Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coincidence?

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
    Surely if the state was involved they would have found a way to bump these people off in a quieter fashion?
    And here we agree. Why would anyone, the state or another group of individuals, draw attention to the murders and victims by making them so sensational? Certainly the Royal Conspiracy theory falls down here (and of course in other places). But there are possible reasons that the murders were sensationalised to draw publicity, none of which I particularly subscribe to but could possibly be true. A couple of examples below:
    * to draw attention away from something else (no idea what, but possible)
    * to embarrass the government (though seems a bit extreme so not putting much faith in this one)
    * to draw attention to the poor conditions in Whitechapel (someone else's suggestion I read somewhere)
    * to demonise jewish immigrants (which it did for a while).

    Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
    Both the cases you cite were meant to be done on the quiet, without raising any suspicion, the reason they did, was the fact that the people carrying them out were not all that good at it!
    Tristan
    To take your second point though, it is because the people carrying them out botched it that we know about them. If they had been more proficient we would not know about them, they would simply be unsolved murders and/or accidental deaths. How many do we not know about? The body in the suitcase is a good example of where the murderer wanted to draw attention to the murder - why is a matter of speculation, but it did embarrass the UK government and security forces.

    I am still not convinced the murders were anything other than a serial killer acting on whatever impulses drove him, but there are plenty of examples of cover ups

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      No. Because there aren’t any.
      None we know about, but there are plenty of examples of murders by States.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by etenguy View Post

        And here we agree. Why would anyone, the state or another group of individuals, draw attention to the murders and victims by making them so sensational? Certainly the Royal Conspiracy theory falls down here (and of course in other places). But there are possible reasons that the murders were sensationalised to draw publicity, none of which I particularly subscribe to but could possibly be true. A couple of examples below:
        * to draw attention away from something else (no idea what, but possible)
        * to embarrass the government (though seems a bit extreme so not putting much faith in this one)
        * to draw attention to the poor conditions in Whitechapel (someone else's suggestion I read somewhere)
        * to demonise jewish immigrants (which it did for a while).



        To take your second point though, it is because the people carrying them out botched it that we know about them. If they had been more proficient we would not know about them, they would simply be unsolved murders and/or accidental deaths. How many do we not know about? The body in the suitcase is a good example of where the murderer wanted to draw attention to the murder - why is a matter of speculation, but it did embarrass the UK government and security forces.

        I am still not convinced the murders were anything other than a serial killer acting on whatever impulses drove him, but there are plenty of examples of cover ups
        Some good points here! Thanks. Where in the world would the government or whoever find someone like JtR? Those kind of actions go above and beyond!

        Tristan

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by etenguy View Post

          None we know about, but there are plenty of examples of murders by States.
          Accepted Eten. For me it’s just far more difficult to see one involving East End prostitutes.
          Regards

          Herlock






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

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Is it widely accepted that the ripper and the Torso Man where one and the same?
            Never said that they were
            You can lead a horse to water.....

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              Accepted Eten. For me it’s just far more difficult to see one involving East End prostitutes.
              It does surprise me that you accept that tbh
              You can lead a horse to water.....

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                There isn’t a smidgeon evidence for this fantasy of course. Catherine was in a police station for drunkenness. No one knew when she would have been released. She walked toward Mitre Square, bumped into her killer, and was murdered in the square. It’s very simple. Annie Chapman was killed in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street at around 5.25-5.30. Even Phillips stated that she was definitely killed where she was found. The police concurred.

                You are simply creating a scenario which you believe fits the facts. It’s a work of imagination, and whilst imagination is important, it shouldn’t override common-sense.
                The evidence is there ...... in bucket loads ,rather more than a smidgen but as you have your own fantasy regarding a teacher on the rampage you will refuse it .
                Drunk ?
                Next time you're so drunk you need to be carried home let me know if you wake up singing and asking to wander around in the rain four hours later .
                As hers was allegedly the first stomach to be checked for narcotics, I don't think I'm the first one not to swallow that .
                Kelly told Wilkinson that she had been locked up an hour before the fire engine impression .
                They both would have been well aware of regular release times from city police stations don't you think?
                Do you know who Collard was 'out visiting' at this time ?
                The evidence you refuse to accept is the lighting , maybe he had night vision goggles because the light was so poor 40 mins earlier and three quarters of a mile away that matches were being lit just to confirm they actually found a body...... and there were house lights in that yard unlike Mitre Square with it's deficient lamp.
                Halse requested a lamp be directed towards her so he could confirm it was indeed a body in Mitre Square.
                Morris told Watkins to wait while he fetched his lamp, he knew how little light there was in that corner.
                You want to believe in a crazy with no medical knowledge and no lamp carrying out the virtually impossible and describe two men carrying a body as 'fantasy' .....

                There is no evidence she was killed where found.
                Little blood, mixing with rain on wet pavements, the neck wound would still ooze blood ,if you doubt this check out the Pinchin Street inquest.
                You can lead a horse to water.....

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Accepted Eten. For me it’s just far more difficult to see one involving East End prostitutes.
                  Conspiracy/cover up by the state through the killing of East End prostitutes is an extremely unlikely solution. The reason provided by Stephen Knight would be plausible, but struggling to think of anything else that might come close. Even though a potential reason to motivate State killings of prostitutes is provided by Mr Knight, there is no evidence it is true and of course the rest of the theory suggested by Knight has not stood up to scrutiny. So although a plausible reason, the JtR murders is not the way it would have been executed had it been true.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                    The evidence is there ...... in bucket loads ,rather more than a smidgen but as you have your own fantasy regarding a teacher on the rampage you will refuse it .
                    Drunk ?
                    Next time you're so drunk you need to be carried home let me know if you wake up singing and asking to wander around in the rain four hours later .
                    As hers was allegedly the first stomach to be checked for narcotics, I don't think I'm the first one not to swallow that .
                    Kelly told Wilkinson that she had been locked up an hour before the fire engine impression .
                    They both would have been well aware of regular release times from city police stations don't you think?
                    Do you know who Collard was 'out visiting' at this time ?
                    The evidence you refuse to accept is the lighting , maybe he had night vision goggles because the light was so poor 40 mins earlier and three quarters of a mile away that matches were being lit just to confirm they actually found a body...... and there were house lights in that yard unlike Mitre Square with it's deficient lamp.
                    Halse requested a lamp be directed towards her so he could confirm it was indeed a body in Mitre Square.
                    Morris told Watkins to wait while he fetched his lamp, he knew how little light there was in that corner.
                    You want to believe in a crazy with no medical knowledge and no lamp carrying out the virtually impossible and describe two men carrying a body as 'fantasy' .....

                    There is no evidence she was killed where found.
                    Little blood, mixing with rain on wet pavements, the neck wound would still ooze blood ,if you doubt this check out the Pinchin Street inquest.
                    Firstly, i have no fantasy theory regarding Druitt as a suspect. He was mentioned by a very senior police officer who would have had access to rather more information than you or I. His Memorandum might be inconvenient but it exists. It has to be considered and should not be dismissed out of hand.

                    On the subject of drunkenness and what Eddowes might or might not have done I’d simply ask why do some consider it valid to assume that they know how she should or might have behaved? Who knows what was in her mind? Who knows why she ended up in Mitre Square? It's illogical to assume something sinister just because we don’t possess an alternative explanation. Do we know every single one of her acquaintances? Perhaps she was intending to visit someone who might have lent her a few pence? This is prime conspiracy thinking. The ripperological equivalent of the-god-of-the-gaps. We don’t know something so let’s drop in a fantasy.

                    No I don’t know who Collard was out visiting. You could simply tell me.

                    Did police stations have regular release times? I’m not saying that they didn’t just that I wasn’t aware that they did. And even if they did they still couldn't have known for certain when Catherine would have sobered up sufficiently to have been released.

                    There really is no point in going on about light. No one at the time questioned whether she had been killed in situ. No one appears to have questioned whether it was too dark or not and why do you assume no medical knowledge?

                    The idea of two men carrying a body as fantasy is exactly what it is. An utterly baseless invention. Again you have provided not a scintilla of solid evidence. If you are so confident that this was a conspiracy (and you’re obviously not entirely alone on this) I can’t understand why no one appears to have the courage of their convictions and come out and say exactly what they think occurred and who was involved? There appears to be a lack of confidence here hidden behind hints and nudges. I’m quite happy to say what I believe happened. Why aren’t you?
                    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 etenguy View Post

                      Conspiracy/cover up by the state through the killing of East End prostitutes is an extremely unlikely solution. The reason provided by Stephen Knight would be plausible, but struggling to think of anything else that might come close. Even though a potential reason to motivate State killings of prostitutes is provided by Mr Knight, there is no evidence it is true and of course the rest of the theory suggested by Knight has not stood up to scrutiny. So although a plausible reason, the JtR murders is not the way it would have been executed had it been true.
                      Don't presume it to be 'the state'

                      Think of the political climate
                      Think of the locations
                      You can lead a horse to water.....

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Firstly, i have no fantasy theory regarding Druitt as a suspect. He was mentioned by a very senior police officer who would have had access to rather more information than you or I. His Memorandum might be inconvenient but it exists. It has to be considered and should not be dismissed out of hand.

                        On the subject of drunkenness and what Eddowes might or might not have done I’d simply ask why do some consider it valid to assume that they know how she should or might have behaved? Who knows what was in her mind? Who knows why she ended up in Mitre Square? It's illogical to assume something sinister just because we don’t possess an alternative explanation. Do we know every single one of her acquaintances? Perhaps she was intending to visit someone who might have lent her a few pence? This is prime conspiracy thinking. The ripperological equivalent of the-god-of-the-gaps. We don’t know something so let’s drop in a fantasy.

                        No I don’t know who Collard was out visiting. You could simply tell me.

                        Did police stations have regular release times? I’m not saying that they didn’t just that I wasn’t aware that they did. And even if they did they still couldn't have known for certain when Catherine would have sobered up sufficiently to have been released.

                        There really is no point in going on about light. No one at the time questioned whether she had been killed in situ. No one appears to have questioned whether it was too dark or not and why do you assume no medical knowledge?

                        The idea of two men carrying a body as fantasy is exactly what it is. An utterly baseless invention. Again you have provided not a scintilla of solid evidence. If you are so confident that this was a conspiracy (and you’re obviously not entirely alone on this) I can’t understand why no one appears to have the courage of their convictions and come out and say exactly what they think occurred and who was involved? There appears to be a lack of confidence here hidden behind hints and nudges. I’m quite happy to say what I believe happened. Why aren’t you?
                        I presume you believe the Whitehall torso was killed in situ as the 'fantasy' of two men carrying the torso across plank gangways must be too much to cope with?
                        Any evidence that Eddowes was killed in situ that you would care to point out? A smidgen would do... .

                        Those guarding whoever was locked away at bishopsgate would be creatures of habit ... locals would have known .
                        If you're as drunk as she portrayed, and as tired as she should have been after waking 35 miles in a day earlier that week then once asleep she'd have been out for the count .
                        She had a bed for the night .... why would she want to go out, she had nowhere to go, no money.....
                        Yet she virtually begged to leave, then walked the opposite direction to the lodging house

                        As usual at the end.... you want a story ... a story you can attempt to pick apart.
                        Sorry to disappoint you
                        There doesn't HAVE to be a fixed theory to recognise the smell of bull**it ..... and that smell is everywhere through this series of murders.

                        Recognising the issues is number one .
                        Once you do ,then you can look at why ,the who doesn't matter much
                        You can lead a horse to water.....

                        Comment


                        • Enjoying your post packers , been down this road myself , but for some i feel to often.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                            I presume you believe the Whitehall torso was killed in situ as the 'fantasy' of two men carrying the torso across plank gangways must be too much to cope with?

                            That was a packaged torso. Eddowes wasn’t. No comparison.

                            Any evidence that Eddowes was killed in situ that you would care to point out? A smidgen would do... .

                            Those that were there at the time believed that she was and there is no evidence to the contrary.

                            Those guarding whoever was locked away at bishopsgate would be creatures of habit ... locals would have known .

                            An assumption on your part. No evidence for it of course.

                            If you're as drunk as she portrayed, and as tired as she should have been after waking 35 miles in a day earlier that week then once asleep she'd have been out for the count .

                            Another sweeping statement. How can you possibly know this? Recovery times vary from person to person.

                            She had a bed for the night .... why would she want to go out, she had nowhere to go, no money.....

                            Again, you are injecting mystery into a gap in our knowledge and for no good reason. How do you know that she had nowhere to go? Do you know everyone that she ever associated with? How do you know that she didn’t have another man who lived nearby and she was looking to borrow money?

                            Yet she virtually begged to leave, then walked the opposite direction to the lodging house

                            You don’t know why she headed toward Mitre Court anymore than I or anyone else does. And so if we don’t know why she headed in that direction we cannot assume anything sinister.

                            As usual at the end.... you want a story ... a story you can attempt to pick apart.

                            Im sorry but you’re the one that’s making up a story by inventing mystery.

                            Sorry to disappoint you

                            I’m getting used to it.

                            There doesn't HAVE to be a fixed theory to recognise the smell of bull**it ..... and that smell is everywhere through this series of murders.

                            No there isn’t. There’s only the smell of desperation to be the genius that spots the pattern that no one else sees. So many series of murders of women over the years - how many of them turned out to have been conspiracies and how many turned out to be the work of some maniac?

                            Recognising the issues is number one .

                            Or imagining them apparently.

                            Once you do ,then you can look at why ,the who doesn't matter much

                            We can have a very good stab at why. Hatred, sex, perversion, deep psychological issues.....the usual stuff that drives serial killers to do what they do.
                            Again you appear reluctant to flesh out your theory? Why is this?

                            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 FISHY1118 View Post
                              Enjoying your post packers , been down this road myself , but for some i feel to often.
                              Your’e hardly a cause for sympathy Fishy. I try to stay within the bounds of reason. You believe in a theory that belongs on the shelves beside the flat earth books.

                              No need to bang your head though. All you need to do is to give up on your Stephen Knight fixation and come to the conclusion that the rest of ripperology did 40 years ago. Immerse yourself in reason and common sense. Ditch the mysterious coachman and your Freemasonic Chuckle Brothers carrying mutilated corpses around the East End and your non-existent buildings and your geriatric mutilators and your fake diary and you’ll feel much better for it.
                              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 10-11-2019, 10:17 PM.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • Fishy, it’s obvious that we are never going to agree on this. The main thing that I cannot understand is why you are so passionate to defend the Knight/Sickert story? So passionate that you are willing to turn a blind eye to facts that would scupper any other theory. If someone proposed a theory like the following would you or anyone defend it?:

                                A story where a person’s religion is central to the story but the writer got her religion wrong. Where the writer had her living in a building that didn’t exist at the time. He states that this woman and another were one and the same but the evidence clearly shows that they weren’t. He has an artist living at a studio that didn’t exist at the time and he has the woman taken to a hospital that didn’t exist at the time. He then describes an accident as being connected but the evidence shows that it wasn’t. Not only this but he has the Queens Physician involved, who was a 71 year old recovering stroke victim, mutilating East End prostitutes in a carriage with two other men carrying the corpse around to dump it in some public place. And part of the evidence used to support this is an obviously forged Abberline diary.

                                Can you be surprised when someone says - hold on, this sounds slightly unbelievable.
                                Good to see your on the right track , you just have your facts all round the wrong way . But hey if thats the way u want to interpret them fine go ahead . However many others know differently and ive already explained them to you . I have you on Chapman T.O.D and Eddowes being killed elsewhere. Enough said.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X