Tweet
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes
View Post
-
Stop looking, you know what you said and the context you said in . Move on .'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 -
I don't believe I have insulted your opinions or intelligence or the right to respond Fishy. I agree with your point about people getting nasty when evidence contradicts a posters theory. The Lechmerians being a prime example of this generally. Anyway I don't wish to derail the thread.Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
Cheers JohnComment
-
Current standings
KEY
Age/Physical - [2] No problem, [1] = Some Doubt, [0] = Very Unlikely
Location - [2] = No Problem, [1] = Reasonable Travel/Some Doubt, [0] = Very Unlikely
Violence - [4] = Killed Woman (non-family member) with knife, [3] = Killed Woman (family member) with knife, [2] = Violence with a Knife, [1] = Violence Without a Knife, [0] = No Violence.
Mental Health Issues - [2] = Serious/Violent, [1] = Other, [0] = None Known
Police Interest - [2] = At the Time, [1] = Later, [0] = None Known.
Hatred/Dislike of Prostitutes/Women - [2] = Yes, [1] = Links to Prostitution, [0] = None Known
Medical/Anatomical Knowledge (Including Slaughterman and Butcher) - [1] = Yes, [0] = No
Alcohol/Drug Use - [1] = Yes, [0] = No
Rank Suspect Age/Physical Location Violence Mental Health Issues Police interest Hatred/Dislike of Prostitutes/Women Medical/Anatomical Knowledge
Including Slaughterman & ButcherAlcohol/Drug Use Total 1 Kelly 2 2 3 2 2 1 0 1 13 2 Bury 2 2 3 0 2 1 0 1 11 3 Cutbush 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 9 4 Deeming 2 1 4 0 0 2 0 0 9 5 Hyams 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 9 6 Kosminski 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 8 7 Pizer 2 2 1 0 2 1 0 0 8 8 Grainger 2 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 8 9 GSC Lechmere 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 8 10 Chapman 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 7 11 Tumblety 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 7 12 Barnado 2 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 7 13 G. Wentworth Bell Smith 2 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 7 14 Cohen 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 15 Thompson 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 16 Levy 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 17 Druitt 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 18 Barnett 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 19 Stephenson 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 20 Stephen 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 21 Bachert 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 22 Cross 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 23 Hardiman 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 24 Hutchinson 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 25 Mann 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 26 Maybrick 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 27 Sickert 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 28 Gull 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Comment
-
Barnardo should have a 1 for violence after he physically assaulted a young woman after she tried to rescue her father from being beaten up by a mob of "Barbados Boys"Originally posted by Tab View Post
It was a dispute over a right of way access.
Barnardo was heard jeering the boys on to assault the man, when the man's daughter tried to intervene.
Barnardo physically pushed and shoved her over forcefully pushing her breasts. She fell backwards and another bystander remarked to her to not go and fight back for fear she would get hurt.
Barnardo had a violent streak and that should be acknowledged with a 1 and not a 0
RD"Great minds, don't think alike"Comment
-
Bury's wife was an ex prostitute and Bury was reportedly a cat meat Butcher so shouldn't he have 2 more points? Also and this goes for Herlock's table too. Wasn't G Wentworth Bellsmith actually called Henry Wentworth Bellsmith? There's an old thread where someone I can't remember who did some research and found that it was highly likely that the G was a mistake and that he was actually Henry Wentworth Bellsmith. I'm pretty poor at linking old threads etc I apologise for that but if you look into the threads on Wentworth Bellsmith you'll find the info. Apart from these slight oversites I'm finding both Tab's and Herlock's tables really rather good.Originally posted by Tab View Post
Cheers John
Comment
-
When you’re looking at things like this you have to take into account who said them (to assess their reliability and to understand who would be in a better position to know something) and how many different accounts there are. So for example, if 10 witnesses said that Mr X had light brown hair and 1 witness said that Mr X had black hair, the likelihood would be that the majority were correct.Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
You have taken one account and given it the seal of approval because it suits your narrative, whereas I have looked at a few. Then, and this is the most important part, who was in the best position to know about Gull’s health intimately and from personal experience. a) someone writing a generic short biography of a public figure, or b) the son-in-law and colleague of that person…a person who was also a Doctor and would have actually seen Gull in the flesh and spent time with him. Someone who would have been in regular contact getting updates on his health for his concerned wife?
Surely you can’t dispute that Theodore Dyke-Acland is overwhelmingly the best person to have given a fair and accurate (from a Doctor) summary of Gull’s illness? So what did Acland say?
“It was during his holiday in Scotland amid the scenes so congenial to him, that in October, 1887, he was struck down by paralysis, from which he never wholly recovered. In a few weeks he was moved to London. The end did not come until January, 1890, when a fresh and acute illness brought to a rapid close the strong life here too feebly portrayed.”
His obituary in The Times also stated: “ he never sufficiently recovered to resume his practice.”
You are quite free to pick the one that you prefer Fishy but I’ll go with Acland. Gull never fully recovered. Further evidence for this is that he stopped seeing patients (as confirmed in The Times). Hardly a strenuous job but Gull didn’t feel that he was up to it. Even his own words tell us that all was not well:
“one arrow has missed its mark but there are more in the quiver’. “ He knew that further attacks would occur after the initial one in Scotland.
Even Gull’s will recorded 2 more attacks.
Now…..I haven’t said that it was impossible for him to have been involved and I certainly haven’t claimed to be able to prove that he wasn’t involved but we are simply talking about likelihoods. For a start, if we talked about any series of unsolved murders and we suggested a killer who had been 71 at the time..what reaction would we expect to get? Double the average age of the higher age range of an average serial killer? And at a time of shorter lifespans where 71 then would have been the equivalent of an even older man now. How many people would say ‘yeah, 71 isn’t a problem’? Surely you can admit that age alone pushes Gull to the outer edges of likelihood? Then when we add his other health issues. Issues that forced him to retire from a non-physical job.
Purely for the criteria of age and physical health can anyone name another suspect who would rate lower than Gull?
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”Comment
-
It’s in black and white. I’m happy to leave it. I doubt that you will though.Originally posted by FISHY1118 View PostRegards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”Comment
-
Everyone who has contributed to this thread have made reasonable, unbiased contributions. I have had no issue with any of them Fishy. I’ve made changes on advice including one that reduced Druitt and one that increased Sickert. The table has been done with scrupulous fairness. Only two people disagree. You, because it’s your suspect and because you have a bit of an obsession with Druitt and The Baron who, all of a sudden has miraculously transformed himself into Gull defender and has continued his issue with me which causes him to pipe up now and again to make some irrelevant Druitt-related comment. If you two would simply post on the topic and not form your opinion as to whether I’m involved or not we could discuss the case without ill feeling.Originally posted by FISHY1118 View PostRegards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”Comment
-
You can’t prove it because it didn’t happen. You made it up.Originally posted by FISHY1118 View PostRegards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”Comment
-
And there we are again. I haven’t said one single offensive thing in this thread. Not one. But there you are using the same tactic that you used in the Richardson thread. Stick to the topic Fishy.Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
You made a point about Sickert….i changed it accordingly. How is that being unfair?Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”Comment
-
You’ve invented that Fishy. Provide the evidence to prove that I’m wrong. You won’t be able to because I didn’t say it (and please don’t try the old ‘ive already proved it’ tactic because everyone will see through it)Originally posted by FISHY1118 View PostRegards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”Comment
-
But we can only speculate what a mutilating serial killer might say or do, we have a clear and concise opinion from a master butcher?Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
Hi Trevor,
I suspect what a serial killer can do, and what a sane person believes they can do, are not quite the same. Also, the exact lighting conditions are unknown to us. We do have Dr. Sequeria (sp?) saying that the location where Eddowes was found was the darkest corner of the square, but he also says that there was sufficient light for the offender, so it wasn't total darkness. The above butcher seems to describing a situation that may not apply. In the Chapman case, we're dealing with some uncertainty as to the time of the crime, but one of the options puts it around 5:25ish, at which point light isn't an issue as there would be dawn light (meaning, the sun is coming up and so there's more natural lighting than at say midnight. I'm not wanting to get into the Chaptman ToD debate here, so I accept that there are those who place the time of the murder much earlier, and if I'm wrong then the point is moot). I suppose, given the descriptions of the Stride crime scene, one could argue the lack of lighting explains the lack of mutilations - he just couldn't see so he left. In the Nichols' case there's no organ removal, just slashing, so that doesn't require light. And in the Kelly case there's the fire, and clearly he did what he did, so there was light enough for that.
I don't think you and I will ever agree with respect to the organ removal in the Chapman and Eddowes case (let alone the Kelly case), which is fine as far as I'm concerned, so I'm not going to enter a debate with you on that. We have different views, and given the case is both unsolved, combined with the fact that we're dealing with a woefully inadequate evidence set, it is for the best that as many options as possible be kept on the table even if everyone at that table doesn't agree. As soon as a possibility gets removed, after all, an investigation runs the risk of failing to follow the correct path, so one has to be very very sure an idea should be set aside before it gets set aside. Personally, I don't think the evidence we have for the JtR cases is sufficient to set very much aside, as I don't think we should ever be "very very sure" of anything. But given that, I approach it as an exercise in ordering the options, which "theory" would I put my resources into because they seem more likely to produce results, and which would I limit to "well go ahead but until you find me something, you are on your own, but produce and I'll provide you with an assistant to help if it looks promising" - meaning, which theories are not off the table, but all the same appear to be playing the "long odds". I've never put forth a suspect, so I'm not sure where I sit at that table. I'm just trying to understand what happened first, and I'm not even sure we can do that!
Basically, I think it is good to get opinions from modern butchers (as you've done above), and so forth, but I rather suspect if you asked the same question of a mutilating serial killer, you would have a good chance of getting a very different answer (although one might question the honesty of such individuals!). Sane people do not really understand just what actions depraved people can do and have done - we have this instinct that prevents us from envisioning ourselves doing these things, but fail to comprehend how someone can act without those instinctive restraints. That's a good thing, by the way.
- Jeff
My opinion based on the assessment and evaluation of all the facts and evidence is that the killer's motive was only murder and mutilation.
If it is suggested that it was one killer, and that killer was intent on harvesting organs from the crime scenes, why is it that we see no evidence of any attempts to remove organs from any of the other victims?
Comment
-
Multiple posts on this thread have been reported. Too many that I care to go through.
The very nature of the threads topic/goal was bound to create problems amongst the few members who conflict on the boards wherever they travel.
Same **** different day.
Ignore each other. Don’t refer to each other.
If the constant bickering doesn’t cease there will be lengthy consequences.
JMComment
-
No problem Jon. I’m done with the thread anyway.Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-05-2024, 03:08 PM.Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”Comment
-
Of course we can only speculate because we haven't go the information from the mutilating serial killer to compare with the one butcher that we have an opinion from. I'm just guessing (or, to be technical, I'm hypothesising), that the serial killer's view will be different. I could be wrong but I could be right! Without the information, all we have is the opinion of someone who, presumably, wouldn't kill multiple people, and who would have a natural aversion to doing so. Someone who lacks that aversion might tell us that it's "no big deal"! Or they may agree with the butcher. Without having the information, we can make no comparison, but we can suggest caution due to lack of information.Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Hmmm, you say you think the killer's motivation was "...only murder and mutilation", but then you wonder about why no attempts were made to harvest organs at other crime scenes?My opinion based on the assessment and evaluation of all the facts and evidence is that the killer's motive was only murder and mutilation.
If it is suggested that it was one killer, and that killer was intent on harvesting organs from the crime scenes, why is it that we see no evidence of any attempts to remove organs from any of the other victims?
www.trevormarriott.co.uk
I think the answer is contained within your ideas already. If the killer's motive was murder and mutilation, than taking organs is just an after thoguht, something they did on some occasions, but not something that was the primary drive behind the murders. As such, we should not be surprised if such secondary desires do not show up every time.
- Jeff
Comment
Comment