Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

There is no Jack the Ripper!

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

  • There is no Jack the Ripper!

    Hi all,

    Let’s suppose for a minute the honorable Mr. Cates is right. There is no Jack the Ripper! We simply have a series of unrelated murders in the East end of London 1888-92. What are there, 12 total or something like that? All prostitutes (or most), mostly middle aged, all poor. Why would anyone want to kill such people? They are the lowest of the low. They have no money. They’re basically harmless. Can there really be twelve dudes who all killed an unfortunate for one reason or another? I can see a religious fanatic trying to clean up the streets or a copycat trying to off his old lady without being caught but can there be several roaming at once? And what about opening up the belly? How many dudes think oh well I better eviscerate her now that I’ve killed her, I mean c’mon, we all must eviscerate right! What else can there be?, oh yeah, conspiracy. Typically a conspiracy proffers a notable gain. What can possibly be gained by killing the most unfortunate members of a cruel society? Can you imagine two guys getting together and saying, “I know, let’s kill and cut up a bunch of prostitutes, that sounds fun doesn’t it, it’ll give us something to do on the weekends”. Truly, despite the imaginative Royal theory, conspiracy appears very unlikely. I know it’s all speculative and many on this board prefer arguing the minutiae of the non-evidence but for those who like to speculate, can anyone help me imagine what might be going on if all these murders were unrelated or committed by different hands? A field day on prostitutes for angry men? 12 priests forming a Dan Brown type pact? Methinks an unrelated theory begs credulity more than the phantom JTR one!

    P.S. I apologize to Mr. Cates if that isn’t his idea, I just used this as a starting point for discussion.
    Also sorry for this long post and somewhat silly thread………..

    Greg

  • #2
    Hi Greg,

    First of all, I object to you calling Lynn Cates honorable or even Mr. Cates for that matter. Although he does make a good point from time to time, it is just too damn hard to understand them. Plus there are rumors that he is Scottish.

    As for your argument, I think it is spot on. The bottom line is (and always will be) what is more probable as to the number of killers involved.

    c.d.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hello Greg, cd,

      I started a plan of scenario on this very subject here a short while ago..



      Make of it what you will.

      best wishes

      Phil
      Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


      Justice for the 96 = achieved
      Accountability? ....

      Comment


      • #4
        How many Scotsmen are allowed?

        That's funny c.d. I don't like using modern acronyms like (LOL) but indeed I laughed out loud at your pronouncements. To your point, we probably shouldn't allow unbridled Scotsmen loose on these boards............

        Also, I think your statement of (how many murderers indeed) is certainly the point......................


        Greg

        Comment


        • #5
          this, that, other

          Hello Greg. No need to apologise, even though I recognise very little here.

          It takes a remarkable leap of faith (think Kirkegaard) to say of the C5 that NONE are related. I am firmly convinced that, not only were Polly and Annie's slayings related, but that they were done by the same hand.

          Was there a "Double Event"?

          Well, if that entails a single slayer of Liz and Kate, no. I find the standard answer here absurd. (The standard here is that "Jack," after slaying Polly and Annie, either swore off or was scared off by the MEV committee (or WCV committee, if you prefer), and hence, he stifled his cravings. That is, until he bumped into Liz [no wise cracks] and tasted another killing. This so lifted him [I said NO wise cracks!--heh-heh] that, just as in tasting salted chips, he had to have another. Hence Kate.)

          On the other hand, if by "Double Event" one means 2 killings devised by one mind, I find that quite possible, just as Sir Charles did in his missive of October 12. He saw the 3rd and 4th killings as obviously done to bring opprobrium on Jews and/or socialists.

          As for MJK, well, I can buy ANYTHING here--provided, of course, that one, after 122 years, can find a single bit of corroboration for ANY of Barnett's story. So far, there is none.

          Your objection, of course, gains credibility given that they were all prostitutes and on call when killed. Were they? If you look closely over Casebook, you will find threads/discussions of precisely this vis-a-vis Liz, Kate and MJK. Oddly, you shan't find any about Polly and Annie. Why is that?

          Why would they be killed? Well, there are several possible reasons--and perhaps they are disparate reasons. But tell me, do you think one individual killed Emma and Martha? How about the torso killings? So you see, 1888 was a bad year (if I may quote Perrier).

          If there are any specific questions you may have about any of this, I'd be delighted to engage in a meaningful dialogue.

          Cheers.
          LC

          Comment


          • #6
            Nice posts fellows.....

            Thanks Phil for that link.....you did an excellent job listing the murders and timeframes etc....

            And thank you Lynn for delineating(that's a good word isn't it?) your thoughts. Very impressive ones I might add...

            I would like to indulge in further dialogue but I'm afraid I must soon be off for the day..........

            I think I must be missing your point about Polly and Annie.......are you saying that their soliciting should also be questioned?


            Greg

            Comment


            • #7
              point

              Hello Greg.

              "I think I must be missing your point about Polly and Annie.......are you saying that their soliciting should also be questioned?"

              Not a bit of it. In my puny mind, they were soliciting--and obviously so. They were both killed near a horse slaughterer's establishment. Moreover, at the time, a wandering lunatic butcher, was walking all about London, knives on his person. He was sent to the asylum September 12.

              Cheers.
              LC

              Comment


              • #8
                Lunatics and Socialists......

                Who is the lunatic butcher Lynn? I may have missed that one....

                I like the idea of murders 3 and 4 casting apersions upon the Jews and/or Socialists....that certainly seems plausible.........perhaps even eviscerating to be particularly vile and get rumors going about Jewish ritual slaughters etc....

                That's the kind of explanation or conspiracy theory I was looking for.....Hmmmm...


                Greg

                Comment


                • #9
                  In the main, I would support many of LC's conclusions, though NOT the date when he supposes the murder to have been put away.

                  It takes a remarkable leap of faith (think Kirkegaard) to say of the C5 that NONE are related.

                  Agreed.

                  I am firmly convinced that, not only were Polly and Annie's slayings related, but that they were done by the same hand.

                  To which I would add Eddowes and possibly Mckenzie. I call this killer "Jack".

                  Was there a "Double Event"?

                  I have an open mind on this, but believe the evidence/circumstances suits Kidney better as Stride's killer. That also leaves more time for "Jack" to wander north of Whitechapel Road and to meet Eddowes. No rush north from Berners St. There was of course another "domestic" that night elsewhere in London.

                  On the other hand, if by "Double Event" one means 2 killings devised by one mind, I find that quite possible, just as Sir Charles did in his missive of October 12. He saw the 3rd and 4th killings as obviously done to bring opprobrium on Jews and/or socialists.

                  I would not agree with that proposal, or any connection deliberate or otherwise with Jews or socialists.

                  As for MJK, well, I can buy ANYTHING here--provided, of course, that one, after 122 years, can find a single bit of corroboration for ANY of Barnett's story. So far, there is none.

                  I'm sympathetic to this. I believe MJK's killer was someone intimate in her acquaintance (that is more than just a client).

                  Like LC I agree that there was more than 1 killer about that year, as prioven by the torso killings, which I do not attribute to JtR in any way.

                  Stride may have been jus a act of passion throat slitting, or the killer might have had a hazy idea that "Jack" did that. With MJK I am inclined to think a different killer tried to enact what he had read about "Jack's" methods and got carried away.

                  If there are any specific questions you may have about any of this, I'd be delighted to engage in a meaningful dialogue.

                  I would say the same.

                  Phil

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    El esta aqui

                    Hello Greg. The butcher is here.

                    For any suspect discussion not pertaintaining to a particular or listed suspect.


                    Cheers.
                    LC

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Okhrana

                      Hello Greg. Those who wished ill to the Jews and Socialists.

                      General discussion about anything Ripper related that does not fall into a specific sub-category. On topic-Ripper related posts only.


                      Cheers.
                      LC

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        it's an honour

                        Hello CD. I, too, object to being called honorable. The word is HONOURABLE.

                        Cheers.
                        LC

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          trinkets

                          Hello Phil. Thanks for that.

                          The only thing I'm adamant about is dear old Jacob Isenschmid. I am always astonished at the agreement of all the minutiae here--especially his saving of trinkets in a piece of paper. Trinkets. Like brass finger rings?

                          Cheers.
                          LC

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Tidbits etc...

                            Hello Lynn and Phil H., thanks for your contributions....

                            I find both of your positions interesting.......I haven't made my mind up on anything really........the more I learn the less I know or something like that....

                            I believe honorable would be the American spelling Lynn....

                            I'll read those links when I get a second Lynn, thanks much...

                            Greg

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by GregBaron View Post
                              ...the more I learn the less I know or something like that...
                              Greg
                              Tell me about it!

                              Steve.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X