Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack the Ripper learned don't eviscerate before you exsanguinate

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    If you think a conspiracy theory is when bosses in a district known for crime organize a legal side to things to reduce the consequences, then that's on you, but that's not my definition of a conspiracy theory. Do you think the mafia are a conspiracy theory also?

    Play the coincidence card for the sexual attacks on Smith and Tabram all you want. You have to sell it and when you sell too many of these, whoever you sold them too tends to worry about presenting their stack to others.
    Let's remind ourselves. The East End was the most violent and lawless quarter of the largest city in the world. By suggesting that not all serious sexual crimes that occurred there were necessarily committed by the same man, I am 'playing the coincidence card'?

    Award no 2 is on its way.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
      Let's remind ourselves. The East End was the most violent and lawless quarter of the largest city in the world. By suggesting that not all serious sexual crimes that occurred there were necessarily committed by the same man, I am 'playing the coincidence card'?

      Award no 2 is on its way.
      Of course, I should have said serious crimes that may have had a sexual motivation.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
        'Bosses'? 'Mafia'? ��

        I threw out a challenge some time ago that wasn't taken up. You seem the sort of chap who might like a challenge, so I'll repeat it:

        Please read the 'Lord's of Spitalfields' chapter of Tom's book and let me know if you find any evidence of any serious criminality amongst the men thus described. Anything serious will do, it doesn't have to lead to the suspicion that they were involved in the most horrific series of murders in London's history.

        If you do take up the challenge, it might be best on a separate thread.
        I asked you a question. Is the mafia a conspiracy theory? You gave a smiley face as your reply.

        Point us to the thread where you already did the challenge. We can go read it and reply there.
        Bona fide canonical and then some.

        Comment


        • #49
          It's worth pointing out that Dr Haslip, who examined Smith, believed that both Smith and Nichols were attacked by the same person. It's also by no means clear what object was inserted into Smith: Dr Haslip said, "She [Smith] couldn't tell whether it was a knife or what instrument had been used."

          I would further note that object penetration is consistent with both lust and thrill killers: Canter, 2004.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
            Let's remind ourselves. The East End was the most violent and lawless quarter of the largest city in the world. By suggesting that not all serious sexual crimes that occurred there were necessarily committed by the same man, I am 'playing the coincidence card'?

            Award no 2 is on its way.
            No one is saying all sex crimes in the East End were the work of the same hand.
            Bona fide canonical and then some.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Batman View Post
              I asked you a question. Is the mafia a conspiracy theory? You gave a smiley face as your reply.

              Point us to the thread where you already did the challenge. We can go read it and reply there.
              Of course the Mafia isn't a conspiracy theory. Why do you ask that in this context? Do you think the Common Lodging House keepers of Victorian Spitsalfields were some kind of Cockney Nostra?😂

              And just in case you really didn't understand what I meant, the conspiracy I'm talking about is the one that involves, what - 20 individuals?

              The challenge was never taken up. If you seriously believe you have discovered evidence in the chapter in question that might lend support to the theory, tell me where.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by John G View Post
                It's worth pointing out that Dr Haslip, who examined Smith, believed that both Smith and Nichols were attacked by the same person. It's also by no means clear what object was inserted into Smith: Dr Haslip said, "She [Smith] couldn't tell whether it was a knife or what instrument had been used."

                I would further note that object penetration is consistent with both lust and thrill killers: Canter, 2004.
                Did Haslip hazard a guess as to what kind of weapon was used on Smith?

                Surely you've heard of people who have been shot describing the sensation as being like a punch or blow. The physician who digs the bullet out is a better judge of what caused the injury.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                  Of course the Mafia isn't a conspiracy theory. Why do you ask that in this context? Do you think the Common Lodging House keepers of Victorian Spitsalfields were some kind of Cockney Nostra?😂

                  And just in case you really didn't understand what I meant, the conspiracy I'm talking about is the one that involves, what - 20 individuals?

                  The challenge was never taken up. If you seriously believe you have discovered evidence in the chapter in question that might lend support to the theory, tell me where.
                  Off the top of my head, arranged bare-knuckle street fighting was illegal as was illegal gambling as was the illegal gambling on that blood sport. Is that violent enough criminal activity for you? Of course, it depends on what your criteria are, doesn't it? Which you didn't give.

                  I am not reading about 20 individuals in any conspiracy. I am reading about a few people trying to mislead the police and how this gets arranged by the bosses who have lots of experience doing this as per the gambling schemes.

                  It is obvious they would do whatever they can to avoid bringing legal trouble directly onto their doss houses which the government already wants to get rid off.
                  Bona fide canonical and then some.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Batman View Post
                    Off the top of my head, arranged bare-knuckle street fighting was illegal as was illegal gambling as was the illegal gambling on that blood sport. Is that violent enough criminal activity for you? Of course, it depends on what your criteria are, doesn't it? Which you didn't give.

                    I am not reading about 20 individuals in any conspiracy. I am reading about a few people trying to mislead the police and how this gets arranged by the bosses who have lots of experience doing this as per the gambling schemes.

                    It is obvious they would do whatever they can to avoid bringing legal trouble directly onto their doss houses which the government already wants to get rid off.
                    Read the book again. It was not a bareknuckle fight and it was not in the street. Again you are twisting the facts to suit your argument.

                    A single, well advertised, boxing match that may or may not have been against the regulations. And a bit of gambling on the side. Shock! Horror! I said serious criminality.

                    The Lords of Spitalfields, police officers, Pearly Poll and her mates, other doss house residents, Daniel Sullivan, Dr Haslip, Shadow Man, Ben Leeson's publishers... The finger of suspicion is directed at all of them.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      I doubt the government wanted to get rid of the dosshouses. They may have wished there was no need for them, that is entirely different.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                        Read the book again. It was not a bareknuckle fight and it was not in the street. Again you are twisting the facts to suit your argument.
                        Please read the book again.

                        These would often be bareknuckle fights that were illegal not only for the gambling but for not abiding by the Queensberry rules.

                        Wescott, Tom. The Bank Holiday Murders: The True Story of the First Whitechapel Murders (Jack the Ripper Book 1) (p. 104). Unknown. Kindle Edition.
                        A single, well advertised, boxing match that may or may not have been against the regulations. And a bit of gambling on the side. Shock! Horror! I said serious criminality.
                        Blood sports.

                        You said previously that there are gangs involved in the most violent place in the world and yet the most violent place in the world is now run by saints.

                        The Lords of Spitalfields, police officers, Pearly Poll and her mates, other doss house residents, Daniel Sullivan, Dr Haslip, Shadow Man, Ben Leeson's publishers... The finger of suspicion is directed at all of them.
                        I'll go look for more some time as I am looking at this topic I am sure I will pay attention to things like this.
                        Bona fide canonical and then some.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Do you consider Tom Wescott a primary source? He has the word 'True' in the title of his book, I'll say that much for it.
                          Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-24-2018, 12:10 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            You've obviously fallen for the Lord's of Spitalfields malarkey.

                            Of course they 'ran' the East End. 😂

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                              Do you consider Tom Wescott a primary source? He has the word 'True' in the title of his book, I'll say that much for it.
                              He gives you his source.

                              The Worst Street in London, by Fiona Rule,

                              You are really doing somersaults here to try and prove to us that this book is more wrong than you thought it was.

                              It seems he is more right than thou more often than not.
                              Bona fide canonical and then some.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Batman View Post
                                He gives you his source.

                                The Worst Street in London, by Fiona Rule,

                                You are really doing somersaults here to try and prove to us that this book is more wrong than you thought it was.

                                It seems he is more right than thou more often than not.
                                Would that be the Fiona Rule who said there was no real organised crime in 19th century Spitalfields? Did she invent the term The Lords of Spitalfields?

                                You'll be quoting Arthur Harding at me next.

                                I'm assuming you have Rule's book and Arthur Harding's and have carried out your own research into their claims.
                                Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-24-2018, 12:26 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X