Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is that MJK's leg bone in the crime scene photo?

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

  • Amor Descarado ..... certainly did 10 years ago when I had $100 on it in the Caulfield Cup @ 28/1
    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

    Comment


    • Returning to post #93.
      Anyone consider that Jack was attempting to put the fire out with the clothing,after boiling the water for blanching.
      Infers that the face removal was important.
      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DJA View Post
        Returning to post #93.
        Anyone consider that Jack was attempting to put the fire out with the clothing,after boiling the water for blanching.
        Infers that the face removal was important.

        What kind of time frame are we referring to with regards to the approximate duration of time the killer could have spent inside 13 Millers Court?


        In other words, when you incorporate the blanching scenario, how long would the killer have needed to have been present in the room?


        for the previous victims the ripper could have inflicted the wounds in less than 3 minutes, but for MJK it appears that the minimum time spent inflicting the wounds must have been considerably longer.

        that would then in turn suggest that the killer knew he would not be disturbed

        when you combine the fact that the room bordered an empty store room for McCarthys shop and a stairwell behind the partition wall, the killer must have known that the only resident that could have heard anything was the woman upstairs.

        all of the other room had adjoining residents situated on the ground floor, Millers court didn’t.

        The killer must have been aware of this?

        so how long is the are the approximate minimal AND maximum times the killer could have spent with MJK?

        Are we talking hours?!


        TRD

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DJA View Post

          The Inquest tells us that her lips were blanched.
          Surely Bond & Phillips meant that in the medical sense, which is to say drained of blood?
          " Queen Vic lured her victims into dark corners with offers of free fish and chips, washed down with White Satin." - forum user C4

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Aelric View Post

            Surely Bond & Phillips meant that in the medical sense, which is to say drained of blood?
            Surely?
            My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post


              What kind of time frame are we referring to with regards to the approximate duration of time the killer could have spent inside 13 Millers Court?


              In other words, when you incorporate the blanching scenario, how long would the killer have needed to have been present in the room?


              for the previous victims the ripper could have inflicted the wounds in less than 3 minutes, but for MJK it appears that the minimum time spent inflicting the wounds must have been considerably longer.

              that would then in turn suggest that the killer knew he would not be disturbed

              when you combine the fact that the room bordered an empty store room for McCarthys shop and a stairwell behind the partition wall, the killer must have known that the only resident that could have heard anything was the woman upstairs.

              all of the other room had adjoining residents situated on the ground floor, Millers court didn’t.

              The killer must have been aware of this?

              so how long is the are the approximate minimal AND maximum times the killer could have spent with MJK?

              Are we talking hours?!


              TRD
              13 was the parlor. Today we would call it the games room ...... or possibly the man cave

              Agreed Sutton would have summed the structure up,quite likely 6 weeks previous when he decided against a triple event.
              That was part of his job on his Vestry board,whose mortuary Mary was headed for.

              If you do not investigate the clues and alternative time lines you will remain,at the very best, a rookie ...... one in danger of being cut

              I can assure you that more than 3 minutes was spent on Eddowes.

              Try fitting Blotchy into the Inquest's timeline.Fair assumption she had already eaten.

              How much time does it take to boil water?

              Report back with your results.

              Best of luck!

              PS. Hutchinson's role was to have Mary Ann Kelly up and about versus in bed at 13.
              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                13 was the parlor. Today we would call it the games room ...... or possibly the man cave

                Agreed Sutton would have summed the structure up,quite likely 6 weeks previous when he decided against a triple event.
                That was part of his job on his Vestry board,whose mortuary Mary was headed for.

                If you do not investigate the clues and alternative time lines you will remain,at the very best, a rookie ...... one in danger of being cut

                I can assure you that more than 3 minutes was spent on Eddowes.

                Try fitting Blotchy into the Inquest's timeline.Fair assumption she had already eaten.

                How much time does it take to boil water?

                Report back with your results.

                Best of luck!

                PS. Hutchinson's role was to have Mary Ann Kelly up and about versus in bed at 13.


                Okay, so the blanched lips that MJK was alleged to have had, are there any other ways that she could have sustained that without ‘boiling’ water?


                If there is concrete proof that the ripper boiled water and used it to blanch her lips, then that would seem quite an arduous process considering we’re talking about an abode that was basic at best, with no electric or water supply.

                so the question of how long does it take to boil water is subjective and has changed over time.

                so I ask, not just why, but HOW did the killer manage to take the time to boil water.

                Could the blanching and obliteration of her face have been caused instead by acid?

                it would have taken considerably less time to have brought a little acid within a ginger beer bottle and used that instead of taking time and effort to ‘boil’ water.


                As an aside, I always like to try and look at the psychological reasons behind why certain killers make certain choices.

                Take a moment and try putting yourself in his shoes...


                the action of blanching someone’s lips is an action designed to ‘purify’ and ‘cleanse’

                If he was a client, she may have tried to kiss him.

                This would have triggered the need to attack her face and lips.

                the reason why he completely decimated her face in comparison to the previous victims wasn’t just because he had more time, it was because he felt personally disgusted by her face and wanted to vent his rage entirely without restraint

                i would dare to say he may have even lost track of time

                he took her heart

                he took her face

                You can almost imagine him thinking about how he needed to purify these faceless heartless prostitutes.

                So I say to you DJA, why Sutton is a comendable choice and certainly within the top 10, this particular killing wasn’t some kind of experiment of science, it was a personal attack on women who he felt disgusted by.

                in other words, Sutton doesn’t necessarily fit the psychological profile.

                I say this because having an obsession for the macabre, ergo, carrying out autopsies, doesn’t make someone a sadistic psychopath.


                the main thing we can be sure of when it comes to the ripper is that he hated prostitutes with more than rage than we can ever know.


                that degree of intense hatred can only have come from having had personal historical negative experiences and subsequent grievances against prostitutes.


                therefore unless there’s proof that Sutton had a hatred for prostitutes, then it’s all just conjecture.

                evidence is as subjective as the minds who try to prove it.


                the reason why I consider myself a ‘rookie’ comes from my self awareness that my knowledge base is somewhat inferior to those who have been studying the case for decades. I come at this with good intentions and am fully respectful of all other members on this site and their respective viewpoints.
                however, despite being a relative newcomer, I do have the exactly the same chance of solving the case as anyone else does and my theories are as equally valid (although probably wrong)
                it’s not about being right or wrong, it’s about being equal and respective of others.

                if people don’t want to read my theories then I respect their choices, but you never know, sometimes the underdog rookie may make a point that is more relevant than is given credit for


                the case continues (as it will always do)


                TRD







                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post


                  As an aside, I always like to try and look at the psychological reasons behind why certain killers make certain choices.

                  Take a moment and try putting yourself in his shoes...

                  In my spare time,I have been fortunate to work with the likes of Jim Drysdale and Rev Arch Crowe.
                  Jim helped fellow psychologists,often conducting group therapy.He was also a criminologist who Scotland Yard convinced to to go over and help them out.
                  Arch was Scotch College's "second in charge".He trained at Eric Berne's academy in California. He wanted me to teach at Scotch.

                  As an alcohol and drug counselor,my success rate was due to putting myself in other peoples' shoes (watch it,Al Bundy).

                  Circa 1981 the Victorian G'vt decided to decentralize A&D Services.
                  I was asked to join the board of the prototype and to be a co signatory to the articles of association.

                  My IQ is/was within the half percentile. I'm in my 70s.

                  Looking at your post,you have some detective work to do.

                  Looking forward to your answers.

                  Ciao!

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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                    In my spare time,I have been fortunate to work with the likes of Jim Drysdale and Rev Arch Crowe.
                    Jim helped fellow psychologists,often conducting group therapy.He was also a criminologist who Scotland Yard convinced to to go over and help them out.
                    Arch was Scotch College's "second in charge".He trained at Eric Berne's academy in California. He wanted me to teach at Scotch.

                    As an alcohol and drug counselor,my success rate was due to putting myself in other peoples' shoes (watch it,Al Bundy).

                    Circa 1981 the Victorian G'vt decided to decentralize A&D Services.
                    I was asked to join the board of the prototype and to be a co signatory to the articles of association.

                    My IQ is/was within the half percentile. I'm in my 70s.

                    Looking at your post,you have some detective work to do.

                    Looking forward to your answers.

                    Ciao!

                    Very admirable sir and you clearly highlight exactly why I’m a mere self confessed rookie in this field; and I certainly cannot match that level of expertise.

                    Personally, I’m not here to be an expert, and I could never claim to be one.
                    I’m instead here to ask questions and to try and initiate discussion amongst you fine experts in order to spark some life into the process by challenging so called “expert” theories; respectfully of course, with the intention of clearing away some of the shallow minded mindsets which have tended to hinder the overall progress of the case.

                    as I have said before


                    some of us seem settled in maintaining the status quo and not really wanting to move forward with the case for fear of it actually being solved and illusions and beliefs being shattered.

                    but some of us are eager to continue striving to unravel and solve this complex mess in order to finally put the legend of the ripper to bed and for him to be forgotten in history like he deserves to be.


                    if you had the chance to go back in time and witness the crimes as a fly on the wall in order to know for definite who the ripper was, would you do it?

                    the catch is, that if you did there was a chance that all your hard working “expert” theories had been wrong and you discover the ripper was someone you never suspected

                    Would you prefer to know the truth but be proved wrong as an “expert”

                    or would you prefer not to know and continue to believe what you believe because you’re an expert and you don’t need to know the truth?

                    The answer is of course a personal choice but I would be fascinated to see who would choose their own over inflated “expert” ego over being proved wrong and humbled by actually knowing the truth

                    I think that the only way this case will ever really moved forward is if people are honest with who they are and what they really want to achieve from all this.

                    Being an expert is a wonderful thing and I can never claim to be an expert in anything.

                    but while experts can supply evidence and uphold conformity, it’s the ideological theorists like myself who add the much needed spice.

                    experts bring the ingredients and know how to make the cake properly by giving instruction as to the correct methods etc...etc...

                    but by not being an “expert” i am free from the constraints of my own ego and can openly think outside the box and ask objective questions by not being contained or limited by any kind of subjective linear mindset.

                    I appreciate that the world of ripperology is full of amazing professional experts but without us whacky theorists, there would be no real desire for the case to move forward.


                    open your minds and don’t be afraid of having your expert ‘opinion’ proved wrong.



                    TRD






                    Comment


                    • I'm not an expert.
                      Was used as one in a court case once and the "lawyer" couldn't figure out what I did right in front of him in the courtroom

                      Not a Ripperologist either.

                      If allowed one trip back in time it would to Jerusalem ~ 2,000 years ago.
                      That project was important.
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • There's a fine line between stirring the pot and muddying the waters.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                          There's a fine line between stirring the pot and muddying the waters.
                          Should that be on the Favorite Quotations page?
                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                            Surely?
                            As in they were medical men using medical terminology. If they had meant to say that the killer had either poured boiling water on her lips or removed them and boiled them for a short time in the kettle, I would have expected them to have said so unambiguously.
                            " Queen Vic lured her victims into dark corners with offers of free fish and chips, washed down with White Satin." - forum user C4

                            Comment


                            • The kettle wasn’t invented until 1891 and apart from the candle, there was no other source of power in the room.

                              no running water inside the room and no power supply

                              so how did the ripper boil water?


                              was there a communal tap situated in millers court?



                              TRD

                              Comment


                              • h
                                Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post

                                But it begs the question...

                                why is the eggshell cracking that LOSMANDRIS poined-out only localized to Mary Jane's face?

                                The cracking doesn't extend into her hair or across her arm or along the femur or universally across the grainy photo; it is all contained on what might be considered the skin of her face.

                                The face was gashed in all directions
                                That's a very good question? Could it really be her hair?

                                Tristan
                                Best Regards,

                                Tristan

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X