'the biggest blunder in the search for Jack the Ripper'

[moonbegger]

Evening All

"And it hasn't been proved by anybody that he didn't take the organs. As I've said before I'm more than willing to debate you on that subject on these or the other boards any time you wish... and you can bring all of the 'experts' you want. All I need is the evidence"

Whats this [ Gunfight at the casebook corral ]

" Your only suppose to blow the bloody doors off "

moonbegger.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hunter,

Unfortunately a want of evidence works both ways.

It hasn't been proved by anybody that "the Ripper" did take any organs. Because the idea fits in with his alleged lightning surgical skills it has merely been assumed.

When was it first discovered that one of Eddowes' kidneys was missing?

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Pratt and McLean here.

( That will confuse a few of the musically ignorant ones and make them google frantically)

Lets just get some facts right here shall me?

1. There is no proof of link between the rag and the writing.
2. There is no proof of link between the writing and the killer.
3. ditto the killer and the transportation of the rag
4. Ditto the rag and WHEN it was ripped from the other piece
5. ditto the transportation of the kidney and the rag use thereof.
6. Ditto that Eddowes was soliciting
7. That the killer was seen by a witness
8. That Eddowes DIDNT visit Goulston St before Mitre Square.
9. That the killer wasnt hiding in a dark recess BEFORE Eddowes entered the square.
(just because a pc didnt see anyone previously doesnt mean the ßuare was empty)
10. ditto the rag was placed between 2.20 and 2.55
11. Ditto the rag was placed between 1.45 and 2.20
12. The writing wasnt there from much earlier than the time of murder
13. Ditto the writing was done after 1.45 am
14. The police told the truth( Long, Halse) in their statements
15 the police lied in their statements

There is NO proof EITHER WAY on any of the above points. So given that, we come down to individual interpretation and likelyhood. We simply CANNOT just close our eyes to many possibilities within this murder case. The variables are too many.
BECAUSE of lack of certainty. Example- and I dont mean this is my idea- but its an example-
killer was a person hiding in MS. A policeman actually sees him and runs away frightened. Said pc lies at inquest. Other policemen cover for him to sotect the good name of the force.

Now thats a wild example- but it is possible. Its unlikely- its a cert for a conspiration theory and its very incredible. BUT- its possible.

Grven ALL possibilities, keeping an open mind is essential- AS LONG AS it isnt made up by introducing false possibilities- like an escaped gorilla being introduced into the scenario.

The blinkered ones wont want to accept open variants and stick to their most likely turn of events that concetes their own favourite suspect or timeline/vision. Some will argue vehemently that NOTHING must change at all from what was theorised 124 years ago.

Finally- here's a goodie. It is often pointed out thjt the police did the best they could given the period they worked - the LVP- and the tools at their disposal.
Policemen and Detectives are far more intelligent today than then, because they have greater knowledge of people, crime and criminal behaviour. Whats good for the goose is etc.

When I said 'had he not been a policeman, Halse would have means and opportniity to have transported the rag, because he was the ONLY KNOWN person in all places at convenient times' I got pilloried for doing all sorts of things to the good record of a policeman. The only lack was motive (known motive) I said.
OK- NAME ONE person known to be in the area who had the means and opportunity to have taken the rag to Goulstone Street? There isnt one- so it is assumed the killer did- you know the namelesr and faceless one- who soon is GIVEN a name (Jack the Ripper) And even in some high ranking policemens eyes a religion, a mental condition, and even an escape route from capture ( asylum). Or he is ' KNOWN' to have killed hinself and the owner of the story refuses to tell us why or who or any detail correctly and 'destroys all his papers'...
And saying Halse, who was actually there, with all opportunity, is not possible, and is so 'out there' people prefer to believe MADE UP images and lay convenient names to fit the 'image' of the killer! (who they cant even show was within 5 miles of the place on that night) is amazing.
Yet Halse a transporter of the rag? Sacred sanctity lost!

I dont know if Halse, or the police or anyone was involved in any way, i just dont know, but I refuse to accept the tripe we have been served and refuse to ignore possibilities that go against the grain. Its not conspiratorial. Its simply keeging an open mind.


Jrouble is- that irks. No one can name JTR. No one. But 'Jack the Ripper' this master fiend- is a maf up name and a made up image. And I'll give you no prizes for who it was that ENCOURAGED the promotion of that image! From murder 1 to the last memoir or jotting of pen. The police.

Ever wondered why? To some its obvious. But that irks the 'nothing was wrong and nothing must change' brigade.

All together now!- ahhhhhhh.

Or 'heyyyyyy' as The Fonz would say..open armed. (aod open minded)

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

To state that the police of today are far more intelligent than they were in 1888 is quite false in my opinion Phil.

I cite Trevor.

Your post states personal opinion, which is fine, however it lacks proof and motive. It also leans away from probability.

You yourself freely admit there is no motive for Halse to act in such a way. There is for the murderer.

And the fact Halse was in the presence of two others at the time Eddowes was murdered takes him out of the killer equation.

As much as it frustrates you, the likelihood Halse took the apron piece, in view of Watkins, Harvey and others is very remote.

Monty

[Cogidubnus]

Wow Phil...

I loved the first half of your post...the list part especially...(I'm wondering at the relevance you place on point 8, but that's really neither here nor there in the scheme of things!)...this had all the makings of a great post...

But then the second half...Gawd mate it's Friday night and I'm on the Marstons as usual... but jeez what dreadful scandinavian brew have those rogues and brigands forced down you? Halse as JtR? Where did that one come from?

Concerned friend (I hope!)

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Policemen and Detectives are far more intelligent today than then, because they have greater knowledge of people, crime and criminal behaviour.

Sorry I don't buy the conflation of intelligence with knowledge here either

All the best

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Wow Phil...

I loved the first half of your post...the list part especially...(I'm wondering at the relevance you place on point 8, but that's really neither here nor there in the scheme of things!)...this had all the makings of a great post...

But then the second half...Gawd mate it's Friday night and I'm on the Marstons as usual... but jeez what dreadful scandinavian brew have those rogues and brigands forced down you? Halse as JtR? Where did that one come from?

Concerned friend (I hope!)

Dave

Hello Dave,

No- not Halse as JTR. If he hdnt been a policeman- he hd the perfect means and opportunity to have been an accomplice.

Best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

If the blood is under a pump pressure at the instant the knife severs the first part of the artery wall it will make the knife bloody.

No it won't. Not unless you hold your hand under it, which I would seriously doubt the Ripper did. He stood behind and over Stride, pulled the knife from left to right, back toward him and far, far away from the blood.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

To state that the police of today are far more intelligent than they were in 1888 is quite false in my opinion Phil.

I cite Trevor.

Your post states personal opinion, which is fine, however it lacks proof and motive. It also leans away from probability.

You yourself freely admit there is no motive for Halse to act in such a way. There is for the murderer.

And the fact Halse was in the presence of two others at the time Eddowes was murdered takes him out of the killer equation.

As much as it frustrates you, the likelihood Halse took the apron piece, in view of Watkins, Harvey and others is very remote.

Monty

Hello Neil,

No- it doesnt frustrate me- cos I dont WANT that to be the answer,
yes- you are correct- remote. Totally correct. The killer doing it far more possible. Agreed.
Remote it is. But it is possible. Technicajly, the only physical problem is use of sleight of hand- because of Watkins and Co. After that he is home free.
Re motive. No KNOWN motive.
Re intellience. The training BEFORE a person becomes a policeman today lays a groundwork of coping with crime and how to deal with things they didnt have then. General knowledge greater, known precidents of world wide similar crime. Psycological known killer reactions etc at the touch of a fingertip. Masses more.

Best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Because the apron piece was big and bulky and not easily concealed. It was also stained with excrement. It was used as a stopgap measure until he could get to a safe spot and get better organized; wipe his hands and the organs and then transfer them to a smaller place for concealment. The apron piece had served its emergency purpose so he discarded it. Better for someone to find it there later than to get caught with it later.

He had ample oppportunty of doing what you said long before he got to Goulston Street he probably had a 5 min start on the police before the body was even found.

If he was intent on removing the organs I would have thought he would have already had something with him after all nothing cut from Chapmans clothing

There you go again exaggertaing the facts the apron piece had traces of faecal matter it was not stained

If this was the same person who killed the others, this was probably the first time he had gotten into this big of a mess.

But in the dark he probably would not have been able to distinguish the diference bewteen blood and faecal matter on his hands.

And it hasn't been proved by anybody that he didn't take the organs. As I've said before I'm more than willing to debate you on that subject on these or the other boards any time you wish... and you can bring all of the 'experts' you want. All I need is the evidence.

Well I am satisfied that the evidence gathered from the medical tests etc rules out the killer removing them and taking then away in the apron piece. You are not a qualified medical expert so you are not qualified to challenge what they say.

Now if you are talking evidence you prove the killer removed the organs at the crime scenes and took them away in the apron piece.

In my mind and the minds of many others there is nothing to debate its only you and a handful of others who keep hanging onto this now outdated theory that the killer removed them and took them away in the apron piece.

You keep citing your exploits with dressing wild animals there is a big difference between that and the murders or women in almost total darkness. That has no relevance at all to ther murders or the removal of the organs.

I think you need to sit quietly in a dark room and really think about all of this. Your imagination is running wild.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

No 8 refers to the simple fact that there is no proof Eddowes didnt go to Goulston St herself after being released and drop the rag. There is no proof she did either.
What she did IF she did doesnt matter. Either way is possible.

Best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Monty

Now I thought you at least had some grey matter inside that head of yours but it seems you have completly lost the plot now

To state that the police of today are far more intelligent than they were in 1888 is quite false in my opinion Phil.

I cite Trevor.

Thank you for the mention however you might just live to regret that in the months to come

Your post states personal opinion, which is fine, however it lacks proof and motive. It also leans away from probability.

You yourself freely admit there is no motive for Halse to act in such a way. There is for the murderer.

And the fact Halse was in the presence of two others at the time Eddowes was murdered takes him out of the killer equation.

As much as it frustrates you, the likelihood Halse took the apron piece, in view of Watkins, Harvey and others is very remote.

Monty

[Cogidubnus]

No 8 refers to the simple fact that there is no proof Eddowes didnt go to Goulston St herself after being released and drop the rag. There is no proof she did either.
What she did IF she did doesnt matter. Either way is possible.

Ah...OK Phil, thanks for clarifying...I still think the list is great...a reminder to us...

But Halse as an accomplice? I've thought about it (and will carry on thinking about it, I promise) but somehow can't see it...

Have a good weekend Phil, and I hope all the post-move sorting out goes smoothly!

Every good wish

Dave

[Monty]

"Thank you for the mention however you might just live to regret that in the months to come "

Keep rattlin that sabre Trevor.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

"Thank you for the mention however you might just live to regret that in the months to come "

Keep rattlin that sabre Trevor.

Monty

You know me I always keep my promises