overkill

[Ben]

not only would you have replied Properly to my last but one post

How does one go about responding "properly" to an hysterical post that accuses me of talking "utter shite", despite your failure to articulate the nature of your criticism? No, I have never once smeared the name of any "forensic psychologist", as my posts to this thread will bear out. The fact that you were previously banned would suggest that you're not worthy of even my ire, and that's saying something!

[lynn cates]

Eddowes' thread

Hello. I'd really like to get into this topic as it seems to me most urgent.

Is there a good Kate thread where we could bat this around?

LC

Hello. The evidence does suggest much of that you say.

I had another look (for the umpteenth time) at the Eddowes' post mortem. Much resembles Polly and Annie EXCEPT those facial mutilations. And that still bothers me. I remember a line from an old Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) movie. It was something like: "Lloyd Brandon was strangled. The blow to the back of his head was administered post mortem and was, therefore, vicious."

Indeed! If the motive were to get that organ and go, why run such a risk spending an extra valuable minute to cut her face?

Oops! I'd better leave that for another thread!

All the best!

LC

One guess I have about the above in bold is that these issues are some of the real problems with having Kate as a sure Ripper victim. Her uterus was almost removed completely, and she was attacked in virtually the same manner and using the same methods as were used with Polly and Annie. The facial mutilations might be his ego...showing that he was so good at this now he even had time for small details..including the 2 foot section of colon and the apron section. Or the facial wounds might be a warning....perhaps to keep noses out of other peoples business.

Maybe the kidney was to "dis-inform" police... about his real targets....the uterus theory had hit the streets already after the investigation of Annie, maybe the kidney was to throw them off. Maybe it was the real target with Kate....that however wouldnt have the organ story and street value to act as a foundation for what would amount to a murder/theft.

It seems like the killer went through some pockets....stole Annies rings....is that an indicator that the main occupation of this man was traditionally robbery?

Cheers Lynn.

[lynn cates]

Sherlock Holmes

Hello. The evidence does suggest much of that you say.

I had another look (for the umpteenth time) at the Eddowes' post mortem. Much resembles Polly and Annie EXCEPT those facial mutilations. And that still bothers me. I remember a line from an old Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) movie. It was something like: "Lloyd Brandon was strangled. The blow to the back of his head was administered post mortem and was, therefore, vicious."

Indeed! If the motive were to get that organ and go, why run such a risk spending an extra valuable minute to cut her face?

Oops! I'd better leave that for another thread!

All the best!

LC

Hello. So if he were the slayer of Nichols and Chapman, it would fit, perhaps, with your organ harvesting thesis. Obviously, money was a motivator to him, and if a doctor (Dr. T) were to offer enough money for "spare parts"?

Best Rgds

LC

Certainly the potential is there.....however he did kill his wife after the Ripper murders and may have mutilated her abdomen after being influenced by reading about those crimes.

I think for me he is a good prospect for Martha.....but as you know, I see 2 men for Marthas killers, a new one for Polly and Annie, a different one again for Liz, possibly the same single killer for Kate that killed Polly and Annie, and a new killer for Mary Jane.

"New" meaning that they hadnt killed a Canonical previously.

In that group of men I can see one Ripper, 2 ex lovers, and a pair of soldiers. Martha-soldiers, Polly/Annie-Ripper, Liz-probably Kidney, Kate-possibly Jack, Mary Jane-probably Barnett, both Barnetts, or Fleming.

Cheers LC

[lynn cates]

money

Hello. So if he were the slayer of Nichols and Chapman, it would fit, perhaps, with your organ harvesting thesis. Obviously, money was a motivator to him, and if a doctor (Dr. T) were to offer enough money for "spare parts"?

Best Rgds

LC

Hello. Thanks, Mike. This goes along with your violent thug thesis.

Did Bury serve in the military? Any military friends?

LC

Good question Lynn, I dont know. I do know that his wife was a prostitute that had accumulated some shares near todays equivalent of 20,000L as of April 1888, that in February 1889 it appears he choked his wife, stabbed her, and also mutilated her abdomen apparently more severely than Mary Ann Nichols was....and that he had chalk writing on the door leading to his flat and on the staircase that said Jack the Ripper lived there.

If we could find a military connection I feel he is a good suspect for the pen knife half of the murder duo that kills Martha,... hes already a fair prospect for the Ripper himself.

[lynn cates]

military record

Hello. Thanks, Mike. This goes along with your violent thug thesis.

Did Bury serve in the military? Any military friends?

LC

Hello. No, Mr. Mason. No put on. I suppose I am reacting to trying to find an objective answer to a question about Sir Robert Anderson. I spent several hours trying to do research, while 9 out of 10 pages of the thread were devoted to 2 scholars arguing the thesis: "I am more scholarly than thou." I gave up in frustration.

At any rate, I ALWAYS appreciate your brief, well reasoned answers! I am here to learn.

I was mainly looking for feedback to my insult thesis. Had Martha a saucy tongue?

Thanks!

LC

"Whose theory merits consideration most" is a game that gets played too often Lynn, I hear you...and thanks for the nice comments youve made regarding my posts. And Mike or Michael is fine by me.

I dont know if Martha was a brawler, but it is said that her former "roommates" Henry Tabram and then William Turner couldnt stand being around her when she was drunk.

I think its interesting to note here that the instrument that Killeen thought was used to make 38 of the 39 stabs is the same kind of pen-knife that Bury used to keep under his pillow at night.

Cheers LC, all the best

[lynn cates]

no put on

Hello. No, Mr. Mason. No put on. I suppose I am reacting to trying to find an objective answer to a question about Sir Robert Anderson. I spent several hours trying to do research, while 9 out of 10 pages of the thread were devoted to 2 scholars arguing the thesis: "I am more scholarly than thou." I gave up in frustration.

At any rate, I ALWAYS appreciate your brief, well reasoned answers! I am here to learn.

I was mainly looking for feedback to my insult thesis. Had Martha a saucy tongue?

Thanks!

LC

Hello. Ah, here you are Mr. Mason. You have been very fair and broad minded in your opinions everywhere I've read them. Hence, I ask you to rule on this scenario (it incorporates some of the items I think you already accept).

A while back, I wondered (on another thread) if Martha's 38 or so smaller wounds could have been inflicted post mortem. I was shown that such was likely not the case. It seems that the consensus is the large wound was last. Your sensible suggestion (if I recall properly) was that this was administered by a second party as a kind of mercy killing--the small wounds allowed some life to remain--given that Martha could not survive long and was likely suffering.

We need only account for the frenzy. So: is it beyond the pale for Martha to have insulted her somewhat inebriated soldier friend (if she had one)? Say, at a crucial moment she insulted, say, his manhood. He strikes her. She pulls a very inadequate penknife (or something of that sort); he takes it away from her and rains down a good many knife wounds upon her?

Then we can fast forward to your ultimate solution.

LC

I feel like Im being given too much weight here Lynn, and that makes me wonder if Im being "put on" a bit....

But Ill answer, assuming your just being overly kind.... ....

I would hazard a guess that its well within the realm of possibility that the pen knife came from Martha herself, and that the larger blade needn't have been carried or used by the same man that used the pen knife. He might have carried only a dagger, in which case he takes the pen knife from Martha when she threatens him with it....he stabs her in a frenzy....and when he is tired and she is unconscious, he realizes she is still breathing and uses his own dagger to finally kill the woman.

The issue there is....that I would imagine the pen knife would have been dropped at that point....if its not his, as in this scenario....and its a murder weapon. But neither the pen knife or dagger-like blade were left behind....making me think they were taken away by the man or men that brought them, ....and....its less likely that the man that might take the pen knife from Martha would also take it with him if he has a dagger on him anyway.

Its one reason why I see a "mercy" dagger man entering after the penknife frenzy had ended.

Making sure the woman was dead...she was clearly wounded terribly but perhaps still alive, all of the stabs were made while her blood flowed and heart was still beating....he stabs her with a large knife in her chest....ideally getting lungs, heart, something that will end her life once and for all.....and he hussles his drunk and shocked friend out of there....in my own opinion, back to their barracks.

Cheers Lynn

[lynn cates]

for Mr. Mason

Hello. Ah, here you are Mr. Mason. You have been very fair and broad minded in your opinions everywhere I've read them. Hence, I ask you to rule on this scenario (it incorporates some of the items I think you already accept).

A while back, I wondered (on another thread) if Martha's 38 or so smaller wounds could have been inflicted post mortem. I was shown that such was likely not the case. It seems that the consensus is the large wound was last. Your sensible suggestion (if I recall properly) was that this was administered by a second party as a kind of mercy killing--the small wounds allowed some life to remain--given that Martha could not survive long and was likely suffering.

We need only account for the frenzy. So: is it beyond the pale for Martha to have insulted her somewhat inebriated soldier friend (if she had one)? Say, at a crucial moment she insulted, say, his manhood. He strikes her. She pulls a very inadequate penknife (or something of that sort); he takes it away from her and rains down a good many knife wounds upon her?

Then we can fast forward to your ultimate solution.

LC

[Lozle]

Hello,

Well, this has turned quite sour hasn't it? I'm confused as to where we begin to take conflicting theories to heart? This forum is a place to discuss ideas and to broaden our knowledge, not throw insults back and forth at each other. No theory is wrong unless evidence CLEARLY and directly rejects it, which will probably never be possible now.

Bottom line, IF Martha Tabram was a Ripper victim, the methodology is very different to the suspected interrelated murders of Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly.

Martha's murder was frenzied, not a trait present in Jack the Ripper's later kills. In Martha's murder it appears to me that there IS a couldron of emotion bubbling over in the killer. there is nothing calculated or controlled (a JTR trait) about stabbing someone nearly 40 times. Sticking a knife in someone once would be enough for JTR, which is why he slits his victims throats. Martha's murder suggests a personal / emotional motive, JTR didn't care to get to know his victims and to get personally involved. To JTR, they just served a purpose.

IF Marth Tabram was a Ripper victim, then perhaps it was because JTR was "inexperienced" OR perhaps she just wasn't a Ripper victim. The later murders suggest methodical planning. Quick and clean (in a sense of knowing what to do and how to carry out his own personal surgery in the streets on Whitechapel on a dark night). I personally have had the theory JTR knew what he was going to do because he / she may have "fantasied" about the way he / she would like to kill. Which explains the short time span between murders and the escalation to further mutilation in a calculated fashion.

However, in the case of Martha Tabram, the problem of there being soldiers in her company that night and loitering around the area where she was discovered dead, seems to suggest - to me - a particular beginning and end to how she encountered her murderer(s) and who poses feasible suspects.

Now, back to POLITELY sharing theories, offering polite constructive criticism, and broadening our knowledge.

Thank you, everyone.
L

[Shelley]

And you’re an ignorant mound of corrosive feculent ghastliness; the defiling scourge of anywhere you have the bloody-minded audacity to infest.

But that aside, what exactly are you criticizing here?

If you’re challenging anything I’ve said you need to make clear what it was, rather than bombarding me with confused and exclamatory ranting about nothing in particular.

Now with all the rest of the * cough * Bull*hite i know you need the easy chair of a shrink QUITE BADLY the choice of words here are so original in the category of ' HIGHLY UN-EDUCATED ' otherwise not only would you have replied Properly to my last but one post you would have at least attemped to make a complete and utter FOOL of YOURSELF ENTIRELY by an attempt to SMEAR the name of HOLMES & HOLMES ( Forensic Psychologists) with your incoherent DRIVEL Oh why do i bother with such an IDIOT like you BEN

In the words of a woman struck with sheer UNBELIEF....PISS-OFF YOU MORON!

[Ben]

Ben, you are talking utter shite!

And you’re an ignorant mound of corrosive feculent ghastliness; the defiling scourge of anywhere you have the bloody-minded audacity to infest.

But that aside, what exactly are you criticizing here?

If you’re challenging anything I’ve said you need to make clear what it was, rather than bombarding me with confused and exclamatory ranting about nothing in particular.