Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New piece of evidence found

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

  • Originally posted by Robert View Post
    I do have some data, but it is of a factual nature, and it will take several years' labour to raise it to the level of social construct.
    Facts? What are these "facts" of which you speak? We don't deal in facts around here. We prefer guessing games.

    Comment


    • Are you sure it is not only factual but metaphorical too.

      you will need to explain it to us I think

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Brenda View Post
        Facts? What are these "facts" of which you speak? We don't deal in facts around here. We prefer guessing games.
        The "Facts" are the things you doubters doubt, but upon which the great and mighty Pierre has solved this 125+ year old mystery.

        say he needs to be deified.
        G U T

        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Robert View Post
          Well....I had hoped that I'd solved one of the major problems of the case. However, the more I thought the matter over, the more convinced I became that

          1. It wasn't a major problem, but a minor problem.
          2. I hadn't in fact solved it.
          3. It was to do with another case entirely.

          Rest assured that if there is anything else that I discover that I haven't discovered, I will go public immediately.
          LOL - I like you!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
            You may suggest that the V's...on the eyelids AND cheeks were coleateral damage from the almost complete severing of Kates nose...but that doesnt answer why her nose was being cut in the first place. Answer that without some symbolic inference, then the collateral theory might have some legs.
            We can't even call these cuts "Vs" without knowing intent, so I don't even want to go there. Yet, why does this have to symbolize something? I mean, cutting the nose. Why can't it just be a new thing to cut at, a new experience?

            Mike
            huh?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
              We can't even call these cuts "Vs" without knowing intent, so I don't even want to go there. Yet, why does this have to symbolize something? I mean, cutting the nose. Why can't it just be a new thing to cut at, a new experience?

              Mike
              Hi Mike,
              I'm guessing that this was the work of a disorganized attacker. The wounds reflect a blitz or frenzied style of attack on her face in my opinion.
              Mark

              Comment


              • Originally posted by SuspectZero View Post
                Hi Mike,
                I'm guessing that this was the work of a disorganized attacker. The wounds reflect a blitz or frenzied style of attack on her face in my opinion.
                Mark
                Hi,

                I don't pay much attention to such labels. I used to, but now I understand that it is all opinion and is used more for the comfort of the labeler than for the actual precision of the label. It's how I feel about psychology in general. But...that being said, I do agree that there seems to be some savagery applied here rather than somebody wanting to carve letters. Still, I'm open to it, but it doesn't seem likely to me at this point. No argument has remotely supported such a thing in my opinion and they all seem to be wishful thinking for theory support rather than well-thought, sensible ideas for my part.

                Mike

                Mike
                huh?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                  By the way would reading the Hardy Boys series help me solve a 100-year old murder case?

                  Couldn't hurt and would probably be enjoyable.

                  Comment


                  • If the Hardy Boys couldn't solve it then it can't be solved. Of course they would need the help of their stout friend Chet Morton. I think I read every book in the series when I was a kid.

                    I remember reading somewhere that Franklin W. Dixon (which was a pen name) only wrote the first two or three books. After that he would put together a story line and hand it off to a group of writers who would basically write the story.

                    c.d.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                      If the Hardy Boys couldn't solve it then it can't be solved. Of course they would need the help of their stout friend Chet Morton. I think I read every book in the series when I was a kid.

                      I remember reading somewhere that Franklin W. Dixon (which was a pen name) only wrote the first two or three books. After that he would put together a story line and hand it off to a group of writers who would basically write the story.

                      c.d.
                      That was the same with a lot of pulp fiction like Doc Savage and the Avengers. Tons of writers with the same name.


                      Mike
                      huh?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
                        That was the same with a lot of pulp fiction like Doc Savage and the Avengers. Tons of writers with the same name.


                        Mike
                        The Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, the Bobsey Twins and I believe some others were all dreamed up by a publisher, then farmed out to different writers. When I first learned that I found it difficult to believe that that same people were responsible as I totally disliked the Bobbsey Twin books, but loved the mystery books.

                        Wish I'd had that lucerative an idea. . .

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
                          We can't even call these cuts "Vs" without knowing intent, so I don't even want to go there. Yet, why does this have to symbolize something? I mean, cutting the nose. Why can't it just be a new thing to cut at, a new experience?

                          Mike
                          As I said Mike, people interpret those marks as ancialliary damage without knowing that they were, and without explaining why the nose was cut in the first place. I suggested a possible reason why someone might cut a nose, and if Kates story about turning in someone for the reward money was accurate then there exists a reason for someone to cut her nose symbolically.

                          As for it being a "new thing", that presupposes that the very repetitive nature of the first 2 attacks and the focus of those attacks was flexible with this C1/C2 killer. Why? Why would he change at all? What catalyst cause him to re-evaluate his goals? Why would anyone assume that someone who is very specific and very repetitive wouldn't continue to be exactly that way every time? Why do we have to imagine a constantly morphing criminal... in order to explain subsequent murders that have some very prominent differences from those first 2 kills?

                          The Morphing Ripper is simply a construct of Ripperologists and Serial killer students with preferential theories, its not something that is indicated by evidence.

                          I see no reasons to assume that the man that killed Polly and Annie....by all measurements almost certainly the same man...changes 1 iota next time out...if there was a next time. 2 virtually identical attacks within 10 days, with the same abdominal focus in the PM phase. Its a month until another murder and its totally unlike the predecessors.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GUT View Post
                            The "Facts" are the things you doubters doubt, but upon which the great and mighty Pierre has solved this 125+ year old mystery.

                            say he needs to be deified.
                            Don't look at the irrepressible phony and jester behind that open curtain. Look at the great head called the "Wonderful Wizard of Sham" or "Pierre". Gaze at my monument and despair ye struggling researchers!!!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                              Its is a fact at that time in history that some criminal groups cut words or symbols into the faces of snitches, before or after killing them.

                              You may suggest that the V's...on the eyelids AND cheeks were coleateral damage from the almost complete severing of Kates nose...but that doesnt answer why her nose was being cut in the first place. Answer that without some symbolic inference, then the collateral theory might have some legs.

                              Perhaps it didnt belong somewhere, or someone wanted to spite her face.
                              Well, this isn't a reasonable man we're talking about and so I don't think you're going to find much reason in his actions.

                              I doubt very much he knew any of them. More likely, in my opinion, that he was merely extremely spiteful and extremely violent to the extent that he thought slicing someone's nose off was a very good idea for no other good reason than he was an animal.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
                                That was the same with a lot of pulp fiction like Doc Savage and the Avengers. Tons of writers with the same name.


                                Mike
                                The Shadow being the rare example otherwise. One writer wrote some 99% of those for both publication and radio.
                                Iím often irrelevant. It confuses people.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X