) in that day and age may not have been as alarmed as we would today which renders the killer less likely to have taken precautions (such as the back of a yard).

All interesting though....so what's your end theory then Tom? Think I missed that.

Just to add:

I meant to say that if Eddowes is Jack then why would it be outside of the area were it not for some breathing space?

[Tom_Wescott]

Someone says my posts make sense and it's unanimously agreed to be a joke. How nice is that. You know, Monty, you'll never make editor at Ripperologist if you keep publicly acknowledging my existence. That's what e-mails are for and rules iz rules.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

April fools day indeed

I'd forgotten

Pirate

[Tom_Wescott]

I might have slightly exaggerated Monty's views.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Hi Mac. Regarding the C5, I believe the evidence is quite strong that all five were killed by the same man/men, however I imagine the body count to be larger than five, whereas Monty all but exonerates Jack for the crime of murder, as he subscribes to the minimalistic idea that the Ripper only killed one or two women, if that. I personally think that's silly, but that's the kind of disparate opinion you'll find on the Casebook.

If you're familiar with Jim Tully's book on Kelly, then I guess you're pretty well read.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

How long have we been mucking about together here on Casebook? Nigh on a decade?

And I thought you knew me.

Suffice to say Tom is misleading you Mac. My sole dispute is Stride and I can understand why some question Kelly.

Oppourtunity? Is this in reference to his access to the victims or the freedom to commit the act?

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Mac. Regarding the C5, I believe the evidence is quite strong that all five were killed by the same man/men, however I imagine the body count to be larger than five, whereas Monty all but exonerates Jack for the crime of murder, as he subscribes to the minimalistic idea that the Ripper only killed one or two women, if that. I personally think that's silly, but that's the kind of disparate opinion you'll find on the Casebook.

If you're familiar with Jim Tully's book on Kelly, then I guess you're pretty well read.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fleetwood Mac]

Firstly I assume you are referring to what is commonly known as the Cannonical 5, yes?

Problem is we do not know for certain who Jack killed. However, to answer your question, the reasons could be numerous. From pay day to work patterns to something we cannot account for.

Yes the C5. I feel that a serial killer must have been deterred from killing during the week by something more than merely needing a decent night's sleep for work in the morning (a fix transcends days of the week - I feel it is a matter of opportunity - which could be something far more simple than being a ship-mate). Curious about any research.

Also I feel James Kelly is a decent enough suspect - or someone like him - the most compelling for me. I can't believe it was an American quack nor someone eating out of the gutters every now and again.

[Monty]

I was reading the Liz Stride thread with interest. I don't know any of you - but I've spent the last weak reading this board and really enjoyed myself. I thought Tom (forget second name) was the most convincing - not because he knew more than others - but because he stuck pretty much to what is reasonable

Now.....what date is it today?

Mac,

Firstly I assume you are referring to what is commonly known as the Cannonical 5, yes?

Problem is we do not know for certain who Jack killed. However, to answer your question, the reasons could be numerous. From pay day to work patterns to something we cannot account for.

For example, Colin Pitchfork murdered while his wife was at evening classes, Sutcliffe the same for a while. Im not saying Mrs Ripper took pottery classes but you get my gist.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

I thought Tom...was the most convincing

I feel it is wise to stay closer to Tom purely because he stays closer to what is known

I'd say everyone else should be coming to you for advice as you're a very wise person.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello all......

New poster and all and I'm hoping a few of you will be kind enough to point me in the right direction. But the question comes at the end and before that would like to offer a philosophical argument.....

I'll open with this: much of what we believe is an illusion. We can easily be led astray as impression is not the same as experience - such as placing a hand in a fire - what you think it may be like will not be what it is like - you could never appreciate the pain until you actually experience it. Experience is everything - which has important implications for what the facts may or might not have been and how they are viewed from someone who was not in that situation.

Similarly - the reason why there are so many theories and so much disagreement is simply because we see the world from different points of view and driven by varying circumstances - the fact that we see the world differently doesn't mean there are two worlds. And this has important implications - that being that we must stay as close as possible to fact; anything less is illusory. It also suggests that a person/witness could quite easily be inaccurate without deliberately lying.

I was reading the Liz Stride thread with interest. I don't know any of you - but I've spent the last weak reading this board and really enjoyed myself. I thought Tom (forget second name) was the most convincing - not because he knew more than others - but because he stuck pretty much to what is reasonable - and that's the best we can do because anything less is to be easily led astray. This means that while Perry Mason and Tom - using these as an example as they were the two I was reading last night - may have both done extensive research I feel it is wise to stay closer to Tom purely because he stays closer to what is known.

To illustrate: I'd say that the door at Miller's Court is utterly irrelevant. It is surely possible that anyone with half a brain could have locked the door behind him. Therefore - what is the point in making an issue out of something which isn't really unusual?

But what I find unusual is this: why were the 5 murders all Thursday to Sunday? I'm a historian - not a mathematician - but I suppose the odds are that there is a reason for this. My question is this: I'm sure there has been some research undertaken...has anyone turned up anything interesting with regard to the pattern of the days of the murders? This to me is as interesting as anything else in tha case.

I'd like to add something else. I read the thread about withheld information. I believe that the withheld information was that Lawende did get a good look at the killer.