Originally Posted by harry
I am careful in what I write.Only the victims and their final companions knew whether there was a ring to take.Hebbert' states a bruise on the ring finger of Jackson.It is open to speculation as to whetherr that bruise was a result of a ring being wrenched from that finger.Unless of course you can demonstrate there was no other way the bruise could have been caused.
Aside from that,how many rings can be proven to have been taken by the killer/killers?There has to have been at least two,one from each series,
Seems you are less careful than I am in proving claims.
Letīs be very precise about this.
Liz Jackson had a bruise on the ring finger on her left hand. There was bruising on the finger that was consistent with having had the ring (not "a" ring - THE ring; so it was obviously known that she was in the habit of wearing a ring) wrenched from her finger, as per the examining medico.
All in all, this all means that I have all the reasons in the world to say that her ring was taken away by the killer, as were Chapmans rings.
Of course, we may reason that a passer-by, somebody who passed into the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, took the rings from Chapmans fingers. Or a mortuary attendant, even. It does not HAVE to be the killer.
But does this mean that you are allowed to say that I am "twisting the evidence" to fit the ring matter into the one killer theory?
No, it only means that you need to rinse your mouth out with soapwater and start thinking before you throw such accusations around the next time.
Donīt go easy on the soap, Harry.