Status: urban legends
An article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer records some Philippine urban legends: the "White Lady" of Balete Drive, Robina Gokongwei's "snake twin" lurking in department store dressing rooms, the elusive "kapre" that lives in an ancient mango tree near the Emilio Aguinaldo house in Kawit town, and Andres Bonifacio's love child from a place aptly named Libog (now Santo Domingo) in Albay province. None of those mean much to me. But most of the article is devoted to discussing two other Philippine legends that are of more general interest. The first one is that Jose Rizal, the national hero of the Philippines,
"was the father of Adolf Hitler, the result of an indiscretion with a prostitute in Vienna." The second one is that Jose Rizal was also Jack the Ripper:
Rizal was in London from May 1888 to January 1889, in the British Library copying "Sucesos de las islas Filipinas" by hand because there were no photocopying machines at the time. Jack the Ripper was active around this time, and since we do not know what Rizal did at night or on the days he was not
in the library, some people would like to believe Rizal is suspect. They argue that when Rizal left London, the Ripper murders stopped. They say that Jack the Ripper must have had some medical training, based on the way his victims were mutilated. Rizal, of course, was a doctor. Jack the Ripper liked women, and so did our own Rizal. And -- this is so obvious that many overlooked it -- Jose Rizal's initials match those of Jack the Ripper!
If Jack the Ripper did turn out to be Filipino, that would throw a wrench in his status as the
Most Evil Brit of all time.
Related Posts:
Nov 9, 2005:
Japanese Urban Legends
Oct 14, 2004:
Iraqi Urban Legends
Comments
That Jose Rizal was one busy guy. If he could have found somebody else to do his stenography, who knows what else he might have accomplished?
Look at the part about James Billington of Farnworth near Bolton in Lancashire 1847-1901.
I quote:
"Perhaps his most interesting execution was that of the poisoner, Dr. Thomas Neil Cream, on the 15th of November 1892, again at Newgate. Cream waited till the very last moment as he felt the mechanism under the trap begin to move to utter the words, "I am Jack the...." It is highly unlikely that Cream could have been Jack the Ripper but it certainly caused a stir at the time.
"
but alas it wasn
roy.. could he be the one too?"
I guess...but alas i doubt your father knew how to read or write. Was he a doctor too? Can he speak a number of different languages fluently? Was he a known womanizer? A Mason? Don't compare your father to Jose Rizal.
This is new information to us, that Filipino physician Dr. Jose Rizal has been considered to be Jack the Ripper by anybody. There is, as stated, no evidence to prove that he was other than he was in London at the time, which seems to be manifestly weak evidence.
Christopher T. George
Editor, Ripperologist
- In 1888, he was staying with the Beckett family at 37 Chalcot Crescent in Camden
- He was a doctor(opthalmologist)
- He was good with weapons(was called "the swordsman")
- He was a Malay
- He was proficient in the martial arts
- He would have been 27 at the time of the Ripper killings
- He also took up fencing and was quite good
- He was short, had dark skin, dark hair, and dark eyes
- He came from a well to do family, was well dressed and looked respectable
- He came to London on May 24, 1888 on the ship City Of Rome
- He left London in January of 1889, and the Ripper killings stopped
- He was multi-talented(could speak many languages, was a writer, poet, author, sculptor, artist)
- He was executed in the Philippines on December 30, 1896 at the age of 35
- Had a romantic relationship with Gertrude Beckett - the daughter of Charles Beckett
- He wrote letters to his friend Blumentritt from London, however there were no letters written to his family or friends from July 1888 - November 14, 1888
- He was working at the British Library at the time
- After he died, his mother tried to procure his assets which consisted of some pretty nice jewelery including gold cuff links and other baubles of diamonds and amethysts(gold chain with a red stone seal?)
upon further investigation...this information was found...similarities noting the f's
she also found this...
Rizal and his diary:
January 1986, St. Pancras, London
While up in the attic putting away boxes of Christmas ornaments,
the present-day owners of #37 Chalcot Crescent stumble across
a dusty old trunk, which (once the lock is pried open) reveals
some /very interesting/ items once belonging to Dr. Jose Rizal.
In particular, a diary wherein he confesses to the Whitechapel
murders; and a glass jar with half a human kidney preserved in
alcohol.
Unlike the embarassing "Hitler Diaries" hoax a few years before,
/this/ seems to be genuine. The ink, paper, etc. are from 1888.
The handwriting matches Dr. Rizal's. And (thanks to a surviving
great-granddaughter) a new DNA test makes it almost certain that
the kidney was taken from Catherine Eddowes.
how interesting.
But of course, what you're saying is false. To be honest, I don't believe any of it. How the HELL can anyone prove that that kidney belonged to one of the victims when wasn't even DNA testing at the time? Wanna tell me? No, of course not.
I don't know what your problem with the Philippines or with Filipinos is, but please, don't try to attack us with such a cowardly tactic. Better, why don't you stop your trolling and just shut up?
Why don't you stop evading the issue? Instead of always repeating the excuse "It's a theory, why don't you answer this simple question: Do you believe it or not? You say it's only a theory. I already know that; it's only a theory, and a ridiculous one at that; there's no need to try and make yourself look any smarter than you are by pointing that out. My question is, if it's a "theory" or "speculation", then why do you talk as if it's an established fact already?
You talk so arrogantly, telling me to look at things from "different viewpoints" and to keep an open mind... For some reason, I think you need this advice more than I do, since you sound so convinced of the truth of your little idea.
Please, I don't need a lecture from some guy who believes Jose Rizal was Jack the Ripper, on the grounds that - what was that again? - he was a Freemason "like Jack the Ripper was" (and how in the world could anyone find out that he was a Mason since no one even knows his true identity?), he lived in Britain at the same time as the murders, and he had the martial and medical skills necessary to do it, and his initials matched. Wow.
As for your vaunted letter, yes, that might pose a problem if it were true... except it isn't. I don't believe that such a letter ever existed. It's absolute nonsense from beginning to end. You'd think if there were such a letter, we wouldn't even be having this argument anymore, would we?
And btw, most killers do not eat the body parts of their victims. First you say Rizal was a killer, then you imply that he kept kidneys to EAT them... even for someone like you, this is going a bit far.
And of course, since the letter doesn't exist, there's no way to prove who that kidney belonged to, even if it did exist.
And you're missing one of the most critical elements for murder: Motive. Why the hell would he want to kill these people? Remember, this is a guy who believed in nonviolent resistance against the Spaniards who were oppressing him and his people. When the Spaniards exiled him in Dapitan, Andres Bonifacio sent a representative to persuade him to escape and join the armed rebellion they were planning. He refused. Now, if he wouldn't raise his hands against the Spaniards, why would he kill innocent people who didn't even have anything to do with him?
Obviously Rizal wouldn't keep body parts as charms or amulets since he was a scientific person. He already knew about germs and bacteria.
And the last part of your comment... One thing about you, my friend, is that you are too arrogant. "Pompous fanatic." LOL. Made my day. Why don't you look in a mirror?
So again, stop beating around the bush and just tell me if you actually believe this...uh..."theory".
"As for your vaunted letter, yes, that might pose a problem if it were true... except it isn't. I don't believe that such a letter ever existed."
Is that a fact or an opinion? You state a fact but then right after you hesitate by saying I don't believe. You are quick to turn down an idea without knowing if it's true or not and at the moment no one knows it 100%. Hence another example why you are a pompous fanatic. Arrogant in that you do not wish to listen to others and believe that your opinions alone will do. I understand your views and I never disagreed with them.
As for your accusations, they are void and null. You have no basis for your accusations. You say that I talk as if it is a FACT...show me.
You counter viewpoints with VERY WEAK arguments. I didn't even have to think to debunk your accusations. You argue just to argue. You have proved that you know nothing about criminal psychology or human behavior at that...but you rebut as if you were an expert. I'm sorry if I seem arrogant, but you must be put in your place. "Pompous fanatic" you utter back...fanatic...certainly not...pompous...only to people who possess a combination of stu bborness and lack of intelligence. No one was born intelligent, we all have the opportunity to excel in life. For this reason I show you no pitty. I enjoy speaking to intelligent people and that is why I must end this debate. Farewell.
P.S. I really am sorry that I responded in such a manner. I really don't know how to respond to your rebuttals without being arrogant. It is something I am still learning and hopefully I can one day be less opinionated of other people's character.
"GOOGLE IT"
And I must have really struck a nerve back there, for you to use 3 posts to respond. Sheesh... don't get so worked up just because someone shows your idiocy - I'm just trying to help. And don't resort to name-calling just because you've got nothing else to say. Don't blame me for calling you names, you started it. You say I'm a fool, but because I know I'm not a fool, I don't care.
How stupid can you get? Sure, you say that you were not directly saying that Rizal ate body parts, but you are proposing a theory that Rizal was Jack the Ripper, and as evidence you say that a victim's kidney was found in his possession. In response to what I said, that he would need a motive for doing so, you then say that some murderers eat the body parts of their victims (although you only gave fictional examples). In other words, you are implying that Rizal was an organ-eater too, which is why he kept a kidney. If you're not, then why mention it in the first place?
"I do not accept the theory
as absolute. I am merely considering it which is the basis for my argument."
And up to now, you're still evading the question. Do you believe this theory or don't you? Having seen all sides of the issue, shouldn't you now have an opinion on it?
You know, I notice you use this "It's only a theory" defense a lot. This is invalid. If it is a theory, why are you even mentioning it? What do you actually believe? I get it... maybe you just want to slander Rizal, but don't want to be thought to believe such a ridiculous "theory" so this is your solution. So simple-minded. And please... don't call me a fool. I don't think idiots have the right to call others idiots.
Then, you say that "not all killers have to have a motive", which again, implies that Rizal was the killer and he didn't have a motive. Nice. What a convenient way for you to evade giving a motive.
It's not true that not all killers have a motive. There is always a motive, or a reason, for killing. For lack of any motive for him to kill, there's still mental illness. But then again, there's no proof of that, either. That's your fundamental mistake - you don't seem to realize that the burden is on YOU to prove your theory, not ME to disprove it. That's how the judicial system works, or have you never heard of "Innocent until proven guilty", moron?
Blah, blah, blah. "Fanatic". I suppose that all patriotism would look like fanaticism to you, because you are a mere coward who left the hardships of this country to pursue an easy life in a rich country, and now doesn't even respect his national heroes. But wouldn't "not listening to what the other has to say" also apply to you? Aren't you also not litening to what I'm saying, hypocrite?
I've listened to what you said. The thing is, it's just utter garbage. That's the reason I can't believe it. Blame yourself.
As for the letter, it's a complete untruth. That is the fact of the matter.
"You counter viewpoints with VERY WEAK arguments."
According to you, anyway. But you're an idiot.
"I didn't even have to think to debunk your accusations."
Well, you really don't think anyway. And where did you debunk them? I haven't seen you actually debunk what I said in my previous post.
"You argue just to argue."
Actually, that's you. I've been starting to wonder if you're just a troll. You see, no one who wanted a serious argument would choose such an absurd notion to argue about. So it's pssoble you're just doing this to get attention. But because I have some spare time, I can deal with morons like you. This is just amusement for me anyway. I'm eagerly waiting to see what the next nonsense you'll put here will be.
"You have proved that you know nothing about criminal psychology or human behavior at
that."
And I suppose you do? You're the most arrogant imbecile I've ever met. Actually, no. I've met more arrogant imbeciles than you. You can't even win at that.
"...but you rebut as if you were an expert."
Unlike you, hypocrite, I don't pretend to be an expert on this case. It's simply common sense, which I guess you are devoid of, because you spend so much time trying (and failing) to look like an expert.
"I'm sorry if I seem arrogant,"
LOL. Saying sorry, but then still doing it anyway. The whole attitude of "magnanimous superiority" isn't working, you know.
"but you must be put in your place."
And you're the one to do it? Who do you think you are? I don't exactly think I should be put in my place by an immature fool like yourself.
utter back...fanatic...certainly not"
You are a fanatic because you continue to defend, against all evidence, your stupid theory.
"...pompous...only to people who possess a
combination of stu bborness and lack of intelligence."
You are pompous because you can make statements like that. You are proving what I'm saying even as you try to disprove it.
"No one was born intelligent, we all have the opportunity to excel in life. For this
reason I show you no pitty."
Maybe you should try improving your spelling before you imply that you're intelligent and I'm not, no?
"I enjoy speaking to intelligent people and that is why I must end this debate. Farewell."
Don't make excuses. Just admit you lost the debate. Then you'll keep your honor at least. As it is you've got nothing.
Re your piece of "advice", I've already done that. I've found nothing. And of course, for some reason, you're not showing sources. Having lost, and humiliatingly at that, you're in no position to give me advice, retard.
I first heard of Jose Rizal as Jack the Ripper thing from Filipinos - not from this site. But no one who said it actually believed it.
"it is also known that jack the ripper was mason...which Jose Rizal was :D"
And finally, a last pice of proof that you're only trolling. If you were interested in sreious discussion, would you have put that smiley face?
educated? If so, do something about it, don't whine how other people have it better than you. There are poor people like yourself everywhere but that doesn't mean they cannot break through the class barrier.
I posted 3 posts because it couldn't fit...as you figured out with your posts. Who struck the nerve?
Have you ever done something and didn't know why you did it? If a person has a mental illness and he does something wrong...does it mean that he had a motive? That he did it intentionally? Of course not. If someone has a seizure, do you think they know what they're doing?
You stated, "There is always a motive, or a reason, for killing." A motive for killing someone is different from the reason why he killed someone. A motive for killing someone is because he had an affair with my wife. A reason could be anything...he had a seizure and he accidentally shot him...he was sleepwalking. A reason is an explanation but a motive is an explanation involving intent or incentive.
"you then say that some murderers eat the body parts of their victims (although you only gave fictional examples). In other words, you are implying that Rizal was an organ-eater too, which is why he kept a kidney. If you're not, then why mention it in the first place?"
I stated, "Why would he keep the kidney? who knows. a souvenir perhaps. it's not alien for killers to take something from their victims...hannibal lecter ate his victims...the other guy took their skin off...it's their trip!"
1. I said a souvenir perhaps
2. Only hannibal lecter out of the two fictional characters ate his victims.
3. I stated, it's their trip...meaning they do whatever it is they want. Implying that if RIZAL did do it, then he could do whatever he wants with his victims.
"You know, I notice you use this "It's only a theory" defense a lot. This is invalid. If it is a theory, why are you even mentioning it?"
If you were as intelligent as you say you'd know that a theory or a hypothesis is a guess which then leads to more scientific explanations of a certain phenomena or event. I mention it because there is a chance that it may be true. I never rule anything out. As i've stated before, I understand your viewpoint and I accept it. I do not however agree with your counter arguments because they are weak. You are stretching it, you take something out of context and you build an argument around it. My opinion on the subject is as I have said earlier. He could or he couldn't have. Just like in religion. There may be a god, or there may not be. Why must people always have to be so sure of themselves? Why does there only have to be one answer? You are afraid of the unknown.
"...the burden is on YOU to prove your theory, not ME to disprove it. That's how the judicial system works, or have you never heard of "Innocent until proven guilty", moron?"
lol what burden? i'm not trying to send Rizal to jail. innocent until proven guilty...of course but a suspect is still a suspect. I never claimed he did it...i said it was interesting and supported it with some facts that showed his character and his residence at the moment.
"Blah, blah, blah. "Fanatic". I suppose that all patriotism would look like fanaticism to you"
Blind patriotism would be fanaticism to me. Just because Rizal was our hero and a Filipino, you feel like he cannot do wrong. Wake up. "Never is a man or a deed wholly Samsara or wholly Nirvana; never is a man wholly a saint or a sinner."
"Aren't you also not litening to what I'm saying, hypocrite?" Apparently you are not listening because I've stated many times that I accepted your viewpoint.
"You are a fanatic because you continue to defend, against all evidence, your stupid theory."
I've given you facts of his residence and character. Give me something that denies those facts. You say the letter is false, fine...how about the rest? "He didn't do it because he is our hero" is not enough.
"of course, for some reason, you're not showing sources." I already showed you sources, read again.
"it is also known that jack the ripper was mason...which Jose Rizal was :D"
And finally, a last pice of proof that you're only trolling. If you were interested in sreious discussion, would you have put that smiley face?
I had put a smiley face on one of my comments therefore it cannot be taken seriously. LOL. I was being jocular. Again, you grasp into the air trying to catch me.
Name caller and a hypocrite you label me but it is you that ultimately succombed. What a rant. lol.
Show this thread to anyone and they will see that you are grasping into thin air, struggling to make a valid argument but in the end, you have failed. My viewpoints remain the same, maybe Rizal did it, maybe he didn't. I'm totally fine with that because I don't need to know everything. I'm not afraid to find out our national hero is not perfect. At the end of the day, I will still be who I am whether he did it or not.
"Our mistake would lie in supposing that what is radiant no longer exists because it has been explained from the shadow-side" - Carl Jung
You didn't want to respond, but you did anyway. Why don't you just admit the real reason, that you couldn't resist seeing if I had typed a response, and once you read it, you got so offended that you had to counterattack. Don't be. I'm only trying to help. I'm trying to teach you to learn how to not publicly humiliate yourself on the Internet in the future.
"Why do you pity yourself? You
feel like it's unfair that other people can go to other countries and other people can't?"
Well, that is unfair. But I can go to other countries. It's just that because I'm not a coward and a loser like you, and I still think there's hope for this country, I don't want to. Why do you jump to conclusions so quickly, imbecile?
"Do you feel it's unfair that you don't have the internet at home?"
I'm typing this from my house, imbecile. If I didn't have Internet at home, how could I post this? From a Net cafe? Maybe, but I'd like to know how you can find out where I'm posting from from my posts alone. Must be those super-genius psychic abilities again. LOL. Moron.
"Do you feel that you have to brush up on your english in order to respond to my replies because you are poorly educated?"
No, I don't. Funny you should say that, when you're the one making all the spelling errors, eh?
"If so, do something about it, don't whine how other people have it better than you."
I guess you did something about it... You left this country crying like a baby because you couldn't stand the living conditions here. But I'm not a loser like you are, so I won't do that.
"There are poor people like yourself everywhere but that doesn't mean they cannot break through the class barrier."
Woot! Amazing! You can tell how poor or rich I am from my posts alone! It's gotta be that genius-level IQ you've got!
Not. So much for your apology. Why do you resort to personal attacks, imbecile? Is it because you can't argue with me properly anymore? Is it because you no longer have anything sensible to say? Even if I were poor, which I'm not, does that have any bearing on what I'm saying? No. It's completely irrelevant. It is a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem. If we were in an official debate, you would have been disqualified for these personal insults already. It seems to me you're the one who doesn't know anything about debate.
Oh, and I can use personal attacks against you, because you started it. Blame yourself, retard.
I notice you've been pretty active on this page. Even thought not many people go here, since your first post in July 2006, you've been waiting for and responding to, usually rudely, anyine who responds to you. What't the reason for your interest in this topic anyway? Are you just trying to get attention? Well, if you are, the only reason I'm responding to you is that I have some spare time and want to amuse myself by humiliating idiots.
"Who struck the nerve?"
I did, because you took another 3 posts to respond.
And don't lecture me on the difference between reason and motive. I know what it is, and I don't need a self-important loser to tell me. That's why I included both. The thing is that there is neither reason nor motive for Rizal to have committed these murders.
"If you were as intelligent as you say you'd know that a theory or a hypothesis is a guess which then leads to more scientific explanations of a certain phenomena or event."
When did I say I was intelligent? Unlike you, I don't say I'm intelligent. But unlike you, I'm not dumb. I know what a hypothesis is. What I'm saying is that first, you act as though your theory were already proven, and second, this hypothesis is so dumb it should be dismissed immediately. Do you really think this evidence would stand up in a court of law? Not the letter of course, since the letter is so obviously false. If it were true, this matter would have been resolved already.
"I never rule anything out."
You never rule anything out? So you think it's possible that the sun rises in the west, or that gravity doesn't exist, or that water does not boil at 100 degrees C? What I'm trying to say is, there are some things that are false right away. This is one of them.
"Why must people always have to be so sure of themselves? Why does there only have to
be one answer? You are afraid of the unknown."
I think I'm beginning to understand you're position. Your position is that you have no position. You have all the facts on both sides, but you have no opinion. How convenient. Do you really have no opinion on anything? Are you trying to tell me that there is no thing you accept as true. Do you say that "The earth may or may not be round?", or "The earth may or may not revolve around the sun?"
And that's your problem. Even if you don't say he is the murderer, you still say he's a suspect. Why is he a suspect? I don't see how the facts you've shown point to his being guilty. If it's because he lived there at the time, for example... why, anyone living in London at the time was a suspect. Is that what you're saying?
"Blind patriotism would be fanaticism to me. Just because Rizal was our hero and a Filipino, you feel like he cannot do wrong. Wake up."
I'm awake. You are asleep. I don't think Rizal was perfect. He had many faults. (For example, he wasn't completely anti-Spain; he wanted the Spanish to continue ruling the Philippines. He just wanted them to rule fairly.)
But being Jack the Ripper was not one of them. Do you also believe he could have been the father of Adolf Hitler or Mao Zedong? Don't you think it's starange how a Malay could be connected to a Chinese, a Caucasian, and a person of unknown race, presumably Caucasian?
"I was being jocular. Again, you grasp into the air trying to catch me."
Should you really be "jocular" in a serious discussion? How am I "grasping" anyway?
"Name caller and a hypocrite you label me but it is you that ultimately succombed. What a rant. lol."
Yeah, right. You started the name calling, and you're still doing it up to now. Hypocrite. What a rant. LOL.
"Again, I have taken your words and I have proved your arguments weak with valid explanations and examples."
No, you haven't. Where are these "valid explanations and examples"?
"Your rebuttal is, "you are an idiot" or
"it's absurd.""
Which is the exact same thing you've been doing. That's all I really need to rebut your arguments. How dare you use debate terms like "rebut", when you don't even know anything about debate?
"Show this thread to anyone and they will see that you are grasping into thin
air, struggling to make a valid argument but in the end, you have failed."
Are you willing to bet on that? I wouldn't advise it, since it's obvious to anyone that between the two of us, you're the one grasping at the most circumstantial evidence, struggling to make a valid argument, and failing miserably.
No more excuses or lies. That's what you're good at. Just admt you lost.
As I have said before, only read what I have posted and the facts that go with them. You counter those FACTS with "it's absurd," "false," or "lies."
He is indeed a suspect...I think being at a certain place at a certain time would certainly make a person a suspect. Do you disagree? Of course he may not be convicted based on those facts alone but as I've already stated but a suspect is a suspect. I've also stated that If he was properly investigated at the time, who knows what could've happened. The subject is an unsolved crime in the past, very difficult to prove anything at this point.
Now you are understanding me...I don't have a position on things. You would say the sky is blue but is it really? What is blue? Just something you have been trained to learn and believe. Quantum Physics suggests that nothing is absolute. An atom can jump from A to B for thousands of years but in the next second it can jump to Z. Just like with David Hume's, problem of causation.
This is not a serious conversation. I said debate as a synonym for argument. I am not in the habit of using the same words over and over again. I was taught not to in school.(Like you stating imbecile over and over again.) It is redundant. Of course this theory is far more ludicrous than most. I believe that the chances are slimmer that he did it BUT there is still that chance. Who am I to say that it's 100% false. In fact, who are you to say that?
Though you haven't really responded to my real questions, and instead went ahead and attacked my personal attacks, your argument is null no? Do you agree with what I said then if you are not going to respond?
"And don't lecture me on the difference between reason and motive...That's why I included both. The thing is that there is neither reason nor
motive for Rizal to have committed these murders."
It didn't seem like you knew the difference..."In response to what I said, that he would need a
motive for doing so"
You grasp by twisting what I say and building your arguments around them. One of several examples is assuming that Rizal ate his victims was one of my opinions.
I never said I don't name call. I just said you did. How could I be a hypocrite? I never said I didn't do it. You however, labeled me a name caller, ergo, you shouldn't name call back as an anti-hypocrite.
You posted the 3 posts again...i'm down to two. lol. Looks like I hit a nerve again. If it were oil, I'd have more money. hahaha
You take this so seriously.
Stop thinking your the sh*t online. eon, you think your better than filipino because you hav e money or believe that you do? money cant by you happniness idiot. filipino
you are dumb for addimg fuel to the fire. you talk and talk just like eon. i don't understand how a person can slander a hero of a country in some contries that would be ilegal but here you can do it freedom of speech ya know .
why dont all the people who read the comments comment on this blog or something so these 2 can shut the F up. everytime i go to museum of hoaxes i see these two positng
sometihmg. i think eon won only on what he claimed but the whole thing is stupid anywayzzz.
No knows if Jack the Ripper was a Mason - that's just one (very far-fetched) theory.
He did keep half a kidney from Catherine Eddowes (he sent the other half to a newspaper office). However, according to his letter, he fried it and ate it (fava beans and a nice chianti weren't mentioned....)
Catherine Eddowes had no children, therefore no DNA to match.
Jack the Ripper was just as likely to be a woman as a man.
All foreigners were suspected of being Jack the Ripper (it was such a very 'un-English' crime!). Therefore, those women would not have gone down dark alleyways with a foreigner - Mary Kelly certainly wouldn't have invited one into her rooms. Whoever he, or she, was, the circumstances of the deaths seems to indicate that the killer was someone the women knew, trusted and believed to be harmless - probably someone they'd known all their lives, not the newly-arrived foreign stranger.
perhaps maybe stating the fact that the other kidney has been eaten would stop detectives from looking for it. dr. rizal could now walk away with a human kidney without suspicion.
Yeah pretty hard to tell who's kidney it is...what was suggested however was to DNA test Rizal's living relative and match it with anything they can get from the kidney that they found along with the "letter of confession" to confirm that it was Rizal's belongings.
Of course...Jack the Ripper could have been a woman.
Whitechapel was a very impoverished section of London. Mary Kelly along with all the other victims were prostitutes. I've seen and heard people do crazier things for money than have sex with a stranger. Even though people were on the lookout for Jack the Ripper, the show must go on. They still had to work to survive knowing the risks.
On a side note...Rizal was also extremely intelligent and was a "ladies man." What can I say, he knew what to say to the ladies.
Jen in Cebu: Definitely? hahaha wow that's the most incredible statement i heard so far. only their death is definite about humans. can you present more of what you've read to say definitely?
The whole thing was an "experiment" for you, you say? Oh well, I suppose that would be your tactic - to act like you're so much smarter than me and just playing me to see how I respond. Don't be so arrogant. I'm here because I want to be. As for why it took me a long time to respond, I was studying for my exams. Unlike you, I have to do work. LOL.
You said sorry, then you went and continued it anyway. LOL again. You don't understand the meaning of being apologetic, do you?
"As I have said before, only read what I have posted and the facts that go with them. You counter those FACTS with "it's absurd," "false," or "lies.""
This is where you make a mistake. Funny - you say you never accept anything as a given fact, and yet you say - in caps to boot - that what you said are facts. You are inconsistent, that's why you have lost this argument. Just admit it.
I get it. So basically, you believe a person is a suspect if he was in the same place at the same time as the crime - "same" here meaning the same city and same year as when and where the murders occurred. Well, if this is your definition of a suspect, of course Rizal would be one. Your definition is wrong, of course (do you also think that all the babies born in London at the time were suspects?)
"I am not in the habit of using the same words over and over again. I was taught not to in school.(Like you stating imbecile over
and over again.)"
Again you're wrong, because you do repeat words. And don't insult me, fool. I was aware that I shouldn't repeat my words, so for your benefit, I varied them.
"Though you haven't really responded to my real questions, and instead went ahead and attacked my personal attacks, your argument is null no? Do you agree with what I said then if you are not going to respond?"
"Thick-skinned". That's the only thing I can say about you. How immoral can you get? You have ben caught calling others names, and instead of being sorry, you accuse me of only responding to your personal attacks? How evil can you get, moron? Strange, I remember responding to your "real questions". What "questions" are these that you say I haven't responded to? Why don't you give an example? Are you just making it all up? Thought so.
And how are YOU so sure of this? Did you know him personally? Ever speak to him?
LOL. Just turned you argument back on you. That's gotta hurt.
"I never said I don't name call. I just said you did. How could I be a hypocrite? I never said I didn't do it. You however, labeled me a name caller, ergo, you shouldn't name call back as an anti-hypocrite."
Look, you don't know the meaning of the word "hypocrite" (you know, the English word? Not the word you've got in your imagination?) so just shut up and stop acting like you know something. So what if you said you don't name call, you still do, and you said I do, when you started it, so you're a hypocrite. You can't deny that you name-call and that you started it, and you're not even pretending to be sorry anymore, so this is your next defense. Pathetic.
"You posted the 3 posts again...i'm down to two. lol. Looks like I hit a nerve again."
In your dreams. Actually, you only answered with 2 posts afterwards. Now I've only got 2 posts myself.
"If it were oil, I'd have more money.hahaha"
One of your problems is you care about money too much. Just a hint.
"You take this so seriously."
Isn't this a serious discussion we're having? The problem as I see it is that YOU don't take it seriously. Or, of course, you could always just admit that you're trolling and trying to provoke me. It's obvious anyway.
Hypocrite: a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
i.e. concerned Filipino are a hypocrite.
hehehe I forgive you.
I just saw this new comment from museum of hoaxes new comments page and you guys are pretty hardcore on this topic.
I read what you guys have been writing and i have to say anything is possible.
I'm not familiar with this Jose Rizal gentleman but I believe in giving things a chance.
Maybe he did it so what?
It doesn't take anything away from you people.
Charybdis - Moderator
But why do you insult my for how how rich I am? Is it because you've nothing else to say? You poor, poor man.
In the first place, just as you said I know nothing of you personally, you also know nothing about me. How do you know how much money I have? That's why you are so very funny.
"Money makes the world go round?" Do you really believe that? Are you really that maerialistic and greedy a person. I'm sorry. I mean, I just automatically assumed you were a Christian since most Filipinos are, and you know Christianity says you shouldn't care about money too much. But I guess I was wrong.
LOL, you really have no right to criticize me, because you're an archetype yourself - a Filipino who left his country, and now thinks he's superior to his countrymen back home. Well, your belief is wrong, of course, but since when did that stop people from believing the things they do? Personally, I don't think running away is very superior.
And it makes sense that you would focus on wealth in this discussion. I mean, it's the only thing you've got going for you.
"I do believe that no matter how
stubborn one person is, they can still change."
Was that intended for me? I think it should be for you.
As for the typo, I still don't make as many as you. ;P
I really like the part about the net cafe. Why would you say that, considering you don't even know, or have any way of of knowing, where I post from? That proves that you are so desperate you've reached the stage where you just throw any insult you can at me, regardless of whether it's true or not. You're pathetic, you know that?
Same with you saying it takes me hours to respond. You have no way of knowing that. Hurt my brain? Don't kid yourself. I've argued with people who are a lot smarter than you, and unlike you, don't rely on insulting their opponent's person as in arguments.
And then, you spend several paragraphs proving nothing at all. Nice try. You still haven't answered my question - why do you say you don't accept anything as true, and then in the same breath say you are showing me facts?
"Simple minds?" You are too arrogant for your own good. The truth is, you are not as important a person as you think you are.
I know what suspect means. I already said that under your definition, everyone in London at the time would be a suspect. But Rizal didn't do it.
As for the whole next few paragraphs... why don't you stop struggling and just apologize? You say I'm the hypocrite for name calling you after I accused you. But I already said, 3 or more times, that my policy is it's okay to name call people after they do it to me. You started it.
And you didn't give me any examples of your questions that I haven't been able to answer. Wonder why?
Do I remember if I'm a blind patriot fanatic? No... because I'd have to be one before I can remember it right?
And I just thought of another, better word for you. Shameless.