Macnaghten as a suspect

[DVV]

I'M NOT A COWARD AND A LIAR, IF YOU WANT TO COME IN CYPRUS BE THE WELCOME ! I'll be There !

I REPEAT AGAIN : WHO REALLY READ HER THEORY ? If it's not a the case, I propose that all you shut it, once and for all ! RIGHT ?

I suppose you have no doubt that Breuil Bois Robert is the capital of Cyprus.
Is it in the Turkish part, or in the Greek one?
Why don't you read "Bitter limons" by Durrell, and forget Ripper's studies, for which you are obviously not gifted?

[STRONG]

I suppose you have no doubt that Breuil Bois Robert is the capital of Cyprus.
Is it in the Turkish part, or in the Greek one?
Why don't you read "Bitter limons" by Durrell, and forget Ripper's studies, for which you are obviously not gifted?

Come in Nicosia, you'll be treated as you deserved.
Why do I read some bullshits when i can read many interesting researches / theories.
Ripper's studies I keep it for my ass when I miss some perfumed papers...
I prefer intellectuals than idiots or amateurs, full of jalousy.

[STRONG]

Charles Cross n'a pas vu une bâche sous laquelle se trouvait le corps de Polly. Il a vu une "masse sombre" qu'il a d'abord cru être une bâche, c'est à dire, un "tarpaulin", en anglais. .

À plus,
Crochet.

Crochet paye toi des lunettes ! C'est exactement ce qu'elle dit dans sa théorie; Cross voit d'abord la bâche, ensuite, il comprend que c'est une femme dessous !

p 35 " Charles Cross (...) découvre une bâche abandonnée..." T'as vu qu'il parlait d'une femme dessous ? T'es fort ! Ensuite Cross comprend que c'est une femme (forcément, il soulève la bâche et là comprend qu'il y a un cadavre dessous)

Dis-moi t'achète souvent les livres que tu trouves minable ? C'est étrange comme comportement.

En tout cas, tu comprends très mal le français !

[STRONG]

Mme. Herfort a mal compris ce qu'elle a lu sur le meurtre de Polly Nichols. Charles Cross n'a pas vu une bâche sous laquelle se trouvait le corps de Polly. Il a vu une "masse sombre" qu'il a d'abord cru être une bâche, c'est à dire, un "tarpaulin", en anglais. En s'approchant, il a realisé que cette masse était, en fait, une femme qui gisait à même le sol.

Crochet.

Charles Cross n'a pas vu une bâche sous laquelle se trouvait le corps de Polly. Il a vu une "masse sombre" qu'il a d'abord cru être une bâche, c'est à dire, un "tarpaulin", en anglais. .

À plus,
Crochet.

Herfort ne va pas raconter tous les détails sans importance. Oui, Cross a vu une masse sombre. On te l'accorde. En quoi ça contredit l'étape suivante où il dit voir une bâche par la suite.
Crochet paye toi des lunettes ! C'est exactement ce qu'elle dit dans sa théorie; Cross voit d'abord la bâche, ensuite, il comprend que c'est une femme dessous ! Point à la ligne.

p 35 " Charles Cross (...) découvre une bâche abandonnée..." T'as vu qu'il parlait d'une femme dessous ? T'es fort ! Ensuite Cross comprend que c'est une femme (forcément, il soulève la bâche et là comprend qu'il y a un cadavre dessous)

Dis-moi t'achète souvent les livres que tu trouves minables ? C'est étrange comme comportement. Tu vois un psy pour ça ?

En tout cas, tu comprends très mal le français !

[Dan Norder]

It's absolutly clear : under the tarpaulin (bâche) the body of a woman was lying ! It was the corps of Polly Nichols !

Wow, even after having it pointed out to you, and with you going so far as to quote the English passage back to me proving that I was right, you still think it said something completely different than what it did.

One more time: there was no tarp. Cross mistakenly thought there was a tarp, because it was dark and that was his first thought on seeing a dark shape on the ground for which he couldn't make out details. When he got there he saw that it was a woman, because he was wrong about it being a tarp, not because he lifted an imaginary tarp.

[Captain Hook]

She Strong,

I have met quite a few people from Cyprus - both sides. They all spoke excellent English but poor French. That should come as no surprise since Cyprus was ruled by Britain for a number of years. But you, She, are quite comfortable in French as not at all in English. Yet another enigma.

As I said, I have not come into this thread to fight. If that is what you want to do, I'd better get my carcasse elsewhere.

Bonne chance, She!

Crochet

[STRONG]

What do you insinuate ?

Everybody has understood that strong/herfort firmly believes that Polly has been discovered under a tarpaulin, which is enough to show how expert (20 years of research!!!) she is, and how open-minded.
But there is much more in this ridiculous book (available in all good supermarkets, between cheese and cold sausage).
Let's take the chapter about Nichols'murder:

p30: "Polly married William Nichols on 16 Jan 1864 (...). In 1881, Polly leaves her husband after an union of 24 years."
As everybody knows, 1881 minus 1864=24 (!)

p31: we know that Polly found a job in Mr and Mrs Cowdry, thanks to Lambeth Workhouse, and then wrote a letter to her father as she started working in Wandsworth.
But according to Herfort, the letter was sent from Lambeth, where Polly was happy so much! Sigh...

p32-33: herfort suggests that Polly's killer is also responsible for the fire in Shadwell.
Well, why not...since he was in London that night...

p34: no mistake here...because there is only a map!

p35: "Jack the tarpauliner!"

p36: false quotation! (Herfort states the post-mortem being from the Times, 3 sept, but that is not the text of the Times. Bravo!)

p36-37: Don't you know how Jack has suffocated Polly? With her clothes, that he has pulled up on her face!!!
"Quand elle s'est retrouvée sur le dos, le tueur a retroussé ses vêtements sur le visage pour l'étouffer."

p37, too: end of the chapter. OUF!
20 years of research!
So funny... and there is much more about Chapman!
But I think it's enough and there is no point discussing such a stupid book.
I'd just mention that its form fits the substance. It sounds like a cheap novel, or, if you prefer, like an industrious 14 years pupil's composition.

Do you insinuate that a "stupid" book would be sold in Great Shops / main stores as Fnac (many shops in Paris), Lafayette Galleries, Printemps on Bvd Haussman ? PARIS !
Do you insinuate that this "stupid" book - by accident - would be quoted / exhibited by a prestigious London Museum (Museum in Docklands) ? Have you ever noticed that a great part of suspects - quoted HERE in Casebook - are not exhibited in the Museum ?

Wonder why !

Where are the cheese end the sausages ? In you head like the rest ?

All your rubbishes are expressing bad faith. The readers refer to backnotes, notes (solid references from National Archives) and that's all ! Your remarks are worthless.

[STRONG]

For Information !

She Strong,

I have met quite a few people from Cyprus - both sides. They all spoke excellent English but poor French. That should come as no surprise since Cyprus was ruled by Britain for a number of years. But you, She, are quite comfortable in French as not at all in English. Yet another enigma.

As I said, I have not come into this thread to fight. If that is what you want to do, I'd better get my carcasse elsewhere.

Bonne chance, She!

Crochet

IN THE NORTH OF THE CYPRUS ISLAND - NICOSIA - (HEART OF NORTH), MOST OF PEOPLE DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH !
MY MOTHER IS FRENCH, THAT'S WHY I'VE READ HERFORT'S THEORY !

[STRONG]

Explanation...

Wow, even after having it pointed out to you, and with you going so far as to quote the English passage back to me proving that I was right, you still think it said something completely different than what it did.

One more time: there was no tarp. Cross mistakenly thought there was a tarp, because it was dark and that was his first thought on seeing a dark shape on the ground for which he couldn't make out details. When he got there he saw that it was a woman, because he was wrong about it being a tarp, not because he lifted an imaginary tarp.

These are elements seen by Cross, the night when Nichols was murdered. Step by step, that's what he saw when he was approaching the body (In order of preference, by chronology)

1) Dark shape on the ground (ok)
2) Tarpaulin (ok)
3) Body of Polly Nichols (ok)


The tarpaulin was the 2nd thing seen by Cross ! Then after, he noticed the corps below/under.
ref : (Times 4 september 1888 page 8)
I don't understand where is the pbm.

[Captain Hook]

The problem, She from Nicosia, is that there was no tarpaulin.

Is it clear now? Cross saw a shadowy mass - THOUGHT it was a tarpaulin, and thought it was a valuable thing to pick up and take home. When he came closer, lo and behold, he saw it was no tarpaulin. IT WAS A DEAD WOMAN!

Pas de bâche! Une machabbée, c'est tout! IL S'ETAIT TROMPÉ!

T'as compris maintenant?

À plus
Crochet

[STRONG]

That's exactly what she said !

The problem, She from Nicosia, is that there was no tarpaulin.

Is it clear now? Cross saw a shadowy mass - THOUGHT it was a tarpaulin, and thought it was a valuable thing to pick up and take home. When he came closer, lo and behold, he saw it was no tarpaulin. IT WAS A DEAD WOMAN!

Pas de bâche! Une machabbée, c'est tout! IL S'ETAIT TROMPÉ!

T'as compris maintenant?

À plus
Crochet

That's exactly what she said in her book. You don't understand anything in french ! Admit it !

[Uncle Jack]

For God sake, Polly's body was NOT found under a tarp, on a tarp, at the side of a tarp or around any tarp. There was NO tarp, ever, 100%, proven. NO TARP!! Just Polly's body - NO TARP!! Cross THOUGHT the body was tarp until he got closer and then saw it WASN'T a tarp but a dead body.... Just a dead body, not a dead body on or under or around a tarp........

One last time - There was, and never will be, a tarp involved in the discovery of Mary Ann Nichols's body, EVER! NEVER! NO TARP!!

[George Hutchinson]

What a waste of bandwidth. Still - I'll do my bit for the environment. I can now add a second person to my IGNORE list and I'd like to extend that offer to most of the people here. It keeps your threads almost shyte-free. This is clearly a person unable to understand fact and rationale who has a huge bee up their bottom. The lovely thing here is that when they reply to this post, screaming, ranting and insulting... I won't know about it. Think of it as being tightly wrapped in a tarp.

PHILIP

[STRONG]

WE DON'T CARE ! It's a tiny detail !

For God sake, Polly's body was NOT found under a tarp, on a tarp, at the side of a tarp or around any tarp. There was NO tarp, ever, 100%, proven. NO TARP!! Just Polly's body - NO TARP!! Cross THOUGHT the body was tarp until he got closer and then saw it WASN'T a tarp but a dead body.... Just a dead body, not a dead body on or under or around a tarp........

One last time - There was, and never will be, a tarp involved in the discovery of Mary Ann Nichols's body, EVER! NEVER! NO TARP!!

Calm down "Uncle Jack" ! Cross - the witness - believed from the start it was a tarp, even if it's not the case at the end. Supposing, he was wrong about the tarp he believed to see ! NO MATTER ! No link with Macnaghten or even the theory ! You understand what does it mean ? THE TARP WAS THERE OR NOT, WE DON'T CARE ! NOT RELEVANT ABOUT THE THEORY ! It's not among the list of pieces of evidence proposed by Herfort ! All this idiosyncrasy on this website is a phenomenon ! A Loss of time ! Could we elevate the "debat" please !

[Bailey]

Bonjour, Strong,

My French is very poor, dating back to high school many years ago, so I won't try to use it further than the greeting above.

The point people are trying to make with the tarp is that it is perhaps an indication of the sort of errors that seem to appear in this theory. If something as simple as this is not correct, it casts doubt on the standard of the author's research and her efforts to put together a case. So while the presence or absence of a tarpaulin at the murder scene may not be relevant to the likelihood of McNaghten being the Ripper, can you not see how these sorts of simple errors could be *perceived* as damaging the credibility of the work as a whole?

I'm intrigued by this theory, though I must admit to being quite skeptical until I can read the book for myself. However, do you not see that you have come here and been agressive, even abusive, and of course people are not impressed? Furthermore, you make others less likely to pay attention to to the work by this approach.

I anxiously await an English edition of the text so that we might perhaps be able to pursue a more informed - and perhaps calmer? - discussion on its merits. Until that point, however, I must say that for the time being I am yet to be convinced that Sir Melville was Jack.

Cheers,
Bailey.