Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

George or Jack

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

  • #16
    G'day Roy

    I won't argue except to say that a couple of farthing here and there is better than nothing.
    Last edited by GUT; 05-24-2014, 07:13 PM.
    G U T

    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

    Comment


    • #17
      Could George have waited till Kelly's client had left her then gone to her room to rob her and found her dead?
      Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
        Good evening GUT,



        A pimp to the Unfortunates of Whitechapel should be easy to trace in the old records - a man who died of starvation.

        Roy
        Hi Roy,surely with Kelly been younger and more attractive then the other victims and having her own place she would have charged a lot more than the other victims thus making it worth while for a pimp to show interest in her?
        Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

        Comment


        • #19
          I think we should have one of these for Barnett. I bet there'd be some takers.

          Comment


          • #20
            Voted 'No'. Hutchinson is a possible like many others, but no more.
            "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Sally View Post
              I think we should have one of these for Barnett. I bet there'd be some takers.
              I'd still have to vote 'No', but he's a better candidate for the Kelly murder than Hutchinson IMHO.
              "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

              Comment


              • #22
                I think it's very hard to imagine whoever killed poor Mary Kelly went away and lived a very ordinary and non violent life.
                Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                Comment


                • #23
                  G'day Pinkmoon

                  I think it's very hard to imagine whoever killed poor Mary Kelly went away and lived a very ordinary and non violent life.
                  So reasoned MM.
                  G U T

                  There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by GUT View Post
                    G'day Pinkmoon



                    So reasoned MM.
                    Hi gut,very good reasoning indeed when people propose a suspect for these vile crimes they should really try and think why their suspect stopped killing I think death or the asylum are the only solutions.
                    Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      G'day Pinkmoon

                      Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
                      Hi gut,very good reasoning indeed when people propose a suspect for these vile crimes they should really try and think why their suspect stopped killing I think death or the asylum are the only solutions.
                      Except I would add took his murderous ways elsewhere, was arrested or became disabled.

                      When I was just a nipper and becoming interested in Jack I formed the conclusion that we were looking for someone who fitted that description, while know that SKs do take long breaks it just doesn't sit with the level of violence.

                      I'd rather accept the "No Jack" hypothesis than "he went on to live a happy settled life." But that, of course is just my opinion.
                      G U T

                      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by GUT View Post
                        Except I would add took his murderous ways elsewhere, was arrested or became disabled.

                        When I was just a nipper and becoming interested in Jack I formed the conclusion that we were looking for someone who fitted that description, while know that SKs do take long breaks it just doesn't sit with the level of violence.

                        I'd rather accept the "No Jack" hypothesis than "he went on to live a happy settled life." But that, of course is just my opinion.
                        There's killing and there's what happend to Mary Kelly I just can't see our killer retiring putting his feet up and living happily ever after.
                        Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Yes Pinkmoon

                          It was specifically MJK I was talking of.
                          G U T

                          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            No poll for Barnett then? What about Druitt? We could have one for him, or how about Tumblety?

                            I see that most people have voted ‘No’ – hardly surprising for a polar question poll. We could perform the same exercise with almost any other popular suspect and get a similar response. This is because the poll is asking respondents to commit to a certainty – to nail their colours to the mast - the majority of people are unwilling/unable to do that, simply because there is no certainty.

                            I ran a similar ‘Was he the Ripper?’ poll for Charles Crossmere a couple of years back and had similar results – although that poll was set up with a range of options to reflect the scale of opinion that we should expect and thus probably a more accurate measure of that opinion.

                            We obviously don’t know who the Ripper was – if we did, none of us would be here. My observation on the personal conviction of posters frequenting this site is that most of them like to keep an open mind about who the killer [or killers if we prefer] was [were?]

                            A few have a strong personal preference for a particular suspect – which is why in a poll asking the same Yes/No question for Barnett, we could expect to see a similar percentage of posters voting ‘Yes’ - in spite of the fact that Barnett was interrogated by the police at length, had an alibi for Kelly’s murder and went on to live an ordinary, utterly unremarkable life [as an aside, it’s often proposed that Barnett is a good candidate for Kelly but not the others – given the above, shouldn’t it be the other way around, if at all??]

                            There’s somebody for everybody, as they say.

                            I’m not sure what this poll tells us that we didn’t know before? [or at least should have known] What it doesn’t tell us is that Hutchinson isn’t a viable suspect – because it can’t do that. It doesn’t tell us that he isn’t a popular suspect in Ripperology either – along with a few other popular suspects, it’s usually possible to find an ongoing discussion about him on the forums and he’s the subject of more than one suspect book.

                            I personally don’t see why he isn’t a viable suspect – although I’m fully cognisant of other possibilities to account for his behaviour. Why not? He’s as good as several other suspects that come to mind – including Barnett, since he at least had a verifiable alibi – and better than some.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              G'day Sally

                              We could perform the same exercise with almost any other popular suspect and get a similar response.
                              And if that wasn't the case this site might die
                              G U T

                              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by GUT View Post
                                G'day Sally



                                And if that wasn't the case this site might die
                                Yep - exactly so, Gut - horses for courses as they say.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X