Ada Wilson - Escaped Convict

[Astatine211]

Another thing that needs to be considered is that its a near certainty that the Ripper was a very religious man, who only committed crimes in accordance to it. Taking money in the process of said crimes would likely be off limits to their religion.

James Kelly was extremely religious so much so that he believed God was protecting him from any harm but was still proven to have slept with many prostitutes. Just because JtR was likely extremely religious doesn't mean he followed the religions ideal philosophy.

Take the many sexual abuse crimes modern day priests have committed, you can't get more devout yet you would think their actions would be as far from God as you could get.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another thing that needs to be considered is that its a near certainty that the Ripper was a very religious man, who only committed crimes in accordance to it. Taking money in the process of said crimes would likely be off limits to their religion.

As we don’t know who the ripper was how can you suggest it a ‘near certainty’ that he was a very religious man?

[Wickerman]

As we don’t know who the ripper was how can you suggest it a ‘near certainty’ that he was a very religious man?

I'm pretty sure butchering a fellow human being was not considered a christian thing to do on a Sunday morning before church.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm pretty sure butchering a fellow human being was not considered a christian thing to do on a Sunday morning before church.

Yup. I’m no Theologian Wick but I tend to agree.

[Stacker]

As we don’t know who the ripper was how can you suggest it a ‘near certainty’ that he was a very religious man?

Its based on the days the ripper chose to kill his victims and lining them up with Catholic Patron Saints (and their occupations). Richard Patterson went over this here:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/thompson-francis/9035-only-a-0-000003-chance-the-ripper-murderer-was-not-a-religious-fanatic

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its based on the days the ripper chose to kill his victims and lining them up with Catholic Patron Saints (and their occupations). Richard Patterson went over this here:
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...igious-fanatic

According to the Church of England calendar of Saints August has 31/ September has 30/ October has 31/ November has 30.

The ripper couldn’t really avoid killing on a saints day.

[Astatine211]

Its based on the days the ripper chose to kill his victims and lining them up with Catholic Patron Saints (and their occupations). Richard Patterson went over this here:
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...igious-fanatic

If you get a protractor and connect the sites it makes a masonic symbol.

Does that mean JtR was a mason. Definitely not.

[Michael W Richards]

Nice post, Astatine211.

I doubt our killer emerged fully formed from nowhere to murder and mutilate Nichols and the rest. I could well believe he started out rather differently, as someone who had always used and abused women he had no respect for. Taking what little money they had would have been just one more indignity to add to his catalogue, regardless of his own financial situation. It didn't need to be a prime motivator, but just part of his overall criminality, and possibly more in line with trophy taking.

All about the power he may only have had over women when he had a knife in his hand.

Stay safe.

Love,

Caz
X

The "worked his way" up theory is based upon a belief that what the killer wanted, or how he went about his business, for some reason changed as time passed. Yet there is no evidence of either. The murder of Annie can be used to compare to Polly's murder, since they were done almost certainly by the same person. With the same MO, the same Victimology, the element of surprise, the deep double throat cuts to ensure death and quicker bleed outs. And in both cases he showed a particular desire to mutilate the female abdomen after killing the women. In Annies case it was suggested by no less than the medical expert who examined her that what was done to Annie was specifically to extract her uterus. "No meaningless cuts". He had some knife skills and some anatomical knowledge, and could have been anyone from a med student to a butcher.

What the series theorists would have you believe is Ted Bundys history has relevance to sorting out this issue, when in fact based on the above, we have patterns that are established and then continued. More like John Wayne Gacy... if comparing with known modern serial killers.

The only reason people assume the killer changes is because later victims do not show the same characteristics as the first 2. So..he must have changed, right? This is JtR, the killer of a series of women,......well, Nope. Its an argument for including disparate events and actions with an eerily similar double murder.

[c.d.]

In Annies case it was suggested by no less than the medical expert who examined her that what was done to Annie was specifically to extract her uterus

Please don't call the doctors in this case "medical experts." They were simply doctors not "experts" as that term is used today in courts.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

In Annies case it was suggested by no less than the medical expert who examined her that what was done to Annie was specifically to extract her uterus

Please don't call the doctors in this case "medical experts." They were simply doctors not "experts" as that term is used today in courts.

c.d.

These men were selected to work on these cases based on their reputations. They clearly were experts among what would loosely be referred to as "peers". If you dont like what the man said its not because he didnt have the authority and experience to say it. Its because you dont want to accept it. Anytime someone suggests something that clearly demonstrates a different style, MO and process and uses contemporary "experts" as references they are claimed by the Myth followers to be unstrustworthy and fallible. Another perfect example in these cases is Killeen. If people who have equivalent credentials can demonstrate how he could not distinguish between a pen knife wound and a bayonet wound, then speak up. Without equivalent skills and training, and without the experience of seeing the wounds first hand, what Killeen basically told us was that 2 different weapons were used to kill that one woman. Which almost certainly means 2 men, which coexists with soldiers out in pairs quite well. But people want to include Martha with a ripper, so they say Killeen is wrong. Damn any logic and throw speculation so that Jack is still probable. A secret...in the case of Martha Tabram, no ripping at all is present, and 2 weapons are.

So, prove me wrong. Clearly give one factual example where the expert I referred to is proven to have been inaccurate in Annies case, where his statements have provable errors exposed, and/or where any reference to him being discredited and unworthy of an expert moniker exists.

Ill get a bottle of single malt and wait for your reply. Betcha the single malt is gone before you come up with anything, and Im a slow drinker.

[c.d.]

Why the antagonism and sarcasm, Michael? Do you really need that? Please calm down.

Before I bestow the mantle of "expert" to any of the doctors in this case I need a few questions answered first. How did they arrive at their conclusions? How much time did they spend in reaching that conclusion? What factors did they consider? What assumptions did they make? Did they consult any other doctors and were those doctors in complete agreement with their conclusions?

I am not saying that a doctor or doctors were wrong in their conclusion I am simply saying that we need a lot more information before we can take their conclusions as the word of God.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Why the antagonism and sarcasm, Michael? Do you really need that? Please calm down.

Before I bestow the mantle of "expert" to any of the doctors in this case I need a few questions answered first. How did they arrive at their conclusions? How much time did they spend in reaching that conclusion? What factors did they consider? What assumptions did they make? Did they consult any other doctors and were those doctors in complete agreement with their conclusions?

I am not saying that a doctor or doctors were wrong in their conclusion I am simply saying that we need a lot more information before we can take their conclusions as the word of God.

c.d.

You tell me to not call a medical proffesional assigned to the investigation and post mortem as an "expert", based on what premise? How they arrived at their conclusions was a direct reflection of what experiences they had and how well they were trained. There were other opinions solicited, such as Bond, who read 4 case files and saw just one woman firsthand. He declared that he saw no skill or knowledge in any of these murders, which contradicts Phillips directly. But who is the more likely to know how best to interpret the wounds...the man who saw them and investigated them, or the man who saw a summary of them?

Its got nothing to do with bestowing god status on an opinion, its a presumption that all these men were the tops in their respective departments and some would have a better idea of what was exactly there, based on first hand inspections.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The chances of Eddowes and Kelly being killed by a different killer than Chapman and Nichols must be astronomically remote unless there was a serial killer convention in town that wasn’t reported in the Press. Of course we have to factor in wish thinking which is ever present. The overwhelming desire to discover some ‘wow’ theory. All we get is one cut versus two and other such quibbles in an attempt to make more of this than there is.

[Astatine211]

The chances of Eddowes and Kelly being killed by a different killer than Chapman and Nichols must be astronomically remote unless there was a serial killer convention in town that wasn’t reported in the Press. Of course we have to factor in wish thinking which is ever present. The overwhelming desire to discover some ‘wow’ theory. All we get is one cut versus two and other such quibbles in an attempt to make more of this than there is.

Absolutely no doubt the C5 + a few others were by the same hand of JtR.

About a convention though after 40 hours of research I discovered that a close mentor to a well know suspect and probably would've know they were JtR if the suspect was got married 13 times between 1860-1888 with the dates of marriage fitting a pattern of other events going on at the time but I'm not gonna say anything more cause I'm still working on my theory and need more evidence to back it up.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Absolutely no doubt the C5 + a few others were by the same hand of JtR.

About a convention though after 40 hours of research I discovered that a close mentor to a well know suspect and probably would've know they were JtR if the suspect was got married 13 times between 1860-1888 with the dates of marriage fitting a pattern of other events going on at the time but I'm not gonna say anything more cause I'm still working on my theory and need more evidence to back it up.

What? What's this? Someone get me drink. A hard one.