Consistent distances between murders?

[caz]

Of course what I expressed was my "opinion" Richard. What else could it be? Even most "facts" - at least when more than one fact is put with others - is subjective and thus "opinion" (as the historian EH Carr pointed out long ago).

Hi Phil,

You asked Richard to "give it a rest" when he was merely expressing his opinion. Why don't you give it a rest, having a pop at inoffensive posters like Richard, just because you consider their opinions to be somehow inferior to your own?

We do know that serial killers are prone to some very odd compulsions, so it's not totally unreasonable to explore what may have made "Jack" tick. Richard has his 39 theory, while you think Jack got the willies at the thought of crossing the Whitechapel Road.

Each to his own "nonsense", eh?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Incidently, I was an ardent supporter of Melvin Harris, especially in his expose of the Maybrick Diary fiasco, Harris really knew his stuff. Oddly, when he wrote books on D'onston Stevenson, and the rational he used, I had to wonder if this was the same author
I commented that I wish he had used the same type of rigid criteria when developing his suspect as he used in debunking many long held theories, including the 'Diary'.

If you need to understand more about Ivor's theory you should read those of Melvin Harris, if only for the background.

Hi Jon,

We see eye to eye on many things these days, which is great, but I have to say that I never had a problem recognising the hand of Melvin Harris in his books on D'Onston from the lamentable job he did trying - and failing - to expose the diary as a late 1980s conspiracy featuring a 'nest of forgers' who included the Barretts. He got everything about the ink wrong; he was totally hoodwinked by Mike Barrett; and he was too afraid of the libel laws to ever publicly name his suspect(s) for the diary's composition and/or penmanship. The one thing he "knew his stuff" about was when he maintained that neither Mike nor Anne actually wrote the thing. Yet that's what most Harris admirers believe. The fact that the Barretts were handlers and placers was never in doubt, but to this day there is no evidence that either knew when it was created, why or by whom.

Sorry to go off topic (and speak ill of the dead) but Melvin was his own best promoter, whether he was claiming to have exposed D'Onston as the true face of JtR, or the diary as a wet weekend money spinner.

As for Ivor, he could only have hindered Melvin's efforts in either regard.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

What a very odd reply Caz - sorry I offended you by expressing an opinion.

I am quite content with the idea of a killer having an obsession with the number "39" - I question the practical ability to carry it through in practice.

Neither do I feel strongly about "Jack" crossing Whitechapel Road or any other for tthat matter. I merely cite it as a possible reason why Stride may not be one of "Jack's" victims.

And I don't perceive anyone's opinions as "inferior" to my own - far from it. Thank you.

Phil

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

We see eye to eye on many things these days, which is great, but I have to say that I never had a problem recognising the hand of Melvin Harris in his books on D'Onston from the lamentable job he did trying - and failing - to expose the diary as a late 1980s conspiracy featuring a 'nest of forgers' who included the Barretts.

Hello Caz, nice to hear from you again.

Its a long time ago now but I think I recall your position in those Diary debates . I don't bother with it any more.
Of the threads that can be considered a waste of time, the Diary debate must rank (literally & figuratively) as number one, or jointly with the Royal Conspiracies.

[HelenaWojtczak]

Thanks very much to all who addressed my question on this thread, particularly Wickerman.

Helena

[caz]

What a very odd reply Caz - sorry I offended you by expressing an opinion.

I am quite content with the idea of a killer having an obsession with the number "39" - I question the practical ability to carry it through in practice.

Neither do I feel strongly about "Jack" crossing Whitechapel Road or any other for tthat matter. I merely cite it as a possible reason why Stride may not be one of "Jack's" victims.

And I don't perceive anyone's opinions as "inferior" to my own - far from it. Thank you.

Phil

Hi Phil,

Oh I'm never personally offended by any opinions you express - sorry if you thought otherwise.

I just thought it was unnecessarily rude and dismissive to tell Richard to give his 'nonsense' a 'rest'.

In short, I was merely expressing my own opinion.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caz, nice to hear from you again.

Its a long time ago now but I think I recall your position in those Diary debates . I don't bother with it any more.
Of the threads that can be considered a waste of time, the Diary debate must rank (literally & figuratively) as number one, or jointly with the Royal Conspiracies.

Hi Jon,

My 'position' has not changed much over the years and is hardly controversial: the diary is not in Maybrick's handwriting but science dates the writing to before 1970. After that, it's anyone's guess. I would agree that the diary debate can be considered a waste of time in ripperological terms (Maybrick isn't a valid suspect and may never be one), but it's not a waste of time for anyone fascinated by hoaxes and hoaxers generally, or ripper hoaxes and 'artefacts' in particular.

I would submit that there is arguably more to learn about the subject of questioned documents from the diary debates than we are ever likely to learn about the ripper's identity if we debate the 'legitimate' suspects until hell freezes over.

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

Martha Tabram was 39 years old and has been stabbed 39 times.
If she's not canonical, who is ?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Well said Dave the C 6.
I hope I am not the instigator in, Phil deciding to leave us on this subject?
I have mentioned the coincidental theory of mine, countless times over the years, and as far as I know nobody was so alarmed, as to leave this case because of it, although I dare say Caz in her attempt to fight my battles may have enticed the situation.
For the record ,I did not find Phil's remark to my post, as anyway rude or insensitive, if I had I would have commented so , I may be looked on as inoffensive but I have been round the block too long not to look after myself.
I hope Phil does not fade away as he will be missed.
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Don't worry, Richard.
It's almost the 39th time Phil H says goodbye.

[caz]

Hi,
Well said Dave the C 6.
I hope I am not the instigator in, Phil deciding to leave us on this subject?
I have mentioned the coincidental theory of mine, countless times over the years, and as far as I know nobody was so alarmed, as to leave this case because of it, although I dare say Caz in her attempt to fight my battles may have enticed the situation.
For the record ,I did not find Phil's remark to my post, as anyway rude or insensitive, if I had I would have commented so , I may be looked on as inoffensive but I have been round the block too long not to look after myself.
I hope Phil does not fade away as he will be missed.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

I am so sorry if you thought I was attempting to 'fight' any battles for you personally. That was never my intention and I know you are perfectly capable of speaking up for yourself. I would have said the same if any other poster had been asked to give their 'nonsense' a 'rest' by someone who doesn't hesitate to express their own views on what motivated the ripper and which victims get included/excluded on that basis.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Don't worry, Richard.
It's almost the 39th time Phil H says goodbye.

Thanks Dave - I nearly spat my tea all over the keyboard when I read that.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

My 'position' has not changed much over the years and is hardly controversial: the diary is not in Maybrick's handwriting but science dates the writing to before 1970. After that, it's anyone's guess. I would agree that the diary debate can be considered a waste of time in ripperological terms (Maybrick isn't a valid suspect and may never be one), but it's not a waste of time for anyone fascinated by hoaxes and hoaxers generally, or ripper hoaxes and 'artefacts' in particular.

I would submit that there is arguably more to learn about the subject of questioned documents from the diary debates than we are ever likely to learn about the ripper's identity if we debate the 'legitimate' suspects until hell freezes over.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz.

Two opinions I recall in those early years were always worth reading, those of yourself and Paul B. And quite often, if I remember correctly, you both took a beating from both sides of the argument. Paul certainly did, in his on-the-fence position, I remember him expressing the need to explain himself more than once.
Just recently, I'm almost ashamed to say, I have been looking 'in' to see if any progress has been made, or if old arguments are just being rehashed

By the way, yes, I did mean 'waste of time' purely from the question of Maybrick being JtR.
From the perpetrating of a hoax though, certainly there must be interest.

Keep them on the straight and narrow my dear, you still offer one of the few sane opinions available.

[caz]

Why thank you kindly, Jon! You are a gentleman.

Love,

Caz
X

[Barrister]

On the subject of measurements

Can anyone tell me the distance between the Stride and Eddowes killings? Thanks.