Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[DVV]

That is a notion based on emotional and moral thinking more than anything else.
Fisherman

Certainly not.
It's a matter of context, victimology, etc.
I'm very well aware that JtR wasn't a Hutu.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Certainly not.
It's a matter of context, victimology, etc.
I'm very well aware that JtR wasn't a Hutu.

Cheers

I´m afraid you could not be more wrong. The context, the victimology, the timing, the location all speak in favour of it being a Ripper deed.

Stating that nobody but the Ripper could have done it - something you agreed with - is a deeply moralistic, naïve and emotional mistake. Of course somebody else could have done it.

Limerickwise it goes like this:

Sadly the very one
who is prone to jump the gun
will conclude in advance
that there is no chance
he´d be wrong; it would spoil the fun!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I´m afraid you could not be more wrong. The context, the victimology, the timing, the location all speak in favour of it being a Ripper deed.

The best,
Fisherman

Fish,

you should stop posting for a while, and perhaps sit on your poetry (if I can call it so).

I MEANT it was a ripper deed, of course.

And I MEANT also that the ripper wasn't the only guy on Earth capable of such things. But given the location, the victimology, etc, it's more than safe to assume that the ripper did it.

Fact is that it has escaped you, and similarly you've proved unable to realise how ridiculous was your posts about the lung-expander who died from good-health.

Trust me, have some rest.

Cheers

[Phil H]

DVV you are a living example to us all.

Of how a fixed mind misses the obvious. Wedded to the past you cannot, apparently, think clearly or independently anymore. I'm sorry for you.

I don't think I have ever ruled out MJK's death as a Ripper "deed" (to use your term). It would be foolish indeed to do so. But my reading has led me to look at alternative scenarios which I now favour more.

The difference between us is that you deal in absolutes, I don't. My mind is broad enough to entertain new and evidently challenging (to some) ideas.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Fish,

you should stop posting for a while, and perhaps sit on your poetry (if I can call it so).

I MEANT it was a ripper deed, of course.

And I MEANT also that the ripper wasn't the only guy on Earth capable of such things. But given the location, the victimology, etc, it's more than safe to assume that the ripper did it.

Fact is that it has escaped you, and similarly you've proved unable to realise how ridiculous was your posts about the lung-expander who died from good-health.

Trust me, have some rest.

Cheers

I´m sorry, but if the rest of us posters are to realize that you normally don´t mean what you say, it will make it a bit tricky to assess your posts.

This is the original exchange:

Abby:
Only the ripper could have done that to Mary.
You:
Of course.
Indeed.
So obviously so.

... meaning that you agreed with the take that Kelly´s killer could only have been the Ripper.
Now, all of a sudden, after having waffled away a post or two inbetween, you say that this was not what you meant.

And then YOU recommend ME not to post any more. That calls for a limerick:

You said that you knew but you did not
Now you say that you really "meant" whatnot
How convenient, my friend
to bring to an end
the mistakes that make up a bad plot!

So, David, welcome to the world of the realists - the ones who do not know who killed Mary Kelly. I knew you´d come around, sooner or later.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Thanks for your good wishes, Fish, but you know, what you call "realiism" is nothing but précautions oratoires that go without saying.

Yes, MJK is an obvious Ripper victim, and that is why everybody thought so in 1888, as well as most modern researchers.

Oh, of course, we have no proof of this, and no video of the murder.

So there remains the possibility that MJK had been butchered by McCarthy, Barnett, or Prater.

Same goes with the other victims : Chapman could have been killed by Isenchmid or Richardson, or Cadosch, or Piggott. We have no proof.

But to be honest I don't care much, and feel no need to recall all those far-fetched theories everytime I'm posting about MJK or Chapman.

They're Ripper-victims, definitely so and obviously so.

I do entertain doubts about McKenzie, Smith and some others, but as for the C5, I'm sincerely not ashamed to confess that I have none.

Casebookers can open as many Stride threads as they wish : Kidney makes a poor suspect, and Schwartz wasn't involved in any conspiracy.

What a waste of time.

But of course, an open-minded one.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

David:

Thanks for your good wishes, Fish, but you know, what you call "realiism" is nothing but précautions oratoires that go without saying.

Nope - they go WITH saying. And many say other things than you. I suggest you respect that.

Yes, MJK is an obvious Ripper victim, and that is why everybody thought so in 1888, as well as most modern researchers.

She is an obviously very good bid for a Riper victim. Other story.

Oh, of course, we have no proof of this, and no video of the murder.

So there remains the possibility that MJK had been butchered by McCarthy, Barnett, or Prater.

... or somebody else. Like Fleming.

Same goes with the other victims : Chapman could have been killed by Isenchmid or Richardson, or Cadosch, or Piggott. We have no proof.

Yes, but why are YOU telling ME this. I am the discerning one here.

But to be honest I don't care much, and feel no need to recall all those far-fetched theories everytime I'm posting about MJK or Chapman.

They're Ripper-victims, definitely so and obviously so.

Did it again, David - quick-fix ripperology.

I do entertain doubts about McKenzie, Smith and some others, but as for the C5, I'm sincerely not ashamed to confess that I have none.

Then you should. Without doubt you are not really sane.

Casebookers can open as many Stride threads as they wish : Kidney makes a poor suspect, and Schwartz wasn't involved in any conspiracy.

What a waste of time.

But of course, an open-minded one.

Kidney makes a not so very good suspect, and Schwartz was probably not involved in any conspiracy.

See - it can easily be done the correct way!

Hey, how about this one:

A fisherman, fishing for cod,
tall and skinny - made thus by God
said: don´t call me short
this you need to abort
I´d much rather you called me Rod!

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

The difference between us is that you deal in absolutes, I don't. My mind is broad enough to entertain new and evidently challenging (to some) ideas.

Phil

You should stop thinking yourself clever because of your opinions, Mr H.

I do challenge ideas and some of my views are far from being popular - Emma Smith or McKenzie, for example.

It's just that we differ about the C5.

That doesn't make you smarter, be sure, but merely more arrogant, as shown by your "my brain is broad enough to..."
Pity.
Perhaps you're just foolish enough to be still on Barnett, whose innocence is pretty clear to people whose brains work as well as yours.

You do favour the possibility that MJK wasn't a Ripper victim. I simply don't, and you have no way to know how much time I've spent thinking about this particular murder, entertaining all possibilities (including Barnett as her killer).

I've reached to the conclusion that she is beyond doubt a Ripper victim, and that Barnett ain't the Ripper, for reasons I have not to repeat on this thread.

[DVV]

Did it again, David - quick-fix ripperology.

Fisherman[/B]

Call it what you want, I don't care.
I could call yours futile-ripperology, which often borders to ridicule.
I don't pretend to know everything, far from it, but some aspects of the case seem to me quite clear, while others are not, not at all.
And whatever I can post, it's nothing but my own opinion : I can say "MJK is an obvious Ripper victim", yes I can, but I don't mean to possess the absolute truth.
All I'm saying is "in my opinion", but I'm not to write "in my opinion" at the end of each and every sentence I post on boards.

[Fisherman]

David:

Call it what you want, I don't care.

That´s your prerogative. And mine.

I could call yours futile-ripperology, which often borders to ridicule.

Yes you could, but coupling that with calling Phil "arrogant" does not pan out very well, does it?

I don't pretend to know everything, far from it ...

Lately, you have come across somewhat differently, though.

... but some aspects of the case seem to me quite clear, while others are not, not at all.

Many things seem quite clear to me too. But taking it from there to boldly stating that they actually ARE clear is disrespectful to those of our likes that hold other opinions. It is also tantamount to nailing the lid on the coffin of intellectual honesty in my opinion. You can champion ANY view without arrogance, and you can be very clear on where you stand without calling other people´s views ridiculous.

And whatever I can post, it's nothing but my own opinion : I can say "MJK is an obvious Ripper victim", yes I can, but I don't mean to possess the absolute truth.

There you go. Now you´re talking. Long time no see.

All I'm saying is "in my opinion", but I'm not to write "in my opinion" at the end of each and every sentence I post on boards.

Nor do I do so - and I get occasionally thrashed for it. But saying that there can be no doubt that Kelly was a Ripper victim does not qualify for the category of thinking that she probably (or even with near certainty) was. It´s - once again - quick-fix ripperology, and it only damages yourself.

It´s one thing to leave out the "probablies" and another to take on board assertions that there can be no doubt in errands where we all know that there CAN be. So what you propose to live by, David, is only fine once you start living up to it.

Enough said.

Fisherman

[Phil H]

As usual with you DVV discussion is impossible.

Your last post (to Fisherman) explains a lot. You wantus to believe that you are entitled to your opinion and that we should understand it is just that - a personal opinion.

Yet you do not seem to be prepared to allow others to enjoy that same right. You mock, decry and seek to demolish while apparently proclaiming omniscience re the MJK murder and other things. It is not only me, I think, who notices and reacts to that.

My annoyance, which seems to be provoked by your posts, relates to the fact that while I have never claimed any certainty on matters Ripperite, and indeed balance more than one view on many issues - you attack and denigrate what are simply conclusions I have reached by my reading and turning the subject over in my mind.

It is a shame that you do not allow others the freedom you claim for yourself.

Edited to add that my post was written without having seen Fisherman's response, which he posted while I was writing mine.

Phil

[The Good Michael]

I've reached to the conclusion that she is beyond doubt a Ripper victim, and that Barnett ain't the Ripper, for reasons I have not to repeat on this thread.

And that would undoubtedly be a more sound conclusion than her NOT being a Ripper victim. You have to make up a lot of crap to get to the opposite conclusion. Possible, but unlikely.

Mike

[Phil H]

Sorry Michael - I haven't a clue what your last post means.

[Garry Wroe]

I have been challenging Ripper orthodoxy for upwards of twenty-five years, Phil. The difference being that I test my arguments against the available evidence before presenting them.

Only twentyfive years? - Johhny come-lately aren't you? Oh, I wish I had that self-confident arrogance, Garry.

From which I can only conclude that you’ve not been reading your own posts, Phil.

Re-read my posts, Garry - I think a key theme of them is the importance of adhering to scholarly standards.

That’s certainly what you insist on others doing, Phil, but all too often it seems to be a case of do as I say and not as I do.

I think I always try to root my views on facts, and common sense for that matter. So define "ill-conceived nonsense" please. It sounds like - "something I don't agree with".

How about Barnett’s alibi? Barnett’s watertight alibi.

Some people wouldn't recognise "progressive thinking" if it slit their throat.

Perhaps. But then some would glance at the injury and insist that it must have been inflicted by Barnett.

[Phil H]

We cannot, at this late juncture, confirm that Barnett's alibi WAS watertight. That is simply your judgement of the surviving evidence.

If that is your view, OK. Your choice. But I do not have to accept, not does anyone else. Please don't try to IMPOSE your view on others.

Phil