Faecal matter on apron piece

[Trevor Marriott]

And so the grand old diplodocus raises its docile head, chews slowly and.....and....

....Contributes nothing.

Every evidence is here on the boards Trevor.

There for all to see.

Monty

Well I suggest you take the blinkers and the rose tinted spectacles off then and take a long hard look at it.

[Monty]

And so the grand old diplodocus raises its docile head, chews slowly and.....and....

....Contributes nothing.

Every evidence is here on the boards Trevor.

There for all to see.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Schools out

Schools out the kids are bored already

Phil,

You been to the Marriott school of posting?

Well you have certainly been to the Begg school of counter arguments which teaches how to argue against something but not provide any evidence to negate the issues you are arguing against.


Monty

[Rob Clack]

Rob, the Whitechapel Murder file is for unsolved murders within a specified area and timeframe, its not a declaration they are part of any series. Bond and others created the so called series with their opinions and little else

Its a series of unsolved murders. And if you are refering to the Metropolitan Police. Than I have a lot more respect for there opinion then yours.

Rob

[Monty]

Phil,

You been to the Marriott school of posting?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree Dave,

Hello Monty,


Phils post is anti police, sensationalist and shows a misunderstanding of policing of the time.

Anti-police?..Do please explain to me this comment? Because I do not think the police were efficient enough, nor very good at chasing down these killers, ruled from above from mostly NON-policework backgrounds with Army backgrounds, lawyers etc, doesn't mean it (or I for that matter) am anti-police. I personally think that most of them were rubbish as individuals at their job. The higher echelons, please note.

If thats not anti Police I do not know what is. You have constantly bought question of the Police from Warren to Anderson to Swanson to the beat bobby. You have either suggested gross incompitence (ridiculing and mocking what you see as stupidity) or dirty shenanigans.

I simply accept that the police weren't whiter than white and I accept that they made grave errors of judgement. Because they happen to be human beings. Accepting and explaining isn't anti anything Monty. That isn't being "sensationalist" ..unless you think human beings making a series of mistakes because they didn't know their left hand from their right hand is sensationalist. .. it's dissecting the known time-line of events from different perspectives, in this case 3; the police, the newspaper reaction and the people; and dovetailing them. For an overall picture in one.

OK, lets take Halse. You suggest that Halse removed the apron piece from Eddowes body and placed it in Goulston Street. For Godsake why? Why would he do that?

You then go on to suggest some sinister reason (which Im still trying to figure out) for doing such an act.

This is blatant sensationalism Phil, and is a trait.

The evidences are clear and shown for a series. The coincidences required to be beleived in so that a multi-killer scenario is valid is beyond reasoned belief.

I disagree. Stride is questioned by one of the best authors and students on the case ever, as has been Mary Kelly. I'm sure you know his name. Even you yourself doubt Stride.. so how can this be ONE series if it is a broken chain? The series is broken with her out of the equation. Simple.

Yes I question Stride. I question the number in the series, not if there was a series at all. The evidences weigh far heavier towards a series (and Im not going to go through them again - if the reader wishes to find out the evidences then please read through this thread) than against it, and therefore we have a Serial Killer on our hands.

Lynn will claim the stats are invalid, Phil will state that the Police supported a myth and Simon will tell us all Jack did not exist.

I state, for the record, that the mistakes were made and they couldn't backtrack. I also stated, in my post, "IF, as we led to believe, the name Jack being an invention of the press"..I said IF Monty.
What the others state is their business.

By stating IF Phil, does that give you a get out clause?....you still stated it.

Yet none of them will provided that one piece of evidence which will support these views.


But Monty,.. we are NOT looking for evidence per say.. we are tracking a series of reactions... that leads to interesting conclusions, to be digested and thought over. This isn't a case of Monty the policeman wanting evidence in writing from the police or the newspapers that these things actually happened, complete with internal memos proving it!
It's historical interpretation of a time of events. Others here seem to deem it plausible. You have the right to disagree, but it isn't a crackpot theory Monty.. it is sensibly written given the background, THAT is what is important Monty, not the blasted murders or which PC had what number on what collar after x amount of years in the force. This isn't a fact line presented, its a look at parallel sequences of events happening and dovetailing them.

Phil, I fully understand what you all are trying to do however you are still presenting half truths as fact. For example, you state the letters were certainly written by a news reporter. This has far from been proven. It has been suggested, and probably most likely, however it hasnt been proven.

You have a responsibility to keep to the facts, you (not as an individual I stress) do not, and it is that which frustrates because it seems you care not for these facts at all.

If their views are correct we have multiple killers working in the same small area with very similar MOs preying on very similar victims leaving very similar mutilations and the police covered this up because they were worried about their reputation than the safety of the public (which is insulting beyond belief).

Insulting to whom? You? Why? What personal bit have you in all this Monty? Gt Gt Grandad serving in the Met? Because you post with such rancour at times whenever the Met are criticised.. or the City for that sake.

Such sarcasm is disappointing Phil, and below the standards you claim you have.

Actually I know several people who are descended from H Division staff, and City staff, who served during the times of the murders. All are aware of what is being discussed and how their ancestors and their colleagues have been percieved by yourself and others here. The majority do not care, however a few are indeed upset and frustrated that you (and others) condem and ridicule their relations. Some have even took pains to provide evidences of great acts of valour as if to say 'look, he wasnt that bad, or that stupid or whatever after all'. Rest assured I tell them that they have nothing to prove to me.

So yes, I will defend the Police - where it is only right to do so. Sure there are bad ones and good ones however I find it staggering that a man, over a 120 odd years later, can so easily state that these men were incompetent when he has never experienced the conditions they worked under, their stresses (not only of the job but their lives also) nor was sent out onto the streets in which a serial killer is operating.

Is that something you can relate to Phil?

What is beyond belief is that come what may, some people believe that dear old Met and City Co. Ltd, didn't put a foot wrong. THAT, is insulting to the general public's intelligence as a whole. See later paragraph below for comment on this posting.

Firstly, the Met and City Police were not Limited Companies. Secondly, again, read Rob and my work. You will find your words are blatantly wrong.

And then it all just stops, and both (or more) just slip away.

Some of us have been busy doing other things. Sorry I cant be at the beck and call of all to answer immediately.

That was in reference to the killer Phil, not you.

And they say the simplest answer is the solution?

No, I didn't say that. Please re.read my post

Never said you did, I was speaking generally. It seems you and Lynn feel every comment is solely for your benefit

If others want to believe this conspiracy hype then fine. I'm not fussed, as long as they provide a more balanced presentation than they have done so far.

Thank you for this looking down on us all in you judgement complete with it's inspirational commentary from the higher echelons of Ripperology. I'm sure Lynn, Simon and Co will appreciate the sentiment as well as I do.
YOU use the word conspiracy.. the post I wrote had NOTHING to do with a conspiracy.

Ignoring the obvious inferiority complex Phil, you may not have used the word conspiracy however in suggesting the Police covered up singular murders to save face is, in itself, a suggestion of conspiracy.

I hope they realise their responsibility to the facts, however so far they are failing to do that.

Once again, thank you for your opinion. FACTS, in my post, are enamoured in a different way.. not little pieces of paper passed from one PC Plod to another.

Yes, Ive noted. They come in opinion form

I will state this once and once only.

There is a difference between the type of research you and others do, and the type that Simon, Lynn myself and others do.

As Paul states, seeing as youve never seen how I work, nor I you for that matter, I fail to see how you can pass comment on that.

It looks at things from a different angle. It isnt outside the box. As a couple have said, that post was a political angle. Sorry if it has b*gger all to do with how YOU do things. Political History isn't your forte. Thats fine by me. Fine by others I should think too. I dont research what you research. Paths cross, yes, but ot would be damned boring if we all researched in the same fashion. The BACKGROUND is my main interest.

And before you want to blast back..think of this.
Many many things are talked of, discussed at meetings, etc that you I and Joe public have no idea about.. and where does this happen? In all walks of life.. same as in 1888. That includes religionists, policemen, politicians, social reformers, shopkeepers and even old hags in a dirt set of run down streets.

It happens. It isnt conspiracy.. its fact. People arrange things on the quiet, people strike up deals between two of three to ger something done.. politicians lobby on the quiet. Policemen take bribes for information from Newspapermen. Newspaper,em cover their backsides when they get caught and pass the buck. And when that happens in the police force, the Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner, whilst saying that they have done nothing wrong, resign. Others suddenly pension themselves, others go on sick leave.

It happens.. in industry.. in everyday life, in every job. And it isn't conspiracy. It's a plain fact of life that such things go on. And if you really want a good example of a cover up?
If ONE WORD 40 years go had come out that SENIOR Catholic representatives of the Catholic Church KNEW that X amount of priests had been playing with little boys, it would have been hushed up.
But it has happened, and did happen often.. to very very many all over the world. Thankfully, society has caught up with cover-ups to protect their own.

Im not commenting upon this.

Still "insulting beyond belief" is it Monty? "Insulting beyond belief" that the Met Police could have been covering their backsides?

Without evidence Phil, yes. Where is it?

Im sure that a few members of the Catholic church say the same.
"Insulting beyond belief.. how COULD they accuse such decent men of the cloth? And believe it was known and kept quiet.
Insulting beyond belief."

The Catholic sexual assualt scandal had witnesses and evidencies Phil....again, where is yours to state the Police did a cover up?

Innocent till proven guilty. Its the basis of British law. However you have judged and are ready to hang based on your own personal belief.

But then again closed eyes will never see. I ve looked at this for nigh on 44 years, with my eyes open. If I am found out to be wandering up the garden path..GREAT!!!! It means that we can all go home and pack up our bags. Id be delighted to have the answer before I shuffle off this mortal coil.. even if it WAS ONE MAN called Aaron Zubieskiuittumbeltybum.

Lynn, Simon and myself look at this a different way. You may not like it. C'est la Vie.

Thrice again, when Lynn, Simon and yourself proved the evidences to these damming theories of yours, and not humble suggestions and the constant use of the word IF, then I may look at things you way.



Re Colin Roberts,

Great post however one question. Its far easier to step in, rant off, then disappear than stand toe to toe.

Where the hell were you Colin when I faced the four headed beast?

Post over....Im out.

Monty

[Michael W Richards]

If statistics is what turns peoples crank then statistically, it would appear that murder by slit throat was quite common in Whitechapel between late August and early November in 1888. There are also suicides, male and female, by slit throat during that same period. There is one torso that is discovered during that period. There are many known violent people living in that district, who if are not already committing violent crimes at that time, will do so in the future.

Rob, the Whitechapel Murder file is for unsolved murders within a specified area and timeframe, its not a declaration they are part of any series. Bond and others created the so called series with their opinions and little else.

And regardless of Bonds possible skill in detection concerning women he autopsied himself, he saw 1 of 5 Canonicals in death. The man who saw 4 of them however did not see a series of 5.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Errata]

Lets say I have a cat (as it happens, I have two). Lets say I come home one day, and the cat is gone. No doors or windows are open. We have a mystery. Now I have several choices. Firstly, do I want to find out how the cat disappeared, or do I want to find the cat? One does not necessarily exclude the other. What is my focus? Do I want to ensure that a cat can't get out again? Am I simply curious as to how a cat is in a locked room mystery? Am I worried about my cat? Am I worried for other cats? Am I interested in distancing myself from whatever the cat might do? Do I think my cat had help? Am I baffled by my own apparent carelessness? Did someone witness the cat leaving? Do I believe them? If so, why, if not, why not? Am I more interested in the ways it could have happened that in the way it actually happened? Do I think I will ever know what really happened?

I would speculate that nobody's interests and research are going to be the same. In the case of the missing cat there are probably few dozen combinations that will slant perspective on the problem. Imagine how many more combinations go with a series of murders. Take me for example. I don't think we will ever identify the killer. I have no personal stake in the outcome of the mystery. I'm more interested in the whys than the whos and whats. My process is to look at any possibility and narrow it down through my perception of logical and codified human behavior. This makes my perspective different from Phil, different from Lynn, etc. But I also realize that this makes my perspective different from Abberline, different from the cops, different from the people of the era. Would I engage in dishonorable behavior in order to get a chance of identifying the killer? Nope. Not that interested in the who of things. Would a detective who is invested in catching the killer, probably very angry and very tired, and trying to protect a populace engage in dishonorable behavior? Yes he would. Doesn't mean he did, but I don't doubt for a second that he would jump on any reasonable chance.

None of us see the case exactly the same way, none of us prioritize information exactly the same way, a lot of us don't even process the information the same way. And personally, I think that anyone who says they aren't using a healthy dose of gut instinct on this case is lying. And instinct is perfectly okay. It's a reasonable supplement to facts. Lynn sees two, maybe three. I see two, maybe three. Lynn sees Polly and Annie as very similar, with Kate as an outlier. I see Annie and Kate as very similar, with Polly as an outlier. And we even use the same facts to bolster our different points of view. We both dismiss Liz and Mary, but for completely different reasons. It's like Tetris, we both have the same four shapes, but we use them in different combinations.

This case is Schroedinger's cat. We are all right and we are all wrong until we open the box. And we may never be able to open that box. I think there is a difference between arguing against a theory and challenging a theory. The best we can hope for here is validity. We may never get to fact or truth, but we can get validity.

[Abby Normal]

Does anyone remember those long-lost days when a sizable portion of posts to these message boards was actually informative?

I yearn for further meaningful message board contributions to our knowledge of this, our field of interest, from the likes of Stewart Evans, Chris Phillips, John Bennett, and Rob Clack; but the river has apparently run dry.

Debra Arif, to name one such contributor, drops in occasionally with the odd tidbit of informative substance, but I really don't know why she bothers. I really don't!

That the information pertaining to Registered Deaths of Female/Male Adults (Ages 20 - xx) throughout England, Classified as 'Murder', by way of 'Cut Throat', found within the Annual Reports of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England, could be described as being "unhelpful" says it all.

Inconclusive?

The statistical¹ data contained therein conclusively proves – beyond any shadow of any reasonable doubt – that cut-throat murders were plainly and simply uncommon throughout England, during the late Victorian era.

¹ That's right: Statistical!

I can already here the snickers of the enlightened non-Jackster members of this community …

Statistics. Splendid. (heh-heh)

And of course, my chosen population, i.e. Female/Male Adults (Ages 20 - xx), is far too narrow: Never minding, of course, the fact that the data is provided in five-year age intervals, and whilst I initially felt that ages 18 and 19 were relevant, so too did I feel that ages 15, 16, and 17 were not.

My chosen parameters, I am afraid, have been questioned to the point that I feel as if my integrity has been questioned.

Maybe one day I will compile and present the relevant data for a larger population: Females/Males (Ages 5 – xx). Will that do? Don't ask for (Ages Infancy - 4). Their inclusion, needless to say, would skew the data beyond reason.

While I am at it, should I include deaths attributable to … let's say … playing football²? There were after all 13 registered deaths of males, throughout England, in 1888, that were attributable to just that.

After all, if what we wish to do is demonstrate just how common death was throughout England, during the Victorian era, so that we can downplay and marginalize the exceedingly extraordinary nature of the so-called 'Double Event', then why not?

² For the benefit of my Septic brethren, the game of Football is played with a round white ball that is moved about on a playing surface with ... for the most part ... the foot. Imagine that!

In any case, I will - at a minimum - augment my chosen population with the inclusion of Females/Males (Ages 15 – 19).

Why? Because of Jayne MacDonald, that's why!

Who's she? She was a very pretty sixteen-year-old that apparently gave a certain Peter Sutcliffe the impression that she was a prostitute, simply because of her attire and the fact that her homeward trek, one fateful summer evening/morning in 1977, from the Leeds City Center, took her along Chapeltown Road. Sutcliffe assumed what he did, and proceeded to ambush her without first engaging her in any way.

A killer of prostitutes that actually set upon a female that wasn't actually soliciting: Does anyone believe that? I most certainly do not!

Jayne MacDonald didn't exist!

Neither did Anna Rogulskyj, Olive Smelt, Maureen Long, Josephine Whitaker, Barbara Leach, Marguerite Walls, Upadhya Bandara, Theresa Sykes, or Jacqueline Hill!

None of them existed! How could they have? Women that weren't prostitutes, brutally murdered simply because … they were prostitutes, in one man's depraved perception?

As sure as 'Jack the Ripper' didn't exist, neither too did any of these unfortunate women, God rest their souls.

Perception is 99.99% of reality, and if Peter Sutcliffe thought that each of these women was a prostitute, then each one of them might as well have been. His distorted perception was all that mattered. Just as the perception of a presumed individual that may have murdered Martha Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly was all that mattered. Whether we think that any one of these women was soliciting sexual favors immediately prior to her demise is irrelevant! Period!

Did anyone here realize that Sutcliffe prematurely aborted seven of the twenty attacks, for which he was convicted, feeling in each of those instances that he had somehow been 'disturbed'.

Some of those 'disturbances' were indeed tangible, and in Sutcliffe's perception quite real. Others, however, involved nothing more than his realization that his choice to begin his attack was a bit hasty, in as much as there were just too many people around.

Imagine that! A sexual serial killer being 'disturbed': In fully one third of the attacks that he is known to have committed. In some instances, because something as insignificant as ... let's say ... a change in the wind's direction, compelled him to have second thoughts about his hasty decision to attack.

Anna Rogulskyj, Olive Smelt, Marcella Claxton, Maureen Long, Marilyn Moore, Upadhya Bandara, and Theresa Sykes didn't exist!

Irene Richardson was struck on the back of the head with Sutcliffe's hammer whilst crouching to urinate on the grass of Roundhay Park, in Northeastern Leeds, just minutes after he had picked her up in his white Ford Corsair, in an area that was closer to Chapeltown.

Imagine that: A prostitute accepting an opportunity to make a few quid (or in Eddowes's case, presumably, a few pence or maybe even a few bob), even though needing to urinate.

Irene Richardson didn't exist!

Patricia Atkinson was murdered by Sutcliffe in the friendly confines of her own apartment, and the resulting extent of the mutilations that she sustained was accordingly quite significant.

Imagine that: A prostitute murdered in her own flat by a sexual serial killer that committed the other nineteen of the attacks, for which he was convicted, ... outdoors.

Surely, Patricia Atkinson was a Provo in disguise!

---

I haven't posted here for several months, and may or may not ever post here again. So, I would ask those readers that might feel so inclined to refrain from extending me any sort of 'Welcome Back'.

I am not 'back': At least not for the time being.

I don't believe that I would share a taxi with the likes of Simon Wood, if my very life depended upon my doing so.

More so, I do not wish to be a part of any community that would allow itself to be dragged through a pigsty of Trevor Marriott's moronic bullshit by having him speak at one of its Conferences.

This community will reap what it has sewn; and right now it's credibility along with the legitimacy of its field of interest as an academic discipline (given that the message board component must surely be considered an integral part of the field), could not possibly be any lower than it is!

Hi Colin
great post.

If I could just make a comment on this:

Debra Arif, to name one such contributor, drops in occasionally with the odd tidbit of informative substance, but I really don't know why she bothers. I really don't!

I am glad she does, but I agree-I dont know why she bothers. She had recently posted a significant find (IMHO) in which a newspaper article had a direct quote from Thomas Bowyer stating that he had been in Millers court in the early morning hours of Mary Kelly's murder and it went over like a lead balloon. I thought it was important find and worth discussing at the very least and stated so, but NO ONE, and I mean No ONE seemed to care-and that includes the "Conspirators", "Jacksters", reputable Ripperologists and eveyone else.

I was baffled and its Sad really-It seems its hard alot of the times to get any kind of response on here these days unless you are in a mud fight, arguing against someones favored candidate or talking about the latest ridiculous "suspect".

[PaulB]

Helo Paul,

You were adressing me? I believe so but wont presume.

I cant answer for Simon and Lynn.

The answer to your question is in the previous posts.. please do forgive me if I ask you to scroll back and read them.

And just in case Paul, please don't think about a counter argument in your brilliant way lol

Because, and pardon me for saying this.. as Captain of the School Debating Society you would win hands down every time because rightly or wrongly, you revel in counter argument. That's a compliment. No one can counter argue until the cows come home like you.. and to be very honest, this fleeting pop in to post of mine is an exception at this current time. I wont have the opportunity to reply, which would do you a massive dis-service and would be insulting to your high degree of intelligence. (And I'm NOT taking the ....)

I will be in London again in 10 days time. If you are around.. do drop me a line and I will buy you yet another pint without any regret.

best wishes

Phil

Many thanks for the compliment, and I receive so few that it pains me to say that it is wholly undeserved as I don't revel in argument, counter or otherwise. I was simply interested to know how your research differs from that of anybody else, or, to be specific, from Monty's. It wasn't clear what he is researching that you're not, or maybe vice versa?

[Phil Carter]

Helo Paul,

You were adressing me? I believe so but wont presume.

I cant answer for Simon and Lynn.

The answer to your question is in the previous posts.. please do forgive me if I ask you to scroll back and read them.

And just in case Paul, please don't think about a counter argument in your brilliant way lol

Because, and pardon me for saying this.. as Captain of the School Debating Society you would win hands down every time because rightly or wrongly, you revel in counter argument. That's a compliment. No one can counter argue until the cows come home like you.. and to be very honest, this fleeting pop in to post of mine is an exception at this current time. I wont have the opportunity to reply, which would do you a massive dis-service and would be insulting to your high degree of intelligence. (And I'm NOT taking the ....)

I will be in London again in 10 days time. If you are around.. do drop me a line and I will buy you yet another pint without any regret.

best wishes

Phil

[PaulB]

Forgive me, I haven't followed this as closely as perhaps I should, but can you explain what type of research you and Lynn and Simon do, and how it is different from the type of research Monty and others do?

[Phil Carter]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree Dave,

Hello Monty,


Phils post is anti police, sensationalist and shows a misunderstanding of policing of the time.

Anti-police?..Do please explain to me this comment? Because I do not think the police were efficient enough, nor very good at chasing down these killers, ruled from above from mostly NON-policework backgrounds with Army backgrounds, lawyers etc, doesn't mean it (or I for that matter) am anti-police. I personally think that most of them were rubbish as individuals at their job. The higher echelons, please note.

I simply accept that the police weren't whiter than white and I accept that they made grave errors of judgement. Because they happen to be human beings. Accepting and explaining isn't anti anything Monty. That isn't being "sensationalist" ..unless you think human beings making a series of mistakes because they didn't know their left hand from their right hand is sensationalist. .. it's dissecting the known time-line of events from different perspectives, in this case 3; the police, the newspaper reaction and the people; and dovetailing them. For an overall picture in one.

The evidences are clear and shown for a series. The coincidences required to be beleived in so that a multi-killer scenario is valid is beyond reasoned belief.

I disagree. Stride is questioned by one of the best authors and students on the case ever, as has been Mary Kelly. I'm sure you know his name. Even you yourself doubt Stride.. so how can this be ONE series if it is a broken chain? The series is broken with her out of the equation. Simple.

Lynn will claim the stats are invalid, Phil will state that the Police supported a myth and Simon will tell us all Jack did not exist.

I state, for the record, that the mistakes were made and they couldn't backtrack. I also stated, in my post, "IF, as we led to believe, the name Jack being an invention of the press"..I said IF Monty.
What the others state is their business.

Yet none of them will provided that one piece of evidence which will support these views.


But Monty,.. we are NOT looking for evidence per say.. we are tracking a series of reactions... that leads to interesting conclusions, to be digested and thought over. This isn't a case of Monty the policeman wanting evidence in writing from the police or the newspapers that these things actually happened, complete with internal memos proving it!
It's historical interpretation of a time of events. Others here seem to deem it plausible. You have the right to disagree, but it isn't a crackpot theory Monty.. it is sensibly written given the background, THAT is what is important Monty, not the blasted murders or which PC had what number on what collar after x amount of years in the force. This isn't a fact line presented, its a look at parallel sequences of events happening and dovetailing them.

If their views are correct we have multiple killers working in the same small area with very similar MOs preying on very similar victims leaving very similar mutilations and the police covered this up because they were worried about their reputation than the safety of the public (which is insulting beyond belief).

Insulting to whom? You? Why? What personal bit have you in all this Monty? Gt Gt Grandad serving in the Met? Because you post with such rancour at times whenever the Met are criticised.. or the City for that sake.

What is beyond belief is that come what may, some people believe that dear old Met and City Co. Ltd, didn't put a foot wrong. THAT, is insulting to the general public's intelligence as a whole. See later paragraph below for comment on this posting.

And then it all just stops, and both (or more) just slip away.

Some of us have been busy doing other things. Sorry I cant be at the beck and call of all to answer immediately.

And they say the simplest answer is the solution?

No, I didn't say that. Please re.read my post.


If others want to believe this conspiracy hype then fine. I'm not fussed, as long as they provide a more balanced presentation than they have done so far.

Thank you for this looking down on us all in you judgement complete with it's inspirational commentary from the higher echelons of Ripperology. I'm sure Lynn, Simon and Co will appreciate the sentiment as well as I do.
YOU use the word conspiracy.. the post I wrote had NOTHING to do with a conspiracy.

I hope they realise their responsibility to the facts, however so far they are failing to do that.

Once again, thank you for your opinion. FACTS, in my post, are enamoured in a different way.. not little pieces of paper passed from one PC Plod to another.

Monty

I will state this once and once only.

There is a difference between the type of research you and others do, and the type that Simon, Lynn myself and others do.
It looks at things from a different angle. It isnt outside the box. As a couple have said, that post was a political angle. Sorry if it has b*gger all to do with how YOU do things. Political History isn't your forte. Thats fine by me. Fine by others I should think too. I dont research what you research. Paths cross, yes, but ot would be damned boring if we all researched in the same fashion. The BACKGROUND is my main interest.

And before you want to blast back..think of this.
Many many things are talked of, discussed at meetings, etc that you I and Joe public have no idea about.. and where does this happen? In all walks of life.. same as in 1888. That includes religionists, policemen, politicians, social reformers, shopkeepers and even old hags in a dirt set of run down streets.

It happens. It isnt conspiracy.. its fact. People arrange things on the quiet, people strike up deals between two of three to ger something done.. politicians lobby on the quiet. Policemen take bribes for information from Newspapermen. Newspaper,em cover their backsides when they get caught and pass the buck. And when that happens in the police force, the Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner, whilst saying that they have done nothing wrong, resign. Others suddenly pension themselves, others go on sick leave.

It happens.. in industry.. in everyday life, in every job. And it isn't conspiracy. It's a plain fact of life that such things go on. And if you really want a good example of a cover up?
If ONE WORD 40 years go had come out that SENIOR Catholic representatives of the Catholic Church KNEW that X amount of priests had been playing with little boys, it would have been hushed up.
But it has happened, and did happen often.. to very very many all over the world. Thankfully, society has caught up with cover-ups to protect their own.

Still "insulting beyond belief" is it Monty? "Insulting beyond belief" that the Met Police could have been covering their backsides?
Im sure that a few members of the Catholic church say the same.
"Insulting beyond belief.. how COULD they accuse such decent men of the cloth? And believe it was known and kept quiet.
Insulting beyond belief."

But then again closed eyes will never see. I ve looked at this for nigh on 44 years, with my eyes open. If I am found out to be wandering up the garden path..GREAT!!!! It means that we can all go home and pack up our bags. Id be delighted to have the answer before I shuffle off this mortal coil.. even if it WAS ONE MAN called Aaron Zubieskiuittumbeltybum.

Lynn, Simon and myself look at this a different way. You may not like it. C'est la Vie.


Best regards

Phil

[Fisherman]

Colin Roberts:

"I would ask those readers that might feel so inclined to refrain from extending me any sort of 'Welcome Back'."

Then I won´t do so. But since you do not specifically ask people to refrain from thanking you for having contributed a very good - and much needed - post, I take the liberty to do just that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi Colin. Great post. Seems your reference to the similarities between the crimes of Sutcliffe, and JTR, fell on deaf ears. Very relevant though.

regards

Observer

[Observer]

What "THE" diary? The Maybrick diary? Surely not.