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 APerno View Post
    Can John Richardson sit on the stoop's top step and miss Annie's body laying (behind the backyard door) to his left.
    A few people argue that, but I'm not one of them. To my mind, there's no way he could have missed the body.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Well if the body wasn't there then of course he wouldn't see it.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sleuth1888 View Post
        Well if the body wasn't there then of course he wouldn't see it.
        hi sleuth
        the body wasn't there-he would have seen it.either that or he was the killer and lied.

        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          A few people argue that, but I'm not one of them. To my mind, there's no way he could have missed the body.
          agreed sam, if he could see well enough to see the basement door and cut some leather from his boot-which also he sat on the step and was also looking down at his foot-he would have seen the body-no question IMHO.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            hi sleuth
            the body wasn't there-he would have seen it.either that or he was the killer and lied.
            Hi I tend to agree that the body wasn't there yet and Chapman was killed later, 5.30am or after.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              agreed sam, if he could see well enough to see the basement door and cut some leather from his boot-which also he sat on the step and was also looking down at his foot-he would have seen the body-no question IMHO.
              I agree with all that the body was likely not there . . . but if we state that there was enough light to "cut some leather from his boot" then we need to rethink just how dark it was when the Ripper cut open Annie.

              There seems to be a contradiction regarding light. We say: 'light enough to see the body' but then we say, 'he must have had some anatomic knowledge to remove the uterus in complete darkness.'

              So which is it? The light seems to be relative to the argument being made.

              (Ouch! Sorry, that one slipped out.)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                agreed sam, if he could see well enough to see the basement door and cut some leather from his boot-which also he sat on the step and was also looking down at his foot-he would have seen the body-no question IMHO.
                Fish did some diagrams to try and show how Richardson could have missed the corpse (I’m sure that you remember Abby, Sam was in the discussion too) but I just find it close to impossible to believe. You have to have Richardson acting pretty weirdly and sitting in an unlikely position and not looking in certain directions. That particular debate was a chore. Fish was adamant though. And wrong.
                Regards

                Herlock






                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by APerno View Post

                  I agree with all that the body was likely not there . . . but if we state that there was enough light to "cut some leather from his boot" then we need to rethink just how dark it was when the Ripper cut open Annie.

                  There seems to be a contradiction regarding light. We say: 'light enough to see the body' but then we say, 'he must have had some anatomic knowledge to remove the uterus in complete darkness.'

                  So which is it? The light seems to be relative to the argument being made.

                  (Ouch! Sorry, that one slipped out.)
                  hi AP
                  it was never complete darkness at any of the ripper murder scenes.
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Fish did some diagrams to try and show how Richardson could have missed the corpse (I’m sure that you remember Abby, Sam was in the discussion too) but I just find it close to impossible to believe. You have to have Richardson acting pretty weirdly and sitting in an unlikely position and not looking in certain directions. That particular debate was a chore. Fish was adamant though. And wrong.
                    HI HS
                    oh yes I remember it well-his diagrams inspired me back then to post my own diagram. lol. I agree a lot with fish but not on this point-and posted it as a bit of fun-I think fish got a little chuckle out of it too.

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	fish.JPG
Views:	218
Size:	52.2 KB
ID:	711705
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                      HI HS
                      oh yes I remember it well-his diagrams inspired me back then to post my own diagram. lol. I agree a lot with fish but not on this point-and posted it as a bit of fun-I think fish got a little chuckle out of it too.

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	fish.JPG
Views:	218
Size:	52.2 KB
ID:	711705
                      Hi Abby,

                      its a work of genius.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                      Comment


                      • Tabram was indeed a victim of the same physical entity "JtR".
                        The first canonical? The first seen-all-the-way-through trademark , for sure.
                        I would include all previous attacks recorded earlier that year as well.
                        Crossingham's had a few skeletons up their closet. Literally.
                        And right where MJK's loiterer stood .... yet another "coincidence"
                        Focusing on the strategic scattering of the buildings and the interactions between pinpointed attack women resided therein would have saved a lot of sanity in Abberline
                        (in his place, I would have become a raging alcoholic, I admit)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Lipsky View Post
                          Tabram was indeed a victim of the same physical entity "JtR".
                          The first canonical? The first seen-all-the-way-through trademark , for sure.
                          The term "canonical", such as it is, is a shorthand for "one of the Macnaghten Five". Rightly or wrongly, the first "canonical" will always be Polly Nichols.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            The term "canonical", such as it is, is a shorthand for "one of the Macnaghten Five". Rightly or wrongly, the first "canonical" will always be Polly Nichols.
                            Dear Sam: My somewhat wordplaying comment was meant to point out that the first fully fledged killing, complete as to the fulfillment of the purpose (terrorism of broader spectators and the other, soon-to-come chosen victims in particular) and at the same time the motive of the killer, which included serving the purpose but went a bit further, (though not in some "self-gratification" aspect as suggested for the most part), is not Polly but Martha.

                            The date of Martha's murder also had a significance.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X