Same motive = same killer

[jerryd]

Regarding rings.

Detectives were searching pawnbrokers for the rings. Apparently they too, thought the rings were taken from Chapman by the killer.

Morning Advertiser
12, September, 1888

This morning two police constables visited Donovan and showed him two rings, one a half worn-out “engaged” ring,, the other appearing to be a wedding-ring, which they stated had been discovered at a pawnbroker’s. Donovan did not think they were the rings he had seen Mrs. Chapman wearing. The policemen then left, and Donovan heard no more of the incident.

[Elamarna]

Regarding rings.

Detectives were searching pawnbrokers for the rings. Apparently they too, thought the rings were taken from Chapman by the killer.

Morning Advertiser
12, September, 1888

This morning two police constables visited Donovan and showed him two rings, one a half worn-out “engaged” ring,, the other appearing to be a wedding-ring, which they stated had been discovered at a pawnbroker’s. Donovan did not think they were the rings he had seen Mrs. Chapman wearing. The policemen then left, and Donovan heard no more of the incident.

For what its worth, while the evidence for the rings is not conclusive, it is overwhelmingly in favour of them being taken in all probability by the Killer in Chapmans case.

In Jackson's case, the evidence is not as clear as Chapman, but certainly points to her having them close to her point of death.
The one proviso is that given the time and disposal method, it cannot be ruled out that someone other than the person who dismembered her took said ring. That possability increases if more than one is involved her her case.


Steve


Steve


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

I've always had a spooky feeling that Chapman tore her own rings off as a desperate attempt to make her killer go away ("You can take these, sir. Not much, but it's all I've got..."). Can't prove it, but it's another possibility.

[Darryl Kenyon]

If Annie is going to fight over a bar of soap a few days earlier, the rings where probably worth very little. So the killer either was mistaken in their value or more than likely he took them as a trophy.

[Fisherman]

I've always had a spooky feeling that Chapman tore her own rings off as a desperate attempt to make her killer go away ("You can take these, sir. Not much, but it's all I've got..."). Can't prove it, but it's another possibility.

I´ve always had a spooky feeling that you´d say that.

Or wait a minute - is it a spooky feeling that Liz Jackson also offered her killer her ring I´ve always had...?

On another note, I don´t think Chapman was ever in a position to offer her killer anything at all. He had decided beforehand what he was after, and didn´t allow Chapman to offer any alternative, methinks.

[Varqm]

Fisherman.
Me go away. Where should I go,to join you in fantasy land maybe.
Better you answer the questions I posed you,than set yourself up as someone who decides who goes or stays.
No ,your problem is your claims of proving beyond reasonable doubt,and rings taken from fingers,stated by you as facts,have been debunked.now I observe,from your last post to me,you are trying to lie your way out of stating those claims wer'nt made.Wont work
If I l eave,it will be on Trevor's advice.You are not worth wasting time onI will however answer the honest posters.

I agree to the reasonable doubt part,not to be negative but
on one hand an analysis based only on post-mortem reports with no measurements(size of the flaps for ex),pictures, "just guessing" on what
exactly it looked like and who was not a doctor.
Compare that with someone who was there,examined/saw the result at least 2 of the torso series and Kellys body and who was a doctor
and concluded that there were two different killers with different skills.

Of course I believe the doctor who was there and had a visual.To even think who's conclusion is to be believed is kindof ridiculous.

[Fisherman]

I agree to the reasonable doubt part,not to be negative but
on one hand an analysis based only on post-mortem reports with no measurements(size of the flaps for ex),pictures, "just guessing" on what
exactly it looked like and who was not a doctor.
Compare that with someone who was there,examined/saw the result at least 2 of the torso series and Kellys body and who was a doctor
and concluded that there were two different killers with different skills.

Of course I believe the doctor who was there and had a visual.To even think who's conclusion is to be believed is kindof ridiculous.

I think you need to lay out the text about which exact skills that were referred to. As I have said, if it was all about how one man disarticulated while the other did not, it is not much of an indicator of different skill levels.

It also needs to be said that these two series of murders would have offered very differing circumstances to work in.

The similarities are way too many and odd for the differences to mean much. That´s how it works. In cases where doctors misjudge things, we normally end up with an "I see, well then I was wrong" from the medico, and that is it.

If you want to cling on to how you believe that Hebberts stating that he thought that there were two killers as being more revealing than the many similarities, then fine. There are more than you who make the wrong call in that respect. Just remember that it is choosing a judgement call - where others have disagreed with your chosen source - over the raw facts.

[Trevor Marriott]

Since I now have Harrys word that he will not engage in debate with me - he considers that wasting his valuable time - I will take the opportunity to further elaborate on the rings.

On Chapmans rings, Philip Sugden writes: "An abrasion over the head of the proximal phalanx suggested that the killer had wrenched the rings from her finger".

Sugden, you twister, you! Nothing at all of that character is suggested, she could have taken them off herself!

Richard Jones sees it: "The brass rings ... had evidently been torn from her fingers..."

That´s not true at all, why would she tear them from her fingers to pawn them? Drama Queen!

Bill Beadle writes: "Earlier, we noted the discovery of two cheap rings, which could have been those taken from Annie Chapman..."

Taken from? TAKEN FROM!!?? How DARE he? Liar!

On Jacksons ring, R Michael Gordon writes: "The killer had removed her ring..."

What a crock of shite! The misleading weasel!

Since Joshua kindly provided information that tells us that Jacksons ring was probably removed from her finger very close in time to her death, it deserves saying that Martin Fido has this to say about Chapmans rings:
"Donovan and other occupants of 35 Dorset Street confirmed that she had been wearing the brass rings when she left..."

Meaning that the suggestion that she could have sold or pawned them the week before seems decidedly outdated by now.

Fido then goes on to say that if Chapman had not sold them on the night, "they had probably been stolen by her murderer" - which of course is going way too far. Fido needs to be severely thrashed across the bum, that´s what I say! Taking liberties, he is!

And with this small collection of lying, cheating and misleading authors (not), I leave it to those who read the thread to decide for themselves exactly which kind of misleading and twisting it is that plagues this errand.

The people you quote do nothing more than give their opinions. No evidential value at all.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

The people you quote do nothing more than give their opinions.

And possibly not their original opinions, but what they've read in books. Fisherman might have quoted half a dozen people, including Sugden, but chances are you could boil most of them down to Sugden alone, given the enormous, and well-deserved, impact his book has had on how we think about the case.

I'm not saying that Sugden's book was wrong on this point, by the way, just pointing out one of the pitfalls of taking a "rent-a-quote" approach to backing up an argument.

[Trevor Marriott]

And possibly not their original opinions, but what they've read in books. Fisherman might have quoted half a dozen people, including Sugden, but chances are you could boil most of them down to Sugden alone, given the enormous, and well-deserved, impact his book has had on how we think about the case.

I'm not saying that Sugden's book was wrong on this point, by the way, just pointing out one of the pitfalls of taking a "rent-a-quote" approach to backing up an argument.

I totally agree

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Fisherman,
More lies. I haven't said I wouldn't debate with you,nor did I say I was leaving the board.Can't you ever tell the truth.Read carefully what I said.
Then read my first posts on the subject of the rings where I said I have no
Objection to posters having reasonable doubts.Only you have have raised the value to beyond reasonable doubt,and you have not been able to sustain that value..That was my argument,and posters know it.You know it,so less of the lies.
I need not reply to your latest rant,others have adequetly already done that.
Everything about the rings stems from the statement by the two doctors at the inquest on Jackson.One states a mark on the ring finger,the other states a bruise.Two conflicting statements,made by medical examiners,veiwing the finger at the same post mortem,if you can believe the papers,and they are the only source that's been quoted.How do you think that would be argued in a court of law in a case of murder,where proof has to be beyond reasonable doubt?
There was no such medical testimony in the Chapman murder.The provenance of rings in her case,is even more vague,and remember the arguement is rings being worn at the time of death,not at any other time.

[Fisherman]

The people you quote do nothing more than give their opinions. No evidential value at all.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It is an opinion that a single killer did for Mary Kelly, as I have pointed out. It is not any established fact. It could have been three nurses from Madagascar.

Regardless of this, nobody screams "Twisting and lies!" when somebody speaks of "Mary Kellys killer".

I wonder why.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
More lies. I haven't said I wouldn't debate with you,nor did I say I was leaving the board.Can't you ever tell the truth.Read carefully what I said.
Then read my first posts on the subject of the rings where I said I have no
Objection to posters having reasonable doubts.Only you have have raised the value to beyond reasonable doubt,and you have not been able to sustain that value..That was my argument,and posters know it.You know it,so less of the lies.
I need not reply to your latest rant,others have adequetly already done that.
Everything about the rings stems from the statement by the two doctors at the inquest on Jackson.One states a mark on the ring finger,the other states a bruise.Two conflicting statements,made by medical examiners,veiwing the finger at the same post mortem,if you can believe the papers,and they are the only source that's been quoted.How do you think that would be argued in a court of law in a case of murder,where proof has to be beyond reasonable doubt?
There was no such medical testimony in the Chapman murder.The provenance of rings in her case,is even more vague,and remember the arguement is rings being worn at the time of death,not at any other time.

I have given up on you, Harry. It´s the sad thing about boards like these, that they allow for moronic and malicious posts like yours.

One can choose between lending them some little interest or to ignore them totally.

I have tried the former, but the latter is obviously the much better route.

Goodbye.

[Trevor Marriott]

It is an opinion that a single killer did for Mary Kelly, as I have pointed out. It is not any established fact. It could have been three nurses from Madagascar.

Regardless of this, nobody screams "Twisting and lies!" when somebody speaks of "Mary Kellys killer".

I wonder why.

Well as likely as not a single killer murdered all the Whirechapel victims but was it the same person? There can be nothing more than opinions 130 years later even modern day medical experts cannot tie all the murders down to one singular person by reason of MO

But of course your medical knowledge is far superior to any of them

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Well as likely as not a single killer murdered all the Whirechapel victims but was it the same person? There can be nothing more than opinions 130 years later even modern day medical experts cannot tie all the murders down to one singular person by reason of MO

But of course your medical knowledge is far superior to any of them


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, it is opinion that a single killer did for the canonical five. But that opinion is built on a factual ground, and it is the most likely thing that there WAS only one killer.

However, it is still not a proven thing. But where will we end up if we allow people to shout "liar" and "twister" when we wotk with factually based opinions that have been generally agreed upon as being our best and likeliest guess? That´s where the problem lies.

You keep banging on about my medical knowledge, but you seem to forget that you say a lot of things too where you have no expert knowledge or experience. Everyone out here is entitled to hold opinions of their own, and if we are to try and silence people for it on account of there being experts in the errand who may or may not differ with them, we are not doing ourselves any favours.

When I have a theory, you say that I should listen to others who know more.

And then you go on to say that the organs were taken from the Ripper victims long after their killed had fled the scene.

On thse occasions, you seem very disinclined to listen to those who know more about such matters.

Back to then drawing board, Trevor.