Did Jack only kill 3?

[Cogidubnus]

cut it off

Sorry Maria, but I'm afraid I don't quite get the reference...spell it out please to a thicko....cheers

Dave

[mariab]

Dave,
like a dog with his bone. I think you should cut it off.

[Cogidubnus]

Vive la difference

God and Tom Wescott?

The difference actually is that God doesn't think he's Tom Wescott...

All the best

Dave

[mariab]

To Dave:
This constitutes double blasphemy, which should ensue in double indemnity.

David, would you rather have it as "God and tom wescott"? (As in Goliath and david, lol.)
While you were absent, someone has attempted to take Lechmere away from you, and I don't mean the poster. Hint:

Quote Bridewell:
Absolute Proof? Don't you think that's setting the bar rather high when even the criminal law requires only proof beyond reasonable doubt?
We have a winner in the debate.

[Cogidubnus]

I have much respect for Tom, but how can you write "god" (là, je me signe) and "Tom Wescott" ?

I was about to say "yeah but not in the same sentence", and then I twigged...oh.shut.

Dave

[lynn cates]

cross

Hello David. Hope you are well.

When you said "là, je me signe" did you mean Lechmere? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Capital

I have much respect for Tom, but how can you write "god" (là, je me signe) and "Tom Wescott" ?

[Cogidubnus]

Difficulties

Oh god I'm in a scenario where Tom Wescott is humble...f**k...

Dave

[DVV]

3 is too much. He killed 2 and half, I think.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Bride. Since I have not published that Le Grand was Jack the Ripper, but instead that he was a Ripper suspect, I trust that I have provided proof for that which is sufficient for most reasonable Ripperologists. Mike is not reasonable. You see him passing moral judgement on me while he blames a handful of innocent young men for Stride's murder, which I don't personally find fault with, since it's a possible theory. But this taking the moral high ground and pointing fingers seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

Absolute Proof

Without dragging out this out further Tom, I personally feel that anyone who names a suspect, or in his or her own mind goes about clearing a suspect, is being irresponsible. Unless of course accompanying that accusation absolute proof is provided.

So any article or full blown thesis naming anyone as the murderer of the Canonical Group or any member of it, or clearing any suspect of complicity in any of the murders, without also publishing that absolute proof, isnt really publishing anything new or revelatory. In fact you are just slandering the dead by use of their name in conjunction with the Ripper crimes.

Thats the simple reason I dont, and never have, chosen or named anyone as a suspect in these crimes. I have said that I can see the logic in others choices, like Lynn Cates and his review of Isenschmid as a potential C1 and C2 killer.

The relationship link that you say you have discovered Maria, if provable, opens up discussions on how that relationship affected what Israel Schwartz stated to the police. It does not exonerate Israel or anyone at the club nor does it damn Israel or anyone at the club...it only allows for a more discerning and critical look at what he said happened.

Best regards,

Mike R

Hi Mike,

Absolute Proof? Don't you think that's setting the bar rather high when even the criminal law requires only proof beyond reasonable doubt? By that yardstick even someone against whom sufficient evidence had been found to convict would be acquitted on the back of a miniscule level of doubt.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Tom_Wescott]

Project Turdburger

Without dragging out this out further Tom, I personally feel that anyone who names a suspect, or in his or her own mind goes about clearing a suspect, is being irresponsible. Unless of course accompanying that accusation absolute proof is provided.

I named Le Grand as a Ripper suspect. Shortly thereafter, Mike Covell, Mark Ripper, Debra Arif, and myself all found ABSOLUTE PROOF that he was indeed a police Ripper suspect. Happy now? That's my track record, Kramer. What's yours? Oh yeah, getting banned. Keep that up.

I meant that...keep it up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Without dragging out this out further Tom, I personally feel that anyone who names a suspect, or in his or her own mind goes about clearing a suspect, is being irresponsible. Unless of course accompanying that accusation absolute proof is provided.

So any article or full blown thesis naming anyone as the murderer of the Canonical Group or any member of it, or clearing any suspect of complicity in any of the murders, without also publishing that absolute proof, isnt really publishing anything new or revelatory. In fact you are just slandering the dead by use of their name in conjunction with the Ripper crimes.

Thats the simple reason I dont, and never have, chosen or named anyone as a suspect in these crimes. I have said that I can see the logic in others choices, like Lynn Cates and his review of Isenschmid as a potential C1 and C2 killer.

The relationship link that you say you have discovered Maria, if provable, opens up discussions on how that relationship affected what Israel Schwartz stated to the police. It does not exonerate Israel or anyone at the club nor does it damn Israel or anyone at the club...it only allows for a more discerning and critical look at what he said happened.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Tom_Wescott]

Project Turdburger

Liz Strides murder was done with a single stroke across the throat in 2 seconds, that constitutes "simple" in my estimation. No struggle, no mussed clothing.

You see, this is why you're always wrong. You take a truth and flip it on its head. The fact that in the near pitch darkness a man could so easily kill a woman with a single slice of his blade indicates he was confident, had control of his reflexes (i.e. not inebriated), and was very, very comfortable working with a knife. It may have been simple for him, but killing a person with a single swipe is not a simple thing and far more often than not leaves a very pissed off, loud, and very much alive victim.

I know youd like to have Berner Street all to yourself so you can place your chosen characters about the board as best fits your own notions Tom,

While you were gone I expanded my territory to encompass all of Whitechapel and surround environs. it's all mine now.

however, in the LeGrand scheme of things you have no evidence at all to link the man with any of these crimes let alone this one, other than the obvious link we all know of, his attempt at fraud. Youve put your eggs in a basket that relies on Israel Schwartz being a viable and important witness even though, once again, there is not a shred of hard evidence known that could establish that as truth.

If I'm the one desperately fighting to defend a failing theory, then why are you the one who's always speaking in absolutes? If you read the journals, you'd know that I'm the only one out of the whole lot of you who has bothered to research and publish numerous theories as to who killed Stride. Why have I done this? Because nobody else will. We now have Jeff Leahy posting that nobody has ever studied the Berner Street murder as indepth as himself, so now I've seen it all. I suggest that before anyone calls me biased and narrowminded, that they first put forth a workable theory that can stand in competition with ANY of mine. And no, I don't mean throw one of my own theories back at me as though it's your own, as is usually the outcome. The only one who's bothered to do this is Garry Wroe with his Kozminski theory, which is an argument grounded in real evidence and facts, so hats off to Garry.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

in the LeGrand scheme of things you have no evidence at all to link the man with any of these crimes let alone this one, other than the obvious link we all know of, his attempt at fraud.

How about Pipeman's physical description?

Youve put your eggs in a basket that relies on Israel Schwartz being a viable and important witness even though, once again, there is not a shred of hard evidence known that could establish that as truth.

Dunno if Tom has, but I've got the Berner Street case cleared (per circumstantial evidence) with Schwartz as a non reliable witness (via the IWEC-WVC link). Will be presented in an article when I've completed my research.