Tabram and Kelly?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Because no one follows it.
It is not a question of bullying, but a growing irritation deriving from newcomers on the Boards who are starting threads on subjects already discussed several times on different threads, simply because they don't have the energy or simply don't care about reading them before they start a new thread.
What is the point of starting new threads on subjects that have already been discussed a million times on a zillion other threads, some of them being active as we speak!
But hey - that's just me.

It shall also be noted that you didn't comment on the Kelly arguments I actually DID provide in my previous post - according to your intent with thread - which makes one wonder if you're really interested in discussing the subject at all.

All the best

[RonnieKray]

It is every users right to do as he sees fit within the rules and guidelines of this site. I do not beleive any person here as broken any rule or regulation and most of us here, apart from yourself, seem quite happy to continue the discussion, yet we are bombarded by you pummelling us to move onto other threads and do as you say.

That's bullying and you should appologize or leave us alone. PLEASE!

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

And you are STILL not commenting on the Kelly stuff, which actually refers to the question you provided in your intial post and which I suppose was the purpose of this thread.
Are you interested in debating the subject or not? Apparently not.

Your call.

All the best

[RonnieKray]

I think you've just about killed this debate as ruthlessly as Mary Kelly was killed don't you?

I didn't see your apology Glenn!

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Well, you have the chance to actually comment on it, since I assume this was oen such input you requested in your initial post. You asked why some people may exclude Kelly and Tabram.
Well, I gave you an example of the arguments surrounding a possible exclusion of Kelly - and I did so EVEN though there already exists millions of threads discussing this issue.

So now it is actually YOU who are diverging the thread off topic since I am actually giving you a chance to discuss it.
However, since I have already been involved in those discussions numerous times the last five years I am not engaging myself to repeating such arguments. But it would be interesting to know what your opinion is regarding those arguments - that is, if you are really interested.

I am not asking you to agree with it (some peopel do and some don't), I am only assuming that you would have some comment on it since it refers to what you actually asked about initially. But I might have been mistaken.

All the best


P.S. I have no idea what I should apologise about. On the contrary, creating threads devoted to issues that already existing in numerous other threads just because you don't have the urge to read those first and engage in those, is in fact questionable Board behaviour. Have you actually bothered to see how many Tabram and Kelly threads that exists?

[RonnieKray]

I refuse to debate with a bully. PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE. You hve been requested to do so several times. STOP!!

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

OK, suit yourself.

All the best

[Grabbit]

Hi Ronnie,

I think people exclude Tabram, Kelly and/or the victim/s of their choice because of the danger of contaminating the evidence that is relevant to Jack. Just look at where that got them in the Sutcliffe case with the whole Wearside Jack fiasco.

However, to completely rule out cases which don't fit 'perfectly' is to ignore a lot of potentially important evidence as well. That can definitely be seen in the Sutcliffe case. If they'd put all the photofit images of attacks, including those they'd ruled out, side by side, then 'Mister Beardy' would've jumped out at them and probably been picked up long before the hoax tape even arrived.

I'm thinking the whole idea of canonicals is driving the focus away from what could be a much bigger (and better) picture. It's trying to keep the evidence neat, when real life serial killers and their situations just aren't that neat. Sutcliffe being a prime example, though by no means the only one.

Maybe if we kept the whole status of victims much more fluid we'd be able to match up various criteria better. Different matchings would obviously form different pictures, but there's nothing wrong with that as long as it keeps us thinking and looking for new ideas. Ruling a victim out completely, for whatever reason, seems far too rigid a thinking to me.

Just my thoughts at any rate.

Ally

[Brenda]

It begins to stretch belief that there were so many psychopathic overkill murderers in one small section of London all at the same time. (of course there were other murderers, but that many in Jack's league??)

• - a homicidal gang going around attacking random women in the street.
• - the person that killed Martha Tabram
• - JTR himself
• - Liz Stride's murderer
• - Mary Kelly's murderer
• - the Torso murderer

All of these, with the exception of Liz Stride's killer, went way and above the call of duty of what was needed to kill a woman. One can almost understand the gang mentality feeding the exceptional brutalness of the street attacks, but the rest of these murders were committed by someone who got a lot of enjoyment out of what they were doing.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Brenda,

It is actually not that odd, that murders in a small environment tend to spur other murders, and with good help from the press and the media hysteria.
And as you say, since there probably existed other murderers and maybe even serial murderers (the torso killings from the 1970s up til 1889) we shouldn't automatically exclude the possibility of some of the murders being attributed to different killers.
Let's also remember the "Whitechapel Murderer" Henry Wainwright, who in a gruesome manner killed and mutilated his finacée in the mid 1870s. Not to mention W H Bury who mutilated his wife in a (to some degree) Ripper-like fashion in 1889.


Ally (grabbit),

I agree with much of what you say. Although I personally discount Tabram - and am keeping an open mind to the idea that the Kelly murder was not a Ripepr crime - I do so mainly on basis of personal interpretation of the evidence. When it all comes down to it, the evidence will never prove one way or the other.

Therefore I agree on that the whole Canonical concept is quite problematic indeed and thus has kept people from keeping an open mind and looking in new directions for a long time. When people include Tabram - since she doesn't initially belong to the canon - it is in an attempt to look beyond the canon and add something new to it. When people discount Kelly (and Stride) it is to break down to canon and try to look at the evidence in a fresh new way. Both approaches are extremely vital to Ripperology (regardless if we disagree with them or not) because new information comes to light all the time.
In all essence, there can never be a canon in a murder series where no killer has been identified and can tell us who he killed and did not kill, especially not after 120 years and with very few evidence.

All the best

[Howard Brown]

Dear Brenda:

Around the time of the Nichols murder...I'm going on memory here...there was a report of a trio of cads who accosted a woman on Bucks Row.

Glenn may be able to pinpoint it a little better...I had mentioned this here or elsewhere recently about the gang or at least,confederates in crime. Sorry for not providing the report...I'm going great guns today elsewhere..

P.S....Glenners..I, uh, would be careful with this guy. It is after all,Ronnie Kray !

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I don't remember that particular incident, Howard. Sorry.

But in support of Emma Elizabeth Smith's story of a gang of hoodlums (regardless of other inconsistencies in her story), we have the witness testimony from her female friend Margaret Hames (or Hayes), who under oath declared that she had been assaulted by such a gang under similar circumstances in December 1887 and barely survived.

All the best

[Howard Brown]

Glenners:

I found it...

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=55156&highlight=bucks#post55156

[Roy Corduroy]

It is actually not that odd, that murders in a small environment tend to spur other murders, and with good help from the press and the media hysteria.

That is a very good point Glenn. Look at all the actions the media circus and panicked environment produced. Why not murder by other perps too? A very good point.

But one thing you have to remember, Glenn. We in the USA have been tragically shocked and disappointed time and time again when discovering more murders committed by a serial killer than originally thought. Crimes that at first did not seem to fit. I guaran-darn-tee you that your average American crime buff looks at the Bond Canon and MacMemo 5 with a jaundiced eye, wanting to add more to the list, not take away. We are hard-wired that way.

Oh, one more thing - Hi Ronnie Kray. I like saying that.

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

But in support of Emma Elizabeth Smith's story of a gang of hoodlums (regardless of other inconsistencies in her story), we have the witness testimony from her female friend Margaret Hames (or Hayes), who under oath declared that she had been assaulted by such a gang under similar circumstances in December 1887 and barely survived.

To tell you truth, Glenn, I have no problem linking Smith, and Hames to the Ripper. He could very well have been in the gang. The pack instinct propelled him, then he struck out on his own. And him being the alpha male, the other gang members were too afraid to rat on him.

I'm thinking Canon 7 plus Hames, Milwood and maybe Wilson, too.

Roy