Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What basis is there for a conspiracy theory?

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

  • #16
    Harry asked about any historical evidence that seemingly unrelated people have been killed in specific ways to try and achieve political objectives...how about virtually every execution and terrorist action in the past century?
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
      Harry asked about any historical evidence that seemingly unrelated people have been killed in specific ways to try and achieve political objectives...how about virtually every execution and terrorist action in the past century?
      How many of those were poverty stricken women? How many of them were eviscerated in an elaborate manner in open, public streets?
      ​​
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
        Harry asked about any historical evidence that seemingly unrelated people have been killed in specific ways to try and achieve political objectives...how about virtually every execution and terrorist action in the past century?
        and how many of them targeted a specific victimology of female prostitutes? right-none.
        "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


        • #19
          Originally posted by Trapperologist View Post
          I like your analogy of conspiracy theories vs paranormal religious theories of unexplained phenomena, Jeff. But would you also accept an explanation with the unknown subject being simply "connected" to something "higher in the realms", rather than fully conspiring? It's who-you-know sort of thing for me.
          Well, simply suggesting the murderer is someone who also has connections is different from including the argument that those connections were able to pull strings and prevent the murderer from being held responsible. Once the strings get pulled, it's a conspiracy of sorts, though of the cover up type. And that too has a bit of magical thinking, in that those with power would risk their own positions to cover up such a sensational set of murders. Yes, cover ups occur, but they occur at all socio-economic levels (the police arguing that they identified JtR but the witness would not swear to it because JtR was a fellow Jew, for example, is the same basic cover up, just now directed at lower socio-economic groups rather than higher). It's the fear of the unknown "other group", and the mistrust of the "other", that allows one to imagine all sorts of goings on because that lack of familiarity, and sense that the others operate in secret ways, that allows the imagination to seek out and find an explanation without the need to have eivdence for it - because they operate in secret ways. In a way, it's the fact the explanation has no evidence that paradoxically confirms the validity of the ignorant explanation and acts as a false sense of confirmation. It also adds a bit of comfort because by placing all the bad stuff in the secret other group, it helps one feel more secure in their familiar surroundings. That too, of course, is a false sense of security.

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

            How many of those were poverty stricken women? How many of them were eviscerated in an elaborate manner in open, public streets?
            ​​
            Ah yes Sam quite so. And how many of only the Canonicals were eviscerated in open public streets again? 3. Of a Group of Five presumed kills by one man. One was indoors and had a room in her own name, and one had a single throat cut, not more severe than Mrs Browns Ill wager..done on the same night .2 had eaten that night.
            Last edited by Michael W Richards; 10-21-2019, 06:36 PM.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              and how many of them targeted a specific victimology of female prostitutes? right-none.
              And how many were in fact prostituting at the time...2 that we know of. Of just the Canonical Group.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • #22
                Im sure Ill hear ...well, they were occasional prostitutes so they all were likely selling themselves on that fateful night...which is a bs argument and without any supporting evidence, or well, they were all poor women...so how many victims of terrorism that I mentioned were likely flush with cash? Or were they poor too? How many of the train bombing victims in London were well to do? In fact, killing anyone in East London at that time was killing someone poor.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                  so how many victims of terrorism that I mentioned were likely flush with cash? Or were they poor too? .
                  ...but the Canonical Five, and those like them, didn't have a pot to pi$$ in. There's a world of difference.

                  How many of the train bombing victims in London were well to do?
                  They were the random victims of a bomb. Terrorists seldom "target" specific individuals.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    And how many were in fact prostituting at the time...2 that we know of. Of just the Canonical Group.
                    Actually, three for sure, Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly. (Barnett indicated that Kelly had returned to prostitution after he lost his regular job, it was one of the reasons he moved out), and both Nichols and Chapman had stated they were going out to get their doss money. The evidence for Stride and Eddowes is more circumstantial. Prostitution was, unfortunately, something many women of the area would engage in out of necessity. Stride was, at least before moving to England, known to engage in prostitution. Eddowes seems to have come across money or drink despite having been broke earlier, and was murdered in an area where prostitution was common (there was a nearby church known as the prostitute's church as that was a place to hang out to find prospective clients). So there is, as has been made many times, a strong circumstantial case to be made that Eddowes was soliciting that night, even if it was something she might have avoided most of the time.

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                      Well, simply suggesting the murderer is someone who also has connections is different from including the argument that those connections were able to pull strings and prevent the murderer from being held responsible. Once the strings get pulled, it's a conspiracy of sorts, though of the cover up type. And that too has a bit of magical thinking, in that those with power would risk their own positions to cover up such a sensational set of murders.
                      I think it is different too but I think other people see it as the same thing, especially if the connection is in any way linked to the conspiracy theory. The more famous books in other unsolved serial killer cases have also been proven publicly or to me personally to have been full of misinformation to the point of being considered works of fiction now. I'm thinking of The Zodiac Killer and Zodiac Unmasked and The Boston Strangler but they are still used as sources. Mary spent two unaccounted years in the West End. That in itself opens the door to links to figures in the conspiracy theory - Florence Pash for one which leads to Sickert. Obviously I don't believe in the Royal baby conspiracy. I just think Sickert was covering-up his own illegitimate offspring. There still might be a baby in the bathwater.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                        Actually, three for sure, Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly. (Barnett indicated that Kelly had returned to prostitution after he lost his regular job, it was one of the reasons he moved out), and both Nichols and Chapman had stated they were going out to get their doss money. The evidence for Stride and Eddowes is more circumstantial. Prostitution was, unfortunately, something many women of the area would engage in out of necessity. Stride was, at least before moving to England, known to engage in prostitution. Eddowes seems to have come across money or drink despite having been broke earlier, and was murdered in an area where prostitution was common (there was a nearby church known as the prostitute's church as that was a place to hang out to find prospective clients). So there is, as has been made many times, a strong circumstantial case to be made that Eddowes was soliciting that night, even if it was something she might have avoided most of the time.

                        - Jeff
                        I have always thought that the word prostitute when used in conjunction with any of the C5 should probably have an asterisk next to it to convey information like this without having to type it every time.

                        I have always wondered what the non-prostitute camp wants as convincing evidence of solicitation? What's the old saying? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck.

                        c.d.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          And how many were in fact prostituting at the time...2 that we know of. Of just the Canonical Group.

                          If a prostitute is not actively soliciting but then she decides to do so what does it entail? Does she have to go through some elaborate procedure that takes hours for her to enter into soliciting mode? These women were poor. They had drinking problems and needed money for drinks, food and doss. Even if they had no intention of soliciting on a particular night we have absolutely no way of knowing what their response would be if approached by a potential client especially one (Jack for instance) who offered more than the usual knowing he would take it back. Saying someone was not known to be soliciting that night is just way too simplistic and denies the reality that these women faced.

                          c.d.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I do think there are examples of crimes where there were accomplices but the state authorities chose to stick with the "lone gunman" theory because they want to provide a simple solution to the public. One reason why copycats proliferate and get away with it. First there's linkage blindness and then there's separation blindness.

                            So you always have the possibility of two or more conspiring and then you have anyone who could be politically motivated. The only question is whether or not the victimology fits with the political motivation or are they just going with creating a spectacular crime. Prostitutes wouldn't be considered a spectacle killing except for the placement and MO. Then Jack the Ripper becomes "organized" and possibly "rational" and "political".

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                              I have always thought that the word prostitute when used in conjunction with any of the C5 should probably have an asterisk next to it to convey information like this without having to type it every time.

                              I have always wondered what the non-prostitute camp wants as convincing evidence of solicitation? What's the old saying? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck.

                              c.d.
                              Yes, I think people often forget that many women in Whitechappel resorted to prostitution, which is not to be confused with the modern conception of someone who routinely engages in it as a full time profession. I don't think any of the C5 would really fit that latter description, but rather, selling sex was simply something that was done to get through life when necessary. Nichols and Chapman both went out due to necessity on the nights they were murdered. Kelly appears to have been actively soliciting as she's reported to be seen taking Blotchy Face and Astrikan Man back to her room (all caveats in place here as to reliability, etc). In fact, if anything, Kelly's behaviour is more in line with a full time prostitute than any of the other C5, but even that could be debated given it sounds like when Barnett was working she did not resort to such activities.

                              Basically, it was an unfortunate fact of life that these women had little choice but to sell themselves or starve. Indicating they were prostitutes, however, does perhaps confuse the issue as it easily implies a more full time profession, but having to continuously phrase things as "were engaged in prostitution" or "were soliciting" creates clumsy and overly wordy sentences.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                Actually, three for sure, Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly. (Barnett indicated that Kelly had returned to prostitution after he lost his regular job, it was one of the reasons he moved out), and both Nichols and Chapman had stated they were going out to get their doss money. The evidence for Stride and Eddowes is more circumstantial. Prostitution was, unfortunately, something many women of the area would engage in out of necessity. Stride was, at least before moving to England, known to engage in prostitution. Eddowes seems to have come across money or drink despite having been broke earlier, and was murdered in an area where prostitution was common (there was a nearby church known as the prostitute's church as that was a place to hang out to find prospective clients). So there is, as has been made many times, a strong circumstantial case to be made that Eddowes was soliciting that night, even if it was something she might have avoided most of the time.

                                - Jeff
                                Beg to differ, but in only 2 cases do we have evidence from the victims themselves that they were actively soliciting on the night(s) that they were murdered. There is no evidence at all that Mary was doing so, there is that she spent a fair bit of time that night drinking. And when home, sang for a little more than an hour to someone she brought into her room...something that has not been done with a "client" to that point. Liz Stride is not soliciting on a nearly empty street over an hour after most everyone left, on private property in a dark passageway, and she is not doing so in her "good evening wear", with breath fresheners and flowers on her jacket. Kates case is different, but circumstantially it points to her being somewhere specific that night, not casually trolling for customers in the opposite direction where her "partner" had secured a room.
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X