Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack's Escape Route?

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

  • P.I I recommend you search out the thread "John, Richardson " where you can read over 3000 post on all things relating
    to the Chapman murder. Including arguments both for and against T.O.D where medical experts witnesses are concerned .

    As far as I'm aware it remains inconclusive. Your free to make up your own mind tho.
    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DJA View Post

      By memory the rumor was started by a newspaper like The Star.

      If you look at the reputable papers of the day,it was not mentioned.

      Ditto the police,etc.
      I know that Tom Cullen quoted it, but I don't know his source. Something isn't necessarily incorrect because it was in a newspaper, of course. The journalist may have asked witnesses, which the police didn't do.
      Last edited by Doctored Whatsit; 12-02-2022, 10:48 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DJA View Post

        Reckon Mary Ann Kelly was the last victim's real name and that Jack the Ripper was on his way to room 13 when he wrote GSG and left the apron piece.

        Strongly suspect Eddowes was exhausted by the walk back to London which exacerbated her ill health resulting from rheumatic fever 21 years earlier.She has sought rest in a bar,had a few drinks,left and collapsed.
        Rheumatic heart disease can cause damage to the heart valve and exertional collapse as a result, but if her heart was in that bad a shape she wouldn’t have walked back from Kent (assuming she didn’t stowaway on a goods train) and would surely have been noticed at post mortem. The police statements clearly describe somebody intoxicated.

        Paul

        Comment


        • Originally posted by kjab3112 View Post

          Rheumatic heart disease can cause damage to the heart valve and exertional collapse as a result, but if her heart was in that bad a shape she wouldn’t have walked back from Kent (assuming she didn’t stowaway on a goods train) and would surely have been noticed at post mortem. The police statements clearly describe somebody intoxicated.

          Paul
          Let's say her BAC was .20,then after 4.5 hours .155. That's certainly not sober. Wiggle the BAC anyway you like,it does not compute.

          My family is like Eddowes'.My father died in his early 50s from the aftermath of rheumatic heart disease in his youth.

          I've had fibromyalgia for 40 years and one month.

          Sister similar.

          At certain stages one is able to perform reasonably well,then ~ three days later it hits you ...... big time.

          Forget the heart damage ..... the problem lies in the intestines,where Streptococcous make their homes,disrupting digestion and therefore essential nutrients,etc.
          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

          Comment


          • To PI,

            I’d say that this is a perfect example of the claim to follow the evidence and his inflexible approach to interpreting it. I’ve added the numbers.

            . 1) She was quite definite that she would be coming back to the lodging house as soon as she had the money to pay for her bed there.

            2). Since she had already eaten, there is no reason to suppose that she would have spent the money on food instead.

            3) You would not rule out the possibility that a man who spoke English and had the appearance of a gentile could have spoken Yiddish and worn Jewish religious attire at a police identification.

            I go by the evidence, not by fanciful speculation.
            1) Why do you ignore something that happens to every one of us thousands of times during our lives? Namely that plans change. Some intentions don’t come to fruition because unpredicted events get in the way. And no, you can’t say “well we have no evidence of anything else happening,” because I’ll just say “well we have no evidence that Annie didn’t need the loo that afternoon or have a cup of tea or meet a friend,” we can’t eliminate them though. So the fact that she might have intended to return to the lodging house mess little and proves absolutely nothing.

            2. And there’s no reason to assume that she didn’t eat either. These women lived a hand-to-mouth existence never really knowing when or what they would next eat so it’s perhaps unlikely that she would turn down food if offered. Also we have to remember that Phillip didn’t necessarily find potatoes in her stomach. He found ‘farinaceous’ content which encompasses many possibilities. So she might have had a second potato or she might have met a friend who shared some food with her.

            So it’s untrue to say that we know what she last ate but it’s true to say that a potato is the last thing that we know that she ate. There’s a big difference.

            3. There’s no such thing as ‘the appearance of a gentile’ as has been pointed out to you before (it’s also been proven by numerous photographs) Not all Jewish people ‘looked’ Jewish and they certainly didn’t all dress in a Jewish way. If we had a German witness we would expect him to have been wearing Lederhosen. Some Jewish people would have looked Jewish and dressed in a Jewish manner but by no means all of them.

            ​​​​​​…..

            This is something that you just don’t appear to get. You keep stressing that you go by the evidence but this is something that all of us do. The problem is that evidence can be interpreted in different ways. If that wasn’t the case then there would never be any unsolved cases. All that other posters on here have done, and continue to do, is to show and discuss the alternatives…..none of which should be taken as proven. Why is this such an issue for you? Why is it that you post as if it should be assumed that your own interpretations must be correct? Why do you get so irate at the slightest disagreement or criticism? Doesn’t this tell you that you should at least try considering other possibilities? We are 134 years on from those crimes. We have lots of missing evidence…..we have timings that can’t be totally relied upon as accurate…..we have fallible memories from fallible witnesses……we have a Police force who’s level of training was amateurish compared to todays and whose knowledge of serial murder was non-existent…..we have Doctors with Victorian era forensic knowledge……we have newspapers with conflicting versions of events……..we don’t have full inquest transcripts…….we have no written Police interviews……and we have things like the graffito which we have no chance of seeing with our own eyes.

            How can any of us be confident?
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • I think P.I might have gone A.W.O.L
              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

              Comment


              • My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                Comment


                • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

                  Your question about the location of the killings relative to that of the docks seems to rest on the assumption - a luxury apparently reserved for anyone except this writer - that the man was living on a ship.

                  As I stated previously, I believe the murderer was living in accommodation in Spitalfields throughout the period in which the murders occurred and did not take his trophies back to a family, wife, relatives, friends or colleagues.

                  My reading of the arrival and departure dates of ships convinced me beyond any doubt that the murderer could not have been coming and going on any ships.
                  So a sailor that never went to sea?

                  "Stick close to your desk and never go to sea and you may be the ruler of the Queen's Navy."

                  Congratulations on destroying your own theory.

                  I am not assuming every sailor lived in a ship. I am assuming that most sailors lived near where ships docked.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                    I think P.I might have gone A.W.O.L
                    I'm sure they'll let him down from his cross soon enough.
                    Thems the Vagaries.....

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                      So a sailor that never went to sea?

                      "Stick close to your desk and never go to sea and you may be the ruler of the Queen's Navy."

                      Congratulations on destroying your own theory.

                      I am not assuming every sailor lived in a ship. I am assuming that most sailors lived near where ships docked.
                      I wonder if they found any traces of spinach in Mitre Square?
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                        I'm sure they'll let him down from his cross soon enough.
                        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          There is no evidence of any graffiti being left at any of the other crime scenes

                          The Graffiti has no logical reference to any of the murders

                          Why would the killer write a message in such an out-of-the-way, location if he wanted it to be seen and found and connected to the murders?
                          And if the killer wanted to leave messages to be seen and connected to the murders, why didn't he write any at the Chapman or Kelly Murder sites?

                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          The same goes for the apron piece why deposit it at that location when it might not have ever been found this leads me to be suspicious as to exactly how the Pc came to find it and decide it was of evidential value because at the time of discovery I don't believe he was aware of the Mitre Square murder
                          You're already excluding possibilities. It is quite possible that the apron piece was accidentally dropped by the killer or that it was deliberately discarded by the killer, with no intention of it ever being found.

                          According to PC Long, he had heard of the Mitre Square murder and rumors that there had been another killing.

                          "[Coroner] Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed? - Yes. It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated.
                          [Coroner] Which did you hear of? - I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain.​"


                          None of PC Long's statements seem suspicious in any way.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                            I'm sure they'll let him down from his cross soon enough.
                            He’s Brian…..and so is his wife.

                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              He’s Brian…..and so is his wife.
                              In post 411, Fishy1118 said:

                              "I think P.I might have gone A.W.O.L"

                              I replied in post 414:

                              "I'm sure they'll let him down from his cross soon enough"

                              This was a bit of a sarcastic dig, between myself and Fishy1118. Then, in post 418 you said:

                              "He’s Brian…..and so is his wife."

                              Was there any need for you to add this personal attack? I don't understand why the moderators allow it. It's bringing the forum into disrepute.
                              Thems the Vagaries.....

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                                In post 411, Fishy1118 said:

                                "I think P.I might have gone A.W.O.L"

                                I replied in post 414:

                                "I'm sure they'll let him down from his cross soon enough"

                                This was a bit of a sarcastic dig, between myself and Fishy1118. Then, in post 418 you said:

                                "Hes Brian..and so is his wife."

                                Was there any need for you to add this personal attack? I don't understand why the moderators allow it. It's bringing the forum into disrepute.


                                Did my word’s “He’s Brian” come up like this “Hes Brian..“ on your screen Al?
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X