The **** are the men.

[Elamarna]

If I could be proven Jack wrote the GSG what would it tell us about Jack? That he was either Jewish or not. I doubt the GSG was written by Jack and even if it was it tells us nothing. Thus all the pontification about the GSG is a waste of time.

Hi John

that maybe the best comment, posted on the thread, if not certainly one of them.


Steve

[John Wheat]

If I could be proven Jack wrote the GSG what would it tell us about Jack? That he was either Jewish or not. I doubt the GSG was written by Jack and even if it was it tells us nothing. Thus all the pontification about the GSG is a waste of time.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Dear all,

Thanks for the replies.

The truth is we could debate the GSG forever and still end up back where we started.

One point to note though is the idea that the killer would not hang around unneccessarily writing nonsense on a wall when his life depended on it.

But it seems that he did exactly that, in a tighter spot at Mitre Square when he inflicted the totally unneccessary cuts on Catherine's face, eyelids nicked through etc. If you consider that, then his hanging around the wall writing the message perhaps was not that dangerous if he felt that in a moment he could throw the chalk away and walk off unconnected to the graffiti. Or quickly enter one of the nearby doors? And didn't one of Kosminski's relatives allegedly live in one?

regards,

If the GSG was made by Jack, and if PC Long was right, it could be assumed that Jack lived very close to where the graffiti was found. I don't believe Jack stayed outside for 70 minutes with part of a bloody apron and a knife, and maybe a human kidney.

He went home, cleaned himself and then got out again, with a piece a chalk and the apron, and made sure Long wasn't about to show up.

That is, of course, if Jack wrote it, and if Long is true about not seeing it before.

[Elamarna]

If the killer knew of the grafitti, there's a link to the murders. I am pretty sure the killer didn't write it just as I'm pretty sure he knew of its existence beforehand.

Mike

That is certainly a different take on the subject, one I have not considered, the only issue i can see is how look would it have remained unsmudged for?
Certainly not to be dismissed without consideration.


Steve

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;379212]

Pierre

That is my considered response to the post #58.

As long as there are posts which are like that I will respond to them, no matter who posts them.

Its not about the posters, its about the content of the posts.
If there are mistakes, failings or attempts to mislead, be they intentional or not, I will point these out.

Its called debate.


And I expect others to do the same in return.

In post #51 of this thread, Observer, rightly pointed out that what I had posted earlier on the thread was itself wrong, having read the post I put my hands up to the fact.

It is a pity that such a response is not universal.


Steve

Yep, be nice if more people were prepared to say "Oops got that one wrong didn't I"

[The Good Michael]

2. The GSG, there is nothing I have ever read which convinces me that the GSG was written by the same person who dropped the apron. one assume this person was also the killer.
I agree there is circumstantial evidence, but I feel it is no more compelling than the view that the GSG was written before the murders, is anti-Semitic graffiti and not linked to the killings in anyway.

If the killer knew of the grafitti, there's a link to the murders. I am pretty sure the killer didn't write it just as I'm pretty sure he knew of its existence beforehand.

Mike

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;379208]

Great, Steve. I can just imagine what you would have thought and said if I had given you all that nonsense.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

That is my considered response to the post #58.

As long as there are posts which are like that I will respond to them, no matter who posts them.

Its not about the posters, its about the content of the posts.
If there are mistakes, failings or attempts to mislead, be they intentional or not, I will point these out.

Its called debate.


And I expect others to do the same in return.

In post #51 of this thread, Observer, rightly pointed out that what I had posted earlier on the thread was itself wrong, having read the post I put my hands up to the fact.

It is a pity that such a response is not universal.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;379195]

Suggestions and speculation only have to be based on what is possible, it is speculation, no more than that. Three alternatives which have been discussed in the past are listed, it is valid to discuss them and asses how high the probability is for each alternative.

It is not my opinion; I did not raise it in the thread where it was discussed, it was given at that time as a possible interpretation for the cuts.
However considering that it was explained in post #54 that the suggestion is not one i favour, I wonder why there is a need to ask it again, it has been answered.

Such a waste of my time to answer twice.

May I respectfully ask that the trend to tell others what they may consider to discuss is stopped.




It is a very clear statement, it needs no further explanation.





No, they are possible alternative suggestions.






No, there is nothing to justify, I am make no firm statements, only giving possible suggestions for the wounds on Eddowes face.

Which pilot is that? Pilot is obviously the new catch word!






And the point is?








They would be "nothing more" in the context of that suggestion - a.
The possibility that the cuts were more is discussed in suggestion c of post #52.
One really needs to read a whole section before asking some questions, or else one asks what are redundant questions.

No they are excluded in the context of b, that is from the possibility that those cuts, the ones to the nose and cheeks were not a deliberate attack on those areas.

B (b) is a suggestion made by others, which was presented as one of a choice of possibilities, as i have said before in this post, but more importantly in post #54, which seems not to have been read and understood, it is not a suggestion I favour myself.

I fail to see why there is a problem with that.





Yes, and why is that a problem?
Such mere speculation happens all the time on forums, this one is no different

A very good example is :

Thread " Bury and the Chalk Messages "
post #8

3 hypothesises given, of which at least one had obviously had no research done before posting.





What does that mean?
This attitude of total disdain for the subject and those involved in it, is become extremely tiresome.

=Pierre;379175]


Please,
given that the last time the idea of the cuts having a significant meaning, other than this post, was mentioned in any detail was on the thread
"The profession of Jack the Ripper." first proposed in post #1 of that thread, that is a mind boggling question to ask.

If there is a need or wish to read that nonsense post and related posts again please do.



Again the disdain for those seen as being lesser than historians.
Hobby is used, not for the first time, as an insult.
The idea that "hobby" is somehow demeaning, is truly immature.

Given that it is clear there is no intention to every name someone, most lost interested in these posts long ago.

However there is a DUTY to the truth, that some feel means that perceived failings in posts must be pointed out.

Steve

Great, Steve. I can just imagine what you would have thought and said if I had given you all that nonsense.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

So you referred only to the discussions on a forum and not to a source. I see. So there is no foundation for what you say. It is only your own opinion without any sources or research.

Suggestions and speculation only have to be based on what is possible, it is speculation, no more than that. Three alternatives which have been discussed in the past are listed, it is valid to discuss them and asses how high the probability is for each alternative.

It is not my opinion; I did not raise it in the thread where it was discussed, it was given at that time as a possible interpretation for the cuts.
However considering that it was explained in post #54 that the suggestion is not one i favour, I wonder why there is a need to ask it again, it has been answered.

Such a waste of my time to answer twice.

May I respectfully ask that the trend to tell others what they may consider to discuss is stopped.

What sort of statement is that? I donīt understand what you mean.

It is a very clear statement, it needs no further explanation.

Or rather 3 hypotheses, Steve.

No, they are possible alternative suggestions.

Are you trying to make justifications by twisting and oversimplifying the pilote? Why?

No, there is nothing to justify, I am make no firm statements, only giving possible suggestions for the wounds on Eddowes face.

Which pilot is that? Pilot is obviously the new catch word!

This is what you wrote in your post about the "options":

And the point is?

Why would they be "nothing more" than an escalation? Making collateral damage or cutting symbols does not exclude "escalation". Are you basing that on some known theory, on your own studies or what?

They would be "nothing more" in the context of that suggestion - a.
The possibility that the cuts were more is discussed in suggestion c of post #52.
One really needs to read a whole section before asking some questions, or else one asks what are redundant questions.

No they are excluded in the context of b, that is from the possibility that those cuts, the ones to the nose and cheeks were not a deliberate attack on those areas.

B (b) is a suggestion made by others, which was presented as one of a choice of possibilities, as i have said before in this post, but more importantly in post #54, which seems not to have been read and understood, it is not a suggestion I favour myself.

I fail to see why there is a problem with that.

And this is from mere speculations on a forum, is that right?

Yes, and why is that a problem?
Such mere speculation happens all the time on forums, this one is no different

A very good example is :

Thread " Bury and the Chalk Messages "
post #8

3 hypothesises given, of which at least one had obviously had no research done before posting.

And is this taken from ripperology?

What does that mean?
This attitude of total disdain for the subject and those involved in it, is become extremely tiresome.


[QUOTE=Pierre;379175]

If it is, do you think I should read it? Since you do not accept it yourself.

Please,
given that the last time the idea of the cuts having a significant meaning, other than this post, was mentioned in any detail was on the thread
"The profession of Jack the Ripper." first proposed in post #1 of that thread, that is a mind boggling question to ask.

If there is a need or wish to read that nonsense post and related posts again please do.

Well, Steve. I understand that you have not interest in being concise and clear. This is not a university. This is your hobby. And honestly, I begin to loose interest in your posts. Sorry.

Again the disdain for those seen as being lesser than historians.
Hobby is used, not for the first time, as an insult.
The idea that "hobby" is somehow demeaning, is truly immature.

Given that it is clear there is no intention to every name someone, most lost interested in these posts long ago.

However there is a DUTY to the truth, that some feel means that perceived failings in posts must be pointed out.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;379113][QUOTE=Pierre;379105]

Pierre

It has certainly been discussed on this site within the last 6 months to my knowledge. However that is unimportant; it does not make the slightest difference when an idea is discussed.

Hi Steve,

So you referred only to the discussions on a forum and not to a source. I see. So there is no foundation for what you say. It is only your own opinion without any sources or research.

The view that we may only discuss things which are written in 1888 is not a view shared by many on this site I believe.

What sort of statement is that? I donīt understand what you mean.

However in this case what was given was based on the evidence of the wounds as recorded in 1888.

3 options for possible interpretations of the wounds on Eddowes face were then given.

Or rather 3 hypotheses, Steve.

Are you not yourself using your interpretation on sources from 1888. Those interpretations are not from 1888, they are, has you like to say post modern, from today.

Are you trying to make justifications by twisting and oversimplifying the pilote? Why?

This is what you wrote in your post about the "options":

However I would like to place my views on the issues under discussion on record.

1. The cuts, these can be seen from several possible points of view:

That is your first hypothesis. I agree with it. There is nothing radical about it.

a. The facial wounds were nothing more than an escalation of the previous attack on Chapman, (This is leaving Stride aside, and presuming that the same killer or killers were responsible for both Chapman and Eddowes.).

Why would they be "nothing more" than an escalation? Making collateral damage or cutting symbols does not exclude "escalation". Are you basing that on some known theory, on your own studies or what?

b. The wounds to the eyelids are the same as above, however it has been argued that the cuts to the nose and checks were the result of collateral damage sustained during an aborted attempt to skin the face , as with Kelly, this again assumes the same killer or killers for all 3.

And this is from mere speculations on a forum, is that right?

c. It has been argued often that the cuts to the face have a far deeper significance, however almost every person who has argued such a case, says the cuts means something different from what the next person to argue it says, there is no consensus!

And is this taken from ripperology?

Therefore I am unable to find a compelling reason to accept this alternative.

If it is, do you think I should read it? Since you do not accept it yourself.

Well, Steve. I understand that you have not interest in being concise and clear. This is not a university. This is your hobby. And honestly, I begin to loose interest in your posts. Sorry.

Kind regards, Pierre

[DJA]

Anyone else notice a regular poster who disappeared just before Pierre started up!
Believe he crossed the border from Canada to a university city in the Michigan area.
Meh. Maybe.

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;379113]

Pierre

It has certainly been discussed on this site within the last 6 months to my knowledge. However that is unimportant; it does not make the slightest difference when an idea is discussed.

The view that we may only discuss things which are written in 1888 is not a view shared by many on this site I believe.

However in this case what was given was based on the evidence of the wounds as recorded in 1888.

3 options for possible interpretations of the wounds on Eddowes face were then given.
Are you not yourself using your interpretation on sources from 1888. Those interpretations are not from 1888, they are, has you like to say post modern, from today.
There is no difference between those and the 3 listed in post 52

The one you mention is not my preferred interpretation as I said in the post.


steve

But Steve you have to do things the way the great (non) historian says they must be done, don't you know.

[DJA]

Two of the cuts were over the Maxillary sinuses.

That would link to Kate's kidney disease.
Entry point for Streptococcus Pyogenes.

She had been ill for over 20 years. Same with Nichols.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;379105]

Hi Steve,

"It has been argued" you say.

What are the sources for this? Do you use sources from 1888 - or later? Are there any sources from 1888 talking about this?

I ask you since you say "it has been argued".

Or perhaps you donīt know the sources?

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre

It has certainly been discussed on this site within the last 6 months to my knowledge. However that is unimportant; it does not make the slightest difference when an idea is discussed.

The view that we may only discuss things which are written in 1888 is not a view shared by many on this site I believe.

However in this case what was given was based on the evidence of the wounds as recorded in 1888.

3 options for possible interpretations of the wounds on Eddowes face were then given.
Are you not yourself using your interpretation on sources from 1888. Those interpretations are not from 1888, they are, has you like to say post modern, from today.
There is no difference between those and the 3 listed in post 52

The one you mention is not my preferred interpretation as I said in the post.


steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;379100]

...however it has been argued that the cuts to the nose and checks were the result of collateral damage sustained during an aborted attempt to skin the face ,...

Hi Steve,

"It has been argued" you say.

What are the sources for this? Do you use sources from 1888 - or later? Are there any sources from 1888 talking about this?

I ask you since you say "it has been argued".

Or perhaps you donīt know the sources?

Kind regards, Pierre