Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 2 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Batman 2 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 4 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - by Abby Normal 7 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - by Elamarna 8 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Batman 9 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel? - (57 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (14 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - (10 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (10 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Jack the Ripper learned don't eviscerate before you exsanguinate - (1 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Scene of the Crimes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1131  
Old 10-16-2016, 12:39 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
I am not able to discuss it yet, but just to let you know: there was a very specific motive and that motive was the reason. It is also connected to the GSG which the killer wrote.
Just to clarify what Pierre meant to say:

I am not able to discuss it yet, or probably ever, but just to let you know: I think that there was a very specific motive and that motive was the reason. I think it is also connected to the GSG which the killer wrote.

Hope you don't mind me correcting you, Pierre, but you left out the crucial words "I think" and you were speaking as if you had proof of the killer's motive which you've admitted you don't (not knowing who the killer was) so it can't be anything other than your opinion.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1132  
Old 10-16-2016, 12:46 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=David Orsam;396316]


Quote:
Just to clarify what Pierre meant to say:
Just to clarify that David has no right to tell you what I mean to say. I say what I mean and mean what I say and therefore say what I mean to say.

But David, you can not read a post from me without trying to destroy it. It has become compulsive for you. You are fixated on me, as noticed by others here too. Good observation.


Quote:
Hope you don't mind me correcting you, Pierre,
I do mind you destroying my text.

It is not "correction". It is corruption.


Quote:
but you left out the crucial words "I think" and you were speaking as if you had proof of the killer's motive which you've admitted you don't (not knowing who the killer was) so it can't be anything other than your opinion.
Everything you write above is motivated by your own frustration.

I have very good evidence for the motive. There are many reliable and well established sources for it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1133  
Old 10-16-2016, 12:51 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Just to clarify that David has no right to tell you what I mean to say. I say what I mean and mean what I say and therefore say what I mean to say.

But David, you can not read a post from me without trying to destroy it. It has become compulsive for you. You are fixated on me, as noticed by others here too. Good observation.

I do mind you destroying my text.

It is not "correction". It is corruption.


Everything you write above is motivated by your own frustration.

I have very good evidence for the motive. There are many reliable and well established sources for it.
But, Pierre, you've admitted many times that you haven't found the evidence which proves that the person you think is the killer actually committed the murders (or any murders). All you said to us when you joined the forum was "I think I have found him". You confirmed to me that this might mean that you haven't found him. So why are you removing the words "I think" from your sentences now, when you've admitted that there has been no major breakthrough in the case since you joined last year?

What is it about the correction I made to your post that you disagree with?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1134  
Old 10-16-2016, 01:07 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
But, Pierre, you've admitted many times that you haven't found the evidence which proves that the person you think is the killer actually committed the murders (or any murders). All you said to us when you joined the forum was "I think I have found him". You confirmed to me that this might mean that you haven't found him. So why are you removing the words "I think" from your sentences now, when you've admitted that there has been no major breakthrough in the case since you joined last year?

What is it about the correction I made to your post that you disagree with?
David, did you see my comparison to Fisherman? I wrote that I have found everything he has been searching for and more. Anyway, I also wrote that is is not enough. I want a small scrap of evidence good enough for you all, so you do not need to go on like this.

So that is my intention.

What is the use of knowledge if it isnīt what you would call "secure"?

And donīt fixate yourself on single words. Listen to what I say instead. I am not doing this for myself. I am tired and my wife is not well. She is now spending her days in a wheelchair and I can not be of much help to her.

Still, I try to do my best right now both with my personal problems here and with the case, and my aim is to make the case clear for everyone. I truly hope you understand this.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1135  
Old 10-16-2016, 01:14 PM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,192
Default

DO inform the rest of us when you two have finished taking lumps out of each other.. then we can we get back to the topics of the thread. Please? Thank you.


Phil
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....

Last edited by Phil Carter : 10-16-2016 at 01:21 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1136  
Old 10-16-2016, 01:15 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
David, did you see my comparison to Fisherman? I wrote that I have found everything he has been searching for and more. Anyway, I also wrote that is is not enough. I want a small scrap of evidence good enough for you all, so you do not need to go on like this.

So that is my intention.

What is the use of knowledge if it isnīt what you would call "secure"?

And donīt fixate yourself on single words. Listen to what I say instead. I am not doing this for myself. I am tired and my wife is not well. She is now spending her days in a wheelchair and I can not be of much help to her.

Still, I try to do my best right now both with my personal problems here and with the case, and my aim is to make the case clear for everyone. I truly hope you understand this.
I'm sorry you are tired Pierre (perhaps you ought to stop spending time on hunting for something you will never find?) and I'm very sorry that your wife is not well. But I was asking what it was about my correction to your post you disagreed with. By referring to the "small scrap of evidence" that you need to prove you case, it seems that you are saying that I was right and my correction makes your statements more accurate. So rather than "fixating" on the single words that I added, and accusing me of "corrupting" your post, why not just accept it?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1137  
Old 10-16-2016, 01:18 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=David Orsam;396330]I'm sorry you are tired Pierre (perhaps you ought to stop spending time on hunting for something you will never find?)

No, that will not happen right now. Even if I take a short break from this. At least for a few days.

Quote:
and I'm very sorry that your wife is not well. But I was asking what it was about my correction to your post you disagreed with.
Everything and the principle.

Quote:
By referring to the "small scrap of evidence" that you need to prove you case, it seems that you are saying that I was right and my correction makes your statements more accurate.
No. You are wrong.
Quote:
So rather than "fixating" on the single words that I added, and accusing me of "corrupting" your post, why not just accept
Because you did corrupt it.

And now I will not respond to you anymore today.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1138  
Old 10-16-2016, 01:27 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
No. You are wrong.
But I can't possibly be wrong, Pierre, in attributing these words to you:

"I think that there was a very specific motive and that motive was the reason. I think it is also connected to the GSG which the killer wrote".

That's perfectly true isn't it?

Whereas for you to say:

"There was a very specific motive and that motive was the reason. Is also connected to the GSG which the killer wrote."

That must be wrongly expressed because you don't have any proof as to the killer's identity so your opinion as to the killer's motive can only be an opinion. You don't know it for sure. Like you once said "I think I have found him" which, as you admitted to me, means that you might not have found him. Thus, you might not know his motive.

Anyway, it sounds like it will be a very good idea for you to take a long break.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1139  
Old 10-16-2016, 01:36 PM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB View Post
That the killer went elsewhere was a possibility that the police apparently investigated at the time, checking to see if the murderer could have gone into one of the common lodging houses in the area, cleaned up, and left without drawing attention to himself, and they appear to have concluded that he could have done. The conclusion seems to be that the murderer could have gone to a lodging house, cleaned up, then left, dropping the apron in Goulston Street before going home or to work or wherever. I'm not saying he did, but it was something the police thought.
Hello Paul,

Which brings me back to a point I made previously.

If P.C.Long's beat took 30mins to complete..then he would have been in Goulston Street at around 01.50.

The shortest and quickest way from Mitre Square to Goulston street is entering it from the opposite end to Wentworth Street. Logically therefore, at that time the carrier of the apron would have either been behind Long and his lamp or walking towards Long and his lamp. .depending on which direction Long walked his beat.

I suggest that the possibility of the former being correct would leave a greater safety zone for the carrier to stop..watch..and wait for Long to complete his walk through Goulston St..and thereby walk up towards Wenrworth St in relative safety of not being seen.

Phil
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1140  
Old 10-16-2016, 01:53 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Carter View Post
If P.C.Long's beat took 30mins to complete..then he would have been in Goulston Street at around 01.50.
The maths doesn't seem quite right.

If he was there at 2.55 then before that at 2.20, would he not have been there before this - assuming the exact same speed of patrolling his beat - at 1.45?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Carter View Post
The shortest and quickest way from Mitre Square to Goulston street is entering it from the opposite end to Wentworth Street. Logically therefore, at that time the carrier of the apron would have either been behind Long and his lamp or walking towards Long and his lamp. .depending on which direction Long walked his beat.
Sorry Phil I don't see the logic here. Why do you think the carrier of the apron would have chosen the "shortest and quickest way from Mitre Square to Goulston Street"? I mean, if the murder of Eddowes occurred at about 1.40 and the apron was not deposited until after 2.20, it doesn't appear that the carrier of the apron chose the shortest and quickest route does it?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.