Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How did JtR see in the dark?

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

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    She may have been close to Flower & Dean, but she can't get in without money, and she had none.
    You may recall that some City detectives recognised her as one who worked the streets around Mitre Square, it was her patch.
    So, you have to ask yourself, if she has no money how is she going to get a bed for the night?, and how is she best able to rectify that situation?
    Maybe she whipped out a banjo and knocked off a couple of tunes Wick?

    Regards

    Herlock






    "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

    Comment


    • I believe that the "murdered elsewhere" proposition was also considered with Kates murder. For my money using the empty warehouses in the square would be more likely than a carriage drop if that was the case.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
        oh im not sad im delighted , its funny to see people still looking for JTR WHEN ITS BEEN SOLVED 43 YEARS AGO
        Youíre wriggling on the hook like a Fishy

        Respond to the facts.

        She wasnít a Catholic.
        She didnít live where Knight said that she did.
        Crook and Cook were provably not one and the same as Knight claimed.
        Sickerts Cleveland Street studio didnít exist.
        The hospital where she was allegedly taken by the Freemasons didnít exist.
        And her alleged after effects of the operation was simple epilepsy which she inherited from her mother Sarah.

        How can you have so many central props to a theory categorically demolished by cold hard facts and yet you still say - I donít care, I still believe?

        Its just not honest.
        Regards

        Herlock






        "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

        Comment


        • In reply to you first post p. C neil said he inspected the road surface for wheel marks but found none. It was also stated that a small pool of blood was found approx 10m away on the path. There were many wheel marks in bucks row from the stables and slaughterhouses there just wasn't any directly near nichols body was found .

          Comment


          • Ahhh so mrs long is irrelevant when it suit you hmmmmmm

            Comment


            • Final fact... Again, read marriots book chapter 8 eddows murder would have taken at least 15 minutes possibly more to do all the removal of her organs and place them around her. Not 3 mins or 4 mins .

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                Ahhh so mrs long is irrelevant when it suit you hmmmmmm
                I didnít say she was irrelevant. Typical conspiracy theorist. Only hearing what he wants to hear.
                Regards

                Herlock






                "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                  Final fact... Again, read marriots book chapter 8 eddows murder would have taken at least 15 minutes possibly more to do all the removal of her organs and place them around her. Not 3 mins or 4 mins .
                  And there are medical experts that disagree. If you choose as your reliable sources Stephen Knight, Patricia Cornwell and Trevor Marriott then youíll be ignoring the vast majority of ripper experts. Which you will do of course because youíve selected a theory that you like and youíll only accept opinion that appears to support your nonsense. Not an honest approach. Itís why no one believes the Knight fantasy for a minute.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Youíre wriggling on the hook like a Fishy

                    Respond to the facts.

                    She wasnít a Catholic.
                    She didnít live where Knight said that she did.
                    Crook and Cook were provably not one and the same as Knight claimed.
                    Sickerts Cleveland Street studio didnít exist.
                    The hospital where she was allegedly taken by the Freemasons didnít exist.
                    And her alleged after effects of the operation was simple epilepsy which she inherited from her mother Sarah.

                    How can you have so many central props to a theory categorically demolished by cold hard facts and yet you still say - I donít care, I still believe?

                    Its just not honest.
                    No response Fishy? How the hell can you have an integrity when you read the above? Proper research has left the Knight theory irrevocably in tatters. How can you still believe it? No one with a genuine regard for truth would continue. Youíve simply picked a theory that you like. If someone proved that Sickert was in Nicaragua at the time of the murders and Netley was dead youíd still dishonestly press on.

                    Knight was an utterly discredited fantasist. Even Joseph admitted that it was a lie. The game has been up since Simonís research in 1976.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






                    "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                    Comment


                    • Another quite simple point but Iíll stand correcting on the detail about Dew.

                      Kelly was known in the area. Walter Dew knew her I believe. How hard would it have been for these powerful Freemasons with police officers of many ranks in their number to have found her? Wouldnít Crook have described her as they were torturing or beating her for info? Kelly looked nothing like Eddowes. Mistaken identity is hogwash.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






                      "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                        Ahhh so mrs long is irrelevant when it suit you hmmmmmm
                        No, Mrs Long is incorrect because right around 5:20 Cadosche, the man right in the next yard, heard someone softly cry out "no". That gives you both the confirmation that there was no dead woman already lying there at 5:20, and it gives you an approximate time of the attack. The time of death estimates had no way to account accurately for the cooling period because in all likelihood none of the physicians had experience estimating that for a disemboweled woman left out in the cool morning air before.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • From a scientific point of view it also depends how long Jack was outside in the dark.
                          If he had recently stepped out into the night from an abode with a light source then he would see next to nothing.

                          It takes the eyes just a few minutes to adapt to the dark, but after a few hours the eyes become accustomed to even the weakest of light.

                          And there is always light.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            No, Mrs Long is incorrect because right around 5:20 Cadosche, the man right in the next yard, heard someone softly cry out "no". That gives you both the confirmation that there was no dead woman already lying there at 5:20, and it gives you an approximate time of the attack.
                            FWIW, I have heard it proposed that perhaps Annie was dead and the murderer already gone when Cadosche went into the yard, and that what he heard was a sotto voce exclamation of horror as some unknown person found the body. I don't think it's very likely, but neither do I know a way to disprove it.
                            - Ginger

                            Comment


                            • you contradicted your self when it came to long. end of that story.

                              Comment


                              • How could long claim to see chapman at 5.30am the cadosche claim he heard a voice say no at 5.15am and something hitting the fence .... presumably chapmans body. ANOTHER CONTRADICTION

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X