One size fits all?

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=lynn cates;227498]Hello Greg. Thanks.

“I think Ruby has some good points: all unfortunates killed early in the morning,”

Doubtless true of Polly and Annie. But Kate? Kate?

Sorry, Lynn, but your adored Kate was soliciting on the night she died, I'm afraid. Most probably not for the first time, even if it was only an occasional thing.

“all destitute”

Liz did well enough with Michael

.

All of the women had apparently had easier times when they were living with men. However, that didn't stop Liz from periodically disappearing and prostituting herself when she was on a bender.

“and peripatetic,”

MJK?

MJK had had had quite a few addresses in the years leading up to her death.
She might have even have been on the point of being evicted. I woudn't call her 'stable' lodging wise. She was much younger than the others, and given a decade and taking her lifestyle into consideration, she probably would have ended up in the same condition...that was the path that she was set upon.

“some drunk”

Polly.

Martha had been out drinking. So had Annie and Kate, even if they had sobered up. MJK had been. Liz was a binge drinker, so she hadn't been binging that evening, but she'd been in the pub.

“some starving.”

Annie was malnourished.

I should think that they were all malnourished....have you looked at the pictures of Kate's body ?

“No one saw or heard anything of note, no evidence
left, no one caught”

So if it’s not solved, it’s Jack?

A madman who attacked at random without planning would have been seen and eventually caught....we are deaing with the MO of a careful and cool headed killer.

“all killed by throat cutting.”

So Coles and McKenzie too?

Worth considering. I don't know enough about their murders to give my opinion...but I wouldn't strike them out, because of those famous statistics that you don't like.

“It’s hard to see a motive for murdering and
mutilating the lowest members of society other than a psychosexual disorder."

Look more closely, then. (heh-heh)

In view of the way the killer targetted the sexual organs and dispayed the bodies in a sexual pose, and chose female victims selling sexual services, it's hard to see another motive...even if he also had other motives at the same time (ie people are often more complicated than having one sole reason for doing something).

“. . . and MJK wasn’t MJK . . .”

Why does she not show up in the records like the rest?

Maybe we just haven't found her yet.

Yes. Almost as difficult as finding that sexual serial killing bloke so many seek.

It's not because it's difficult finding him, that he didn't exist.

“Another item of note, all excepting Stride were left in the exact same pose; i.e., signature. On back, knees splayed and up, privates exposed
– the most humiliating position possible – a pose to denigrate, humiliate, asexualize and de-womanize. Seems Jack had issues…”

Have you looked at Kate’s sketch? I advise you to give it a go. Knees? Knee, perhaps

?

We're not quibbling over one knee or two are we ? It was basically the same pose. Otherwise I will say to Greg that he was sexualising the women by exposing them and putting them into an approximation of the Missionary position, but went on to asexualise their faces...

“Also, Nichols did have her abdomen opened up, and for the M.O. nitpickers, as murderer Ted Bundy once said, “you don’t do them the same way every time.””

But where does the lumping stop? How different can they be?

They actually weren't that different.

“Like everyone, I struggle with Stride and Tabram as members of the canon. My instinct tells me the other 4 were by the same hand.”

And Evans, Rumbelow, Bell, et al. see 3.

I definitely incude Stride and Tabram.

“I must say, in Lynn’s defense, that canonical adherents must scratch their heads when we talk torsos and other murders, and although these expand the timeframe quite a bit, it’s hard to deny there was more than one similar murderer about, at least in close proximity time wise.”

I would not dismiss the torsos as quickly as that. Our man was evolving.

“With that said, in the Autumn of Terror, I believe the same man murdered at least 4 of the 5 in the canon. I also believe some of the others could be his work as well."

I believe that our man killed at least the canonicals + Martha, and probably others..

[GregBaron]

Many sizes fits all?

Hello Greg. Thanks.

“I think Ruby has some good points: all unfortunates killed early in the morning,”

Doubtless true of Polly and Annie. But Kate? Kate?

Well Ok, give or take a few minutes…

“all destitute”

Liz did well enough with Michael.

Hardly the gravy train…

“and peripatetic,”

MJK?

Seen walking about quite a bit on the night in question…

“some drunk”

Polly.

Agreed.

“some starving.”

Annie was malnourished.

Kate likely too.

“No one saw or heard anything of note, no evidence
left, no one caught”

So if it’s not solved, it’s Jack?

No, but likely the same person…

“all killed by throat cutting.”

So Coles and McKenzie too?

Perhaps, can’t be ruled out…

“It’s hard to see a motive for murdering and
mutilating the lowest members of society other than a psychosexual disorder."

Look more closely, then. (heh-heh)

Yes, I will get out my Sherlock Holmes magnifying glass…

“If Lynn can show us that Stride was a spy . . .”

No other reasons for being killed?

A few but not many…

“. . . and MJK wasn’t MJK . . .”

Why does she not show up in the records like the rest?

Good question. Many explanations..

“. . . then we have a different story. I expect that will be a difficult task. “

Yes. Almost as difficult as finding that sexual serial killing bloke so many seek.

Can’t deny this…

“Another item of note, all excepting Stride were left in the exact same pose; i.e., signature. On back, knees splayed and up, privates exposed
– the most humiliating position possible – a pose to denigrate, humiliate, asexualize and de-womanize. Seems Jack had issues…”

Have you looked at Kate’s sketch? I advise you to give it a go. Knees? Knee, perhaps?

Close enough……..perhaps a knee dropped

“Also, Nichols did have her abdomen opened up, and for the M.O. nitpickers, as murderer Ted Bundy once said, “you don’t do them the same way every time.””

But where does the lumping stop? How different can they be?

They’re pretty darn similar…

“I like Lynn’s theory but am unconvinced. We all hope for further evidence. “

Thanks. And, yes, we all seek more evidence—even the Jacksters. (My new coinage.)

Good one. Some may shun evidence so they can continue to proffer their candidate with impudence.

“Like everyone, I struggle with Stride and Tabram as members of the canon. My instinct tells me the other 4 were by the same hand.”

And Evans, Rumbelow, Bell, et al. see 3.

I’m smarter than they are… (heh heh)

“When we step outside into the Mackenzie, Coles arena I think we’re dealing with violent, drunken sailors and perhaps a copycat.”

Ah, so you hold out for a copycat? Hmm, like the story of the young lady who was asked if she would perform a certain “favour” for L1000000. She replied, “Of course.” “What about L1?” “Certainly not! What kind of girl do you think I am?” “Well, we’ve already established that. Now we are just haggling over the price.” (heh-heh)

Like it…

“I must say, in Lynn’s defense, that canonical adherents must scratch their heads when we talk torsos and other murders, and although these expand the timeframe quite a bit, it’s hard to deny there was more than one similar murderer about, at least in close proximity time wise.”

Thanks for that. Yes, they must also take an antacid for the heartburn here.

It can cause physical distresses….

“With that said, in the Autumn of Terror, I believe the same man murdered at least 4 of the 5 in the canon. I also believe some of the others could be his work as well."

I appreciate that you couch this in terms of belief.

Yes, belief if all I have. The only thing I’m certain of is my degree of uncertainty……Reminds me of my favorite Edgar Poe quote…..”the man is known for nothing except for the markedness for which he is known for nothing”

“I also reserve the right to change my mind if any valid evidence is ever revealed. “

You’re a wise man, van Helsing.

Thank you Dr. Seward..

“I continue to hold my breath…”

Come now, do I smell THAT bad? (heh-heh)

Relax, your fumes haven’t yet invaded Atlanta…the smog likely works in your favor…



Greg

[lynn cates]

tam . . quam

Hello Ruby. Thanks.

“Sorry, Lynn, but your adored Kate was soliciting on the night she died, I'm afraid. Most probably not for the first time, even if it was only an occasional thing.”

Adored? Well, her shrine is in for repair. Seriously, let’s keep it believable. Next, I’ll be asked to believe that some poor woman just discharged from hospital was soliciting.

“All of the women had apparently had easier times when they were living with men. However, that didn't stop Liz from periodically disappearing and prostituting herself when she was on a bender.”

Left Michael? Very well. Evidence for prostitution?

“MJK had had quite a few addresses in the years leading up to her death.”

Likely true. And so . . . ?

“She might even have been on the point of being evicted.”

Maybe. Maybe not.

“I wouldn't call her 'stable' lodging wise.”

Perhaps not. But . . . ?

“She was much younger than the others, and given a decade and taking her lifestyle into consideration, she probably would have ended up in the same condition...that was the path that she was set upon.’

Whilst we are speculating, she might also have become a salvationist with a trumpet or drum.

“Martha had been out drinking."

Why on earth are we talking about Martha?

“So had Annie and Kate, even if they had sobered up. MJK had been. Liz was a binge drinker, so she hadn't been binging that evening, but she'd been in the pub.”

Yes, and a good many of the ladies of the East End enjoyed a dram. Point?

“I should think that they were all malnourished....have you looked at the pictures of Kate's body?"

Some were, I suppose; some were not. Point?

“A madman who attacked at random without planning would have been seen and eventually caught....”

I daresay. By 12 September, I’d guess. (heh-heh)

“. . . we are dealing with the MO of a careful and cool headed killer.”

At #29 Hanbury? Careful?

“Worth considering. I don't know enough about their murders to give my opinion...but I wouldn't strike them out, because of those famous statistics that you don't like.”

Well, why not consider Jane Beetmore?

“In view of the way the killer targeted the sexual organs . . . “

Which of Polly’s sexual organs were targeted? Which of Liz’s? (Again, let’s keep it believable.)

“. . . and displayed the bodies in a sexual pose . . . ”

Hmm, Liz looked as if “she had been lain down gently.” Sexual pose? Well, I guess a book like that would sell, catering, as it does, to some male fantasy.

“ . . . and chose female victims selling sexual services . . . “

Again, petition principii. Invalid.

“ . . . it's hard to see another motive. . .”

VERY hard, unless one looks, and given one cannot see beyond sex. (That’s where we old chaps have it over you young folk. There’s more to life . . . Heh-heh)

“ . . . even if he also had other motives at the same time (ie people are often more complicated than having one sole reason for doing something)."

Good! Including things like blackmail, revenge, etc?

“Maybe we just haven't found her yet.”

That used to be a good dodge. But now, ask Debs or the two Chrises.

“It's not because it's difficult finding him, that he didn't exist.”

Well, I await the discovery.

“We're not quibbling over one knee or two are we ? It was basically the same pose. Otherwise I will say to Greg that he was sexualising the women by exposing them and putting them into an approximation of the Missionary position, but went on to asexualise their faces...”

Not quibbling at all. Certain positions are required for certain operations. Above all, the legs must be open to access that region. And what of Polly and Liz?

“They actually weren't that different.”

But my question is, How much is THAT different?

“I definitely include Stride and Tabram.”

On grounds of . . . fancy?

“I would not dismiss the torsos as quickly as that. Our man was evolving."

Aha! Then perhaps Crippen was Jack?


“I believe that our man killed at least the canonicals + Martha, and probably others..”

O, woman, great is thy faith! But perhaps you would lose your faith if you switched off the telly and replaced that FBI report in the library?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

ecce argumentum

Hello Greg. Thanks.

"Well Ok, give or take a few minutes…"

And perhaps a full bladder and a strong desire for a sandwich.

"Hardly the gravy train…"

As with many East End families. Are you suggesting she left him to turn tricks??

"Seen walking about quite a bit on the night in question…"

Yes. Many conflicting reports. At least she did not walk to Romford. (heh-heh)

"No, but likely the same person…"

OK. Then all the unsolved murders were by the same hand? Suddenly, the inspector’s work is EASY!

"Perhaps, can’t be ruled out…"

Indeed. But why rule them IN?

"Yes, I will get out my Sherlock Holmes magnifying glass…"

Loan you mine? (Heh-heh)

"A few but not many…"

Sure you can.

"Good question. Many explanations."

Well, whilst explaining, perhaps we can include ALL of Barnett’s story?

"Close enough……..perhaps a knee dropped"

And Polly and Liz?

"They’re pretty darn similar…"

But what was the question?

"I’m smarter than they are… (heh heh)"

OK, lads, you heard it here first. (heh-heh)

"Thank you Dr. Seward."

Well, that's how it is for those of us who have not lived even a single lifetime.

"Relax, your fumes haven’t yet invaded Atlanta…the smog likely works in your favor…"

Well, a good rain would clear that out. And I think you poor devils are overdue?

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Yes. Many conflicting reports. At least she did not walk to Romford. (heh-heh)

It's from Romford Lynn. And are you quite sure she didn't?

[lynn cates]

math

Hello Sally. Thanks.

"It's from Romford Lynn."

But surely, if it's X miles from Whitechapel to Romford, then it's X miles from Romford to Whitchapel? (heh-heh)

You don't think . . . Nah!

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

You are in a garroulous mood tonight, Lynn...!

“Sorry, Lynn, but your adored Kate was soliciting on the night she died, I'm afraid. Most probably not for the first time, even if it was only an occasional thing.”

[B]Adored? Well, her shrine is in for repair. Seriously, let’s keep it believable. Next, I’ll be asked to believe that some poor woman just discharged from hospital was soliciting.

My female antennae detect that you have a weakness for Catherine Eddowes
amongst the victims. I agree that from what we know of her, that she was a chirpy little sparrow....but even just discharged from the Police Station, the
facts almost unequivocally say that she was soliciting just before her death.

“All of the women had apparently had easier times when they were living with men. However, that didn't stop Liz from periodically disappearing and prostituting herself when she was on a bender.”

Left Michael? Very well. Evidence for prostitution?

It's a bummer for me, but I still haven't got round to reclaiming my Neal Sheldon book , on the victims, from a friend. But I know that he gives concrete evidence, including the dates and place, of a court appearance in London for Liz getting 'done' for prostitution.

Unless you are particuarly naive or obtuse, all the witness reports on Liz's behaviour on the night that she died, point to her soliciting

[QUOTE]

“MJK had had quite a few addresses in the years leading up to her death.”

Likely true. And so . . . ?[/QUOTE

Well, you seemed to want to say that she was more stable than the others, because she had her own room and they lived in lodging houses. I want to say that the difference between her and the other victims was superficial.

“She was much younger than the others, and given a decade and taking her lifestyle into consideration, she probably would have ended up in the same condition...that was the path that she was set upon.’

Whilst we are speculating, she might also have become a salvationist with a trumpet or drum.

C'mon...which is really more likely ? Objectively ?

“Martha had been out drinking."

[B]Why on earth are we talking about Martha?

Because she was almost certainly killed by the same hand.

“So had Annie and Kate, even if they had sobered up. MJK had been. Liz was a binge drinker, so she hadn't been binging that evening, but she'd been in the pub.”

Yes, and a good many of the ladies of the East End enjoyed a dram. Point?

You seem to be saying...forgive me...that all the victims didn't have the point in common that they were alcoholics (which is my take).

“I should think that they were all malnourished....have you looked at the pictures of Kate's body?"

Some were, I suppose; some were not. Point

?

Well once again, all these women were malnourished (so they couldn't fight back -a criteria for Jack's victims). You appear to dispute this.

The only victim who seemed physically capable of fighting back seemed to be MJK -but as the killer suprised her waking from sleep and supine on her bed, she didn't get a chance...

“A madman who attacked at random without planning would have been seen and eventually caught....”

I daresay. By 12 September, I’d guess. (heh-heh)

heh-heh. Nope.

“. . . we are dealing with the MO of a careful and cool headed killer.”

At #29 Hanbury? Careful?

Yep. Very careful.

“Worth considering. I don't know enough about their murders to give my opinion...but I wouldn't strike them out, because of those famous statistics that you don't like.”

Well, why not consider Jane Beetmore?

I don't know who she is, Mr Clever.

“In view of the way the killer targeted the sexual organs . . . “

Which of Polly’s sexual organs were targeted? Which of Liz’s? (Again, let’s keep it believable.)

Polly's lower abdomen had been mutilated, and she had been exposed, but her dress lowered (by Cross ?).

As you know, the murder of Liz was either interrupted , or not intended from the start.

“. . . and displayed the bodies in a sexual pose . . . ”

Hmm, Liz looked as if “she had been lain down gently.” Sexual pose? Well, I guess a book like that would sell, catering, as it does, to some male fantasy.

She hadn't gone behind that gate, and taken out her cashews, to sing her killer nursery rhymes, had she.

“ . . . and chose female victims selling sexual services . . . “

[B]Again, petition principii. Invalid.

That's what all those victims were doing when they died. Like it or not.

“ . . . it's hard to see another motive. . .”

VERY hard, unless one looks, and given one cannot see beyond sex. (That’s where we old chaps have it over you young folk. There’s more to life . . . Heh-heh)

Flattered that you think that I'm so young. All I can say is Gawd ! No wonder they invented toy boys. Speak for yourself, mate.

“ . . . even if he also had other motives at the same time (ie people are often more complicated than having one sole reason for doing something)."

Good! Including things like blackmail, revenge, etc?

No. I wasn't thinkiing of anything so exciting.

“Maybe we just haven't found her yet.”

That used to be a good dodge. But now, ask Debs or the two Chrises.

I have just purchased Chris Scott's excellent book, and followed the threads on Casebook with great interest. Because they didn't find her, doesn't mean that she won't be found in the future.

“It's not because it's difficult finding him, that he didn't exist.”

Well, I await the discovery.

Ditto.

“We're not quibbling over one knee or two are we ? It was basically the same pose. Otherwise I will say to Greg that he was sexualising the women by exposing them and putting them into an approximation of the Missionary position, but went on to asexualise their faces...”

Not quibbling at all. Certain positions are required for certain operations. Above all, the legs must be open to access that region. And what of Polly and Liz?

You already know the answers, Lynn, why be difficult ?

“They actually weren't that different.”

But my question is, How much is THAT different?

Not very different at all (I'm getting bored now)

“I definitely include Stride and Tabram.”

On grounds of . . . fancy?

No. On grounds of MO.

“I would not dismiss the torsos as quickly as that. Our man was evolving."

Aha! Then perhaps Crippen was Jack?

Ho. Ho.

“I believe that our man killed at least the canonicals + Martha, and probably others..”

O, woman, great is thy faith! But perhaps you would lose your faith if you switched off the telly and replaced that FBI report in the library?

If I have to work, do a myriad of other things, and spend lots of time here...do you seriously think that I have time to watch telly ???

[GregBaron]

Point Counterpoint continues...

And perhaps a full bladder and a strong desire for a sandwich.

Then why go into a dark corner? Was there a privy or sandwich cart in there?

As with many East End families. Are you suggesting she left him to turn tricks??

Perhaps they split again – needed a bit of cash…

Yes. Many conflicting reports. At least she did not walk to Romford. (heh-heh)

No, not as strong or imaginative as Hutchinson…

OK. Then all the unsolved murders were by the same hand? Suddenly, the inspector’s work is EASY!

Not all, only 4 in the canon……

Indeed. But why rule them IN?

Knife, whore, late, murder, mutilation, escape…

Loan you mine? (Heh-heh)

Thanks Holmes…

Sure you can.

I don’t consider Stride a domestic……perhaps she just angered a violent drunk…

Well, whilst explaining, perhaps we can include ALL of Barnett’s story?

I’d like to hear it…

And Polly and Liz?

I believe Polly was in the same position, remember the blokes put her skirts down for modesty, I excepted Liz in my initial comparison…

But what was the question?

Why the same killer?

OK, lads, you heard it here first. (heh-heh)

Indeed. First and last I expect….

Well, that's how it is for those of us who have not lived even a single lifetime.

I may not be as old as Vlad the Impaler or Lynn Cates but I remember rotary phones, 45’s and punch card computers……....

Well, a good rain would clear that out. And I think you poor devils are overdue?

We are indeed. Violent storms are bringing scant relief….


Greg

[lynn cates]

argumentum

Hello Ruby. Thanks.

Garrulous? Not a bit of it. Merely a bit of verbal jousting with the Jacksters. (heh-heh)


“My female antennae detect that you have a weakness for Catherine Eddowes
amongst the victims.”

Unfortunately, I cannot advert to female antennae. My X,Y chromosomal structure has deprived me of such. But perhaps yours are due for a service? I just think it silly to suggest that she was soliciting straightaway from gaol.

“I agree that from what we know of her, that she was a chirpy little sparrow....but even just discharged from the Police Station, the facts almost unequivocally say that she was soliciting just before her death.”

What facts? Must have missed those. Have seen a good bit of supposition, though.

“It's a bummer for me, but I still haven't got round to reclaiming my Neal Sheldon book , on the victims, from a friend. But I know that he gives concrete evidence, including the dates and place, of a court appearance in London for Liz getting 'done' for prostitution.”

I look forward to that. But how does this apply to 30 September, 1888?

“Unless you are particularly naive or obtuse, all the witness reports on Liz's behaviour on the night that she died, point to her soliciting.”

May be both. But what signs? The flower? Yes, all the better to ensnare a wealthy, free spending anarchist.


“Well, you seemed to want to say that she was more stable than the others, because she had her own room and they lived in lodging houses. I want to say that the difference between her and the other victims was superficial.”


Wanted to say? Then I should have said it. Stable? Oh, don’t horse around. That was not my mane point. (heh-heh)

“C'mon...which is really more likely? Objectively?”

Neither.

“Because she was almost certainly killed by the same hand.”

Certainly? Hmm, perhaps you have vastly different epistemic standards.

“You seem to be saying...forgive me...that all the victims didn't have the point in common that they were alcoholics (which is my take).”

Don’t know. I believe that’s a medical diagnosis? Not qualified there.

“Well once again, all these women were malnourished (so they couldn't fight back -a criteria for Jack's victims). You appear to dispute this.”

Well, since you choose to include Tabram, you might pop round to Dr. Killeen’s discussion on this point.

“The only victim who seemed physically capable of fighting back seemed to be MJK -but as the killer surprised her waking from sleep and supine on her bed, she didn't get a chance...”

How do we know that she was surprised whilst sleeping?

“heh-heh. Nope.”

Heh-heh. Yep.

“Yep. Very careful.”

Indeed? Why would a sane man:
1. Talk loudly with Annie against the shutters?
2. Then go through the house?
3. Kill her and disembowel her under the windows with many people present?
4. Stop to steal some worthless brass rings?

“I don't know who she is, Mr Clever.”

Clever? I? Not a bit of it. Jane Beetmore was an 1888 copycat of “Jack.” No doubts about it. Her boyfriend, the killer, was caught.

Polly's lower abdomen had been mutilated, and she had been exposed, but her dress lowered (by Cross ?).

Umm, which sexual organ is the abdomen?

“As you know, the murder of Liz was either interrupted , or not intended from the start.”

Evidence?

“She hadn't gone behind that gate, and taken out her cashous, to sing her killer nursery rhymes, had she.”

Behind the gate? Oh, dear. Might have another go at the inquest report.

“That's what all those victims were doing when they died. Like it or not.”

Mere assertion. That does NOT an argument make. But perhaps if repeated ten times? (heh-heh)

“I have just purchased Chris Scott's excellent book, and followed the threads on Casebook with great interest. Because they didn't find her, doesn't mean that she won't be found in the future.”

Excellent book! Delighted to hear it. Found in the future? Good luck!

You already know the answers, Lynn, why be difficult ?

Yes, I know the answers. That’s why the Jacksters perplex me so.

“Not very different at all.”

Vague.

“(I'm getting bored now)”

Indeed? I’m just beginning to have fun.

“No. On grounds of MO.”

Indeed? Stabbing? Ripping? Pen knife? WHAT MO?

“If I have to work, do a myriad of other things, and spend lots of time here...do you seriously think that I have time to watch telly???”

Good to hear. Then you are one Jackster not beyond hope. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

plus ultra

Hello Greg. Thanks.

“Then why go into a dark corner? Was there a privy or sandwich cart in there?”

I have no doubt she was following someone there. She talked to Hutt as though she had a schedule to keep.

"Perhaps they split again – needed a bit of cash…”

Indeed. But why? Surely not just to become a prostitute?

“No, not as strong or imaginative as Hutchinson…”

Or Cross? (heh-heh)

“Not all, only 4 in the canon……”

But why 4? Why not 2 or 3? Why not 5 or 6?

“Knife”

Very well. There were about 11 ladies done to death by knife—all unsolved.

“whore”

Assumption, but Polly and Annie’s statements seem to include them.

“late”

Well, Polly and Annie were after 3.00—yes, late. But Liz and Kate?

“Surely murder”

Lots of murders. Include them all?

“mutilation”

Not Liz. But Coles and McKenzie? Yes.

“escape…”

That’s what Baxter said of Liz’s killer. But really, if escape counts, surely Beetmore’s killer was Jack—at least until he was later found.

“Thanks Holmes…”

Elementary, Watson.

“I don’t consider Stride a domestic……perhaps she just angered a violent drunk…”


I could live with that. But what of the OTHER Jacksters? (heh-heh)


“I’d like to hear it…”

Trust me. You don’t.

“I believe Polly was in the same position, remember the blokes put her skirts down for modesty, I excepted Liz in my initial comparison…"

Fair enough.

“I may not be as old as Vlad the Impaler or Lynn Cates"

Few are. (heh-heh)

“. . . but I remember rotary phones, 45’s and punch card computers……....”

As do I—and long for them again.

“We are indeed. Violent storms are bringing scant relief….”

Last I checked, you were worse off than we were. That’s pretty bad.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Broadmoor..

Clever? I? Not a bit of it. Jane Beetmore was an 1888 copycat of “Jack.” No doubts about it. Her boyfriend, the killer, was caught.

Tsk, Lynn, I think you dissemble..

Your statement is factually correct, but of course there is more to the story than that, isn't there?

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-beadmore.html

Copycat, yes - and interesting on its own - but this copycat doesn't strengthen the argument that there were multiple 'copycat' killers in Whitechapel - does it?

[lynn cates]

marvellous observation

Hello Sally. Thanks.

"Your statement is factually correct, but of course there is more to the story than that, isn't there?"

There is ALWAYS more to ANY story.

For example, consider the query, "How are you?" A standard reply might be, "I'm fine." But is that ALL the story? Certainly not. I failed to add, "My blood pressure is 106/66, my pulse rate is 55, . . . "

And IF there were world enough and time, this omission, lady, might be a crime. Sadly, we have finite time.

And why only Whitechapel? If we exclude Beetmore on grounds of geography, then do we exclude Aldgate and Spitalfields as well?

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-beadmore.html

Hang on...I'm suspicious that Fish was apparently alone with the body before anyone else....

[lynn cates]

new suspect?

Hello Ruby. What worries me is that she is given as Beetmore, Beadmore, and, I think, Savage.

With those aliases do you suppose . . . ? Nah.

Cheers.
LC

[miss marple]

Waddell had a motive, had been dumped by Jane. He was seen with her, he was drunk. And behaved in an irrational way that seemed to indicate guilt, by running away , changing his clothes etc. He had means, motive and opportunity. That does it for me,
He confessed twice.
Most murders are domestic, committed in a moment of rage, by persons known to the victim. This seems to be such a one. He probably did not mean to kill her. There are many of them in Victorian times, usually as a result of drink.
Serial killings are still extremely rare, even more so a hundred years ago. Yet one gets the impression sometimes on casebook that everybody can be a serial killer. Its just a life choice!
Anyone who finds a body seems to be in the frame.

Miss Marple