Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion : Did Jack The Ripper Ever Even Exist ?

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

  • 2 quick points

    Hello Jon. Thanks.

    Two quick points (work beckons).

    1. It's not 4 hours sleep. If he's butchering at home, we must subtract that time.

    2. If he's NOT butchering at home, surely he is not spreading the offal on the ground to rework? But where then?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Comment


    • Hi Lynn

      Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
      No. Actually, his story was that he was butchering sheep and removing their heads and entrails.
      Here you're claiming Isenschmid's story was he was 'butchering sheep'

      Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
      Dr. Mickle said that, in his conversation with Isenschmid, he learned that Jacob claimed to be going to market, and getting sheep heads and entrails and then reworking them for sale to coffee shops.
      When, what he actually said was he was getting them from the market.

      So, who is making the leap from buying sheep heads and entrails from the market, to 'butchering sheep' ?

      So I wonder whether his sheep "heads" and "entrails" were not part of his delusion?
      But which delusion, the going to market delusion or the butchering sheep delusion?

      Best Wishes
      Last edited by Mr. Lucky; April 12, 2013, 04:25 PM. Reason: sp

      Comment


      • J I

        Hello Jon. Thanks.

        "I don`t think he was butchering at home. Does the landlord or wife tell us this?"

        Actually, seems that Dr. Mickle was told this by JI himself.

        Cheers.
        LC

        Comment


        • resale

          Hello Lucky. Thanks.

          I think that was a mutatis mutandis for the claim about pig butchering. Of course he did not claim to slaughter sheep. As he said, he reworked them. And it was specifically heads and entrails. Sorry for the extra egg in the pudding.

          Actually, I would not be surprised if, earlier in his peregrinations, he did not do exactly that at the markets. He did pop round to Elthorne with the ox tail. So why not rework animals for resale?

          But I DON"T think he went to market when he was in the deepest part of his phase, roughly, just before he was arrested.

          Cheers.
          LC

          Comment


          • I see on amazon.com that two days ago a Kindle fiction book was "published" entitled Jack the Ripper Doesn't Exist, by Paul Juser. Ironically, given the fact that it's a kindle-only publication, the author's website is www.printisbetter.com. But you'll find no more info there than is at Amazon. As I mentioned, it's a fiction book, but I thought I'd bring it up on this thread.

            Yours truly,

            Tom Wescott

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
              ......or Did The Whitechapel Murderer ever even exist ?
              The inference being that there was not a serial killer at work in the East End beginning in the Fall of 1888.
              No two women, therefore, being killed by the same hand.

              Inspired by a remark made by Rob House on another thread in this section.
              Unless I have misunderstood, you appear to be suggesting that (rather than one JTR) there were five murderers about in the same few months in the same square mile, all killing in a similar fashion?

              Is this even remotely plausible?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stuart Taylor View Post
                Unless I have misunderstood, you appear to be suggesting that (rather than one JTR) there were five murderers about in the same few months in the same square mile, all killing in a similar fashion?

                Is this even remotely plausible?
                No, it's not even remotely possible.

                Comment


                • Point of order.

                  I believe..though could be wrong, that the true definition if a serial killer is one who kills three or more victims.

                  That means that a killer can kill two and not be a serial killer.


                  Phil
                  from 1905...to 19.05..it was written in the stars

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                    Point of order.

                    I believe..though could be wrong, that the true definition if a serial killer is one who kills three or more victims.

                    That means that a killer can kill two and not be a serial killer.


                    Phil
                    That is the current FBI definition (was originally four). Serial killers crimes are also generally required to:

                    1. Be distinct/separate events.
                    2. Have an emotional cooling off period in between.

                    These are to distinguish serial killers from mass murderers and spree killers.

                    Ed Gein for example was not a serial killer according to the FBI definition (had it been around at the time) as he only had two confirmed victims. But he undoubtedly has the psychology of one.
                    Jon

                    "It is far more comfortable to point a finger and declare someone a devil, than to call upon your imagination to try to understand their world."


                    http://www.jlrees.co.uk



                    Comment


                    • There have been a couple of examples of people being classified as serial killers who only murdered two people and were for one reason or the other prevented from a third. I have read about both. I do not recall the
                      names of the two at the moment. It was because of the way the first two had been murdered, the social group they were in, and other factors.
                      To Join JTR Forums :
                      Contact [email protected]

                      Comment


                      • Yeah but Jack killed at least Four, probably seven or eight

                        So he was a serial killer

                        Yours Jeff

                        Comment


                        • Who said he wasn't Jeff ?

                          Gein could be considered a s.k. for the reason I mentioned in my post. It is undoubtedly a fact he would have killed several more. They just nipped his fucking sick ass in the bud.
                          To Join JTR Forums :
                          Contact [email protected]

                          Comment


                          • concatenation

                            Hello Stuart. Not only is it plausible, but almost surely the case.

                            "Jack" is an unfortunate concatenation of events.

                            Cheers.
                            LC

                            Comment


                            • No, Jack the Ripper is NOT almost surely the case of of some concatenation of events.

                              Stuart...don't be fooled or hornswoggled by these people.

                              If there were dissimilarities between some of the murders, some of these people use that to claim that particular victim was murdered by a different hand.
                              To Join JTR Forums :
                              Contact [email protected]

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Big Jon View Post
                                Ed Gein for example was not a serial killer according to the FBI definition (had it been around at the time) as he only had two confirmed victims. But he undoubtedly has the psychology of one.
                                Jon,

                                Your point raises the interesting question that, had he not been caught, how likely was he to have committed sufficient murder(s) to tip him into the "SK" category? Very likely, I'd say. Same goes for other single/double murderers, of course, not just Gein.

                                I'd suggest that the FBI designation needs to be seen merely as a descriptive label, rather than as an empirical "diagnostic" category in itself.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen"
                                (F. Nietzsche)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X