The 2015-16 World Fitba Thread!

Celtic were foonded the year before - things have been bad ever since, like.

 

:l3:

 

Billeh, the six nations is in February/March. Are You's coming doon to Hoonslow to watch any of the matches?

 

Ah might just dae that, Jimmy - if Hoonslow'll take me back. Hopefully, Hoot Hoot will join me on the megabus and we can be unified in oor love o' union (rugby that is - Ah'm no' expecting a political change!).

 

Aye, it would be great if Mr Hut joined us for a session on the sauce and some Rugbeh.

 

I recall Caligula being pissed as a fart and drooling over his plate of chips the last time the Hoonds of Hoonslow met up.

 

Ireland play the USA tomorrow night :bears:

 

Oh and the FA Cup 1st round takes place tomorrow night with the mighty Rangers...Concord Rangers that is...playing away to Mansfield Town.

 

Did you chaps go to the Ten Bells pub?

 

Why ? Is that where Hanz likes to hang out? ::

 

::


No it's a pub in East London that existed at the time and same area of the Ripper murders. It's quite likely some of the victims used to drink there. (possibly even Saucy Jack himself)

 

:bears: I see you know your Saucy Jack trivia!

 

::

 

We never ventured into East London.

Saucy Jack's true identity was revealed this year. His name isn't even Jack, it's Aaron Kosminski - a polish immigrant.

 

Highly unlikely. If you read more about the DNA match, and shawl you will find the story is full of massive holes.

Kosminski has been a suspect for a quite some time and it could still possibly be him, but this latest "evidence" does not prove he was the Ripper.

 

:hammert:

 

agREED... seems dubious at best... I don't think he was the guy

The most ridiculous work on this subject that I have ever encountered was by a crime writer named Patricia Cornwell ... She was convinced it was a semi-obscure artist named Walter Sickert... Her evidence was preposterous at best and completely made-up at worst... She even had the audacity to declare the case solved

 

I actually received that book as a gift. alm:Simply horrible. Beyond all of the other terrible 'evidence', Sickert couldn't even be placed in England(let alone the east end of London) at the time. In fact there was very good reason to believe he was in France. Cornwell's response to this? "Well there's no proof he wasn't in London". :tick: ::


Sadly she's not the only one to have claimed to have solved it and made it seem as if it was "Case Closed".

 

I read they managed to find a strand of hair (from a bag I think it was) which was apparently from one of the victims of saucy Jack. The bag was sold at an auction and soon after they did tests on the bag and found that the strand of hair was Kosminski's.

 

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-edwards.html

 

Yep, that's what I thought too when I saw all this "case closed" nonsense, especially the contamination of evidence. It's ridiculously easy for CURRENT DNA evidence to become contaminated and effectively deemed useless (see the Barry George-Jill Dando case for a recent example), this shawl has been passed around and handled, left in corners of rooms, cupboards etc for over a century etc. it's completely null and void.

 

Even the story of the shawl in question belonging to the victim and then being taken from the crime scene is quite dubious. This police officer basically just walks up and takes a piece of evidence in a serial murder investigation. The reported reason? A gift for his wife. "Here honey, I got you this blood and semen soaked cloth. I snatched it up today off some women who was butchered".

The funny thing about it all is even if that story was true, the shawl had no contamination and the DNA match was spot on perfect it still wouldn't be a guarantee of guilt. The woman was a prostitute who worked outside on the street. The DNA match could just as easily as come from a customer, not necessarily her killer.

Of course the press prefers to just run with "DNA match solves hundred year old murder case". :doh:

 

Jack The Ripper was obviously always one or two steps ahead of the police. He must have been a clever individual. Never left any clues behind at any murder scene.

 

Perhaps, but forensic science as know it didn't exist at the time. There really wouldn't have been much clues to work with. Even finger printing wasn't around. He would have had to leave a pretty embarrassingly bad clue for the police to be able to connect it directly to him.

 

True, but not even to be close to being caught in the act is pretty remarkable too. No police chases, no eye-witnesses to him murdering one of his victims.

 

Aye, it'd be far more difficult tae get awee wi' in these modern times. Mind Ye - hoo many o' us can say we HAVENAE sooaked a murder victim in oor blood and semen?

 

I can't recall shit. Including where that chip shop was. I woke up the next day in my clothes with ketchup all over one of the arms.

 

Yeah, he was bold and probably a bit lucky as well.

There were some eyewitness that probably saw him shortly before the murders but the time lines are all shaky and the poor lighting at the time didn't help matters either. In other words there is no witness that you can point to that definitely saw the killer, let alone one that provided an excellent description.

 

Ye sure that wiznae blood, laddie? D'Ye remember being anywhere near Whitechapel aroond 0200 hoors?

 

I watched a couple of interviews with him afterwards. He's talking about how he had to stay up long hours and cut the bodies up into little pieces for disposal. He's talking about this as if he was preparing newspapers for the rounds. When he came home and found the inspectors waiting at his flat he had to have lnown that was it.

And again, every time I hear/watch British crime stories I'm always surprised how lenient everything is over there. The court system, the police. When it comes to law enforcement and sentencing, everything in the US seems much more brutal.