Victim Conversation (off-topic moved)

[Chris]

Actually, I'm not that interested in your opinions.

I just thought the accusations you made against perrymason - that he was "hell-bent on prolonging the agony" of the victims, and that what he was doing was "akin to poking the victims where they lie with a shi**y stick" - were so offensive that I couldn't resist asking whether that was really your opinion of anyone who questioned the "canon".

Of course, I can't make you explain what you mean. But you might want to think twice before you next order someone else to "put up or shut up"!

[caz]

Chris,

If you had ever given me a reason to think you might actually be genuinely interested in my opinions (of men in general, Perry Mason's posting history or murdering scumbags in particular - or any other subject for that matter), or that you might be seeking clarification, not just to be critical but so you can actually get to understand my position a little better, I might be willing to answer your questions in more depth.

In short, I don't care to see anyone (man or woman) treating others (men or women) like chess pieces on a board, for their own self-serving whims. None of the Whitechapel victims deserved to be murdered by whoever murdered them, for whatever reason. Nor do they deserve to have anyone come along 120 years later and manhandle them, with no new supporting evidence, into a different category, belonging to another unknown murdering scumbag, just to suit some pet theory that has no legs of its own.

I can't help it that the chess pieces in this case all happen to be women, and I certainly didn't determine how many of the self-serving 'movers and shakers' would be men.

If we happened to be discussing female theorists like Cornwell or Harrison, manipulating male suspects to fit their theories, or male theorists doing the same, my position would be the same: evidence please - or shut up already!

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

It says nothing at all about any of the women involved, but quite a lot about men. I'm not surprised you got confused on that point.

Sorry, but you're being far too cryptic for me. What is "it"? Which men, exactly, does it say a lot about? And what precisely does it say about them?

Are you taking exception to something specific perrymason has said, or to the questioning of the "canon" in general?

[caz]

No Chris. That's not what I'm suggesting at all.

I'm merely saying that without any evidence Perry wants to 'revoke' Liz and Mary's 'admission' so he can put them in the club where men with personal and conventional motives get their women off their backs and out of their lives, when there was a perfectly good (bad!) serial killer going round that same tiny area of the world during the same brief period of time, picking on the nearest total stranger and whacking her for absolutely no reason at all.

It says nothing at all about any of the women involved, but quite a lot about men. I'm not surprised you got confused on that point.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

You do realise that if the active serial killer got them, it was bad luck, pure and simple, while you are hell-bent on prolonging the agony by painting them as women who caused two different men, who may never have killed anyone before or since, to become so motivated that they snuffed them out in most brutal fashion.

You can't really be suggesting that if a woman is murdered by a man who has never killed anyone else, then that says something bad about her. Can you?

[caz]

What did Liz or Mary ever do to you, Perry?

You do realise that if the active serial killer got them, it was bad luck, pure and simple, while you are hell-bent on prolonging the agony by painting them as women who caused two different men, who may never have killed anyone before or since, to become so motivated that they snuffed them out in most brutal fashion.

Isn't it high time you put up or shut up? I for one am heartily sick of this totally unsupported speculation popping up on dozens of assorted threads, which does nothing constructive and can lead nowhere without any further evidence, and is akin to poking the victims where they lie with a shi**y stick.

As I think another poster said quite a while ago now, enough already.

Love,

Caz
X

-----and this time will Kosminski be dug up maybe for a bone scan and Robert Anderson be due for canonisation ?

Just what we need, another "Canonization". Geez. Im still trying to get Liz and Marys admission to the CG1888 revoked, ...please, no more "Canons" Nats...

All the best Natalie, as always.