Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

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

  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Hi Varqm,

    Ummm, you're quoting from the report, so how could you do that if the report doesn't exist? (well, didn't exist, since no doubt you're quoting from either another post or a book, and not viewing the original files directly. Anyway, yes, Warren's report did exist, and may still be in the files.

    - Jeff
    https://casebook.org/official_documents/warrenlt.html
    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

      1895, Scott.

      That was the year John McCarthy’s younger brother, Daniel died at no. 36. I suspect the sheets over the window of 36 may have some connection to his passing.
      To further complete the photo ; Thomas Bowyer resided at 37 Dorset Street in 1888.

      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

        And if he's killing them because they are blackmailing him for being JtR, what was his motive for the first murder?

        And if they're blackmailing him for something else, then as soon as it becomes obvious their "group" is being murdered, he would have been reported - either to a friend or group of friends, or to the police.

        Postulating a blackmailing ring just starts to create all sorts of complications that don't exist otherwise, and it doesn't really seem to solve anything. It doesn't get any better if one limits the blackmailing to just be Kate, as then, what's the motive for the other murders?

        - Jeff
        Yes.It's too problematic. What happened to the simple obvious narrative,there was a serial killer.
        Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
        M. Pacana

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

          Hi Varqm,

          Ummm, you're quoting from the report, so how could you do that if the report doesn't exist? (well, didn't exist, since no doubt you're quoting from either another post or a book, and not viewing the original files directly. Anyway, yes, Warren's report did exist, and may still be in the files.

          - Jeff
          "and having before me the Report that if it was left there the house was likely to be wrecked (in which from my own
          observation I entirely concurred)"

          The Report is the one Warren read to supplement his decision to erase the graffito,that the "house will be wrecked".So the fear of destruction and violence was real and high.
          Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
          M. Pacana

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

            "and having before me the Report that if it was left there the house was likely to be wrecked (in which from my own
            observation I entirely concurred)"

            The Report is the one Warren read to supplement his decision to erase the graffito,that the "house will be wrecked".So the fear of destruction and violence was real and high.
            Ah, sorry, my mistake. I was thinking where you had the end bit (Warrens report to the Home office) was the report you were referring to, which is what you were quoting - but there's the report within the report, and it all becomes a bit inception based.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

              MJK could not pay her arrears for ex..The victims just happen to be the ones on the streets when the JTR was looking for a victim.Same as whoever killed Alice McKenzie,Tabram.If these victims were blackmailing why open their abdomens get their organs.Overkill.
              I believe thats a feature one can actually use to evaluate the possibilities....the intention to acquire internal organs for the finale. Thats unusual. Its also possible this could be broken into subgroups too...man seeking female abdominal organs. He might have targeted only females because he thought the attack would be easier for him, and working street women take strangers to dark places routinely, so a good target. Which suggest a killer who counts on an Opportunity. He doesnt lead them, they lead. He doesnt really choose the spot..unless he pounces on an impulse, so it seems hes taking a chance here. What if the woman is strong and can fight? What is she leads him into a spot with only 1 exit?...(See Hanbury and Millers Court). Lots of variables.

              It might explain why someone would choose to get Kate into Mitre Square..presumbly even if he knew the police patrolled that area, he may not have know they used 2 of three access points to do so, but he is likely aware they did come by. There is a suggestion of bravado taking this action without assessing all the potential ways this could go wrong and taking measure to offset them. He takes risks. Confidence. No meek street dweller with low self esteem there.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                MJK could not pay her arrears for ex..The victims just happen to be the ones on the streets when the JTR was looking for a victim.Same as whoever killed Alice McKenzie,Tabram.If these victims were blackmailing why open their abdomens get their organs.Overkill.
                I honestly think there is more to it than a simple serial killer. I agree with Michael, he wasn't someone who was 'simple'.

                With regards to why he ripped, to be honest I dont know, i try and look at how Jack got away with it.
                "Seek the absence of the normal, and find the presence of the abnormal"

                Comment


                • The Five were blackmailing their medical officer who was a homosexual and a teaching pathologist.

                  Eddowes was a source of several specimens and had been a patient for almost 21 years.
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Juniper4576 View Post

                    I honestly think there is more to it than a simple serial killer. I agree with Michael, he wasn't someone who was 'simple'.

                    With regards to why he ripped, to be honest I dont know, i try and look at how Jack got away with it.
                    I think Juniper that if one day a plausible, well supported by evidence Canon of victims could be constructed we would have a better chance of seeing his real characteristics. Its why I choose to accept a group that for me is supportable within the known evidence. And for me, its 2-3 victims. Polly, Annie and perhaps Kate. But Kate only if other factors played into it..rather than the Opportunity stranger killer in the first 2 murders. Because I believe the circumstances in Kates case do not suggest she was picked up while she solicited. Which is the case in the first 2...by their own admission. They were actively soliciting. Liz doesnt appear to have been, nor Kate, and Mary was home in bed.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                      The Five were blackmailing their medical officer who was a homosexual and a teaching pathologist.

                      Eddowes was a source of several specimens and had been a patient for almost 21 years.
                      A problem I have with this DJA is the deviant nature of some of the crimes. I believe a medical man might well be involved, or at least someone trained to be one, but there is a serious mental issue also. To do this in such a public spectacle way....so ghastly and ghoulish we are still shocked by it today.

                      If this is a respectable member of society...as a medical man would be....and used a knife on bodies as part of his profession, then why the butcher? Why brutish? Annies killer had some sophistication, some skills and some specific goals. Do any of the other murders seem that disciplined? No meaningless cuts.

                      Why would there be evidence in Kates case that blackmail might be her goal, based on Saturday evening and at her meet point early Sunday morning....and no hint of that in the other 4 cases? In Kates case we hear she had information she intended to sell...leaving blackmailing the person she was to finger as a possibility. Where is the evidence that Polly, Annie and Liz felt they had something of value to sell? Or Mary. Polly and Annie seemed particularly disadvantaged and hopeless...Annie confiding she had to stay out to earn despite feeling ill, Polly staying out, earning, and then drinking the proceeds. Do these seem like women who have a plan to get some real money? Women with hope? Didnt Mary confide that she wished she hadnt followed the path she did...does that seem like the reflections of someone who had a scheme ongoing to make some money? Wouldnt they be excited/energized at maybe cashing in?
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • My viewpoint for over 16 years is that everything points to Henry Gawen Sutton being Jack the Ripper.

                        Chapman and Eddowes gave hints of coming into money.
                        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                          My viewpoint for over 16 years is that everything points to Henry Gawen Sutton being Jack the Ripper.

                          Chapman and Eddowes gave hints of coming into money.
                          Having a viewpoint and proving its valid are of course entirely different animals, as you are aware of. Chapman already had a benefactor.

                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                            You are wrong.
                            John/Steve was born in 1874.
                            Show me and I'll shut up about it (and not the Fiona Rule book please).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                              I think Juniper that if one day a plausible, well supported by evidence Canon of victims could be constructed we would have a better chance of seeing his real characteristics. Its why I choose to accept a group that for me is supportable within the known evidence. And for me, its 2-3 victims. Polly, Annie and perhaps Kate. But Kate only if other factors played into it..rather than the Opportunity stranger killer in the first 2 murders. Because I believe the circumstances in Kates case do not suggest she was picked up while she solicited. Which is the case in the first 2...by their own admission. They were actively soliciting. Liz doesnt appear to have been, nor Kate, and Mary was home in bed.
                              I agree with you on this Mike, I am still on the fence if Jack was responsible for all 5 or 2 or 3 of the known C5; this is probably because that I have no hard evidence to prove otherwise.

                              I like the sound of DJAs theory and he, like it appears all of you on here have done some mega serious research and respect to you all for that.

                              Do you have a suspect and a motive? I have ideas on snippets of the case and I said before I have no evidence to back it up, but guessing at best, how Jack got away with it and why did he stop.

                              Jim
                              "Seek the absence of the normal, and find the presence of the abnormal"

                              Comment


                              • Click image for larger version

Name:	164720CE-1ACD-44E1-AE3C-3A5B792B4F3F.jpeg
Views:	171
Size:	74.3 KB
ID:	752183
                                Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                                Show me and I'll shut up about it (and not the Fiona Rule book please).
                                Scott,

                                Have you discovered something that upsets the accepted genealogy of Marie Lloyd’s husband, John Joseph ‘Steve’ McCarthy?

                                That would be worthy of a thread of its own.

                                Perhaps you should start one.

                                Gary

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X