Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An experiment

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

  • Originally posted by Ausgirl View Post
    Thanks for the summary, Steve.

    It all seems very tiresome.
    Or total BS.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Shaggyrand View Post
      Unless the ideas were dropped- JtR came in to Mary Kelly's room through a door in the partition wall instead of through the court and the reason for killing her was indirect revenge on the Lord Mayor. Don't remember if it was indirect revenge on the office generally or Whitehead specifically.
      It was Sir Polydore de Keyser who described the Ripper as a mad dog in October 1888; Alderman James Whitehead was the Lord Mayor Elect on 9 November 1888 and it was his show, or procession, that took place on that day. So, whether Pierre knows it or not, his Ripper was targeting the wrong man.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Ausgirl View Post
        It does all get explained in some sort of lucid and logical, perfectly sane way eventually.............doesn't it?
        Very funny!

        I still have no idea why Pierre thinks the killer wrote that the judges were the men, or not the men, to be blamed for nothing. I don't think he's told us exactly what he thinks the killer was trying to say. It might have something to do with his apparent view that the mutilations reflected the old punishment for treason or something to do with an honour killing in India 11 years earlier but it's hard to say.

        He also hasn't told us why he thinks the killer wrote "the Judges" rather than just "Judges" in general. As at 30 September 1888 the most famous group of judges in the country were Hannon, Day and Smith, the Commissioners of the Special Parnell Commission and if the killer wasn't referring to them when he wrote "the Judges" then who?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GUT View Post
          Sounds about right.

          He also has high level data (for whatever that eans) to support his theory, said suspect he declines to name.

          H also detest writer's on the topic, though just lately I notice he quotes them a fair bit.
          Hi GUT,

          No. I do not quote "writer´s on the topic". I quote (mostly) primary sources in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Evans & Skinner or newspaper articles when necessary.

          Regards, Pierre

          Comment


          • Gosh, I bet you're glad you purchased The Ulimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, by Evans and Skinner, aren't you, Pierre?

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=Rosella;374705]Gosh, I bet you're glad you purchased The Ulimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, by Evans and Skinner, aren't you, Pierre?

              Do you think so?

              Regards, Pierre

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mayerling View Post
                You have forgotten that while totally destroying Mary's remains, he took the trouble to place her arm and hand into a position reminiscent of a picture of one of the Tudor/Elizabethan Mary's (most likely Mary I or "Bloody Mary" though it may have been Mary, Queen of Scots) and that this involved a reference to a fifth rate dramatic verse play by Lord Tennyson that I forced myself to read to try to figure out what was going on. With all this in my mind I have kept from responding to Pierre's threads most of the last few weeks, which are proliferating again.

                Jeff
                Hi Jeff,

                But perhaps we should also mention the good work of Richardh: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9399

                Regards, Pierre

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ausgirl View Post
                  Thanks for the summary, Steve.

                  It all seems very tiresome.
                  According to Pierre
                  The killer also knew Thomas bowyer.

                  And the killer was well known then but not now, whatever that means.
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • Slightly off topic, but in terms of what the writing means it's clear to me.

                    I grew up in a working class environment, in a certain part of England, where old habits die hard and so it is not uncommon up here to hear phrases, idioms, colloquialisms, sub-standard grammar; which died out a while back in other parts of the country.

                    The line: "will not be blamed for nothing" makes perfect sense to me and reasonably has only one meaning.

                    When I was growing up my Grandma would say: "you're not getting wrong for nothing". 'Getting wrong' means being told off up here. What she meant was: "you're being told off because you deserve it/have done something wrong". She also used to say: "you won't be told" - meaning even though you have done something wrong you won't hear it.

                    It makes absolutely no sense to say: "The Jews are not the men who will be blamed for nothing". On the other hand: "The Jews are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" is something that makes sense to me being from a Working Class background.

                    It means the Jews somehow escape blame even though they deserve blame.

                    Not that I think the writing has anything to do with the murders, I don't. I think someone held a grievance. Interestingly, whomever wrote it didn't claim: "The Jews are the people...." which to me would be logical in the event of a general problem with "the Jews".

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
                      When I was growing up my Grandma would say: "you're not getting wrong for nothing". 'Getting wrong' means being told off up here. What she meant was: "you're being told off because you deserve it/have done something wrong". She also used to say: "you won't be told" - meaning even though you have done something wrong you won't hear it.
                      Excellent I like it, and I presume you are possibly from the North East of England like myself as what you say make perfect sense...

                      Comment


                      • Fleetwood Mac

                        Londoner myself, such things were still said in my youth, and agree entirely with your interpretation of both what the GSG meant, and who wrote it

                        regards

                        Steve

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                          Hi Jeff,

                          But perhaps we should also mention the good work of Richardh: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9399

                          Regards, Pierre
                          Interesting, but hardly meriting re-discovering the "pleasures" of the failed career of Lord Tennyson as a dramatist. And I don't like looking at the photos of poor Mary - they are very gruesome.

                          Please also, Pierre, in future do not use that irritating and pompous "Dark lettering" with me. I never appreciated it either.

                          Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                            Fleetwood Mac

                            Londoner myself, such things were still said in my youth, and agree entirely with your interpretation of both what the GSG meant, and who wrote it

                            regards

                            Steve
                            Most likely the correct interpretation if the GSG was by a local. That possible sentiment was widespread in the 19th Century all over the globe, and still raises it's head (unfortunately) today.

                            Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Well I'm an Aussie and it means the same Thing to me.
                              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 Elamarna View Post
                                Fleetwood Mac

                                Londoner myself, such things were still said in my youth, and agree entirely with your interpretation of both what the GSG meant, and who wrote it

                                regards

                                Steve
                                Not sure why the quote didn't work above.
                                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

                                Working...
                                X