Coincidence?

[FISHY1118]

You complain about me attacking your integrity? I can point any poster toward the post where you, on at least 4 occasions you claimed that I accepted that I believed that the ‘no’ that Cadosch heard was the beginning of the attack and that the noise was Annie falling against the fence giving us an unreasonable time gap. Three or four times I’ve explained to you that that isn’t what I believe happened and yet you went on to post the same untruth again. Three or four times! Is that honest posting Fishy? Or a lie? It’s a lie.

Good to see you've accepted that it was neither the killer or Annie Chapmans body that made the noise codosch claimed hit the fence at 5.28 am.

And that indeed the killer was on Chapmans right hand side when he cut her throat[ you worked out it cant be dont from her left hand side didn't you , from left to right , as Gavin Bromley rightfully suggested,

If the “no” came from Annie then I’d tend toward the fact that she said it before she died, yes.
you said this

a) The ‘no’ didn’t have to have been the start of the attack. It’s a word. It can be used in many contexts and in answer to a billion questions.
and then this . ..... oh dear

on at least 4 occasions you claimed that I accepted that I believed that the ‘no’ that Cadosch heard was the beginning of the attack

Three or four times I’ve explained to you that that isn’t what I believe happened and yet you went on to post the same untruth again. Three or four times! Is that honest posting Fishy? Or a lie? It’s a lie.[/QUOTE]

OR IS IT A FACT ?

[FISHY1118]

why is it that seemingly every single thread lately has turned into a vicious argument about whether the victims were killed elsewhere then dumped and stephen f-ing knight???

Without passing judgment on the body dump theory or ‘the final solution’ i would like to remind you all that casebook.org is one of the main public faces of ripperology. For better or worse. Lately, due to the fact that seemingly every single thread spirals downwards into infighting like we see above- it’s for the worse, fellas. When the public reads in some glossy glamour magazine that an author believes ripperologists are all obsessive, immature lunatics and they come here to see for themselves-they won’t be disappointed.

I wish that we could keep the level of debate on these message boards civil. Professional, even. Knowing that your words posted on this public forum are representing all of us in the field of ripperology...don’t make us all look like whack jobs.
I’ve about had enough of it. I feel a purge coming on.

Jm

point taken, with respect to the threads and ripperology ill do my bit.

[jmenges]

point taken, with respect to the threads and ripperology ill do my bit.

Please start by limiting your use of emoticons and bold type. We might address the content later.
Baby steps.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good to see you've accepted that it was neither the killer or Annie Chapmans body that made the noise codosch claimed hit the fence at 5.28 am.

I have said no such thing Fishy so there’s really no other way of putting this except that you have simply made this up.

As you well know I have said, and said it very recently by the way, that the ‘no’ could simply have been a response to a question. We cannot specifically state the context. I’ve also said that I believe that the noise against the fence was possibly/probably the killer brushing against the fence whilst doing the mutilations.

So perhaps you might like to explain how you can get from the above to me accepting that the killer didn’t make the noise?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And indeed the killer was on Chapman’s right hand side when he cut her throat [you worked out it can’t be don’t from her left side didn’t you, left to right, as Gavin Bromley rightfully sai

d

Again there is no other way of putting this but to say that this is untrue. If you recall, the conversation at the time was about whether the killer could have brushed against the fence whilst doing the mutilations. It wasn’t talking about when he killed her. The fact that I was obviously talking about the killer brushing against the fence after the ‘no’ provides the context for this. You were saying that he couldn’t have brushed against the fence whilst mutilating Annie (as per my previous posts) and so I pointed this out and I was correct in doing so as no one can say for certain what position or positions the killer took whilst mutilating Annie. You’ve conflated one point for another.

[Herlock Sholmes]

a) The ‘no’ didn’t have to have been the start of the attack. It’s a word. It can be used in many contexts and in answer to a billion questions.
and then this . ..... oh dear

You appear to find it unbelievable that the word ‘no’ could have been used in a conversation or in answer to a question. I find that a bit....unbelievable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Three or four times I’ve explained to you that that isn’t what I believe happened and yet you went on to post the same untruth again. Three or four times! Is that honest posting Fishy? Or a lie? It’s a lie.

OR IS IT A FACT ? [/QUOTE]

I don’t understand your point Fishy?

It is certainly a fact. I’ve repeatedly told you what I believe happened and you’ve repeatedly posted otherwise to make a point. It’s in black and white Fishy so I really can’t see why you are contesting this point?

[etenguy]

The problem for me though Eten is that no one is being specific. No one will say what they believe happened or why or who they believe was involved. In the absence of anything approaching solid all that we’re doing is finding coincidences.

I prefer to look at likelihood’s. A case in point is whether the killer had time to do what he did? I’ve no doubt that it would have been tight but there’s no conclusive evidence that he couldn’t have done it. In a very good post elsewhere Jeff Hamm illustrated how there could have been more time available (as we all know about the pitfalls of timings) and so, for me, I ask what’s more likely - some form of conspiracy or that the killer had a couple of minutes more than was actually stated? It’s the latter for me every time unless something more concrete is put forward. It’s difficult to debate a theory when we don’t actually know what that theory involves. So I’m in the dark as to what this conspiracy involved or who was involved or why it occurred.

I have no theory, indeed I think a cover up or conspiracy very unlikely. Nevertheless, before a theory comes some doubt, perhaps resulting from coincidences, which leads to a what if and then some research and then possibly a theory or an explanation. I personally am at the stage of noticing a few coincidences which suggest the seemingly random killings appear to have a pattern. If there is a pattern, it suggests something else might be going on. I don't know what, if anything. However, having noticed the pattern and name similarity, it is worth exploring what they might mean, hence this thread. They mean nothing, or we may be able to explain them away. Someone else may already have researched these and can lay down some facts about them.

Comments so far:

a) Pattern of murder timings (fri, sat, sun, fri plus gaps of 1, 3 & 5 weeks)
This either may be sheer coincidence, or point to a work based schedule which might help us establish what work the murderer may have done, or may line up with some other pattern of the murderer's life or at the extreme might be part of some stand-alone pattern the murderer was following for some reason.

b) The two Kelly's
The last two victims both used the same name, coincidence? Possibly mistaken identity. Was Eddowes impersonating MJK, especially given the address she used? Probably just a coincidence, but what if?

c) And Johnny Gill body found at 7 weeks post MJK, plus the next saturday, in a ripper-like manner - mutilated and genitals mutilated. Was it just a coincidence of timing? Was it a ripper killing? If so, why did victim age and gender change as well as the location?

These are just observations and questions, but may lead to something more.

[Michael W Richards]

Interesting how many people went to ground.
We know Conway and his sons waited over two weeks but before Eddowes identity was known the police were apparently making exhaustive enquiries looking for a Kelly in Dorset Street !
You'd think following no help at no 6 ,as written on the ticket , McCarthy's shop would have been the next port of call ?

Ive wondered just how close Conway may still have been with Kate, and whether John Kelly represented just a "a partner", as characterized by Kelly himself.

[Michael W Richards]

I have no theory, indeed I think a cover up or conspiracy very unlikely. Nevertheless, before a theory comes some doubt, perhaps resulting from coincidences, which leads to a what if and then some research and then possibly a theory or an explanation. I personally am at the stage of noticing a few coincidences which suggest the seemingly random killings appear to have a pattern. If there is a pattern, it suggests something else might be going on. I don't know what, if anything. However, having noticed the pattern and name similarity, it is worth exploring what they might mean, hence this thread. They mean nothing, or we may be able to explain them away. Someone else may already have researched these and can lay down some facts about them.

Comments so far:

a) Pattern of murder timings (fri, sat, sun, fri plus gaps of 1, 3 & 5 weeks)
This either may be sheer coincidence, or point to a work based schedule which might help us establish what work the murderer may have done, or may line up with some other pattern of the murderer's life or at the extreme might be part of some stand-alone pattern the murderer was following for some reason.

b) The two Kelly's
The last two victims both used the same name, coincidence? Possibly mistaken identity. Was Eddowes impersonating MJK, especially given the address she used? Probably just a coincidence, but what if?

c) And Johnny Gill body found at 7 weeks post MJK, plus the next saturday, in a ripper-like manner - mutilated and genitals mutilated. Was it just a coincidence of timing? Was it a ripper killing? If so, why did victim age and gender change as well as the location?

These are just observations and questions, but may lead to something more.

Its undeniable that when details are published about sensational murders there will be more people that are spurred on to act. I don't mean copycats, or mimics, I mean people with their own mental issues and desires, emboldened by and attracted to the "fame" that acting out ones demented fantasies produces. Negative/Positive press...doesn't matter to those guys. They still like the Fame.

I wonder if Jack was at all emboldened by Torso man?

[Sam Flynn]

I wonder if Jack was at all emboldened by Torso man?

I doubt that a killer(s) who threw the odd body part over a hedge, or plopped a body into the Thames once in a Blue Moon was going to inspire him. If he was emboldened at all, it was more likely to have been by the guys who did for Emma Smith and/or Martha Tabram.

[Observer]

I doubt that a killer(s) who threw the odd body part over a hedge, or plopped a body into the Thames once in a Blue Moon was going to inspire him. If he was emboldened at all, it was more likely to have been by the guys who did for Emma Smith and/or Martha Tabram.

I'd say the reports in the newspapers, and the talk on the street emboldened him more than anything else

[Michael W Richards]

I'd say the reports in the newspapers, and the talk on the street emboldened him more than anything else

That's my take, and Sam is probably right about the possible catalyst(s).

[etenguy]

Its undeniable that when details are published about sensational murders there will be more people that are spurred on to act. I don't mean copycats, or mimics, I mean people with their own mental issues and desires, emboldened by and attracted to the "fame" that acting out ones demented fantasies produces. Negative/Positive press...doesn't matter to those guys. They still like the Fame.

I wonder if Jack was at all emboldened by Torso man?

Good point - and if it was the press talk that emboldened him, maybe the need for each murder to outdo the other was part of the reason for escalating mutilations.