Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel?

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

  • Originally posted by Batman View Post
    You ignore that Baxter is considering more than one doctor's opinion on the murders and has correctly LINKED them, and then sided with the opinion that Nichols had actually had her throat cut first like Chapman.

    Baxter was correct.

    You also ignore Bond, a doctor who was given a meta-analysis, agreed with Baxter.

    Instead, you want Cross to now be confused over his MO and signature. You bend reality to have Cross slicing a throat that isn't bleeding out when he calls a witness over to see him practically at it.
    Incredulously, the medical implications do not change in retrospect on account of added victims.

    Who would have thought that?

    As for bending reality, I can´t do that. Reality is unbendable, try as you might.

    I cannot work up the will to exchange any further with you tonight. I´ll leave you to play with your profiling toys.

    Goodnight.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      And THAT is how long it took before Harry had to resort to the "Griffiths was probably kept in the dark" card!

      Thank´s Harry! End of the road, finally. All other options emptied out and found insufficient.
      Griffiths' word carries no more weight than anyone else's if we aren't privy to the information he was provided with when forming his opinion, otherwise it's what we call an argumentum ad verecundiam.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
        Hi harry
        I think levy could be a compelling suspect but theres nothing that ties him to the case... Hes really just one of a long list of crazy jew profile types started with andersons theory , through Fido and carried on through today.
        The good news is that it's not only Jews that were crazy. Indeed, the list of 38 contemporary Whitechapel Infirmary "lunatics/maniacs" I posted the other day contained no Jewish names at all, as far as I can remember.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
          What needs to "tie him" to the case? How many serial killers are witnesses? How many serial killers are on modern police radar, let alone in the 19th century?



          I'm pretty sure Tracy Ianson's research proved they were related.



          Middlesex Street.
          Hi harry
          At the very least there needs to be something that ties them to the case. Posibly being related to a witness dosnt cut it. You could pick anyone out of a hat and fit them up to be the ripper but with no known connection to the case its a pretty useless.

          Plus its andersons prejudiced theory anyway a crazy jew. Lol. Cmon.

          We could take any lame profile crazy jew, butcher, american, doctor, insane etc or any combo of these and find hundreds of people who fit the bill. Its really just a glorified parlour game.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Incredulously, the medical implications do not change in retrospect on account of added victims.
            They most certainly can and one function of the Coroner is to legally recognize the need to amend previous findings when new information arrives.

            This can happen in a series of events, such as with disease, epidemics or a series of violent homicides.

            It is exactly this sort of series in which a serial offender is at large that can undergo such amendments the more we learn.

            A meta-review can and does revise/amend the content it is reviewing.

            This most certainly applies the most to historical situations.
            Bona fide canonical and then some.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
              Plus its andersons prejudiced theory anyway a crazy jew. Lol. Cmon.
              Anderson had his reasons. There's a strong possibility the killer was a Jew when we examine the characteristics of the murders. The throat-cutting, for instance, may have been ritualistic rather than a simple practical matter.

              Comment


              • What Anderson didn't know, he made up or cribbed from others.

                He got his Polish Jew suspect from Macnaghten's memorandum.

                Comment


                • Hi Simon,

                  Did Swanson get it from Mac's memorandum as well?

                  Comment


                  • Hi Scott,

                    Which of the Swanson family do you mean?

                    Regards,

                    Simon

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                      Anderson had his reasons. There's a strong possibility the killer was a Jew when we examine the characteristics of the murders. The throat-cutting, for instance, may have been ritualistic rather than a simple practical matter.
                      Hi harry
                      Eventhough ive got koz on my top tier of possible suspects, i think the evidence shows tje killer was NOT a jew. The cry of lipski and GSG for example.
                      "Is all that we see or seem
                      but a dream within a dream?"

                      -Edgar Allan Poe


                      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                      -Frederick G. Abberline

                      Comment


                      • Is tying a person to the case,the same thing as tying that person to the killing?It is not.It is known,with reasonable certainty,where,how,and when Nichols was killed.What is lacking is evidence to show who was with Nichols when she was killed.Evidence can place Cross at the scene of the crime,it cannot place him with the victim when she was killed.Several persons can be placed at or near the crime scene in a time previous to when it is believed Nichol's died,so each is a better prospect than Cross,who can by evidence,only be placed at the scene,after the killing had taken place.

                        It becomes easier to understand if the murder scene is thought of as the time the killer was there with the victim,and a crime scene for what took place there aferwards,and evidence shows that Cross is only tied to the latter.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                          You ignore that Baxter is considering more than one doctor's opinion on the murders and has correctly LINKED them, and then sided with the opinion that Nichols had actually had her throat cut first like Chapman.

                          Baxter was correct.

                          You also ignore Bond, a doctor who was given a meta-analysis, agreed with Baxter.

                          Instead, you want Cross to now be confused over his MO and signature. You bend reality to have Cross slicing a throat that isn't bleeding out when he calls a witness over to see him practically at it.
                          Did Baxter never make a mistake? Was his judgement always sound?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                            Did Baxter never make a mistake? Was his judgement always sound?
                            Those are not arguments against the points at hand though. Besides, Bond corroborates him.

                            Anyway, if Llewellyn (who himself corrected his own mistake on assuming the murderer was left-handed later) objected to the Coroner making this amendment, he could have contested it, but did not.
                            Bona fide canonical and then some.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                              Those are not arguments against the points at hand though. Besides, Bond corroborates him.

                              Anyway, if Llewellyn (who himself corrected his own mistake on assuming the murderer was left-handed later) objected to the Coroner making this amendment, he could have contested it, but did not.
                              You state that Baxter was correct. The fact that he was not infallible seems relevant to me. As does the fact that you have made several factual blunders on here recently.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                                Griffiths' word carries no more weight than anyone else's if we aren't privy to the information he was provided with when forming his opinion, otherwise it's what we call an argumentum ad verecundiam.
                                Don´t be any dafter than you have to, Harry. If this was the case, then no experts´verdict would be in any way useful unless we all were served with a complete list of everything he or she knew about the case and the exact information he or she had access to as they offered their view.

                                You are only searching for a way out, nothing else. But there is no such way out. Griffiths was well informed and read up and he had access to the exact same material I was given, a very full and comprehensive compilation of newspaper articles and police reports. Plus I and Edward spoke with him a lot during the shooting of the docu, and so it became obvious that he was somebody who took a genuine interest in the case, was well informed and asked if there was something that needed clarification.

                                And just like any other expert who comments on anything in docus, books and articles, his word counts for a whole lot. That is how it was yesterday, how it is today and how it will be tomorrow. In that respect, it does not differ materially from the existence of those who need to disbelieve what experts say on account of how they are disagreed with - they too are a constant occurrence.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X