Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Conspiracy to suppress the identity of JTR?

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    It had been six weeks since the so-called double-event. Memories are short. People weren't sitting on the edges of their seats, waiting for the "Ripper" to strike again.

    So why did the police automatically assume that Millers Court was the work of the "Ripper," a 'fact' they were happy for the newspapers to broadcast in quick-smart time?
    You really asked why the Kelly murder looked like a Ripper murder?


    The police have no control over what 'theories' the newspapers promote.

    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • #32
      Hi Jon,

      Yes, I did.

      Perhaps because the police wanted it to be a Ripper murder.

      Newspapers carried much of what the police required them to print.

      Regards,

      Simon
      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

      Comment


      • #33
        Another one who refuses to do his research properly , Well go ahead sherlock give it your best shot, show me this mountain of meticulous, indisputable research and evidence that disproves childish theories . But be careful you might find me disproving yours .

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Or people like you that ignore the mountains of genuine, meticulous, indisputable research and evidence that easily disprove these childish and discredited theories.
          I happily accept that the Royal / Masonic conspiracy based on Joseph Sickert and Stephen Knight is generally and rightly considered discredted.

          However, this dismissal is no basis to dismiss any and all possible royal / masonic involvement.

          Martyn
          It was me. I let the dogs out.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
            It had been six weeks since the so-called double-event. Memories are short. People weren't sitting on the edges of their seats, waiting for the "Ripper" to strike again.

            So why did the police automatically assume that Millers Court was the work of the "Ripper," a 'fact' they were happy for the newspapers to broadcast in quick-smart time?
            I'm perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim, based upon the excessive overkill, but still think it a very unlikely option. Nonetheless, I think the police would have been absolutely pilloried if they had argued that Kelly was, or could have been, killed by someone other than JtR.

            Think about it: an incredibly rare crime, involving overkill in respect of the neck injuries, like the earlier murders, and evisceration, like Chapman and Eddowes. And it occurs only a few weeks after the Eddowes murder, and in the same square mile radius as the rest of the C5.

            Lets not also forget that Abberline thought George Chapman was JtR, based upon the fact that he was a serial poisoner!

            Then there the Mackenzie murder, demostrating that the police were prepared to be open minded. I mean, it would be easy to argue that she was a Ripper victim-many on here believe as much-but this was an argument rejected by Anderson, even though Dr Bond opined that she was, indeed, a Ripper victim.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
              Another one who refuses to do his research properly , Well go ahead sherlock give it your best shot, show me this mountain of meticulous, indisputable research and evidence that disproves childish theories . But be careful you might find me disproving yours .
              Reading Knight, Fairclough, Overton Fuller and Cornwell does not constitute research Fishy. It means that you’ve read the wrong books.
              Regards

              Herlock






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

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Reading Knight, Fairclough, Overton Fuller and Cornwell does not constitute research Fishy.
                It's hard to imagine a more dubious combination of theories.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by John G View Post

                  I'm perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim, based upon the excessive overkill, but still think it a very unlikely option. Nonetheless, I think the police would have been absolutely pilloried if they had argued that Kelly was, or could have been, killed by someone other than JtR.

                  Think about it: an incredibly rare crime, involving overkill in respect of the neck injuries, like the earlier murders, and evisceration, like Chapman and Eddowes. And it occurs only a few weeks after the Eddowes murder, and in the same square mile radius as the rest of the C5.

                  Lets not also forget that Abberline thought George Chapman was JtR, based upon the fact that he was a serial poisoner!

                  Then there the Mackenzie murder, demostrating that the police were prepared to be open minded. I mean, it would be easy to argue that she was a Ripper victim-many on here believe as much-but this was an argument rejected by Anderson, even though Dr Bond opined that she was, indeed, a Ripper victim.
                  There are a lot of convincing arguments for and against the canonical victims. Personally, I don't see how anyone can say with any authority who was or wasn't a Ripper victim. Some people see an inconsistency in the injuries and automatically conclude it was a different killer. Most of these murders happened in uncontrolled environments. There are both internal and external factors at play that could dictate the outcome of the murder. With that in mind, Tabram, Mylett or McKenzie are all possibilities. I would even go so far as to include Mary Ann Austin. She was murdered in Dorset Street with lower abdominal injuries. It was a significant time after the Ripper (1901) but so what? Killers have been known to take extended breaks or he may have been serving time inside/at a workhouse. Who knows? Again, I'm not saying that the same individual is responsible for all these murders, but since they were all unsolved with the same victim profile there is nothing to rule them out.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Reading books is indeed one of many forms of research. but hey just because you think there the wrong sort doesn't mean they are.Btw lets hear your suggestion as to who the ripper was arent you prepared to stick your neck out?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                      There are a lot of convincing arguments for and against the canonical victims. Personally, I don't see how anyone can say with any authority who was or wasn't a Ripper victim. Some people see an inconsistency in the injuries and automatically conclude it was a different killer. Most of these murders happened in uncontrolled environments. There are both internal and external factors at play that could dictate the outcome of the murder. With that in mind, Tabram, Mylett or McKenzie are all possibilities. I would even go so far as to include Mary Ann Austin. She was murdered in Dorset Street with lower abdominal injuries. It was a significant time after the Ripper (1901) but so what? Killers have been known to take extended breaks or he may have been serving time inside/at a workhouse. Who knows? Again, I'm not saying that the same individual is responsible for all these murders, but since they were all unsolved with the same victim profile there is nothing to rule them out.
                      Yes, that's the crux of the matter. We have a large number of rare violent unexplained murders, all within the same very small district, but trying to determine who killed who is no easy matter. In fact, there's little doubt in my mind that there had to be at least three individuals commiting these crimes.

                      I'm convinced that the same perpetrator killed Nicholls, Chapman and Eddowes, but that's about it. Kelly is very likely in my opinion, but the savage, unskilled nature of the crime leaves room for doubt.

                      Stride I'm about 50-50 on. In fact, it could be argued there's a more convincing case to be made out for Tabram.

                      Then there's the Dorset Street trio, Kelly, Ronan and Austin? Could they be linked? If not, and Kelly was a Ripper victim, who killed Ronan and Kelly.

                      And what about Mackenzie, Coles, Mylett, Smith and the Torso victims? It simply defies belief that they, together with the earlier mentioned victims, were all killed by the same hand.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by John G View Post

                        Yes, that's the crux of the matter. We have a large number of rare violent unexplained murders, all within the same very small district, but trying to determine who killed who is no easy matter. In fact, there's little doubt in my mind that there had to be at least three individuals commiting these crimes.

                        I'm convinced that the same perpetrator killed Nicholls, Chapman and Eddowes, but that's about it. Kelly is very likely in my opinion, but the savage, unskilled nature of the crime leaves room for doubt.

                        Stride I'm about 50-50 on. In fact, it could be argued there's a more convincing case to be made out for Tabram.

                        Then there's the Dorset Street trio, Kelly, Ronan and Austin? Could they be linked? If not, and Kelly was a Ripper victim, who killed Ronan and Kelly.

                        And what about Mackenzie, Coles, Mylett, Smith and the Torso victims? It simply defies belief that they, together with the earlier mentioned victims, were all killed by the same hand.
                        How about taking out Chapman as well?

                        Imagine a couple of medical students being approached by that American looking for an un-preserved uterus and they realizing that another kill will likely be associated with the previous kill(s) anyway, (certainly if left in the hands of the grand standing Coroner Baxter) so they make a for profit kill.

                        Chapman is in a semi-secluded area; Eddowes and Nichols out in the open.

                        Chapman's throat is only slit once; Eddowes and Nichols twice

                        with Chapman there is no reported piquering(sp) behavior, only removal of the uterus; Nichols' liver is stabbed at multiple times.

                        also Chapman assaulted by medical students helps explain Dr. Phillips conclusions: "some knowledge / surgically removed"

                        also, also, the Nichols to Chapman timing seems too quick for a serial killer; the three to five week spacing usually works better with serial killers.

                        Ah, just speculating; but I am more likely to include Tabram than Chapman, if I am to exclude anyone.

                        In order of (personal) certainty:

                        Nichols
                        Eddowes
                        Tabram
                        Chapman
                        Kelly
                        Stride.


                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by APerno View Post

                          with Chapman there is no reported piquering(sp) behavior, only removal of the uterus; Nichols' liver is stabbed at multiple times.
                          There was little or no piquerism evident in the Ripper murders, and any stabs were most probably accidental. In Eddowes' (not Nichols) case, the liver, spleen and pancreas sustained some cuts - not stabs - almost certainly because the killer was working with his knife in the vicinity of those organs as he removed the left kidney. All told, there are few, if any, instances of purposeful stabbing among the Canonical Five.

                          Incidentally - for clarity, I always use piquerism in the strict sense of "stabbing", in deference to the fact that the word derives from the French "piquer" (to prick, puncture, jab or stick into). Unlike some experts, including FBI agent Robert Ressler, I do not blur the definition of piquerism (stabbing) to include the act of cutting/slashing with a knife, not least because we have to be able to distinguish between these, to my mind very different, types of injury.

                          (BTW, I'm glad to see that you used the word in the "stabbing" sense too, APerno )

                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Hi John G,

                            You bring up a very interesting matter.

                            Allegedly, nobody knew the author of the Millers Court murder.

                            Therefore, could the police have blamed the murder on someone other than the Ripper? Could they have got away with saying, "This murder is hideous, unprecedented in the annals of crime, and we can't imagine who might have committed such a dastardly deed?"

                            Could they also have got away with saying, "This murder bears certain similarities to some of those committed in Whitechapel over a month ago, and we are working diligently to see if we can establish some sort of connection?"

                            I don't believe they could. There was no time for such analytical police work. Speed was of the essence.

                            Millers Court was a done deal. It had previously been decided that it was going to be a Ripper murder. How else, within an hour and a half of the door to Room 13 being broken open, with Doctor Bond and others still conducting an initial examination, and the victim's viscera yet to be taken away in a bucket for further examination, could Central News confidently inform the people of Aberdeen in Scotland that 'the fiend' had struck again?

                            A policeman must have told Central News it was a "Ripper" murder.

                            How could he be certain?

                            Regards,

                            Simon
                            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                              Reading books is indeed one of many forms of research. but hey just because you think there the wrong sort doesn't mean they are.Btw lets hear your suggestion as to who the ripper was arent you prepared to stick your neck out?
                              1st You need to read a wide range of books and not just stop when you find a theory that you like. Which you appear to have done.

                              2nd I have a suspect that I favour over other named suspects but that in no way means that I think that it’s case solved.

                              3rd. I notice that you haven’t bothered responding to my response to your post on the How did JTR see in the dark thread.

                              4th. It’s not a prerequisite of the subject to have a suspect. It’s quite possible that the ripper has yet to be named.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                There was little or no piquerism evident in the Ripper murders, and any stabs were most probably accidental. In Eddowes' (not Nichols) case, the liver, spleen and pancreas sustained some cuts - not stabs - almost certainly because the killer was working with his knife in the vicinity of those organs as he removed the left kidney. All told, there are few, if any, instances of purposeful stabbing among the Canonical Five.

                                Incidentally - for clarity, I always use piquerism in the strict sense of "stabbing", in deference to the fact that the word derives from the French "piquer" (to prick, puncture, jab or stick into). Unlike some experts, including FBI agent Robert Ressler, I do not blur the definition of piquerism (stabbing) to include the act of cutting/slashing with a knife, not least because we have to be able to distinguish between these, to my mind very different, types of injury.

                                (BTW, I'm glad to see that you used the word in the "stabbing" sense too, APerno )

                                Yes I meant stabbing, but was unaware that they were considered accidental.

                                Yes piquerism is a particular mental illness that is sexual in nature and is the act of directly penetrating the skin in a phallic manner thus denoting the supposed sexual intent; cutting and ripping would not denote the disease.

                                I am not sure where I read it off hand but I was under the impression that the Ripper had stabbed several times at Nichols liver; I will have to keep an eye out for that passage again. Not saying it was correct but I did run across the statement recently. Sometimes I mixed (and shouldn't) what I read in posts with what I read in primary sources, books, and personal dissertations.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X