|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
I have a few hunchs -- ahem I am a retired homicide investigator
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
I have a few hunchs -- ahem I am a retired homicide investigator
Author: Michelle Neff
Tuesday, 05 March 2002 - 10:50 pm |        | First let me say I mean no malice when I speak when begining an investigation one must not have any precovieved notions to what the out come will be. First thier is obviously more then one Jack the Ripper.
Next it is appearant that at least one of the murders is a copy cat of three previous events, and that it may well be that Jack or the perp did not intend to kill his victims. Lest lets start with that perspective.
What is known:
1.) Jack cared for the corpse of the deceased, at least initially.
2.) Organs taken showed signs of disease or were aberations of normal organs.
3.) The victims all had thier throats slashed, of course that was a means readily availble to a commoner to take a life, kniefs were wepons of choice guns were not readily carried in England. Genrally the Bobbies were not aremed with firearms.
4.) Forensics was really not a known science then.
5.) All of the victims appeared to be prostitutes-- but that was not illegal.
6.) Ladies of the evening were vuneral to this type of attack thier business required being friendly to strangers.
7.) Serendiptious overhearing often leads to misconceptions of what it is that is being comunicated.
So with those things stated I begin,
What I know is I have several mutilated women, that most are similar in style at least one occured inside other outside, it's possible that the bodies discovered out side were killed elsewhere and left out of doors.
First I want to put all of the victims that had missing viscaria into Catagory 1, and the rest into catgory II.
I question why the intewtines were moved over s sholuder, that would be to allow a view of the internal things that lie behind them, then why would somone want to do that?
I will list all possible reasons I can think of and seek assistance of fellow ripper ologists to assist in that task.
Why would someone take diseased organs, and leave the healthy ones; ditto above.
Were female organs removed from the area of left on the body?
Were the bodies left where an animal possbiblky a wild dog could have accessed the entrials of the victim?
I'm not sure that the Jack the Rippers meet the critera of a serial killer, It seems that the killing may have been secondary to another objective.
Equally it appears that many of the letters are intended to disguise the intent of the killer, or killers.
Was life insurance available in that time period? could some of these victims been mis idenifed i.e could the victims have actually been someone other then who they are identified as.
Generally commoners were not well fed, and usually were not fat.
Why would someone cut up a woman and open her abdomin?
a) Abortion
b) Anatomy
c) canabalism
d) medical research
e) perversion
f) psychois
I would have to presume that someone that is so sick that they could for some sort of thrill cut up the bowels of a woman and leave her lay cut to pieces could not appear normal at any time. I sumit that one that hates so terrinly as to murder porsitutes out of hatred could not entriery mask that hate to the comunity at large for long that hate would show it self adn idenitify the perp, who obvioulsly lives in White Chapple.
I don't know if the perp is a male or a female at this point. I do know:
The perp is able to garner the trust of his victim instantly. This lead to to beleive that the perp is a male, is well dressed, and appears to have money. If the killer was poorly dressed they would not be able to get so close to the victim, that may mean the killer is a woman who wouold be triated by the victim, it may mean the killer is a peron that is known to be helpful to those without means, it may mean the killer is beilevd by the victim ot be a john out for a roll in the hay.
more tomorrow as I review the case files, and writer commnerary.
mneff, scotand yard |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 01:37 pm | | The above post by (Michelle) was somewhat confusing....at least to me.
The opening line was laudable but unfortunately it was followed by a contradictory statement.
when begining an investigation one must not have any precovieved notions.......first thier is obviously more then one Jack the Ripper
I don't see it as 'obvious' at all.....continuing.
1.) Jack cared for the corpse of the deceased, at least initially.
In what way?
2.) Organs taken showed signs of disease or were aberations of normal organs.
If my memory serves me right we only have a statement of possible disease with respect to the Lusk kidney. Whether it really belonged to Eddowes or not is still open.
3.) The victims all had thier throats slashed, of course that was a means readily availble to a commoner to take a life, kniefs were wepons of choice guns were not readily carried in England. Genrally the Bobbies were not aremed with firearms.
Knives were more readily available to the commoner, thats all, and I seem to recall reading somewhere that stabbings (Tabram?) were the norm rather than throat slashing.
4.) Forensics was really not a known science then.
No really about it, not even fingerprinting in this case.
We were along way from forensics.
5.) All of the victims appeared to be prostitutes-- but that was not illegal.
Sure it was, they were arrested for prostitution but it is true to say that the rules regarding prostitution in the East End were not so strongly enforced.
6.) Ladies of the evening were vuneral to this type of attack thier business required being friendly to strangers.
Absolutely.
7.) Serendiptious overhearing often leads to misconceptions of what it is that is being comunicated.
Would you be leaning towards a conspiracy theory?
it's possible that the bodies discovered out side were killed elsewhere and left out of doors.
Actually, No.
I question why the intewtines were moved over s sholuder, that would be to allow a view of the internal things that lie behind them,
Actually no it would not, when an internal organ is moved or removed the rest of the contents of the abdomen just slither into place to obscure the view. These organs are wet and warm and move around in a fluid environment.
I'm not sure that the Jack the Rippers meet the critera of a serial killer,
Is this "Jack the Rippers" an assumption?.
It seems that the killing may have been secondary to another objective.
In what way?, clarify?
Equally it appears that many of the letters are intended to disguise the intent of the killer, or killers.
Why would any serious investigator use the contents of any of the letters as evidence unless it could be reasonably determined that any of them were written by the murderer?.
Was life insurance available in that time period? could some of these victims been mis idenifed i.e could the victims have actually been someone other then who they are identified as.
I won't keep you.....I can tell you have alot of reading to do......
Regards, Jon |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 02:40 pm | | | Ouch ! |
Author: Goryboy
Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 06:33 pm | | Dear Michelle,
Like Jon, I must admit I am a bit perplexed by the contradiction in your opening paragraph:
...when begining an investigation one must not have any precovieved notions.......first thier is obviously more then one Jack the Ripper
I don't think there is anything obvious about it. Even those who believe there may have been more than one perp do not claim the evidence is at all obvious.
As to your other statements, I find them most interesting, especially as you are a retired homicide investigator. You can bring a fresh and valuable new perspective to the case IF you dive into the literature and do your homework first (not like the esteemed P. Cornwell, who scrupulously avoided all existing texts and tried to reinvent the wheel. She failed miserably).
None of the police surgeons or other physicians working the case felt that the bodies had been moved. On the contrary, they all believed the killings and mutilations took place where the bodies were found.
I do like your examination as to why the killer took some of their organs. It shows a logical, precise interrogative. What was the motive? This was hotly debated at the time -- and still is. Was he, like many serial killers, taking a trophy home with him for later use? Was he after organs to sell to a doctor or collector? Or was he just getting his kicks from sloshing around in the wet, slippery viscera of his mutilated victims?
Many profilers believe that such mutilations and eviscerations are evidence that the killer wanted to "de-sex" his female victims -- that he was intimidated by women and hated them because of their sex. The most obvious targets, according to this theory, would be the organs of reproduction. And, indeed, JtR did seem to have a morbid fixation on the sexual organs. He attacked the pelvis and lower abdomen, ripping merrily away until he could excise the uterus, upper vagina [in Annie Chapman's case] or kidneys. In Mary Kelly's case, he absolutely dehumanized her; she's barely recognizeable as a former human being, but looks more like a slab of beef. He also sliced off her breasts, totally destroyed her sexual organs and obliterated her face.
The savagery and mutilations, you will note, increased markedly from victim to victim. Polly Nicholls merely had some abdominal mutilations, Chapman was horribly eviscerated, Eddowes was eviscerated AND had her face mauled, then Kelly who is reduced to a pitiful pile of glistening meat and bone. No heart, no heart...
By all means, read "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" by Phil Sugden, as well as "Jack the Ripper: The Complete Casebook," by Don Rumbelow, "The Jack the Ripper A-Z" by Begg, Fido and Skinner, "The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper" edited by Jakubowski and Braund, and "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion" by Stewart Evans. These are among the best texts you'll find. Also, check out "Jack the Ripper: The Simple Truth," by Bruce Paley. Although I personally disagree with his Joe Barnett theory, Paley does present one of the most vivid descriptions of the Victorian East End that I've ever read.
Happy Sleuthing!
John
P.S. Avoid the Maybrick Diary. Bogus.
 |
Author: Michael Leonard Tate
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 12:55 am | | Hi,
I for one firmly believe that the murders took place on the spot. It would be a nightmare transporting mutilated bodies around the streets - blood and organs flapping around all over the place. In my opinion, Jack was focused on mutilation due to some sexual/mental fixation (could he possibly have been impotent?) or because he valued the organs for some reason (medical or more sinister).
He wasn't interested in the victims as such. He certainly didn't want to have to bother with body disposal so he did it there and then picking victims who were easy to get close to, easy to lure into a darkened place at night, and probably easy to overcome.
As for the intestines being placed over the right shoulder, there is nothing special about that at all. He was normally working to the victim's right side, he was probably right handed. On opening up the abdomen he would use his left hand to lift the intestine. If he wanted them out the way to clear access to other organs, it's totally natural to pull them over to the left and over the right shoulder. Imagine yourself doing it, use a pillow or a spouse or something. It's the easiest position for them.
Mike |
Author: graziano
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 03:10 am | | Goryboy,
"None of the police surgeons or other physicians working the case felt that the bodies had been moved.On the contrary, they all believed the killings and mutilations took place were the body were found.
So what, ...where is the problem ?
I am afraid the only contradiction to be found here is between your (very superficial) reasoning and the human capability of looking into possible events by deduction or better, induction.
Boring, boring, boring.....
Jon,
...nor you see it obvious that Jack was one.
Your memory does not serve you right regarding the diseases of the victims (One for all, Chapman).
Fingerprinting had already been studied for more than twenty years at the time.
They would have been arrested for prostitution only if performing in open street.
It's possible that the bodies discovered out side were killed assaulted elsewhere and then left out of doors.
Actually, yes.
It seems that the killings may have been secondary to another objective.
In what way?, clarify ?
Really interested Jon ?
Would you be a forerunner on these boards ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 08:20 am | | Hi Monty.
No 'Ouch' was really intended, I honestly think that Michelle knows very little of what she/he(?) is addressing here.
And the hint of Scotland Yard is intended to draw our attention to the possibility that we have been blessed with the presence of an experienced criminal investigator.
Graz.
I think I explained before that the evidence of one lone killer is the defacto norm. unless it can be proved otherwise.
Disease of Chapman?
You are confusing Chapmans medical condition for the condition of her removed organs. Michelle's words were this...
2.) Organs taken showed signs of disease or were aberations of normal organs.
Please refresh my memory Graz....which organs removed from Chapman showed indication of disease?.
Fingerprinting had been studied but not applied in contemporary police investigations. Rather like the invention of the flash-bulb or the camera, etc. These discoveries and inventions preceed the general application and as I said "in this case" no fingerprinting was used.
They would have been arrested for prostitution only if performing in open street.
Can you explain how this does not apply to our case?
Where did Jack's victims, excluding Kelly, ply their trade?
Really interested Jon ?
Interested, but I can almost predict the answer. I'd be surprised if anyone came up with something new and practical.
Regards, Jon |
Author: graziano
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 09:10 am | | Jon,
yes for the organs, I was confusing.
There is absolutely not a scant of factual evidence that Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, McKenzie, Coles were performing while assaulted.
Kelly, seen the way she was (un)dressed, shows no sign she was prepared to. She could have been changing idea nevertheless, I agree.
Circumstancial evidence could point to it (the fact that the victims were ready to perform sex) if one is very imaginative and does not have a lot of experience with prostitutes or at least a deep knowledge of the world of prostitution.
It certainly helps to discard it if one just thinks in a realistic way.
Oh well, if you can already predict the answer....
But you can't say I didn't try, Jon.
Graziano. |
Author: Andrew Millar
Friday, 08 March 2002 - 11:12 pm | | Michelle, you wrote:
First thier is obviously more then one Jack the Ripper.
Well, this has been covered pretty well. Pass.
Next it is appearant that at least one of the murders is a copy cat of three previous events,
Nothing's apparant, not even your ordering system. If one was a copycat of three _previous_ events, it must be the fourth one, assuming that four is the correct number.
Which isn't necessarily good assumption at
_all_, if you do your homework. Did you say something about 'preconceived notions'? Were there four Ripper events? There are at least five that have been, at some point, attributed to the Ripper, plus Cornwell's Godawful forty-or-so.
I'm not convinced that one person committed all the murders, by any means, but I'm not even sure how _many_ we're talking about.
and that it may well be that Jack or the perp did not intend to kill his victims.
*Snort*
1.) Jack cared for the corpse of the deceased, at least initially.
Eh? I'm given to understand that Jack split the scene of his crimes as fast as he could.
2.) Organs taken showed signs of disease or were aberations of normal organs.
Wait. The organs taken were, um, taken. They weren't examined. They were gone, and you cannot examine a big hunk of nothin' for disease.
They _did_ get part of a kidney back, although whether it was The One True Kidney is still in debate. It showed signs of disease. Abberrations, no. Disease, yeah. But the reports suggest that the disease was systemic, not organic. That is to say, they showed evidence of malnutrition and alcoholism in the victims. Not terribly surpising in Victorian London in the East End.
3.) The victims all had thier throats slashed, of course that was a means readily availble to a commoner to take a life, kniefs were wepons of choice guns were not readily carried in England. Genrally the Bobbies were not aremed with firearms.
Yes. So?
4.) Forensics was really not a known science then.
Shall we throw the Coroners' and police reports out the window, then? We don't have fingerprints or blood samples to play with, no, but we takes what we gots.
5.) All of the victims appeared to be prostitutes-- but that was not illegal.
Yes, it was. In the East End, perhaps, it was not enforced terribly strictly, but it was definitely illegal.
6.) Ladies of the evening were vuneral to this type of attack thier business required being friendly to strangers.
Yes, and their business also required them to be out on the street late at night. D'you think, maybe that's why Jack picked on them?
7.) Serendiptious overhearing often leads to misconceptions of what it is that is being comunicated.
By definition, if you misunderstand what you heard, that isn't serendipitous. Go look it up, I'm not gonna cut and paste.
What I know is I have several mutilated women,
that most are similar in style
Is 'style', like, technical police terminology? The MO was similar in three or four of the victims, yeah.
at least one occured inside other outside,
So, is this in the same 'style' as the outside ones or not? Was Mary Kelly, your corpse indoors, actually a Ripper victim? You've mentioned four victims, above. Mary Kelly is one. You'll have to pick out which other three you like.
it's possible that the bodies discovered out side were killed elsewhere and left out of doors.
I don't believe so, no. The reports are all pretty categorical about the scenes, and none of them hint in the least that the bodies might've been moved. Since items, blood, and occasionally organs were found near the outdoor bodies, I'm inclined to think he did 'em where they were found.
First I want to put all of the victims that had missing viscaria into Catagory 1, and the rest into catgory II.
Okay. Or, we could group them by MO. Or by corpse location. Or by hair color. Or by any other random trait. Is there a reason you want to group by missing organs, or is this just a thing you have?
I question why the intewtines were moved over s sholuder, that would be to allow a view of the internal things that lie behind them, then why would somone want to do that?
Not too many 'things' behind the intestines, I'm sorry to say, unless you mean like the spinal column.
Very possibly, someone did that because of hydrostatic pressure. You see, when you open someone up in the abdominal region, the intestines will tend to spill out of their own accord. You can try a fun experiment at home to demonstrate this using only a common household cat and, uh, never mind.
My wife has just suggested that you try it with a sponge, instead, by squeezing the sponge up in one hand, and releasing it. That's what the intestines will do, except with more blood involved.
Why would someone take diseased organs, and leave the healthy ones; ditto above.
In a systemic degeneration of the sort these women were experiencing, if you pick an organ at random, the odds are 1 in 1 of getting a bad one. In other words, there probably _were_ no healthy organs in these women.
Were female organs removed from the area of left on the body?
Yes, all the female organs were carted off to meet eligible bachelor organs. Actually, Eddowes' and Chapman's uteri were taken, and Mary Kelly's sexual organs and breasts were left scattered around her body.
Were the bodies left where an animal possbiblky a wild dog could have accessed the entrials of the victim?
Yes, if there were any wild dogs running the streets of London. There weren't, though. A random stray might've taken a nibble, but didn't. You see, it's very easy to recognize a corpse that's been snacked upon. The Coroners would almost certainly have noticed and noted any signs of animal bites or mastication.
I'm not sure that the Jack the Rippers meet the critera of a serial killer, It seems that the killing may have been secondary to another objective.
That's possible. It's also possible that Jack was actually a trained monkey in a sailor suit; however, it does us no good to make stuff up off the tops of our heads, unless there's some reasoning behind it.
Equally it appears that many of the letters are intended to disguise the intent of the killer, or killers.
Equal to what? I see nothing unusual about a flood of crank letters regarding a high-profile event like the Whitechapel Murders. That's very much normal.
Was life insurance available in that time period?
Not to a bunch of women who were selling their bodies to avoid starvation, no.
could some of these victims been mis idenifed i.e could the victims have actually been someone other then who they are identified as.
I see we've been to the theater. Don't bother watching From Hell to get the facts about the case. The movie was based on a _comic_book_ for God's sake, which was a hodge-podge of multiple conspiracy theories, along with lots of stuff the author made up. Try looking through the Casebook, under 'Ripper Media', for a good book with the facts.
Incidentally, I believe the chance of a misidenification is extremely low. For one, the bodies were all positively identified by people who knew them. For two, if they were misidentified, the "victims" would probably have surfaced somewhere. For three, freshly killed bodies with remarkably coincidental similarities to the "victims" would be a bit difficult to scrounge up in a hurry. For four (last one), why the hell would someone do a corpse switch on a prostitute? That's a lot of work, to drop a corpse to hide the disappearance of someone few would miss anyway.
Generally commoners were not well fed, and usually were not fat.
Except when the bloat of malnutrition crept in. Don't generalize. The East End of London was impoverished; many people there were Not Well. I believe that, in general, commoners were fed enough and had a place to sleep.
Why would someone cut up a woman and open her abdomin?
a) Abortion
b) Anatomy
c) canabalism
d) medical research
e) perversion
f) psychois
Can I use a lifeline? No? Okay, from the top.
a) No, signs of pregnancy are pretty clear, even in a corpse, and the Coroners' reports show that none of the victims were recently pregnant.
b) What?
c) Yuck. Besides, if Jack were eating the corpses, they would have been missing a lot more flesh, I think.
d) I don't think so. Legitimate medical students have, and had, legal corpses to chop up. And a doctor, on a killing spree to satiate his curiosity, falls under (f) psychosis, I think. A few theories of this nature popped up at the time, and were soon dismissed after investigation. Now and then, the same damned theories pop up, right beside the one about selling the uteri.
e) Someone who gets their jollies from slicing up random strangers falls under (f) psychosis.
f) Bingo.
I would have to presume that someone that is so sick that they could for some sort of thrill cut up the bowels of a woman and leave her lay cut to pieces could not appear normal at any time.
That _would_ explain all the newspaper stories. Hmm.
I sumit that one that hates so terrinly as to murder porsitutes out of hatred could not entriery mask that hate to the comunity at large for long that hate would show it self adn idenitify the perp,
Ahem. 'He was a quiet type, kind of a loner.' Remember the Unabomber? Ted Bundy ring a bell? Lotsa killers out there who can keep a poker face.
who obvioulsly lives in White Chapple.
I love obvious stuff. It's so easy not to have to think about it, I can just accept it and move on. As it happens, I agree with you - I think the killer(s) lived in Whitechapel. But there's that darned 'preconceived notion' thingie again.
I don't know if the perp is a male or a female at this point. I do know:
Good. Although I should point again at the Coroners' reports, and say, 'if it was a woman, it was a strong one'. I tend toward a male Jack, but you're right - the killer(s) could well have been female.
The perp is able to garner the trust of his victim instantly. This lead to to beleive that the perp is a male, is well dressed, and appears to have money.
This leads _me_ to believe that the killer was male, was dressed, and had enough money to rent a few minutes with a hooker.
If the killer was poorly dressed they would not be able to get so close to the victim,
Unless... the killer pretended he was going to hire the victim...
that may mean the killer is a woman who wouold be triated by the victim,
What? Trusted? Okay, possible, if that's the word you meant.
it may mean the killer is a peron that is known to be helpful to those without means,
If you're hinting at the Jill the Ripper 'midwife' theory - first, I don't think the abortionist would do her work on the street, and I don't think an abortionist would be likely to mangle her victims. Besides, I think an abortionist would be in a crummy position from which to strangle a woman and slit her throat from behind.
it may mean the killer is beilevd by the victim ot be a john out for a roll in the hay.
That's the general consensus, yeah.
more tomorrow as I review the case files, and writer commnerary.
I await your updates with bated breath.
Sincerely,
If perhaps too harshly,
Quothz
(Who's been up a couple of nights and is in no mood to mince words.)
mneff, scotand yard
You're kidding about the SY bit, right? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 09 March 2002 - 08:37 am | | Do you guys seriously think she isn't kidding about all the other bits too? I mean, seriously?
Looks like tomorrow never came.
Love,
Caz |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 09 March 2002 - 06:39 pm | | The message of mneff contains a bunch of ortograph and syntax errors coupled with what at first glance seem logical nonsense.
You take them out, put them together and you get what mneff meant by the whole message.
There are some rules to respect in putting them together but it is not so hard even if you do not know them.
This codified way of transmitting messages was used by Napoleon's secret agent, Schulmeister.
Andrew Millar is a real problem, I admit.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Goryboy
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 12:56 am | | Graziano,
You wrote: "So what, ...where is the problem ?"
I was refuting what Ms Neff had claimed, that the bodies had been moved after death. I pointed out that none of the physicians working the case agreed with that theory. They all felt the murders and mutilations had occurred where the bodies were found. I don't understand what you mean by "where is the problem?"
Secondly, what do you mean by "the only contradiction to be found here is between your (very superficial) reasoning and the human capability of looking into possible events by deduction or better, induction." Please explain what that's supposed to mean. It doesn't make sense. Also, please explain how my reasoning is "very superficial."
"Boring, boring, boring....."
Really? And you're the resident expert because . . . ?
All I did was try to point out to Ms Neff where her assertions disagreed with the known facts of the case. Boring? Hey, at least I'm trying to help a newcomer, not run other people down.
Sorry I bored you.
goryboy |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 02:54 am | | Sorry Gory,
you were not refuting the fact that the bodies were removed after death.
On that point only fools could not agree.
After death.
And after mutilations.
That's OK.
As a lot of posters here around and in fact as in the whole research on the case you did not seem to take in consideration the fact that the bodies could have been moved before death (and mutilations).
Your sentence stated that the doctors all agree that :
"...the killings and mutilations took place were the bodies were found."
and that this represented "the contrary" to the fact that the bodies were moved.
It would be the contrary only if you do not take in consideration the fact that the bodies were moved before killing.
The sites of the discovery of the bodies may offer only circumstancial evidence that the bodies were in fact moved, but the position of the corpses and their clothes give factual evidence about it and the double discovery of the body of Mary Nichols confirms it (another confirmation -there are others- are of course the cachous in the hand of Elizabeth Stride, which only double-fools can believe she grasped them).
Of course the fact that they were moved but that they were killed and butchered on the spot has the only logical explanation that they were carried while unconscious.
If you do not understand what I say, or if it does not make sense to you, just do not believe it.
"Boring, boring, boring..." was not referred to your post but to the "donna immobile" conception of the murders.
I am resident nowhere (moving more or less every three months).
And I am no expert.
Experts are guys like Jon, who are going to die wondering or like Stewart Evans, who are going to die believing the case is not solvable.
Both frustrated.
Or like Chris George, fearing (and feeling) the case could be solved.
All having allways looked in the wrong direction believing the answer could only be in London or somewhere in the United States.
After all the people involved in this saga ended up somewhere there.
I chose to look to where they did come from.
Useless to add that I know enough there is to know to be satisfied.
I thank for that Ed Carter (London), Carol Rombro (United States), the wonderful Karol Vanderpelt (Belgium), François-Xavier Louison (Paris), the Goldberg family in Harlem (Holland), my forensic doctor and surgeon friend Aldo from Milano and other people that is not appropriate to name on these boards.
And of course all the posters here that with their immense (taken all together) knowledge and very diversified and rich interpretations, all contributed to my discovery of the truth (at least enough of it).
And the guys who put up this very well done website, which, materially speaking, could prove to have been the best and the most useful tool for the solving of the case.
I thank them all.
All but Wolf Vanderlinden.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: not to create misunderstanding: when I say "my discovery of the truth", I do not mean I discovered it.
Other people did and other people know.
They did already long before myself.
What I mean is that with their help I came myself to the same conclusion. |
Author: Goryboy
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 04:49 pm | | Hi, Graziano,
Apology accepted, no blood no foul. 
You've obviously gleaned a lot of information about the case from other than the standard channels. I'm always open to new ideas, new angles to the case. I'd be very interested in learning what Carter, Rombro, Vanderpelt, et al, have conveyed to you.
Have their ideas led you to believe there were multiple Rippers about, perhaps anarchists keen to topple Her Majesty's Gov't.? If so, I'd be very interested indeed to hear your theories. Again, I always try to keep an open mind (even where P. Cornwell was concerned; my mind only closed after she presented her "evidence.")
All best,
Goryboy |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 11 March 2002 - 04:31 am | | Hi Graz,
'Michelle' wrote:
'...it's possible that the bodies discovered out side were killed elsewhere and left out of doors.'
Well, leaving aside the slight grammatical problem of killing bodies, there is nothing ambiguous about 'killed elsewhere', and you, Graz, don't think the 'bodies' were 'killed elsewhere'. You believe the victims were killed on the spot where their bodies were found.
And Goryboy simply pointed out to Michelle that:
'None of the police surgeons or other physicians working the case felt that the bodies [for bodies read corpses] had been moved [ie after death]. On the contrary, they all believed the killings and mutilations took place where the bodies [corpses] were found.'
Therefore, you and Goryboy and the 1888 medics seem to be as one on this.
Your belief, that the victims were assaulted and taken alive to where they met their deaths, wasn't a point of issue between Michelle and Goryboy was it? Perhaps you could ask Michelle what she thinks - if she returns with any more thoughts on the case.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 11 March 2002 - 03:30 pm | | Dear Graz,
A note of finality? Is this IT? End of the road?
Goodbye? Arrivedici vamoose!? Another loser?
Rosey :-) |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 05:20 am | | Not necessarily my dear baby Rosey.
You'll allways be able to get in touch with me, whenever you'll like to.
I'll be there.
Eager to show why am I so grateful with mother nature.
But in life one must move on.
Yours forever.
 . |
Author: sean patrick day
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 02:19 pm | | Ms Neff a detective?
Diseased organs removed from the bodies?
Animals accessing the entrails?
Has anybody read the book, or seen the movie "The Wolfen." by Whitley Strieber?
Coincidence? |
Author: Oliver Franz
Thursday, 14 March 2002 - 06:21 am | | Andrew, I got to hand it to you: Your reply to Michelle's post was one of the funniest things I've read on these boards...
oliver |
|
|
|
|
