Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection.

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    No I’m not saying either of those things Batman. I’m saying that whilst it’s to be commended that researchers think ‘outside-the-box’ and that they chase down every lead there is, I feel there’s often a tendency to over-complicate or to seek mystery where a more prosaic answer might serve better. I’m not accusing anyone of being a conspiracy theorist but we can be in danger of disappearing down the same paths that conspiracy theorists often do. A transcription error becomes a ‘revelation’ for example. My point about coincidences is that they happen all the time, all around us. We’re actually falling over them. So it can be an issue when we focus on them. Conspiracy theorist always say “can this be a coincidence?” The answer to which is for the vast majority of time, “we’ll, yes it is actually.”
    I don’t see anything that would make anyone connect Emma Smith to Jack.
    A single hand responsible for them is less complex than many hands responsible for them. It is more parsimonious. We don't need to add more people to explain all of those murders. We can explain it with one person.

    Coincidences happen, but a multiplicity of coincidences is highly unlikely. If coincidences happened at higher rates in multiplicity, then gambling establishments would go out of business if random events are matching non-random ones more often.

    Coincidences, correlation and causation and separated out using statistics.
    Bona fide canonical and then some.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Batman View Post
      A single hand responsible for them is less complex than many hands responsible for them. It is more parsimonious. We don't need to add more people to explain all of those murders. We can explain it with one person.

      Coincidences happen, but a multiplicity of coincidences is highly unlikely. If coincidences happened at higher rates in multiplicity, then gambling establishments would go out of business if random events are matching non-random ones more often.

      Coincidences, correlation and causation and separated out using statistics.
      In itself, perhaps. But the single hand scenario has to involve Emma Smith and Pearly Poll dreaming up non-existent gangs and soldiers. That's vastly more complicated.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
        In itself, perhaps. But the single hand scenario has to involve Emma Smith and Pearly Poll dreaming up non-existent gangs and soldiers. That's vastly more complicated.
        It itself, it is. How are lying witnesses vastly more complicated than series of sexual homicides? Witnesses telling lies are evident throughout this case. Probably people looking for attention.

        Flying "saucers" were a mistake by a journalist who was writing down a witness account of flying V shapes in a formation. The witness said the V shapes skipped along like discs on a pond. The journalist wrote down that the witness had seen discs. Then everyone was seeing discs, the creation of a journalist.

        Poll's account of two soldiers is likely borrowed from an article she knew about which involved a case of mistaken identity. The women with the soliders was identified. Poll didn't know this. Poll's account also conflicts with other Tabram witnesses and Poll herself has no corroboration for her story except for PC Barrett who met a soldier outside George's yard who told a story about waiting for another soldier. That's it. Whatever Tom Wescott's explanation for lies is, his case for lies is pretty solid.

        The same questions we ask about Tabram get asked for Smith and her story has some problems also. Smith's story can be explained as a way for her not to reveal a client had attacked her. She would have to tell hospital staff and the investigators she was a prostitute, yet there seems to be no record of her doing so. It appears to have been inferred by the press. There are good reasons why her investigators doubted her story and still did in their memoirs. Walter Dew was there. He investigated it and he thinks her story nonsense.
        Bona fide canonical and then some.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Batman View Post
          It itself, it is. How are lying witnesses vastly more complicated than series of sexual homicides? Witnesses telling lies are evident throughout this case. Probably people looking for attention.

          Flying "saucers" were a mistake by a journalist who was writing down a witness account of flying V shapes in a formation. The witness said the V shapes skipped along like discs on a pond. The journalist wrote down that the witness had seen discs. Then everyone was seeing discs, the creation of a journalist.

          Poll's account of two soldiers is likely borrowed from an article she knew about which involved a case of mistaken identity. The women with the soliders was identified. Poll didn't know this. Poll's account also conflicts with other Tabram witnesses and Poll herself has no corroboration for her story except for PC Barrett who met a soldier outside George's yard who told a story about waiting for another soldier. That's it. Whatever Tom Wescott's explanation for lies is, his case for lies is pretty solid.

          The same questions we ask about Tabram get asked for Smith and her story has some problems also. Smith's story can be explained as a way for her not to reveal a client had attacked her. She would have to tell hospital staff and the investigators she was a prostitute, yet there seems to be no record of her doing so. It appears to have been inferred by the press. There are good reasons why her investigators doubted her story and still did in their memoirs. Walter Dew was there. He investigated it and he thinks her story nonsense.
          Why is it likely that Mary Ann Connelly was a Times reader? I'd have thought that was extremely unlikely.

          How many witnesses contradicted her evidence?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
            Why is it likely that Mary Ann Connelly was a Times reader? I'd have thought that was extremely unlikely.

            How many witnesses contradicted her evidence?
            I think most of the unfortunates would have listened to somebody reading the news to them Mary Kelly had that done for her.

            At least one witness I think.
            Bona fide canonical and then some.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Batman View Post
              I think most of the unfortunates would have listened to somebody reading the news to them Mary Kelly had that done for her.

              At least one witness I think.
              Yeah, I bet the Times was read aloud every night in the doss house kitchens.��
              Tom thinks that is very unlikely and suggests the story must have been fed to her by a toff (probably the same toff who finished Tabram off with his sword stick).

              Pearly Poll was a chaotic alcoholic. If she had been chaperoned about Whitechapel by two generous soldiers, she'd have probably not known what day it was let alone exactly where and when she'd been that night.
              Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-28-2018, 06:12 AM.

              Comment


              • When it seemed there was a binary choice between PP the chaotic alcoholic who was probably completely rat-arsed on the night in question, the details of which were consequently a bit of a blur, and PP, Shadow Man's agent, then my vote was for rat-arsed.

                But not too long ago a third option hove into view. Dates tbc, but Poll was in a relationship (which culminated in marriage) with a vicious blind beggar/hawker who very likely carried woodcarving tools around with him. Frequently destitute, when he did have a roof over his head it was in lodging houses, prison and the workhouse. At one time he had been in the army but his military service seems to have ended in a lengthy prison term. He ended his life in an insane asylum, brushing imaginary powder from his head, dying there of a disease he may well have contracted from PP.

                Might she, under a certain amount of duress, have been covering for him? That scenario works even better than the other two, IMO.
                Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-28-2018, 06:29 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  The biggest coincidence is that conspiracy-minded people don’t think that coincidences exist.
                  Nice one.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                    Yeah, I bet the Times was read aloud every night in the doss house kitchens.��
                    Tom thinks that is very unlikely and suggests the story must have been fed to her by a toff (probably the same toff who finished Tabram off with his sword stick).

                    Pearly Poll was a chaotic alcoholic. If she had been chaperoned about Whitechapel by two generous soldiers, she'd have probably not known what day it was let alone exactly where and when she'd been that night.
                    Do you really believe that prostitutes and unfortunates did not hear about the murder of another prostitute or try to follow the stories about it?

                    Mary Kelly was read stories from the papers about JtR.

                    Grapevine or whatever, the point is the story of the two soldiers existed before her account and the story is wrong, because the wrong person was identified.
                    Bona fide canonical and then some.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                      Do you really believe that prostitutes and unfortunates did not hear about the murder of another prostitute or try to follow the stories about it?

                      Mary Kelly was read stories from the papers about JtR.

                      Grapevine or whatever, the point is the story of the two soldiers existed before her account and the story is wrong, because the wrong person was identified.
                      You're getting yourself in a complete muddle - not for the first time.


                      Tom Wescott is firmly of the belief that no doss-house woman would have known of the mistaken ID as it was only reported in the up-market Times. That's one of the foundations of his 'PP was the agent of a Toff' idea.

                      I take it you agree with me that that theory is a rather dubious?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                        I think most of the unfortunates would have listened to somebody reading the news to them Mary Kelly had that done for her.

                        At least one witness I think.
                        We can’t possibly know that. Garbled snippets of news items would have been circulated. Stories beginning with “I heard it from Fred whose sister new so and so...” would have done the rounds but it’s not necessarily the case that someone read directly from a newspaper.
                        Regards

                        Herlock




                        “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                        “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                        “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                        “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                        “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                          A single hand responsible for them is less complex than many hands responsible for them. It is more parsimonious. We don't need to add more people to explain all of those murders. We can explain it with one person.

                          Coincidences happen, but a multiplicity of coincidences is highly unlikely. If coincidences happened at higher rates in multiplicity, then gambling establishments would go out of business if random events are matching non-random ones more often.

                          Coincidences, correlation and causation and separated out using statistics.
                          If we weigh up the fact that Emma Smith was a woman and a prostitute and lived in that area against the way she was killed, as opposed to the Ripper’s victims, they couldn’t be much more different. This should far outweigh the ‘similarities.’
                          Regards

                          Herlock




                          “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                          “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                          “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                          “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                          “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            We can’t possibly know that. Garbled snippets of news items would have been circulated. Stories beginning with “I heard it from Fred whose sister new so and so...” would have done the rounds but it’s not necessarily the case that someone read directly from a newspaper.
                            Fine, it's alright if it came to her through twenty people eventually, the point is the story was out and was wrong before she came up with her story and seems to adopted the stories mistakes based on a wrong sighting.

                            That's compelling evidence she made it up.

                            Imagine a witness claims they saw two police officers with the murdered woman ten minutes before she was murdered. That this appears in the paper. Then it turns out that this witness was wrong. Mistaken identity. Then suddenly a witness turns up to claim she was with the woman and the two police officers.

                            What would you think? Especially if her story was almost totally uncorroborated? (Although PC Barett does seem to lend a little weight to her story, it may be the case they were lots of soldiers out that Bank Holiday evening).
                            Bona fide canonical and then some.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              If we weigh up the fact that Emma Smith was a woman and a prostitute and lived in that area against the way she was killed, as opposed to the Ripper’s victims, they couldn’t be much more different. This should far outweigh the ‘similarities.’
                              It works in an escalation model. It chronologically fits. So does Tabram.

                              As pointed out before, to claim Nichols was JtRs first murder seems at odds with what we know about these types of serial killers.

                              Also, where are Smiths and Tabram's murderers and how come they aren't more of these sexual assaults by them? They usually don't stop at just this.
                              Bona fide canonical and then some.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                                It works in an escalation model. It chronologically fits. So does Tabram.

                                As pointed out before, to claim Nichols was JtRs first murder seems at odds with what we know about these types of serial killers.

                                Also, where are Smiths and Tabram's murderers and how come they aren't more of these sexual assaults by them? They usually don't stop at just this.
                                It also works outside an escalation model. Even more so.

                                There's a huge jump from what was done to Smith to what was done to Tabram.

                                'They' usually don't stop at this? Who are 'they'?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X