Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the "Local Unknown" A Cop Out?

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

  • #76
    Hi JMenges

    There are some things you have fudged a little...

    Tumblety.....no evidence he ever intentionally and with malice killed anyone at all. he may have accidentally killed a couple of men. Chapman intentionally murdered women.

    Tumbelty.....a 55 year old giant with a taste for braid and military uniforms. Chapman......a good deal younger with a taste for dressing like witness description.

    Tumbelty.....a raving homosexual. Chapman....a raving heterosexual.

    The only thing against Chapman is the concept that he was a posioner when caught. This is proferred usually by profiler folk who forget that even their hero Douglas says that MO can change.

    Th ethings against Tumblety are a little more significant. His age, his lunatic behaviouor in drawing attention to himself etc.

    Plus Chapman remains the only multiple murderer on the list.

    No case exists against Tumblety for having killed anyone with intent.

    Thats a big difference between these two.

    Otherwise, they would be equal I imagine. But as Chapman is a murderer of women, and Tumbelty is an accidental killer of males.....he must slide to Number 2?

    And take note: I didnt even mention the word "bail" yet....

    p

    Comment


    • #77
      Hi ho JMenges

      I noticed you had posted twice...the style similarity fooled me into thinking double post and not wanting the accusation that I refuse to argue points being leveled at me...I will have at these;

      Fact: Chapman killed women. True
      Fact: Chapman was suspected by a prominent policeman. Debatable
      There is a record of it and its not exactly a passing statement. Its fairly extensive, the detail seems to add weight to it and Abberline never popped up later to deny it. That Abberline was prominent is beyond doubt, that he referred to Chapman is definite. What bit of my statament is debatable is beyond me.....

      Fact: He matched witness description in some cases. Not entirely
      In some cases he did...entirely. Check out Hutchinson and read it aloud whilst looking at Chapmans photo.

      Fact: He wasnt local as I define them. Is that a fact? I'd say he was a local.
      My argument as to local has always been based on a definition of local that I have elaborated upon and never ceased to include. Your deciding he ws local or not is irrelevant to the statement above which functions, as stated, within the definition I provided. So you cannot actually say its not a fact within the context of how I described it.

      Fact: He had some medical experience. True
      Fact: He was in the area. True, he lived and worked there, making him a local.
      Irrelevant according to the definition I use which I may add.......is exactly that used by ULM'ers.

      Fact: He liked weapons. True
      Fact: He was a consumate bluffer. Only after his arrest would I say his bluffing consumed him in his denial of his true identity. Recall that his getting away with murder was aided in large part by mis-diagnosis of the cause of death by a certified doctor.
      Im talking about his "lah di dah", his possible medical skills, his ability with women, etc etc.


      So how you work out 50:50 is beyond me. Especially as your points re: Abberline and his being local or not are demonstrably wrong and fundamentally incorrect one one reads exactly what I had written.

      p

      Comment

      Working...
      X