J K Stephen Hardcore proof?

[RavenDarkendale]

he claims that the writing on the wall and two of the letters are actually anagrams,


Joeyhawks

At least your anagrams make more sense than the Lewis Carroll dude's do. Forget anagrams as proof. They prove someone has a lot of time on their hands... Anagrams have so many possibilities you would have to have a key to go by.

Raven Darkendale

PS "Hardcore proof" = "Po-faced horror" "Fear Porch Odor" "Chap Food Error" "Roach Ford Rope" "Preach Rood For" and so on ad nauseum. Give it up!

[lynn cates]

Haven't a clue.

Hello Raven. And that brings up the larger question, "Why anagrams at all?" Of course, that leads to the generic, "Why would one leave clues?"

If one thinks about it, why one one leave a clue at all, whether it be a gash in the arm and folded underwear, an anagram, a painting, or anything else for that matter? Thinking logically, the killer would wish to beat a hasty retreat.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

It's surelythe old problem of people thinking that the conventions of crime fiction (Agatha Christie; Ngaio Marsh; etc) apply to real life crime.

In the Poirot, Miss Marple, Inspector Alleyn etc mysteries the detective can always trace the murderer by his motive and connection (sometimes at a remove) from the victim. There are clues as in "Pocket Full of Rye"; or the murderer makes mistakes which allow him/her to be uncovered.

The the JtR case there is no evidence that the killer (at least of Nichols and Chapman) had any connection with his victim at all. At the most one might assume a customer/client relationship; or an acquaintance as fellow members of the Spitalfields community. Demonstrating anything more has not so far proved acceptable to the wider field.

Anagrams, clever minds playing games with the police, leaving clues (a la the alleged diary) are the stuff of fiction. IMHO the adherents of such ideas should have NO ROLE in bona fide Ripperology unless of until a suspect can be reliably connected to the murders and then be demonstrated to have had a plan.

We should be much more respectful on Casebook of the historical (indeed academic) approach of all ideas and theories being subject to peer review and acceptance or dismissal. This would help clarify in large measure and increasingly confused subject and allow a much sounder foundation to be built of ACCEPTED theory on which to advance and build higher.

Such an approach is universal in the academic world and should be the norm here. We are far too accepting of the outlandish and the frankly ill-based.

We might also learn a lot from the approaches to pre-history (the distant past) where evidence is often slight and rare and assumptions have to be made with caution and are subject to frequent revision. I have been reading quite widely in that field recently, and i find large measures of similarity to JtR studies.

Phil H

[ChainzCooper]

It's surelythe old problem of people thinking that the conventions of crime fiction (Agatha Christie; Ngaio Marsh; etc) apply to real life crime.

In the Poirot, Miss Marple, Inspector Alleyn etc mysteries the detective can always trace the murderer by his motive and connection (sometimes at a remove) from the victim. There are clues as in "Pocket Full of Rye"; or the murderer makes mistakes which allow him/her to be uncovered.

The the JtR case there is no evidence that the killer (at least of Nichols and Chapman) had any connection with his victim at all. At the most one might assume a customer/client relationship; or an acquaintance as fellow members of the Spitalfields community. Demonstrating anything more has not so far proved acceptable to the wider field.

Anagrams, clever minds playing games with the police, leaving clues (a la the alleged diary) are the stuff of fiction. IMHO the adherents of such ideas should have NO ROLE in bona fide Ripperology unless of until a suspect can be reliably connected to the murders and then be demonstrated to have had a plan.

We should be much more respectful on Casebook of the historical (indeed academic) approach of all ideas and theories being subject to peer review and acceptance or dismissal. This would help clarify in large measure and increasingly confused subject and allow a much sounder foundation to be built of ACCEPTED theory on which to advance and build higher.

Such an approach is universal in the academic world and should be the norm here. We are far too accepting of the outlandish and the frankly ill-based.

We might also learn a lot from the approaches to pre-history (the distant past) where evidence is often slight and rare and assumptions have to be made with caution and are subject to frequent revision. I have been reading quite widely in that field recently, and i find large measures of similarity to JtR studies.

Phil H

Playing games with the police is fiction? The Zodiac killer did
Jordan

[Phil H]

Playing games with the police is fiction? The Zodiac killer did

Perhaps that's the exception that proves the rule?

I stick by my general point, especially where the Ripper case is involved.

Phil H

[miakaal4]

Hi Phil,
Actually it is not just Zodiac who wrote or pissed with the cops, The poisoner Graham Young is another, I am sure there are more.
Is it not true that 'most' serial killers are of above average intelligence?
Seems to me, that if the killer is not a psycopath, then they might be into playing with the police/newspapers in an effort to prove to themselves, and the avid readers, how clever they are.
Reading their name in the rags and a print out of their clue/s.
I don't know much about Zodiac, but I'm sure I read that his clues were partly solved or at least the code was broken. In the mean time, what fun he had.
Regarding the first post, I think I have only read one book that connects Druitt, Stephen and royalty, and that is of course around JM.

[ChainzCooper]

Playing games with the police is fiction? The Zodiac killer did

Perhaps that's the exception that proves the rule?

I stick by my general point, especially where the Ripper case is involved.

Phil H

Thats cool. Enjoyed reading the post
Jordan