Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • mariab
    replied
    Not only is the case closed, but it even implicates the grapes (of wrath) big time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Yes, that's precisely what I meant, Maria. Packer's old ass was the Ripper. We can all go home.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Hello Dave, all,

    apologies but I must get to sleep. Have fun discussing further. Goodnight all! (its 01.20am here) (apolgies to Tom too- thread crossed- fine post! Will think about it)
    best wishes

    Phil
    Last edited by Phil Carter; 05-25-2012, 11:27 PM. Reason: addition for Tom W's attention

    Leave a comment:


  • mariab
    replied
    Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
    {...} the murder of Mary Kelly, who we know followed the papers. Did she let her guard down with her killer because he didn't resemble Packer or Bachert?
    Huh?? You can't possibly mean that there were people who considered Packer a suspect?!! Are you referring to the beating he once received according to the press?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    No, you don't intimidate me. You are trying to.

    The fact you've admitted to doing that is, in itself, a threat.

    I will post as I wish. You have an issue then you can either be a man about it or run off to admin. Whatever you need to do to make you feel good.

    As I say, I really could care less about it to be honest. You should though, seeing as you walk a fine line that could end the attention you crave.

    Monty
    I am not like you i dont go runing to admin I stay and fight my cause. I may not do that in a way that pleases all but thats me if people dont like it tough.

    I dont crave any attention the ripperology tree needs a good shake. Too many people been holding onto outdated theories and are not prepared to consider anyhting new that goes against there beliefs.

    You are one of those persons and I would have thought you of all persons would welcome the input of new stuff. But you dont yet you cannot produce anything concrete to support your own outdated perception of this whole mystery and everyhting connected to it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Hi Phil. I hear what you're saying. As you're aware, I've put a lot of thought into the whole hoax thing, what with Le Grand and the Packer hoax, and Albert Bachert and his whole Three Tuns story. In the months that followed, the police believed these stories were true and that the descriptions give were that of the killer. This has caused me to wonder if these men were accomplices of the Ripper in the murder of Mary Kelly, who we know followed the papers. Did she let her guard down with her killer because he didn't resemble Packer or Bachert? Or, as you said, did the Dear Boss letter lead her to believe the killer was a toff and therefore not the man she was to make her final walk with?

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
    Right, Phil,

    We've seen your list of things there's no proof for and it's very interesting. Now can you give us proof of the truth of your own assertion about the attitude of the police - PROOF that they encouraged the promotion of that image?

    Regards, Bridewell
    Hello Bridewell,

    Yes,

    The decision by some intelligent person to poster size examples of the Dear Boss and Saucy Jack stuff-signed- and post them outside police stations in an area populated by the many illiterate- that the literate verbally passed on- frightening the devil out of the population of the area- telling and giving all the impression that not only was it a one man kilker with insatiable blood lust- but this was JACK THE RIPPER.

    Promotion and encouraged promotion of image achieved. Proof.(imho)

    Now it would be nice to see some comment apart from 'interesting' of that list of mine. Dave saw it straight away. One cant argue with any of it. Its fact all the way. That was the point of my post. And that means we MUST open our minds to more possibilities.
    (no offence meant Bridewell, please)
    best wishes

    Phil
    Last edited by Phil Carter; 05-25-2012, 11:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cogidubnus
    replied
    how many of the policemen in 1888 over 30 ever went to school
    answer- unknown. Today- all.
    School leaving age then? 12? Children worked at a younger age. Grown illiteracy rife. General competance and standard of those adolescents who COULD read and write far lower. Money and background at base for start of any education. Police recruits from Army common. Qualifiication into Army?- age and physical ability and lack of mental illness. Education requirements? None.

    Thats BEFORE they start patrolling
    Hi Phil

    The point I'm trying to make is the difference between intelligence (ie the inborn ability to process data, solve problems, and reach conclusions) and education (the means through which the achievements, aims and habits of a group of people are passed down to following generations)...the two are distinct...

    As an example, if Inspector X can reason that because suspect Y hasn't done this, has done that, did do the other, and therefore MUST be the murderer...then that's (in the real and genuine sense of the world) a demonstration of intelligence...if on the other hand, he reasons that because he knows the cousin of P and the wife of Q are in the same evening class and may have conspired, and there's a parallel in recent history, blah blah...then that's education...

    (Clearly I'm excluding the narrow "intelligence received" definition here!)

    All the best

    Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • Hunter
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    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've field dressed my share of deer in the dark without the need for a light. Many times they don't come out until right at dusk.

    Since you feel I am not qualified to offer reasonable counter arguments, I ought to be a pushover for you and your 'experts'. I'm still willing to debate you and let others decide.

    I think you need to sit quietly in a dark room and really think about all of this. Your imagination is running wild.
    We can let others decide who is using imagination and who is relying on evidence.

    Forgive me for removing the Bold print. I can hear perfectly well without the shouting.

    Oh, by the way... Sequeira told the press that he thought the mutilations could be done in three minutes. That is if the Star can be relied upon for quoting him right.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Did I make any threats hmmmmmmmmm no i dont think so

    Am I intimidating you well according to you yes and it seems I am doing a fine job.

    Perhaps you will be more careful about what you post in the future. The sabre rattling may turn to pistols as dawn
    No, you don't intimidate me. You are trying to.

    The fact you've admitted to doing that is, in itself, a threat.

    I will post as I wish. You have an issue then you can either be a man about it or run off to admin. Whatever you need to do to make you feel good.

    As I say, I really could care less about it to be honest. You should though, seeing as you walk a fine line that could end the attention you crave.

    Monty

    Leave a comment:


  • Tom_Wescott
    replied
    Hi Trev. When you wrote 'You might live...' even I thought 'wow, that sounds like a threat', though I'm sure you just meant it as 'You might come to change your mind, etc'.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    Like the promise you made about leaving the boards?

    I don't deal in threats Trevor, they hold no class.

    Go and try to intimidate someone who gives a sh...

    Monty
    I couldnt bear to leave the boards and let you continue to assert your influence on some of the less knowledgeable posters on here someone has to keep you in check.

    Did I make any threats hmmmmmmmmm no i dont think so

    Am I intimidating you well according to you yes and it seems I am doing a fine job.

    Perhaps you will be more careful about what you post in the future. The sabre rattling may turn to pistols as dawn
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-25-2012, 11:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    Phil,

    All newly recruited Constables were require to undertake literacy and numaracy examinations along with a physical. Those that failed were not taken on.

    And as they progress through the ranks, undertake further examinations.

    This under the rules and regulations.

    Monty
    Thanks Neil. Have we any known examples extant of literacy test requirements?
    Fine if they could read and write. Could they add up and subtract. Multhply and divide?

    Was it a 3 'r's requirement? Do we have examples of these tests?

    Best wishes

    Phil

    Leave a comment:


  • Hunter
    replied
    Hi Simon


    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    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.
    I don't attribute any kind of surgical skill to this killer. Whether he actually possessed any or not would be difficult to tell since he didn't have the availability of surgical instruments or facilities a surgeon would have available, nor a professional motive for his actions.

    When was it first discovered that one of Eddowes' kidneys was missing?
    Probably at the post-mortem held at 2:30 P.M. that day at the City mortuary in Golden Lane. This facility was a far cry from the 'shed' in Eagle Place where Phillips had to conduct the Chapman PM. Brown and Sequeira did conduct a preliminary examination of the body after it had reached the morgue and had been carefully stripped by the mortuary attendant, the belongings inventoried by Inspector Collard and sketches made by Mr. Foster. Phillips arrived sometime after 5:20 and was also present during this preliminary examination.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Hello Dave,

    Thanks. Re Halse. Just look at where he was, when he was where he was and what he did where he was when he was.
    I have no idea if he was involved.

    Its all about seeing things that ARE there- not ones that are not there- ( Polish mad jew- teacher cum barrister-Russian con man- painter in disguise- Royal Prince- Queens physician)
    all of whom have been 'fitted' to make the JTR thing a one man killing machine. Poppycock imho.

    I dont WANT the police to be involved. I dont KNOW the answer. I just dont accept the rubbish we have been force fed. AN answer to a small part of this is my wish. Something certain. That is why I challenge the continual Merry go round proposing the 'fitted' suspects.

    The game of name the Ripper was started by the police many many years ago.
    Ask yourself why. Then look at what has happened since by some unscrupulous commentators driving it along.

    I hope to God that what Neil and Rob have puts a stop to some of all that. We dont need more orchestral conducting to keep the rubbish going on and on. I wish them genuinely. All the very best.

    Best wishes

    Phil

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X