Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another look at the 'Dear Boss' letter

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

  • #91
    match

    Hello Sanfran. Unfortunately, we are not sure which articles were his and which were Parke's, O'Brien's, etc.

    Fortunately, we DO have a sample of his handwriting. Elaine Quigley claims that it is a near certain match with the DB.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Comment


    • #92
      Hi Lynn.
      Are you saying Best did not write DB because there is no overt claim?


      No. That is not what I am saying. I am saying it not just because of that, but also because of the points I made earlier - and several others beside.

      I still have trouble seeing the relevance of "keep it back." But whoever kept it back was not the likely author.


      The relevance of the line ‘keep it back’ lies in its inference that there will be a murder in the next few days - not weeks or months, but the next few days. That is something that a journalist couldn’t possibly know or count on to make his letter more valid unless he was the murderer. So why bother complicating things by putting that line in?

      Whether the letter was sent by someone from the Star or by someone inside the CNA, the point remains that they sent it to the CNA to gain wider publicity. But they did not get the publicity from the CNA precisely because of this line; they got the publicity from the police releasing the facsimile, and that was only because two murders just-so-happened to occur just after this letter was handed over. Perhaps if they had tried to be so clever in including this line, they might have ensured that this letter was published a damn sight sooner, and thus not had to rely on the murderer doing exactly what they wanted in order to get it released.


      But surely he gave no time frame?

      ‘Keep this back till I do a bit more work’ gives you a timeframe, Lynn. It is a statement that tells the recipient to keep the letter until the writer commits another murder, in order to prove the letter writer is the true killer. Obviously, therefore, the killer intends to kill someone with the next few days – which he did! – and not a week or a month down the line. Otherwise, he might just have well sent the letter then.

      The Line 'Keep this letter back...', Lynn, is a very confident line, because it completely contradicts the whole point of sending it to the CNA in the first place. Therefore, whoever sent it must have been confident that the letter would be published no matter what he told them. The murderer could be confident, because he knew full well that there was a killing imminent, and it would thus prove him right; a journalist could not be confident - unless he was the killer - because he has no way of knowing that a murder was imminent.


      "the mere phrase 'funny little games' suggests that if it is the murderer writing those lines, he has a very playful personality."

      Sorry, but not to me.



      Maybe not to you, Lynn, but that is what the writer was inferring.

      Lynn, firstly, the very words ‘funny little games’ implies that the murderer is of a playful manner. That is simple. It includes the words ‘funny’ and ‘games’! Therefore, he is not only saying that he is playing games with you, but also that those games will be of a somewhat unusual nature – ‘funny’. When you also take into account that at these crime scenes, he clearly does things – in addition to the general mutilations - that are left there purely as clues to taunt the police and officials of the time, then all we have to do is put two and two together and you have your answer.

      Secondly, Lynn, the writer clearly states ‘you will soon hear of me with my funny little games.’ In other words, it is very unlikely that he was referring to the general murders: we have already heard about them. He must then be referring to something else that he will do in the future, that is in addition to the actual wounds that inflict death.

      "He is clearly leaving clues and playing with the officials of the time."

      Not at all clear to me.


      Then what, pray, do you think was the reason behind him wasting precious time leaving items of victim’s in neat piles, carving V shapes into victim’s faces, writing silly rhymes on walls, and leaving various items at the scene of Kelly?




      Kind regards,


      Tempus

      Comment


      • #93
        paradigm

        Hello Tempus. Thanks.

        “The relevance of the line ‘keep it back’ lies in its inference that there will be a murder in the next few days - not weeks or months, but the next few days.’

        Although I make a living teaching about inference, I cannot see this one. If I say, “Wait until I appear,” I hold open all kinds of possibilities—from seconds to years.

        “That is something that a journalist couldn’t possibly know or count on to make his letter more valid unless he was the murderer. So why bother complicating things by putting that line in?”

        But, again I cannot see your limited time frame.

        “Whether the letter was sent by someone from the Star or by someone inside the CNA, the point remains that they sent it to the CNA to gain wider publicity.”


        Possibly. And surely for other reasons? Sending it to yourself entailed a risk.

        “But they did not get the publicity from the CNA precisely because of this line”

        The CNA held it back whilst deciding what to do with it.

        “. . . they got the publicity from the police releasing the facsimile, and that was only because two murders just-so-happened to occur just after this letter was handed over. Perhaps if they had tried to be so clever in including this line, they might have ensured that this letter was published a damn sight sooner, and thus not had to rely on the murderer doing exactly what they wanted in order to get it released.”

        I don’t understand this last. Sorry.


        “‘Keep this back till I do a bit more work’ gives you a timeframe, Lynn. It is a statement that tells the recipient to keep the letter until the writer commits another murder, in order to prove the letter writer is the true killer.”


        But surely this is open ended?

        “Obviously, therefore, the killer intends to kill someone with the next few days – which he did! – and not a week or a month down the line. Otherwise, he might just have well sent the letter then.”

        Obvious if and only if the killer sent the letter. But surely that is the main point at issue?

        “The line 'Keep this letter back...', Lynn, is a very confident line, because it completely contradicts the whole point of sending it to the CNA in the first place. Therefore, whoever sent it must have been confident that the letter would be published no matter what he told them. The murderer could be confident, because he knew full well that there was a killing imminent, and it would thus prove him right; a journalist could not be confident - unless he was the killer - because he has no way of knowing that a murder was imminent.”


        But why could it not be the case that the line is merely a hedging of bets? So that, if no killing takes place, it could just be dropped? After all, if no killing takes place (and I agree that the journalist, if there were one, could not know) there would be no real publicity from the letter.

        Maybe not to you, Lynn, but that is what the writer was inferring.”


        I need evidence to believe something. But I see none for this statement.

        “Lynn, firstly, the very words ‘funny little games’ implies that the murderer is of a playful manner.’


        But this jumps ahead and assumes that the writer is the murderer. But I see NO reason to do that.

        “That is simple. It includes the words ‘funny’ and ‘games’! Therefore, he is not only saying that he is playing games with you, but also that those games will be of a somewhat unusual nature – ‘funny’. When you also take into account that at these crime scenes, he clearly does things – in addition to the general mutilations - that are left there purely as clues to taunt the police and officials of the time, then all we have to do is put two and two together and you have your answer.”

        Why on earth leave clues—unless, of course, you are, say, Professor Moriarty pitting wits with Sherlock Holmes?

        “Secondly, Lynn, the writer clearly states ‘you will soon hear of me with my funny little games.’”


        Yes, mutilating women.

        “In other words, it is very unlikely that he was referring to the general murders: we have already heard about them.’

        Surely not the ones yet to be committed?

        “He must then be referring to something else that he will do in the future, that is in addition to the actual wounds that inflict death.”

        Must? Sorry, can’t see it.

        “Then what, pray, do you think was the reason behind him wasting precious time leaving items of victim’s in neat piles”


        This happened ONLY with Chapman—Kate’s was not neat. And I have given a simple, logical reason for this in my Isenschmid paper.

        “. . . carving V shapes into victim’s faces . . .”

        Mere collateral damage from the first attempt at nose removal.

        “. . . writing silly rhymes on walls . . .”

        What silly rhymes?

        “. . . and leaving various items at the scene of Kelly?”

        What items?

        You’ll forgive me if I observe that a good many assumptions must be made to believe any portion of this—and many of those assumptions must feed on one another. Now I know we must have a paradigm in order to solve any of this. But mine does not include clues, taunting, games, pitting wits, or any such.

        Of course, if I see any evidence for any of this, I would change my mind. Now, I don’t.

        Cheers.
        LC

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
          Hello Sanfran. Unfortunately, we are not sure which articles were his and which were Parke's, O'Brien's, etc.

          Fortunately, we DO have a sample of his handwriting. Elaine Quigley claims that it is a near certain match with the DB.
          Thanks for the reply, Lynn.
          But I looked up Elaine and found out I was misled in thinking she was a document examiner who specialized in handwriting comparisons.
          She is a psychologist and graphologist. http://www.britishgraphology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Elaine-Quigley.pdf Not that I dismiss graphology.
          Now I don't doubt that she's right when she says Best's handwriting matches DBs. Of course, the implication is that both writers have the same personality!

          Both like to play fast and loose.

          Comment


          • #95
            graphologist

            Hello Sanfran. Thanks.

            Yes, the weakness is that she is a graphologist.

            But like the bona fide document examiner, the graphologist looks not only to letter formation, but also slope, slant, margins and spacing. That part of their training resembles the document examiner.

            Cheers.
            LC

            Comment


            • #96
              Hi Lynn


              Although I make a living teaching about inference, I cannot see this one. If I say, “Wait until I appear,” I hold open all kinds of possibilities—from seconds to years.

              But he did not say 'wait until I appear', he said 'keep this letter back till I do a bit more work', therefore the work he is about to attempt is obviously imminent. Otherwise, what is the point of writing that line? The whole point of whoever it was sending that letter to the CNA is to gain wider publicity, so why then complicate it by saying 'keep it back'? Especially if, as you say, the line has no meaning.

              Lynn, let me ask you some questions, Lynn:

              1) What was the reason for any writer – murderer or not - sending the DB letter in the first place?

              2) Why did he send it to the CNA?

              3) What made the police take the letter so seriously that they decided to produce facsimiles of the handwriting?

              4) What would have happened to the letter if there had not been another murder for a week, or a month?


              But, again I cannot see your limited time frame.

              Lynn, ‘Keep it back till I do a bit more work.’ is an instruction by the letter writer to keep it back until he does a bit more ‘work’. You will agree with that? So the question for you is:

              Why does the writer of this letter wish the receiver to keep it back until he does another murder?


              Possibly. And surely for other reasons? Sending it to yourself entailed a risk.

              If someone from inside the CNA came up with it, then they obviously sent it to themselves. Your statement surely implies that we can now rule out someone from the CNA doing it on the grounds of entailed risk. If the murderer sent it then he must have been sending it to gain wider publicity for his missive.


              I don’t understand this last. Sorry.

              Lynn, again, you have to understand the reason why someone would send a letter to the CNA and then decided to tell them not to release it. Why write that line?

              But surely this is open ended?

              But it wasn't open ended, was it, because the killer did strike. Your version is all to do with coincidences and luck. Mine is simply based on a murderer writing a letter and then telling the person he has sent to keep it back in order to prove the he is the real killer, and not just some bloke – as you state further down – hedging his bets.





              Obvious if and only if the killer sent the letter. But surely that is the main point at issue?

              But if it was not the killer, the journalist who sent it was therefore one of the luckiest journos alive, for the reasons I have constantly stated.


              But why could it not be the case that the line is merely a hedging of bets?

              But he did not hedge his bets, did he? Because, according to you, the line has no timeframe. Therefore he goes to all the trouble of creating a letter to fool the police, maybe even his own agency, and then proceeds to tell them not to print the damn thing until some unknown point in the future (probably weeks, or months down the line). What is the point of sending it then? For all he knows it could sit in the CNA for ages - if he’s lucky! Surely if he wanted to get it distributed, he could simply have written ‘Will commit a murder soon’ and left it at that.

              It is the point of the reasoning behind him writing the words ‘keep this back’ that is the problem, Lynn. Especially if you believe that this does not relate to a set of imminent murders.

              So that, if no killing takes place, it could just be dropped? After all, if no killing takes place (and I agree that the journalist, if there were one, could not know) there would be no real publicity from the letter.

              Dropped by whom? If it is was written by and ordinary pressman, surely that decision is out of his hands. Anyway, when no murder occurred, it wasn’t dropped; it was forwarded to the police. Again, Lynn, your point of view relies on some journalist spending time and effort writing a letter, sending it to the CNA for wider coverage and then not really being bothered whether or not it actually saw the light of day – so what was the point? He could have virtually guaranteed his letter was seen in some form or another by simply omitting the words ‘keep it back’.


              I need evidence to believe something. But I see none for this statement.

              Lynn, what do you class as ‘evidence’? If you are waiting for a nice piece of paper that has been signed in triplicate to prove whom Jack the Ripper was, then I think you will be waiting a long time. The only way the case will be solved is by using logical deductions, which is precisely what I am doing.


              Why on earth leave clues—unless, of course, you are, say, Professor Moriarty pitting wits with Sherlock Holmes?

              Erm...why not? Why kill the women in the first place? Why mutilate the women to that extent? Why not just stab them and leave? We could go on forever with ‘whys’, Lynn. The point is he did do them. So he obviously possessed a temperament that. As such, the question is irrelevant.


              Yes, mutilating women.

              No! Not necessarily. We have already heard about them.


              Surely not the ones yet to be committed?

              Lynn, the line says ‘you will soon hear of my funny little games’. If he is simply referring to the murders then why not just say ‘you will soon hear of my exploits’ or some such thing. The mere fact that he thought of the line ‘funny little games’ – and sent a letter, for that matter - shows that he possessed a mischievous manner.

              At the crime-scenes there were things left that were not part of the actual mutilations, and that can be clearly interpreted as being funny and odd for a killer to do. Therefore, why cannot this line simply refer to them, instead of just the simple mutilations needed to kill his victim? Surely a killer would mention them?


              This happened ONLY with Chapman—Kate’s was not neat. And I have given a simple, logical reason for this in my Isenschmid paper.

              Lynn, I have not read your Isenschmid paper. If you point me to where I can find it, I will read it and get back to you.

              Until I have read it, however, the point still remains that at the Chapman murder a collection of her items was arranged neatly at her feet. Any person doing this has to have a reason for doing so, particularly if it was the killer, because he is wasting precious time he doesn’t need to.



              Mere collateral damage from the first attempt at nose removal.

              Very fortunate collateral damage for one particular suspect, eh, Lynn?

              To suggest this is collateral damage is a tad far-fetched and completely inaccurate. What you are stating does not fit in with what we see in the various pictures and diagrams of Eddowes, or what is stated in the post mortem testimony of Dr Brown. None of the injuries he mentions can explain the two cuts on the cheek. The only one that might is this one:

              ‘The tip of the nose was quite detached from the nose by an oblique cut from the bottom of the nasal bone to where the wings of the nose join on to the face. A cut from this divided the upper lip and extended through the substance of the gum over the right upper lateral incisor tooth.’


              In other words, Lynn, the only other injury that resulted from this cut was one that divided the upper lip and damaged part of the gum. There is no mention of V shaped incisions being a result of this action. In fact, any mention of them appears in a completely separate section, not related to this incision. Surely if they had been a result of this cut, Dr Brown would have placed them together with this injury – but he did not.

              It also shows that the cut that severed the nose was continuous and carried on down through the upper lip and into the gum. So please tell me why your ‘collateral damage’ did not carry on down with it? Why are the bases of those triangles higher up than the end-point of the nose incisions? Please tell me why your cut created those two V shapes, carried on down through the lip, but never touched the rest of the skin surrounding the V shapes? Why it never interfered with the large wound that runs all the way down the right side of the face – whether it was made before or after this cut?

              The only way your scenario could possibly work, Lynn, is if the murderer sliced the nose right through, in a straight downwards direction, thus taking in the cheeks as he went. But this was not the case, because the murder cut into the nose at an oblique angle and only took the tip of the nose off.

              If you actually look at the main diagram of Catherine’s facial injuries, you will see that the only way he could have cut the tip of the nose off at that angle, and sliced through the top lip and gum in the way he did, is if he commenced the incision from the right hand side. He would then have come across the face from right to left by way of an elevated downward stroke, or, possibly, one that moved upwards from a sideways position. Either way, it would have been impossible to create both V shapes in the form we now see them.

              Click image for larger version

Name:	eddowes.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	270.9 KB
ID:	553254


              The notion that these marks being made by collateral damage simple does not fit in with what we know. It does not fit in with the photographic evidence; it does not fit in with the diagrammatic evidence; and it certainly does not fit in with the evidence we have from the post-mortem.



              What silly rhymes?

              I was referring to the Goulston Street writing. Perhaps I should have said writing. I apologise. The point still stands, though.

              What items?

              Again, Lynn, I have already gone over this a million times on Casebook. They are there for everyone to see and they all need an explanation - which has been sadly lacking up until now.

              You’ll forgive me if I observe that a good many assumptions must be made to believe any portion of this—and many of those assumptions must feed on one another. Now I know we must have a paradigm in order to solve any of this. But mine does not include clues, taunting, games, pitting wits, or any such.

              All logical conclusions must feed upon one another, Lynn - that is how you make links and arrive at the truth. If yours does not include clues, taunting, games, or pitting wits then you are ignoring a large part of what the killer actually did.


              Kind regards,

              Tempus

              Comment


              • #97
                long version

                Hello Tempus. Thanks.

                “But he did not say 'wait until I appear', he said 'keep this letter back till I do a bit more work', therefore the work he is about to attempt is obviously imminent.”

                I was using an analogy. Similarly, the “Moab and Midian” letter contains. “Keep this back till three are wiped out.” But were any killings imminent?

                “Otherwise, what is the point of writing that line? The whole point of whoever it was sending that letter to the CNA is to gain wider publicity, so why then complicate it by saying 'keep it back'? Especially if, as you say, the line has no meaning.”

                My best (no pun intended) guess is that:

                1. He expected another killing (at least, it was possible) and hence, the letter would seem confirmed.

                2. If NO killing, it would be forgotten.—nothing ventured, nothing gained.

                “Lynn, let me ask you some questions, Lynn:”

                By all means.

                “1) What was the reason for any writer – murderer or not - sending the DB letter in the first place?”

                Well, to keep the case alive. Please to recall that “The Star” attained #1 status simply because of “Leather Apron” and their stories about him. But it was assumed that Piser was “Leather Apron.” Now, things are a bit deflated. New life is called for.

                “2) Why did he send it to the CNA?”

                1. “The Star” as destination is right out. Too suspicious (cf. the situation afterwards at the CNA).

                2. The CNA are bitter rivals.

                3. They can have their cake (discussion and hype about the case) and eat it (claim it’s a hoax and the fault of CNA).

                “3) What made the police take the letter so seriously that they decided to produce facsimiles of the handwriting?”

                And thereby hangs a tale (or, perhaps, my tail—heh-heh). It seems they did NOT take it seriously initially. But, with the killings, they thought it possible and took a precaution.

                “4) What would have happened to the letter if there had not been another murder for a week, or a month?”

                File 13.

                “Lynn, ‘Keep it back till I do a bit more work.’ is an instruction by the letter writer to keep it back until he does a bit more ‘work’. You will agree with that?”

                Quite.

                “ So the question for you is:

                Why does the writer of this letter wish the receiver to keep it back until he does another murder?”

                See above.

                “If someone from inside the CNA came up with it, then they obviously sent it to themselves. Your statement surely implies that we can now rule out someone from the CNA doing it on the grounds of entailed risk. If the murderer sent it then he must have been sending it to gain wider publicity for his missive.”

                Actually, I’m saying that it makes little sense to have originated from CNA. They debunked it when they submitted. Would the originator do that?

                “Lynn, again, you have to understand the reason why someone would send a letter to the CNA and then decide to tell them not to release it. Why write that line?’

                Again see above.

                “But it wasn't open ended, was it, because the killer did strike.”

                Very well. But you assume the writer and killer are one. That is what needs establishing.

                “Your version is all to do with coincidences and luck.”

                Don’t believe in luck.

                “Mine is simply based on a murderer writing a letter and then telling the person he has sent to keep it back in order to prove the he is the real killer, and not just some bloke – as you state further down – hedging his bets.”

                This is all possible. But you must agree that parts of the letter are just silly.

                “But if it was not the killer, the journalist who sent it was therefore one of the luckiest journos alive, for the reasons I have constantly stated."

                I can agree with this—altering the terminology slightly.

                “But he did not hedge his bets, did he?”

                Don’t know. In my view, it could happen either way. But he is covered.

                “Because, according to you, the line has no timeframe.”

                None, other than the public’s interest in the “case.”

                “Therefore he goes to all the trouble of creating a letter to fool the police, maybe even his own agency, and then proceeds to tell them not to print the damn thing until some unknown point in the future (probably weeks, or months down the line). What is the point of sending it then? For all he knows it could sit in the CNA for ages - if he’s lucky! Surely if he wanted to get it distributed, he could simply have written ‘Will commit a murder soon’ and left it at that.”

                I hardly see the difference—except, in the actual version, it makes him seem more sure of himself.

                “It is the point of the reasoning behind him writing the words ‘keep this back’ that is the problem, Lynn. Especially if you believe that this does not relate to a set of imminent murders.”

                So I gather—given your focus.

                “Dropped by whom?”

                Whomever were perusing the letter.

                “If it were written by an ordinary pressman, surely that decision is out of his hands."

                I think it originated one level up (Parke or Dam), and, of course, acceptance is not up to him.

                “Anyway, when no murder occurred, it wasn’t dropped; it was forwarded to the police."

                After a brief waiting period, yes.

                “Again, Lynn, your point of view relies on some journalist spending time and effort writing a letter, sending it to the CNA for wider coverage and then not really being bothered whether or not it actually saw the light of day – so what was the point?”

                Although this argues loudly against CNA, it allows Best to do a bit of a shot in the dark. It could:

                1. Be 86ed. But nothing ventured, nothing gained.

                2. Be “held back” until interest flagged. (See outcome for #1)

                3. Be released soon (order to hold back disobeyed)—possibly sparking little interest.

                4. Be released soon (order to hold back disobeyed)—possibly sparking much interest.

                5. Precede an actual murder—sales skyrocket.

                “He could have virtually guaranteed his letter was seen in some form or another by simply omitting the words ‘keep it back’."

                But they did not hold it back for long, did they?

                “Lynn, what do you class as ‘evidence’?"

                I need something that impels me to believe. So far, I don’t see it.

                “ If you are waiting for a nice piece of paper that has been signed in triplicate to prove whom Jack the Ripper was, then I think you will be waiting a long time.”

                I think so—especially as I don’t BELIEVE in this “Jack the Ripper” character.

                “The only way the case will be solved is by using logical deductions, which is precisely what I am doing.”

                No, you are using INDUCTION—which is appropriate for empirical items, like murders.

                Erm...why not?”

                This is not a sufficient explanation.

                “Why kill the women in the first place?”

                I have stated this elsewhere and shan’t bore one further.

                “Why mutilate the women to that extent?”

                Vide supra.

                “Why not just stab them and leave?"

                If the point is merely to kill.

                “We could go on forever with ‘whys’, Lynn. The point is he did do them.”

                If these are not answered, I cannot go further. It’s my nature.

                “So he obviously possessed a temperament that. As such, the question is irrelevant.”

                Not irrelevant. Right now, I see they—not he.

                “Lynn, the line says ‘you will soon hear of my funny little games’. If he is simply referring to the murders then why not just say ‘you will soon hear of my exploits’ or some such thing.”

                But in my book, “funny little games” IS some such thing.

                “The mere fact that he thought of the line ‘funny little games’ – and sent a letter, for that matter - shows that he possessed a mischievous manner."

                Or playful. I am often playful but not a killer and mutilator. Nor do I write missives to the police.

                “At the crime-scenes there were things left that were not part of the actual mutilations, and that can be clearly interpreted as being funny and odd for a killer to do.”

                You mean possessions of the victims?

                “Therefore, why cannot this line simply refer to them, instead of just the simple mutilations needed to kill his victim?"

                But surely this does not cover Polly or Liz?

                “Surely a killer would mention them?’

                Don’t understand this part.

                Lynn, I have not read your Isenschmid paper. If you point me to where I can find it, I will read it and get back to you.’

                Rip #125.

                “Until I have read it, however, the point still remains that at the Chapman murder a collection of her items was arranged neatly at her feet.”

                Quite.

                “Any person doing this has to have a reason for doing so, particularly if it was the killer, because he is wasting precious time he doesn’t need to.”

                Completely agree. I think her assailant mentally ill. After all, he was talking loudly to her out front. A sneak would NEVER be so stupid.

                “Very fortunate collateral damage for one particular suspect, eh, Lynn?”

                Fortunate? Which suspect?

                “To suggest this is collateral damage is a tad far-fetched and completely inaccurate.”

                This was Jon Smyth’s suggestion. And why else two tries at the nose?

                “What you are stating does not fit in with what we see in the various pictures and diagrams of Eddowes, or what is stated in the post mortem testimony of Dr Brown. None of the injuries he mentions can explain the two cuts on the cheek. The only one that might is this one:

                ‘The tip of the nose was quite detached from the nose by an oblique cut from the bottom of the nasal bone to where the wings of the nose join on to the face. A cut from this divided the upper lip and extended through the substance of the gum over the right upper lateral incisor tooth.’


                In other words, Lynn, the only other injury that resulted from this cut was one that divided the upper lip and damaged part of the gum. There is no mention of V shaped incisions being a result of this action.”

                Should there be? She had a cut at the top of the nose, but the nose remained in place. The second, oblique, cut, was successful. You might check the thread about the v-shaped cuts.

                “In fact, any mention of them appears in a completely separate section, not related to this incision. Surely if they had been a result of this cut, Dr Brown would have placed them together with this injury – but he did not.”

                Surely? Don’t see it. A bit weak here.

                "It also shows that the cut that severed the nose was continuous and carried on down through the upper lip and into the gum. So please tell me why your ‘collateral damage’ did not carry on down with it?"

                Simply because the oblique cut which severed the nose was the second attempt and had NO collateral damage.

                “Why are the bases of those triangles higher up than the end-point of the nose incisions?”

                Because that is where and when the downward action of the knife was impeded.

                “Please tell me why your cut created those two V shapes, carried on down through the lip, but never touched the rest of the skin surrounding the V shapes?”

                You are misunderstanding the claim. Try reading the thread, it is most helpful.

                http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1338&page=7

                Post #69.

                “Why it never interfered with the large wound that runs all the way down the right side of the face – whether it was made before or after this cut?”

                Vide supra.

                "The only way your scenario could possibly work, Lynn, is if the murderer sliced the nose right through, in a straight downwards direction, thus taking in the cheeks as he went.”

                Bingo!

                “But this was not the case, because the murder cut into the nose at an oblique angle and only took the tip of the nose off.”

                You are confusing the two attempts.

                “If you actually look at the main diagram of Catherine’s facial injuries, you will see that the only way he could have cut the tip of the nose off at that angle, and sliced through the top lip and gum in the way he did, is if he commenced the incision from the right hand side. He would then have come across the face from right to left by way of an elevated downward stroke, or, possibly, one that moved upwards from a sideways position. Either way, it would have been impossible to create both V shapes in the form we now see them.”

                Yes. But this deals ONLY with the second attempt.

                The notion that these marks being made by collateral damage simple does not fit in with what we know. It does not fit in with the photographic evidence; it does not fit in with the diagrammatic evidence; and it certainly does not fit in with the evidence we have from the post-mortem."

                Vide supra.

                “I was referring to the Goulston Street writing. Perhaps I should have said writing. I apologise. The point still stands, though.”

                No need to apologise. But this assumes loads. And the writing does not match the DB—not even close.

                “Again, Lynn, I have already gone over this a million times on Casebook. They are there for everyone to see and they all need an explanation - which has been sadly lacking up until now.”

                This is not a starter for me.

                “All logical conclusions must feed upon one another, Lynn - that is how you make links and arrive at the truth. If yours does not include clues, taunting, games, or pitting wits then you are ignoring a large part of what the killer actually did.”

                ALL assumed. But I see no need to make such assumptions.

                Cheers.
                LC

                Comment


                • #98
                  Hello, Lynn.

                  I was using an analogy. Similarly, the “Moab and Midian” letter contains. “Keep this back till three are wiped out.” But were any killings imminent?

                  Fair enough.

                  My best (no pun intended) guess is that:

                  1. He expected another killing (at least, it was possible) and hence, the letter would seem confirmed.

                  Again - luck!

                  2. If NO killing, it would be forgotten.—nothing ventured, nothing gained.

                  What a pointless waste of time then. Especially when he could have omitted the words 'Keep this back' and have made pretty sure it would have gained some sort of publicity anyway.

                  Well, to keep the case alive. Please to recall that “The Star” attained #1 status simply because of “Leather Apron” and their stories about him. But it was assumed that Piser was “Leather Apron.” Now, things are a bit deflated. New life is called for.

                  To keep the case alive by writing a letter that, in the end, he wasn't really bothered saw the light of day or not. Makes great sense.


                  1. “The Star” as destination is right out. Too suspicious (cf. the situation afterwards at the CNA).

                  That's assuming it came from someone at the Star. So why not send it to another newspaper then?

                  2. The CNA are bitter rivals.

                  Why are they bitter rivals? Surely that counts for all the newspapers?

                  3. They can have their cake (discussion and hype about the case) and eat it (claim it’s a hoax and the fault of CNA).

                  Again, Lynn, this is all very complicated for a letter that doesn't want to see the light off day.

                  And thereby hangs a tale (or, perhaps, my tail—heh-heh). It seems they did NOT take it seriously initially. But, with the killings, they thought it possible and took a precaution.

                  Exactly. More luck!


                  “ So the question for you is:

                  Why does the writer of this letter wish the receiver to keep it back until he does another murder?”

                  See above.

                  Ridiculous.


                  Actually, I’m saying that it makes little sense to have originated from CNA. They debunked it when they submitted. Would the originator do that?

                  Well I agree with that. In that case it makes very little sense coming from any journalist, because all we are left with then is someone from the star. And that doesn't fit for the reasons I have continuously explained.




                  Very well. But you assume the writer and killer are one. That is what needs establishing.

                  But I have been establishing it through the points I have made before. points I


                  Don’t believe in luck.

                  Erm.. you obviously do, because that's what your point of view rests on.


                  This is all possible. But you must agree that parts of the letter are just silly.

                  Yes, I do - especially if they come from a journalist. That's what I have been trying to explain.

                  “But if it was not the killer, the journalist who sent it was therefore one of the luckiest journos alive, for the reasons I have constantly stated."

                  I can agree with this—altering the terminology slightly.

                  Hurrah!


                  Don’t know. In my view, it could happen either way. But he is covered.

                  Lynn, in order for a journo to second guess a killing will happen in the next few days he must be hedging his bets.


                  None, other than the public’s interest in the “case.”

                  No Idea what you're talking about here.


                  Whomever were perusing the letter.

                  Such as?


                  I think it originated one level up (Parke or Dam), and, of course, acceptance is not up to him.

                  You think? Again, you are basing all this on no evidence at all.


                  After a brief waiting period, yes.

                  And what was that waiting period for?


                  Although this argues loudly against CNA, it allows Best to do a bit of a shot in the dark. It could:

                  I thought you favoured someone higher up? Besides, Best's statement not fit in with the DB letter.

                  1. Be 86ed. But nothing ventured, nothing gained.

                  There is nothing to be ventured. You do not have to write those lines in order to get the thing published. In fact by writing them, you stand a good chance of it NOT being published - which is what almost happened. So, again, what was the point?

                  2. Be “held back” until interest flagged. (See outcome for #1)

                  Until interest flagged? You do realise that he did not have to write the thing when he did, don't you? This makes no sense.

                  3. Be released soon (order to hold back disobeyed)—possibly sparking little interest.


                  4. Be released soon (order to hold back disobeyed)—possibly sparking much interest.

                  Oh dear. None of this makes sense.

                  5. Precede an actual murder—sales skyrocket.

                  How would he know?


                  But they did not hold it back for long, did they?

                  I know! And why not? Perhaps because the letter states that a murder is imminent and when one wasn't commited they simply passed it on as a hoax, like they said.


                  I need something that impels me to believe. So far, I don’t see it.

                  Then why you are persisting in your point of view, when it has even less evidence to prove it than mine, I don't know.


                  I think so—especially as I don’t BELIEVE in this “Jack the Ripper” character.

                  How many killers do you think there were? If there was more than one, then they would have to have shown the same playful traits.

                  No, you are using INDUCTION—which is appropriate for empirical items, like murders.

                  Sherlock Holmes would stand no chance with you, would he, Lynn? Nothing would ever be solved. I am using logical deductions, Lynn, based on the clues we have.

                  This is not a sufficient explanation.

                  I have stated this elsewhere and shan’t bore one further.

                  Vide supra.


                  Again, no explanation.


                  If the point is merely to kill.


                  No it isn't. you and I both know that.

                  Not irrelevant. Right now, I see they—not he.


                  Both doing precisely the same things independently?

                  But in my book, “funny little games” IS some such thing.

                  Yes - In your book. W


                  Or playful. I am often playful but not a killer and mutilator. Nor do I write missives to the police.

                  No, but the man who killed those women was, and did! Not sure what the point is here.


                  You mean possessions of the victims?


                  Yes, and all the other things you completely ignore. V shapes cuts on Eddowes. Goulston street writing. Large Fs on arms, Pieces of chemise placed neatly on bodies that have just been mutilated. Writing on walls in bedrooms (although, admittedly, you are not privy to this).


                  But surely this does not cover Polly or Liz?

                  As I have said, Lynn. We do not know enough of the circumstances surrounding polly and in the case of LIz he was obviously disturbed.

                  “Surely a killer would mention them?’

                  Don’t understand this part.


                  Rip #125.

                  Thank you.

                  Completely agree. I think her assailant mentally ill. After all, he was talking loudly to her out front. A sneak would NEVER be so stupid.

                  Loudly? A sneak? I'd hardly call someone who talks to victims in full view of anyone who walks by a sneak. That's, of course, if they were sightings of the killer. Mentally I'll I would probably agree with. What mental ilness, though, is another question entirely.


                  Fortunate? Which suspect?

                  Erm..Maybrick.


                  This was Jon Smyth’s suggestion. And why else two tries at the nose?

                  But it is one that you agree with. The first try, Lynn, simply made an oblique cut about half an inch from the top of the nose; it did not follow through. In all probability he tries to start the cut there, hit the nasal bone, and thought twice about it. He then moved lower down. It still does not explain those two marks, Lynn.


                  Should there be? She had a cut at the top of the nose, but the nose remained in place. The second, oblique, cut, was successful. You might check the thread about the v-shaped cuts.

                  I do not need to check the thread, Lynn. I have all the photos, diagrams and documentary evidence I need indoors. If this was the only cut that could have created those two marks, then you are wrong in thinking they were made by collateral damage. The first cut did nothing but do just that: make a slight cut. That is why we can still see it in the photograph.

                  Surely? Don’t see it. A bit weak here.

                  You don't think a doctor would place related cuts together? Then why did he talk about the cut to the lip in the same section? Your argument makes no sense.


                  Simply because the oblique cut which severed the nose was the second attempt and had NO collateral damage.

                  Erm...So what cut did create the two V shapes? You are going round in circles, Lynn.


                  Because that is where and when the downward action of the knife was impeded.

                  What downward action? Which one? The one that severed the nose? Wrong! The one that made the small cut on the bridge of the nose? Wrong! Which action performed by the murderer, Lynn, caused those marks? Please tell me. Stop beating around the bush.

                  You are misunderstanding the claim. Try reading the thread, it is most helpful.

                  Lynn, your claim was that these marks were the result of collateral damage. How?


                  Bingo!

                  But from what cut?!! Please answer. None of the cuts explain one, let alone two, V shaped marks. Please stop listening to what other people say and look at the pictures for yourself.

                  You are confusing the two attempts.

                  There is nothing to confuse, Lynn. The first sttempt did nothing except create a small cut half an inch from the top of the nose. That is all. The only cut that could have made those marks was the second attempt, and, if you look at the photos and diagrams, and read the PM examination reports, you will see that that was not possible. Even DR BRown did not mention them alongside these incisions.


                  Yes. But this deals ONLY with the second attempt.

                  That is all there is! The other attempt did nothing! Read the report!


                  No need to apologise. But this assumes loads. And the writing does not match the DB—not even close.

                  What handwriting? Are we sure that it it was written down precisely as it was on the wall? There seems top be no hesitation in the writing, as you would expect from someone continuously looking backwards and forwards at writing on a wall. Secondly, the handwriting of people can change - especially if they have a mental condition. Even Maybrick's shows differences in his.

                  This is not a starter for me.

                  So be it. But you are missing out on a large part of the case, Lynn: Things that are clearly in front of your eyes that you do not choose to see.

                  ALL assumed. But I see no need to make such assumptions.

                  See above.


                  Kind regards,


                  Tempus

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Let's make 'em shorter, eh?

                    Hello Tempus. Thanks.

                    “What a pointless waste of time then. Especially when he could have omitted the words 'Keep this back' and have made pretty sure it would have gained some sort of publicity anyway.”

                    Possibly. Are we assuming that the author was a perfect thinker and NEVER wrote a single redundant item? What about clipping the ears (plural)?

                    “To keep the case alive by writing a letter that, in the end, he wasn't really bothered saw the light of day or not. Makes great sense.”

                    Well, the CNA seemed not bothered.

                    “That's assuming it came from someone at the Star. So why not send it to another newspaper then?”

                    Why? The best option might be “The Times.” But surely, by sending it to the CNA, all their clients would be covered as well?

                    “Why are they bitter rivals? Surely that counts for all the newspapers?”

                    They were bitter rivals due to their diametrically opposed politics. “The Star” refused their stories unless there were no other sources.

                    No, many papers were benign in their relations to some of the others.

                    “Again, Lynn, this is all very complicated for a letter that doesn't want to see the light off day.”

                    Why does it not want to see the light of day? Is this not a bit of a hyperbole?

                    In that case it makes very little sense coming from any journalist, because all we are left with then is someone from “The Star.” And that doesn't fit for the reasons I have continuously explained.”

                    But were they well explained? I see no earthly reason why someone from “The Star” could not have written the letter.

                    “But I have been establishing it through the points I have made before.”

                    I see suggestions but nothing established.

                    “Erm.. you obviously do, because that's what your point of view rests on.”

                    1. I do not so believe.

                    2. And no, my point depends on coincidence—not luck.

                    “Yes, I do - especially if they come from a journalist. That's what I have been trying to explain.”

                    But why cannot a journalist be silly at times?

                    “Lynn, in order for a journo to second guess a killing will happen in the next few days he must be hedging his bets.”

                    Two killings had happened about a week apart. It was not clear that the suspect had been caught. Another was overdue. Very little risk here.

                    “Such as?”

                    Well, the CNA and, in spite of the request, the Met. Both got a look at the letter, right?

                    “You think? Again, you are basing all this on no evidence at all.”

                    Umm, I dislike saying “Tu quoque” but, if you’ll notice, you have none either. All we have is a letter which each is trying to interpret.

                    “And what was that waiting period for?”

                    Both CNA and the Met delayed whilst trying to grasp the import of the letter. An excellent idea.

                    I thought you favoured someone higher up?”

                    For the original idea? Yes. The hand? Best.

                    “There is nothing to be ventured. You do not have to write those lines in order to get the thing published. In fact by writing them, you stand a good chance of it NOT being published - which is almost what happened. So, again, what was the point?”

                    Is it fair to say that your main thrust is this one line? That seems to be the case. Perhaps, then, we should discuss that by itself?

                    “Until interest flagged?”

                    Or until another murder happened.

                    “You do realise that he did not have to write the thing when he did, don't you?”

                    Yes, perfectly contingent. And?

                    “Oh dear. None of this makes sense.”

                    Quite sensible. Whomever thought there was anything in it would be fascinated. Just as some are keen on all those other missives, M & M for instance (yet no treble event occurred).

                    “How would he know?”

                    That there would be a murder? He didn’t. It was merely a suggestion. It hits, or it misses.

                    That sales would skyrocket? They already had as a result of “Leather Apron.”

                    “And why not? Perhaps because the letter states that a murder is imminent and when one wasn't committed they simply passed it on as a hoax, like they said.”

                    Or to avoid accusations of holding evidence should a killing occur?

                    “Then why you are persisting in your point of view, when it has even less evidence to prove it than mine, I don't know.”

                    I don’t see that either. And this is rather a cheap one, don’t you think?

                    “How many killers do you think there were? If there was more than one, then they would have to have shown the same playful traits.”

                    Why should ANY murderer be playful? That is quite beyond me. I don’t consider murder play.

                    “I am using logical deductions Lynn based on the clues we have.”

                    No, you are not. Do you know the difference in these two forms of reasoning?

                    “No it isn't. You and I both know that.”

                    I know no such thing. How could we possibly know what their/his point/s was/were?

                    “Yes - In your book.”

                    Precisely. Only book I can write. Just as you can write ONLY your book.

                    “No, but the man who killed those women was, and did! Not sure what the point is here.”

                    Not sure either. Whence all this talk of playfulness? I see nothing of the sort.

                    “Yes, and all the other things you completely ignore. V shapes cuts on Eddowes. Goulston street writing. Large Fs on arms, Pieces of chemise placed neatly on bodies that have just been mutilated. Writing on walls in bedrooms.”

                    Would you forgive me if I observe you have a strong imagination?

                    And why are we going over Kate’s “V’s” and the GSG again? You explained your view; I explained mine. You like yours; I like mine. I CERTAINLY have no desire for you to change your mind. If you see toppers and opera capes and canes, by all means. I don’t.

                    “As I have said, Lynn. We do not know enough of the circumstances surrounding Polly and in the case of LIz he was obviously disturbed.”

                    Obviously? What on earth is obvious? You mean, “Well, it had to be the ripper. But the ripper ALWAYS mutilated women, so clearly he was interrupted”? That’s a petitio principii.

                    “Loudly? A sneak? I'd hardly call someone who talks to victims in full view of anyone who walks by a sneak.”

                    And that’s my point. (A sneak would NEVER be so stupid.)

                    That's, of course, if they were sightings of the killer.”

                    Agreed.

                    “Mentally, I would probably agree with. What mental illness, though, is another question entirely.”

                    Fair enough. I will leave diagnoses to the mental health experts.

                    “Erm..Maybrick.”

                    Why should HE even be counted as a suspect?

                    “The first try, Lynn, simply made an oblique cut about half an inch from the top of the nose, it did not follow through.”

                    Right. It was impeded. And that at the point where the “V’s’ began.

                    “In all probability he tries to start the cut there, hit the nasal bone, and thought twice about it.”

                    Agreed.

                    “He then moved lower down. It still does not explain those two marks, Lynn.”

                    Of course it does. Contruct a model (clay) and try it.

                    “I do not need to check the thread, Lynn.”

                    Then don’t. Shall we drop it? I don’t see any symbolism here, as some do.

                    “Erm...So what cut did create the two V shapes?”

                    Once more, the first cut designed to remove the nose.

                    “What downward action? Which one? The one that severed the nose?”

                    It did NOT sever anything. It stopped.

                    “The one that made the small cut on the bridge of the nose? Wrong!”

                    Why is it wrong?

                    “Which action performed by the murderer, Lynn, caused those marks? Please tell me. Stop beating around the bush.”

                    I have. And please stop making silly remarks about beating around the bush.

                    “Lynn, your claim was that these marks were the result of collateral damage. How?”

                    Once again, the knife came downward, it stopped when it hit bone and cheeks simultaneously.

                    “But from what cut?!! Please answer.”

                    I have described that three times—and counting. Are you trying to wear me down?

                    “None of the cuts explain one, let alone two, V shaped marks.”

                    I explained above. Were you listening?

                    “Please stop listening to what other people say and look at the pictures for yourself.”

                    I have. Please stop reading rot about Maybrick and think for yourself.

                    Read the report!”

                    I have. Many times. Perhaps YOU should read it?

                    “What handwriting? Are we sure that it was written down precisely as it was on the wall?”

                    I refer to testimony of some of the police.

                    “There seems to be no hesitation in the writing, as you would expect from someone continuously looking backwards and forwards at writing on a wall.”

                    But we have no way of confirming or denying this.

                    “Secondly, the handwriting of people can change - especially if they have a mental condition. Even Maybrick's shows differences in his.”

                    Over time. But this was within the same week.

                    “So be it. But you are missing out on a large part of the case, Lynn: Things that are clearly in front of your eyes that you do not choose to see.”

                    Completely disagree.

                    If it’s all the same with you, let’s take ONE topic at a time and discuss. We have gone over some points 3 or 4 times. Unless I see a good reason, I do not plan to change my mind. And, whether you believe it or not, I do not wish to change yours.

                    You see James Maybrick, the Liverpudlian, in his topper and stalking Whitechapel to kill women you think to be whores. You see him taunting, leaving clues and writing messages.

                    To use your words, “So be it.”

                    Cheers.
                    LC

                    Comment


                    • Hi, Lynn.

                      I'm going to cut the dross out, Lynn, as we keep going over the same things and you don't seem to getting it. I'll just comment on these.


                      “Yes, and all the other things you completely ignore. V shapes cuts on Eddowes. Goulston street writing. Large Fs on arms, Pieces of chemise placed neatly on bodies that have just been mutilated. Writing on walls in bedrooms.”

                      Would you forgive me if I observe you have a strong imagination?

                      I would forgive you almost anything, Lynn. I would say, however, that if you think mentioning things in actual crime scene photos that fit in with what a diary you have never proved a fake says, and commenting on things that are mention by doctors of the time is strong imagination, then you are only kidding youself. The only person who uses imagination to prove his point is you, Lynn. As shown by your explanation for how the V shape incisions on Eddowes' face occured.

                      And why are we going over Kate’s “V’s” and the GSG again? You explained your view; I explained mine. You like yours; I like mine. I CERTAINLY have no desire for you to change your mind. If you see toppers and opera capes and canes, by all means. I don’t.

                      We are going over it because I am trying to show you are wrong.


                      “Erm..Maybrick.”

                      Why should HE even be counted as a suspect?

                      Why not? He has more things going for him than any supect, including a diary that has never been proved a fake and things left at actual crime scenes. Try reading up on it a bit more.

                      “The first try, Lynn, simply made an oblique cut about half an inch from the top of the nose, it did not follow through.”

                      Right. It was impeded. And that at the point where the “V’s’ began.

                      Ermm...No. That is the point that they failed to start - hence, as you say,it was impeded. You do know where the nasal bone is, do you?

                      “In all probability he tries to start the cut there, hit the nasal bone, and thought twice about it.”

                      Agreed.

                      Yes, in other words, he moved on, only leaving that cut. That is why the the nose was not cut through - which is why the doctor never mentioned this fact! How did he create the marks without going through the nose?

                      “He then moved lower down. It still does not explain those two marks, Lynn.”

                      Of course it does. Contruct a model (clay) and try it.

                      I think that's what you need to do, not me.

                      “I do not need to check the thread, Lynn.”

                      Then don’t. Shall we drop it? I don’t see any symbolism here, as some do.

                      No, you don't, because it proves your theory. And that is why I am arguing, because those cuts were not create by collateral damage; they were created by a deliberate cut. That means they were symbolic, whether you like it or not.


                      “What downward action? Which one? The one that severed the nose?”

                      It did NOT sever anything. It stopped.

                      Then how were the V shapes created then? They were an inch and a half long. There is no mark that tallys with this. Look at the photograph.

                      “The one that made the small cut on the bridge of the nose? Wrong!”

                      Why is it wrong?

                      Look at it, Lynn.

                      “Lynn, your claim was that these marks were the result of collateral damage. How?”

                      Once again, the knife came downward, it stopped when it hit bone and cheeks simultaneously.

                      No, it didn't. It was nowhere near your cuts, Lynn. If it never went through the nose the knife, at best, would have touched the top of the cheeks and merely create a couple of in the skin. It would not have created two V shapes an inch and a half long that continue down the face.


                      “Please stop listening to what other people say and look at the pictures for yourself.”

                      I have. Please stop reading rot about Maybrick and think for yourself.

                      You mean the kind of rot that has such remarkable coincidences around it that point to Maybrick more than any other suspect. You mean the kind of rot such as my research, that finds letters in the same handwiriting as the diary, and that were written in the exact gap that Maybrick could have been in London between the two times he was seeing his doctor in Liverpool. The one that shows FMs in rooms that are precisely where the diarist said they would be. Those ones? This is not rot, Lynn. It is fact.

                      Read the report!”

                      I have. Many times. Perhaps YOU should read it?

                      You obviously haven't, because there is no mention of these cuts being in relation to any of the other injuries - especially the one you propose.


                      “There seems to be no hesitation in the writing, as you would expect from someone continuously looking backwards and forwards at writing on a wall.”

                      But we have no way of confirming or denying this.

                      We do. You can see there is no hesitation from the writing on the piece of paper.

                      “Secondly, the handwriting of people can change - especially if they have a mental condition. Even Maybrick's shows differences in his.”

                      Over time. But this was within the same week.

                      No. Not over time. People's writing can change very quickly - especially if they are deliberately disguising it or have some kind of mental illness.

                      “So be it. But you are missing out on a large part of the case, Lynn: Things that are clearly in front of your eyes that you do not choose to see.”

                      Completely disagree.


                      You can disagree. But you are missing them.


                      You see James Maybrick, the Liverpudlian, in his topper and stalking Whitechapel to kill women you think to be whores. You see him taunting, leaving clues and writing messages.

                      I see Maybrick because, at the moment, he is the suspect with the most evidence against him.


                      Kind regards,



                      Tempus.

                      Comment


                      • short version

                        Hello Tempus. Thanks.

                        I shall emulate your example in cutting out the fat. Let's to the lean.

                        "I would say, however, that if you think mentioning things in actual crime scene photos that fit in with what a diary you have never proved a fake . . ."

                        Umm, the onus is NEVER on the one holding a negative of a proposition--always on the positive.

                        ". . . says, and commenting on things that are mentioned by doctors of the time is strong imagination, then you are only kidding yourself."

                        If you could just once divest yourself of rhetoric and GET TO THE POINT, perhaps I could understand you.

                        Are you trying to say that, "The diary contains elements from the photos"? Or do you mean something else?

                        But WHATEVER you mean, the thread is supposed to be about "DB."

                        "The only person who uses imagination to prove his point is you, Lynn. As shown by your explanation for how the V shape incisions on Eddowes' face occured.
                        "

                        If you wish to discuss Eddowes's incisions, just start a thread. Let's show some respect for Tim and stay on topic.

                        Cheers.
                        LC

                        Comment


                        • Hi Lynn.

                          I shall emulate your example in cutting out the fat. Let's to the lean.

                          "I would say, however, that if you think mentioning things in actual crime scene photos that fit in with what a diary you have never proved a fake . . ."

                          Umm, the onus is NEVER on the one holding a negative of a proposition--always on the positive.

                          No, the onus is on the discussion of facts that are clearly recorded in actual photographs, or in documents of the time.

                          ". . . says, and commenting on things that are mentioned by doctors of the time is strong imagination, then you are only kidding yourself."

                          If you could just once divest yourself of rhetoric and GET TO THE POINT, perhaps I could understand you.

                          Lynn, I have done nothing else here but come to the point. I have continuously stated what these 'things' are; in fact, we've even been discussing some them for the last God knows how many days. You have continuously stated that these things don't matter.

                          Are you trying to say that, "The diary contains elements from the photos"? Or do you mean something else?

                          No. I'm trying to tell you that the diarist tells you he has placed something somewhere, and, when you look at the photograph, it is there! Whether that is because someone spotted it and decided to create the diary around it, or that it was done by the killer, it still needs to be discussed because it is in the picture.

                          But WHATEVER you mean, the thread is supposed to be about "DB."

                          If you wish to discuss Eddowes's incisions, just start a thread. Let's show some respect for Tim and stay on topic.

                          Absolutely! Which is precisely the idea I was having before I gave this reply to you. I believe the ears need to be dicusssed as well. I'll be back soon.


                          Kind regards,


                          Tempus

                          Comment


                          • new threads

                            Hello Tempus. Thanks.

                            Good luck with the Maybrick diary thread and the facial mutilation thread.

                            Cheers.
                            LC

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
                              Hello Tempus. Thanks.

                              Good luck with the Maybrick diary thread and the facial mutilation threads.

                              Cheers.
                              LC

                              Thanks, Lynn.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X