Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Serial Killers, A pattern???

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

  • corey123
    replied
    Lynn,

    Which is it, gangs or terrorist?

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    nasty business

    Hello Corey. Have you ever seen/heard of a gang-land slaying? Nasty business.

    The best.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • corey123
    replied
    Then they kill them. Not mutilate the remains.

    Leave a comment:


  • perrymason
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    And the fact that he buggered off to the Continent on the pretext of ill-health, seemingly returning to his post only under apparent duress, is even more interesting - indeed, one gets the distinct impression that he only grudgingly returned from his sabbatical because he felt under pressure to do so. If the Whitechapel Murders had been perceived as something more "specialist" - i.e. as opposed to a series of grotty slum murders - then I can't imagine his colossal Ego allowing him to react in the same way.
    Its interesting to me that his "rest" in Switzerland ends with his recall to London......from Paris. Paris offered more attractions than merely tourism to SB and HO investigators at that same time, same year.

    Of course, perhaps he just longed for a Cafe au Lait.

    Best regards

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    consorting

    Hello Corey. Message out? Where did you get that idea? Think about historical examples. If Al Qaida wishes to get the message out, they bomb a plane. If a member consorts with, say, the enemy--what happens?

    The best.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • corey123
    replied
    Lynn,

    I thought the point was to get a message out? Now its because they needed to be taken out?

    Leave a comment:


  • perrymason
    Guest replied
    Anderson says that Williamson was sent to handle the Jubilee Bomb plot leads in France in 87, Monro says that it was Inspector Melville, and says Williamson foiled the plot against Balfour the following year.

    Since both Monro and Anderson were the keys to the Jubilee plot being foiled, you would think they would know who was sent and who was in Paris the following year....since it again was Fenians.

    And of course Macnaghten is on record saying at one point that the Ripper crimes were committed by Fenians.

    Hardly a royal-esque hypothesis suggesting Fenians were on Andersons agenda even while he worked the Ripper crimes. Since he is hailed back from Paris, went he went for rest in Switzerland, ...worth questioning.

    Best regards

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    methodology

    Hello Corey. Well, methodology differs according to what it is, precisely, that one wishes to obtain.

    If one wishes to scare a good many people and get a point across, then bombs are an excellent device.

    On the other hand, if one wishes to punish someone for passing information AND to serve notice to others within the organization not to do the same, then a particularly grisly murder (which, I might add, can be blamed officially on someone else) can work wonders.

    There are plenty of historical examples of this. Do you remember the old "necklaces" used as retribution? Such things help one curb the tongue.

    The best.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
    Nope, that wasn't a holiday at all. He used that "I need a break 'cos the Doc says I'm worn out" ploy to make it look legit. He went abroad to see some heavy guns, he was recalled from Paris, not Switzerland. And guess who was there.Some pretty big fella's in Fenianism. And we have evidence to prove he even tried to smokescreen that he was in Paris by saying someone else was there, which was denied by both that person and a third source. Disinformation.
    I award that whimsical piece of conjecture 3rd place behind the Royal Conspiracy and the Pedachenko story, Phil.

    Congratulations!

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    And the fact that he buggered off to the Continent on the pretext of ill-health, seemingly returning to his post only under apparent duress, is even more interesting - indeed, one gets the distinct impression that he only grudgingly returned from his sabbatical because he felt under pressure to do so. If the Whitechapel Murders had been perceived as something more "specialist" - i.e. as opposed to a series of grotty slum murders - then I can't imagine his colossal Ego allowing him to react in the same way.
    Hello Gareth,

    Agreed. It was all a SD smokescreen. As is the way with the SD (CID)... noboidy is supposed to know anything. Andersom took that to extremes, and I reckon used those tactics when he had his JTR hat on too. Disinformation.

    Nope, that wasn't a holiday at all. He used that "I need a break 'cos the Doc says I'm worn out" ploy to make it look legit. He went abroad to see some heavy guns, he was recalled from Paris, not Switzerland. And guess who was there.Some pretty big fella's in Fenianism. And we have evidence to prove he even tried to smokescreen that he was in Paris by saying someone else was there, which was denied by both that person and a third source. Disinformation.

    Paris had been the centre of radical Fenianism for many years. Infact, going all the way back to the mid 1860's, we have letters to and from Top Fenian plotters in residence there. Anderson's ego was massive. So much so that he NEVER took responsibility for anything going wrong. And what happened with the JTR case? And who was in charge?... but did Anderson bite the bullet? Oh no.

    best wishes

    Phil

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by perrymason View Post
    Seems Anderson in particular might have been involved in investigations beyond the capabilities and mandates of the Met or City Police. His appointment to head the Ripper investigations in that context is interesting.
    And the fact that he buggered off to the Continent on the pretext of ill-health, seemingly returning to his post only under apparent duress, is even more interesting - indeed, one gets the distinct impression that he only grudgingly returned from his sabbatical because he felt under pressure to do so. If the Whitechapel Murders had been perceived as something more "specialist" - i.e. as opposed to a series of grotty slum murders - then I can't imagine his colossal Ego allowing him to react in the same way.

    Leave a comment:


  • corey123
    replied
    Mike,

    I agree, it is interesting that he was a big time fenian investigator and then was assigned to the ripper case. Although I would still say the methodology of the Fenians is extremily different that the murderers.

    Leave a comment:


  • perrymason
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Gman992 View Post
    The Fenians were more or less a nationalistic movement, and would most likely attack Anglo-targets or institutions, primarily by bombings. Additionally, they would annouce their activities to draw attention to their cause. In fact, they would probably be hiding in the East End/Whitechappel areas, and that area would be the last place they would like to attract the attention of the Met, or, worse, Special Branch.
    In fact gman we now have evidence that suggests that the radical arms of the Irish self rule factions and the Socialists were co-operating at that time...in the East End. Add that to a known Assassination Plot against Balfour probably being carried out using some local operatives....which was foiled in Europe by Special Branch/Home Office investigations....and likely the Jubilee Bombing plot the year before was planned in those neighborhoods. Anderson and some others foiled that one.

    Seems Anderson in particular might have been involved in investigations beyond the capabilities and mandates of the Met or City Police. His appointment to head the Ripper investigations in that context is interesting.

    Best regards

    Leave a comment:


  • corey123
    replied
    Opeing up again for anyone whos interested.

    Leave a comment:


  • corey123
    replied
    Originally posted by curious View Post
    David,

    I never once suggested that Nichols was at the dock. Just that she saw something or someone related to the fire that she should not have.


    curious
    Curious,

    If she had seen the creator of the fire that night she would have no reason to suspect him unless she saw him in the act, also the perpertrator of the fire would have passed many women on his walk from the fire so why didnt he kill them as well?

    She wouldnt have been killed because of the fire.

    They arent related, most likely they werent.

    In my mind they arent.

    Yours truly

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X