Victim Conversation (off-topic moved)

[Guest]

-----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.

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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"!

[Tom_Wescott]

Obviously there's some bad blood here, and poor ol' Michael once again got caught in the middle. I think it comes down to the fact that - like it or not - Jack the Ripper is a super villain of history, and the women he allegedly killed are only known today because of him. To "remove them from the canon", so to speak, would be to erase them from history. They would no longer be relevant. I don't think this has anything to do with men or women, because we all realize this on one level or another. If they weren't killed by Jack, they were killed by a 'nobody', so they in turn become nobodies themselves (ironically, with Kate Eddowes - who gave her name to the police as 'Nobody' - being an exception). I also believe that on some level we all know the five canonical victims were felled by the same man, but in a race to be different or original, we argue underdog theories without thinking them through objectively first.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

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

Don't give me a shock like that, Chris. You could have given me a heart attack.

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"!

Nope. You can't make me do either.

Put up or shut up, Perry. If you have nothing to back up your strange desire to 'revoke' Liz and Mary's 'admission', I'm not overly keen on reading the next thousand posts about it from you - especially not on this thread!

I don't know if Chris genuinely can't wait for more of the same from you these days. But you may have to brace yourself for the possibility that he is only waiting for his next chance to be offended by me and to reach for the smelling salts. Meanwhile, I'll carry on being offended by writers who manipulate the murder victims for no apparent reason other than to stroke their own egos.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

Nope. You can't make me do either.

?

I said you might want to think twice before ordering other people to "put up or shut up", as you so often post these rather pathetic bits of cryptic innuendo, and then refuse to explain them.

But I didn't think for a moment that you would.

[harry]

Mike I'll take the heat off you and have it slung my way.I have no sympathy for those victims in the way they lived,it was their choice,but I do not in any way condone the manner of their deaths.

[Jeff Leahy]

Mike I'll take the heat off you and have it slung my way.I have no sympathy for those victims in the way they lived,it was their choice,but I do not in any way condone the manner of their deaths.

Are you suggesting that poverty is a life style choice?

Pirate

[Victor]

Are you suggesting that poverty is a life style choice?

Are you suggesting that most of the victims didn't chose to drink themselves stupid? Fire-engine impersonations and all.

[The Good Michael]

Victor,

It isn't always as simple as this choice or that choice. Poverty and poor social conditions make for fewer choices, and often things like drinking are the only solace one can take.

Mike

[Ally]

Oh what total bleeding heart balls. The "only solace" they could take... Yeah because you know...drinking, which leads to penury and having to whore yourself to keep your "solace" is really the only outlet for being poor. If you are poor, heroin is the only solace one can take. If you are poor, shooting a whole bunch of rich people is the only solace you could take.

Most of these woman started out in much better circumstances than they ended up in, and they ended up there by their own choice: to drain the bottle.