Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

cop the ripper? (a revived thread)

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by DVV View Post
    Hi Trevor,

    once again, all I'm saying is with all due respect.
    I like the way you expose your views - "experts will disagree, but...etc". It's direct, frank, I sincerely appreciate that.

    But the fact that the case is unsolved does not prompt me to accept any kind of theories. I'm not a desperado, not yet, at least...
    Your apron theory is beyond me, sincerely.

    Once again, menstruation blood is something different... And as The Grave Maurice said, Kate was 45, and it was in 1888....

    Since your theory "revolves around matters of personal feminine hygiene" (p 164), you should give a little thought to our objections...

    Amitiés,
    David
    .

    You havent mentioned any objections for me to give thoughts . i always keep an open mind an assess and evaluate all facts in a professional manner. i do not have a problem discussing with anyone matters apperatining to my investigations and research.

    But what does annoy me on here is when people dismiss outright new issues and when challenged to produce anyhtign in support of their own original theories/views whatever you want to call it suddenly the silence is deafening.

    I really beleive that some people do not want to consider new issues let alone accept them. Thsi is not just me other posters of late on here have voiced the same concerns. So next time when challenged either put up or shut up.
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 01-24-2010, 09:15 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Oh, yes, there were objections, Trevor...

      GM may well be right, Eddowes, aged 46, was probably a post-menopausal woman. Does your research take this into account ?

      Secondly, had it been menstruation blood, it would hardly have been taken for "normal" blood (sorry for my poor English). The piece of apron has been carefully examined, I think.

      Now can I quote you ?

      "The immediate area was no doubt used as a short cut from one part of Whitechapel to another and could have been used by Eddowes at some time that day or after her release from police custody shortly before her death."

      Most posters are ready to "consider new issues", when they are plausible, but the section I've quoted is nothing but extremely wild and groundless speculation.

      Amitiés,
      David

      Comment


      • #33
        You are in fact correct. She would have past through menopause already. Depending on the severity and length of her poor nutritional state menopause could be as much as 15 years earlier than modern western average of the age of 51. It is very unlikely indeed. Respectfully Dave
        We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by protohistorian View Post
          You are in fact correct. She would have past through menopause already. Depending on the severity and length of her poor nutritional state menopause could be as much as 15 years earlier than modern western average of the age of 51. It is very unlikely indeed. Respectfully Dave
          .

          Well i have it in part of a consutant gynecolgists statement that women up to their late 40`s are still capable of mentsruation. So you cannot say Edowes was past that st age or incapable of menstruating through poor health.

          Some of you people will try every means possible whereby you try to negate new issues.

          I would also suggest to bring things up to date you get hold of a copy of my secon bookd "The Evil Within" which has an extended chapter on JTR and includes new material and photographs covering these aforementioned issues.
          Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 01-25-2010, 02:19 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by DVV View Post
            Oh, yes, there were objections, Trevor...

            GM may well be right, Eddowes, aged 46, was probably a post-menopausal woman. Does your research take this into account ?

            Already answered in another post
            Secondly, had it been menstruation blood, it would hardly have been taken for "normal" blood (sorry for my poor English). The piece of apron has been carefully examined, I think.

            [B]Well i am sure if the doctors never ever considered it just like they never considered checking Eddowes abdomewn at the crime scene knowing that previous victim had suposedly had organs removed at another crime scene. Now please dont say they didnt have enough light to do that because we are also led to beleive there was enough light in Mitre SQuare or the killer to perform major surgery[/B]Now can I quote you ?

            "The immediate area was no doubt used as a short cut from one part of Whitechapel to another and could have been used by Eddowes at some time that day or after her release from police custody shortly before her death."

            Well if Eddowes didnt put it there and the killer did, and Pc Long didnt please enlighten us as to who did
            Most posters are ready to "consider new issues", when they are plausible, but the section I've quoted is nothing but extremely wild and groundless speculation.

            Amitiés,
            David
            Its no more wild and groundless than the suggestion that the killer cut the apron piece and removed the organs from the victims at the scene.

            As far as the apron piece is concerned. he could not have taken the organs away in it. Nor could he have taken it away to wipe his hands or knife on it. So if you still beleive those facts are correct show me something that will corroborate those beliefs.

            I would also suggest to bring things up to date you get hold of a copy of my second book "The Evil Within" which has an extended chapter on JTR and includes new material and photographs covering these aforementioned issues.
            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 01-25-2010, 02:18 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              .

              Well i have it in part of a consutant gynecolgists statement that women up to their late 40`s are still capable of mentsruation. So you cannot say Edowes was past that st age or incapable of menstruating through poor health.

              Some of you people will try every means possible whereby you try to negate new issues.
              Indeed I can if your gynecologist did not account for poor diet in the denizens of the east end, and further, without knowing the age of menarche to say with any certainty is impossible. As I i have stated earlier the current average for menopause among women in western culture is in fact 51. This is certainly a fact of the greatly improved diet now enjoyed in Western culture. If one examines cultures more like the one in question, the age for menopause drops to the mid 30's. Not all women are equal, and not all societies are equal. Dave
              Last edited by protohistorian; 01-25-2010, 02:15 AM.
              We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by protohistorian View Post
                Indeed I can if your gynecologist did not account for poor diet in the denizens of the east end, and further, without knowing the age of menarche to say with any certainty is impossible. As I i have stated earlier the current average for menopause among women in western culture is in fact 51. This is certainly a fact of the greatly improved diet now enjoyed in Western culture. If one examines cultures more like the one in question, the age for menopause drops to the mid 30's. Not all women are equal, and not all societies are equal. Dave
                Well if your only point of argument is that. There is no point in continuing becasue we dont know for sure so you cannot rule out the possibilty that she was or could have been. Dont be so negative try and consider other options to the ones which have been accepted as being correct.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Mr. Marriot, it is not a matter of negativity. Failing to account for processes we know effect the human body, is not my mistake and I flatly refuse to open my mind to something that is contrary to established scientific fact. What you are proposing, in my mind is tantamount to accepting the proposition that fire is cold. Dave
                  Last edited by protohistorian; 01-25-2010, 02:48 AM.
                  We are all born cute as a button and dumb as rocks. We grow out of cute fast!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    As far as the apron piece is concerned. he could not have taken the organs away in it. Nor could he have taken it away to wipe his hands or knife on it. So if you still beleive those facts are correct show me something that will corroborate those beliefs.
                    What I firmly believe is that he cut the piece of apron in Mitre Square and threw it in Goulston Street.
                    As convincing as you may find your scenario, still nobody seems convinced.

                    I would also suggest to bring things up to date you get hold of a copy of my second book "The Evil Within" which has an extended chapter on JTR and includes new material and photographs covering these aforementioned issues.
                    I'll buy and read it as soon as possible, and with pleasure, Trevor.

                    Amitiés,
                    David
                    Last edited by DVV; 01-25-2010, 02:47 AM. Reason: menstruation week

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      [QUOTE=DVV;119291]What I firmly believe is that he cut the piece of apron in Mitre Square and threw it in Goulston Street.
                      As convincing as you may find your scenario, still nobody seems convinced.

                      For what purpose did he cut it and throw it away. All the reasons previoulsy given are now looked upon as suspect.

                      I'll buy and read it as soon as possible, and with pleasure, Trevor.

                      Then come back to me and see if you still feel the same way
                      Amitiés

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        For what purpose did he cut it and throw it away. All the reasons previoulsy given are now looked upon as suspect.
                        His purpose can be obscure and/or hotly debated, but that's not the point. It's a mere fact : he cut it (in Mitre Square) and threw it (in Goulston Street).

                        Quote:
                        Then come back to me and see if you still feel the same way

                        As I said, I'll read it, God willing.
                        And I'll pay for it even if you are kind enough to post your new arguments here.

                        Amitiés,
                        David
                        Last edited by DVV; 01-25-2010, 03:11 AM. Reason: lack of hygiene

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by DVV View Post
                          His purpose can be obscure and/or hotly debated, but that's not the point. It's a mere fact : he cut it (in Mitre Square) and threw it (in Goulston Street).

                          Quote:
                          Then come back to me and see if you still feel the same way

                          As I said, I'll read it, God willing.
                          And I'll pay for it even if you are kind enough to post your new arguments here.

                          Amitiés,
                          David
                          You will find the material in the new book contains corroboration to the new arguments. This is sadly lacking in respect of some of the old arguments

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            Well if your only point of argument is that. There is no point in continuing becasue we dont know for sure so you cannot rule out the possibilty that she was or could have been. Dont be so negative try and consider other options to the ones which have been accepted as being correct.
                            Actually Trevor, it is a very valid point. It is quite correct to say that the medical condition of the average working class woman in 1888, was quite different to one in 2010.

                            It is also a huge leap of faith to describe Kate Eddowes as an 'un-hygenic prostitute' when you quite cleary have no idea, at all, about her with regard to her cleanliness.

                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            Its no more of a wild theory than the killer cuting it off to take away the organs in or to wipe his hands.
                            Yes it is, that he used it to carry organs or to wipe his hands/knife is not 'wild theory' but a reasonable assumption based on the fact that organs were removed form the body or that the killers hands/knife would have been bloody.'Wild theory' is that Kate was on her period or, even wilder, someone who was not the killer cut it and planted it.

                            On the subject of the OP, I remember reading a Victorian study some years ago that claimed that, apart from local men, the most common client of these women were night duty policemen.
                            protohistorian-Where would we be without Stewart Evans or Paul Begg,Kieth Skinner, Martin Fido,or Donald Rumbelow?

                            Sox-Knee deep in Princes & Painters with Fenian ties who did not mutilate the women at the scene, but waited with baited breath outside the mortuary to carry out their evil plots before rushing home for tea with the wife...who would later poison them of course

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Hello Sox!

                              Well, an interesting piece of info. Thanks!

                              But... if JtR was a cop gone wrong, he did his deeds probably off-duty!

                              All the best
                              Jukka
                              "When I know all about everything, I am old. And it's a very, very long way to go!"

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I have started reading Trevor's book and right or wrong I think someone had to go down that path and Trevor should be thanked for doing so. I would also be interested in reading his second book. However, I have to agree that surely a mid-forties prostitute back then would not be biologically and anatomically identical to one living today. Also, to say that it is possible for women in their late 40s to menstruate sounds a little bit of a stretch. There is certainly nothing convincing in that testament.

                                Far more convincing is that Jack had to wipe his messy hands on something when he finished. It's a natrual compulsion. You should see the mess I make eating hotdogs. And since Eddowes' bowels were ruptured in the attack, it is not unlikely that he got urine and excrement on his hands while he worked, as well as the red stuff.


                                Hey ho, on we go.
                                "We want to assemble all the incomplete movements, like cubists, until the point is reached where the crime can commit itself."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X