text:
Search in titles only Search in Mary Jane Kelly only
Mary Jane Kelly
Her eyes?
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 template Next
Wickerman
Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
Dr Phillips' own inquest testimony is recorded as saying that "...the severance of the right carotid artery [which] was the immediate cause of her death..."
Yes, but only due to the fact her right side was nearest the partition. He is assuming she was killed on her back in the position she was found. It's the only logical conclusion anyone can arrive at if you assume she was laid on her back, but that is a detail he cannot know for sure. If, as I theorised she was face down, then the left carotid artery would have been the first cut.
Regards, Jon S.
Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
Most prostitutes of the time offered their services as anal sex, their client being behind them, whether this was a quick 'knee-trembler' down some dark ally, or in the comfort of a bed. In this case I see Kelly facing the partition, or lying face down to provide the service. Either way she was attacked from behind, as I believe were all the other victims.
As I said, that is interesting. I'm unaware of the positions sex workers back then found preferable.
There is enough circumstantial evidence from the murder's of Nichols and Chapman to justify the theory. Stride is another possibility, but neither Eddowes or Kelly provide anything towards that idea.
The only comment I have about Kelly was the cry of "murder", if as some speculate, she did physically defend herself (ie; has defensive wounds) then we should expect considerably more vocal exclamations than a mere "oh, murder". She would have had time to scream the house down.
It is though perhaps all she could get out if she was being strangled.
Well, here's the thing. With the previous 4 victims we have a very clear evidence that the killer placed his hands on their mouth, bruising their faces. It was not in the sense of choking them but making them quiet while he cuts their throat. Mary was too butchered to understand what precisely he did apart from cutting her throat, but it is nevertheless extremely likely that after he cut her throat he placed his hands on her mouth to shut what little sound she could make.
To me the "oh murder" is a red herring. Not only it doesn't make any sense by itself, if you're going to get killed, but the testimonies of it are contradictory by design. And although I do believe Prater, her hearing the cry after waking up from being asleep is very unreliable, least of all the time she heard the supposed cry. We also have to take into account that for Kelly's throat to be cut that deep, the killer did it from behind. It really wouldn't work if he struggled with her from the front, the cut wouldn't be that deep and it'll be very problematic to be done correctly. IMO, Kelly was long dead by 4:00 AM. If I had to guess, she was probably killed somewhere before 1:30 AM but around 1:00 AM to 2:00 AM is the best guess anyone can make. This is the last time anyone of note can track her movements - the singing stops around that time, the lights go off, neither Blotchy or Kelly are seen to leave and we have only Hutchinson's testimony to go on. Problem is, Hutchinson's testimony is almost completely off for we to believe it. It's about as reliable as the women who say they saw Kelly alive 10 hours after she was already dead.
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Too much to address but I would suggest that prejudicial perspectives can be paralyzing when trying to understand what the evidence is saying. For one example, the evidence is suggesting that Mary killer allowed her killer to be in that room in the first place. Just like she allowed Blotchy...who we never see leave. That means she knew him. To argue that point with me tells me that you would rather believe if the man was in the room he was there as a client. Even though thats not indicated or warranted by her history. As for left handed, try and reconstruct someone right handed getting a knife to her throat as she lay on her right side facing away from the assailant. If youve done so youd realize he almost certainly was left hand dominant, or possibly ambidextrous. Which is a very very small percentage of any given population.
We have to clear one thing out. It seems to me you're suggesting that she knew him as in being friends, albeit no evidence gathered ever suggest something of that sort. Blotchy quite clearly wasn't a friend to her, yet she invited him in her room. They might have talked for hours, gotten drunk together, etc, but that doesn't mean they were friends, otherwise Cox would have mentioned something of that sort. Barnett appears to have been the only male friend in her life (as far as recently goes).
Why is it not warranted for her to invite clients into her bed? Witnesses speak to her as being an "unfortunate", that is a prostitute. We know from Barnett that she would invite friends to sleep over in the room. Why not invite clients for sex?
Now as far as the slitting of the throat goes. If we presume they were preparing to sleep together with her on the left side of the bed while the killer on the right, obviously he wouldn't be able to slice her throat with his right-hand. But you do not need to be left-hand dominant to slice a throat. You can try to do the motion yourself. A slice to the throat doesn't require any meaningful strength, just the motion with a bit of pressure.
I realize that people like to disagree with some conclusions I make, but I am doing so without evidence review preconceptions. Feel free to review the data that way too.
On your points:
1. Agreed on the first cut decision.
2. Lost would be I think more appropriate, incomplete seemingly meaningless acts suggest that.
3. Some wounds were, the initial attack less "careful".
4. There is no discernible pattern, you cannot determine in what order certain things were done like the wounds made on Annie for example. Check the Tabram data again...he hit several major organs multiple times.
5. She may appear to have been, but when and by whom?
2. Why would you classify the acts as "incomplete" and "meaningless"? If we go by that kind of logic, all of Jack's acts in each kill were incomplete and meaningless. The guy wanted to kill and mutilate, there was no particular "sense" to his acts aside from deriving pleasure in it. What we need to understand is that he had particular goals in his mind and he accomplished them in each and every kill. You call his acts "meaningless", but they were precisely what he wanted to do and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. He cut her in the places he wanted to cut, he took out the organs he wanted to take out, he posed them in the ways he wanted them posed, he carved her face in the way he wanted to carve the face, he sliced her flesh off and to top it all off he took her heart with him. These are not the acts of someone who doesn't know what he is doing. If you want to talk about "seemingly meaningless acts" that would be Tabram's killer that suggest an enraged person whose end goal was to kill his victim, but either didn't know how or was too enraged and the adrenaline came over him to actually do it in a calculated manner. In contrast to the Ripper's killing with Kelly, his actions are very deliberate and calculated.
3. The only thing we know about the initial attack is that her throat was cut while she was close to the partition wall. The very fact that the killer once again targeted the throat to incapacitate his victim speaks very much that this guy knew what he was about, he wasn't your random killer. We can only speculate how he cut her throat, but I firmly believe that Wickerman is right. The small evidence we have would suggest that.
4. The pattern is pretty obvious - the killer wanted the victim to be mutilated. He wasn't a sadist or wanted to "hurt" her and cause her unnecessary pain, he just wanted to play with her body, just like he did with the other victims. What this tells us is that this wasn't personal, she just happened to be at the wrong place, wrong time and with the wrong person. His butcher of her body is very specific. If we go by the face, you will notice that he left her eyes undamaged. A similar thing can be observed in Eddowes case where he, for no purpose whatsoever, cut through her closed eyes with a single cut on both eyes. The "V" marks hold a similar pattern. Her face is the way he wanted it to be. Then we go with him ripping her organs. All of them were extracted and carefully placed by her side, there was no real unecessary stabbing or anything that would suggest that this was something personal or the killer didn't know what he was doing. You go lower and her vaginal area was practically destroyed, both of her upper legs had her flesh carefully skinned down to the bone, said flesh is carefully placed on the table. The body is quite clearly posed in a suggestive manner. The crime scene speaks of a calculated killer.
5. That is the question we're all trying to answer, isn't it?
Originally posted by Meet Ze Monster View Post
With that in mind, I wonder, Mortis, if you have an thoughts on popular suspect, William Bury and his one known victim sharing similar mutilations to the C5? ... Can he be a possible fanboy, intentionally drawing notoriety to compensate for a pathetic, cowardly existence?
To me this screams of a man that was interested in what Jack the Ripper did, but was unable to go through with it. For one, the killing itself is chaotic. He apparently smashed his wife with a blunt object to the face, then choked her out with a ligature. Looks like something done in a heat of passion, not very calculated. The abdominal incisions are too shallow and "unconvincing" for a lack of a better word. Like he doesn't have the stomach to go through it. Then, if I'm not mistaken from what I've read, the wounds do not seem to be done immediately after but of a space of time, like he is interested in desecrating the corpse, but doesn't really know "how", least of all having the stomach to do it. Post-killing he seems absolutely clueless as to what to do, whether to dump the corpse, give himself up, make the killing look like it is something it is not, further showcasing that this individual is very disorganized and has no real idea what he is doing. Bury himself looks like a mess in his private life, often beating his wife, being dirt poor, basically living off his wife. He also didn't leave in the immediate area of the Whitechapel killings. In contrast to the Ripper who would appear to be somewhat well off, would have his private life mostly in order, would appear to be a friendly person, someone you would not notice and would be hard to detect to the naked eye. Would be somewhat intelligent compared to the rest of his environment and would be a Whitechapel native or resident for a decent amount of time. Bury seems the opposite of that in every way. He mostly spent his days drinking himself into a stupor, being violent towards his wife even in public, showing himself to be very undisciplined in his private life (unable to keep his job, often lying to people about things that if caught, would get ihim in trouble, marital problems on full display to people, wasting his days in pubs, etc). He was also a very small man of 5'2 while most Ripper descriptions put him about average, slightly taller than his victims 5'7 to 5'9.
In short, I do not think Bury is the Ripper, although it is possible. The Ripper on the surface would look like a fairly respectable man, friendly to people, the good next door neighbor, maybe even married, would have a decent job that would allow him to spend money on prostitutes and on dressing fairly well. There would be hints out there that something is not right with the guy, but they'd be subtle and not all that obvious to his close circle or people around him, unlike Bury whose problems were at full display.
There was a blood on the partition wall from the arterial spray and it was determined that that throat cut was the first. The fact that she is on her back in the middle of the bed when found is indicative of him flopping her back in that position so he could do the cutting he wanted to.
Mary was not "flopped" back from that position. She was carefully posed. From what position he did that is impossible to determine. It might be you're right, it might be Wickerman is right. The arterial spray to the partition wall from her neck wound is entirely possible to be done while she was getting ready for sex and the killer slashed her neck from behind. Due to blood spatter analysis not even being in its infancy at the time, it is impossible to discern in what kind of position her throat was cut, all we know is that her neck was somewhere at the right corner of her bed and thereby her head would be there. What position she had during that time is only a matter of guessing, but either way, he didn't have to be left-handed in order to kill her, all he needed was a left-hand he could use.
There are so many differences in the Miller Court murder from any other murder of that period that to conclude a man who was suggested to be of surgical grade knowledge....being Annies killer...also is responsible for the mayhem in room 13 is a huge leap. There are so many odd acts that served no purpose in room 13, and in Annies case he cut where he needed to and did what was needed to obtain what he wanted. In Marys case, was it neccesary to strip her thighs, but only one completely? Was that straight line cut across the calf needed to obtain anything? Her slashed face?
I think both you and Mortis should take a closer comparative look at victims, in venue, circumstance and activities, how different Marys murder was. Then look at the skills exhibitted....no suggestion by any contemporary medical man that Marys killer was skilled or anatomically savvy. Again, that differs greatly from Annie.
There are no fundamental differences. Mary is absolutely consistent with the core aspects of the killer's MO. I'm also curious where do you get the killer's "purpose" from. All we know about the killer is that he enjoyed doing what he did. There is nothing to suggest he had some great goal of harvesting organs or whatever. You say he did "meaningless things" to Kelly but I see no meaningless stuff in anything he did to Kelly. You're also implying that the Ripper in Annie's case had medical knowledge but in Mary he did not. Well, how do you judge that? To me in all of the killings except Stride and Nichols (which were probably interrupted) showcased some skills in anatomy, certainly for his time. He generally seemed to know where a person's organs are and how to get them which is pretty impressive for living in a very poor and uneducated area in a time with no internet. His butchering of Mary to me indicates a person with some degree of anatomical knowledge. And what is interesting is that you have to take into account that depending on who did the autopsy on the victim, different opinions would be necessary. Bond says Kelly's killer held no real skill, yet Brown said Eddowes killer possessed a great deal of anatomical knowledge. Kelly and Eddowes killers are most certainly the same. Phillips says that Chapman's killer possesses anatomical knowledge.
Suffice to say, I think the crude way in which Kelly was butchered clouded Bond's opinion on the knowledge of the murderer's surgical skills. Nevertheless, Bond himself was absolutely convinced that all 5 of the murders were done by the same hand.
You also keep saying whether cuts were necessary or whatever... how do you define "necessary", in your mind? Was the killing and butchering of Annie Chapman "necessary"? There is nothing necessary about any of the Ripper's killings, he did them because he wanted to and wanted to mutilate their bodies. The question is not about necessity but about wanting. And as far as the stripping of her thighs go, I think he did it to both. He did expose the femur of only the right leg, but I think that may be by design. At the end of the day only JTR would know why he did what he did.
Last edited by Mortis; 10-18-2021, 12:35 PM.
Meet Ze Monster
Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post
As I and several others have mentioned before, I find this hard to bat away as a mere coincidence, especially in the light of everything else we know about him:
Ellen: 'On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length, penetrating the skin. Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left, into the perineum, and dividing the sphincter muscle'.
Eddowes: 'The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum'.
I agree that Bury was almost certainly the same perpetrator. In the interest of speculation though, I can't completely come to terms with his behaviour after the murder (and some before). Humour me for a moment.... If Bury was not the Ripper, but had a sick obsession with the Whitechapel atrocities I think it's possible he could have, in a drunken state, decided to emulate them to reap a kind of notoriety. The reason I think this is a possibility is his bizarre visit to the police to report his wife's 'suicide' and confess his fear that he would be labelled as the Ripper. That part of the events along with the graffiti at his home lead me speculate (rightly or wrongly) that there's room for some query. I will add though that my first instinct was always that he went into a blind rage when drinking and committed the acts in a kind of disassociative state.
I respectfully disagree. Surgical or anatomical knowledge was likely required for the simple act of knowing where to cut. He wasn't performing surgery on these women, he was butchering them with the intent of extracting as much viscera as he desired. Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes were killed in high risk settings allowing only moments for the Ripper to work. His ritual was cut, extract, pose, escape. Only with Kelly, he had no reason to escape. I thought it was pretty obvious that being indoors allowed the Ripper to go much further than he could before. A working girl with her own room was hardly common, thus, he made do until he encountered poor Mary and her hideaway. The differences you mention are merely elevations of what he could do rather than what he didn't do in the previous crimes.
MrTwibbs
Originally posted by Mortis View Post
To me the "oh murder" is a red herring. Not only it doesn't make any sense by itself, if you're going to get killed, but the testimonies of it are contradictory by design.
Back then people would say rather strange things when being murdered
Here is just one example reported by a witness of the 2nd Ratcliffe highway murder quoted from my own work:
"At the inquest, John Turner said he had gone to bed at 10:40 p.m. but shortly afterwards, he'd heard the tavern door open with a bang. Bridget cried out, "We're all murdered!" and Mr Williamson shouted, "I am a dead man!" It's unclear whether this just reflects the unusual turn of phrase they had back in the 1800s, or whether John Turner was imagining a more dramatic version of events"
Shortly after saying this they were indeed murdered.
There's also further examples in Jan Bondeson's Victorian crimes books.
Last edited by MrTwibbs; 10-18-2021, 03:52 PM.
Aethelwulf
I agree some of Bury's behaviour in Dundee is certainly hard to explain. Why would he chalk those messages and then claim to be worried about being arrested as JtR? I think the latter claim could well be a worry based on the fact that he has repeated something he has done before and knows how it looks, so attempts a throw away comment to disassociate himself from the earlier example. As for the graffiti, there is some good analysis on the Bury website where the messages are reproduced. The PC that made the copy obviously made a fairly close study as the vertical lines of the door are also reproduced. Reading the commentary, and viewing the messages, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the same person wrote both, as there are enough similarities to give the game away. But why would he then claim to be worried about being JtR - it would be worth someone like a criminal psychologist reviewing Bury's actions to see how they square. Is the fact that there are chalk messages in a school boy hand, with an odd spelling error (seller) at a crime scene with ripper-like injuries a coincidence?
On the injuries, if he was copying, would he not have done something like McKenzie? By that I mean a lot of non specific scratches. If someone wanted to copy the ripper they would need to find someone vulnerable in the early hours (prostitute), he would then need to take them to some dark quite corner, and then to get at the lower body he would need to lift there skirts. All of that is so general, along with her injuries, that anyone who knew the basics of the case could have done it. If he wanted to copy the ripper, why didn't he also cut her throat, as that was what he was known for? On another post someone mentioned Ellen's injuries being like 'an itch he had to scratch' and I think that is probable. He is in a new area, known to be from the east end, if he had gone any further than he did, he would have been arrested as JtR, I am sure.
On a side note, one of the things I find so plausible about Bury is the front on sketch of him stood at the dock in his nice respectable suit, nicely groomed and looking every inch the picture of normality. Yet this is the man that actually went back to Ellen's body to make further incisions for the hell of it. As I said in my first post, I can so easily see all the victims being taken in by Bury and his 5.2 frame and neat dress.
I agree some of Bury's behaviour in Dundee is certainly hard to explain. Why would he chalk those messages and then claim to be worried about being arrested as JtR? I think the latter claim could well be a worry based on the fact that he has repeated something he has done before and knows how it looks, so attempts a throw away comment to disassociate himself from the earlier example.
Interesting! And totally reasonable. Claiming her death was a suicide and acknowledging how it looks to an outsider could well be a weird kind of double bluff. It also shows how disassociated and pathological he really could be.
On the injuries, if he was copying, would he not have done something like McKenzie? By that I mean a lot of non specific scratches. If someone wanted to copy the ripper they would need to find someone vulnerable in the early hours (prostitute), he would then need to take them to some dark quite corner, and then to get at the lower body he would need to lift there skirts. All of that is so general, along with her injuries, that anyone who knew the basics of the case could have done it. If he wanted to copy the ripper, why didn't he also cut her throat, as that was what he was known for?
I suspect he cut the throats of his victims because strangulation was relatively slow and killing alone was not really his drive. I posted somewhere else that I think after Chapman he probably did away with strangulation in favour of a lethal cut to avoid resistance etc. But as for Ellen, he had no need to 'sneak' attack her and subdue her quickly. The abdominal/genital mutilations were all that really mattered to him.
On a side note, one of the things I find so plausible about Bury is the front on sketch of him stood at the dock in his nice respectable suit, nicely groomed and looking every inch the picture of normality. Yet this is the man that actually went back to Ellen's body to make further incisions for the hell of it. As I said in my first post, I can so easily see all the victims being taken in by Bury and his 5.2 frame and neat dress.[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree. It is known that he possessed a vicious darkside and would crawl the streets at night in a stupor. The fact that he was 'demasculated' and dependent as well as cruel is to me a very strong case for guilt.
Well, here's the thing. With the previous 4 victims we have a very clear evidence that the killer placed his hands on their mouth, bruising their faces. It was not in the sense of choking them but making them quiet while he cuts their throat....
Are you sure?, I recall bruising around the jaw of Nichols, but not on Chapman, Eddowes or Stride. Chapman had scratches on her neck below her left(?) ear, which was thought to be due to the killers nails, but could equally have been Chapman's own nails.
To me the "oh murder" is a red herring. Not only it doesn't make any sense by itself, if you're going to get killed, but the testimonies of it are contradictory by design. And although I do believe Prater, her hearing the cry after waking up from being asleep is very unreliable, least of all the time she heard the supposed cry.
I think too 'theatrical' is the word, yes I agree, however what Mr Twibbs writes is also true. Back in the 19th century they had a strange vocabulary compared to our usages. We can also see a variety of uses for "Oh, murder" in the contemporary press. Back in the day we find stories in the press of theft where the victim cries "oh, murder", but the culprit had left the scene already. Another case I recall of a woman in her back yard at night being frightened by a homeless man, she screamed "oh, murder", until the police showed up.
.... IMO, Kelly was long dead by 4:00 AM. If I had to guess, she was probably killed somewhere before 1:30 AM but around 1:00 AM to 2:00 AM is the best guess anyone can make.
So you agree with Dr. Bond's estimate?
"...The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder."
One wonders how he arrived at that estimate without an established time for when she last ate.
Unless, of course, Abberline had been able to trace the source of that last meal?
This is the last time anyone of note can track her movements - the singing stops around that time, the lights go off, neither Blotchy or Kelly are seen to leave and we have only Hutchinson's testimony to go on.
Not quite, we do have Mrs Kennedy who said she saw Kelly outside the Britannia about 3:00 am.
Also, the police had to return to Millers Court the day after the inquest to re-interview some of the residents, it turned out Kelly was seen out on the streets between 2:00-3:00am, afterall.
Problem is, Hutchinson's testimony is almost completely off for we to believe it.
Part of Hutchinson's story is corroborated by Sarah Lewis.
Originally posted by MrTwibbs View Post
Yes, but isn't Turner's statements hearsay? From what I've read there's no evidence he was even there. And police didn't seem to believe some of his other outlandish statements. And as I said in my response to Wickerman, it's not simply about the words.
There was bruising on Chapman's face, wasn't it? I remember thumb marks around her eyes. Stride was "controlled" via her handkerchief and Eddowes had no signs of being bruised anywhere. But it is possible for the Ripper to have placed his hands on her mouth without bruising them.
It's not really about the vocabulary, but about the fact that we as humans have an instinctive self-preservation reaction of screaming, if we're attacked. Like nothing to do with words, but actual screaming. We have no evidence Mary was ever heard screaming. Lewis and Prater testimonies contradict each other, we do not even know where the "oh murder" even came from. Don't get me wrong, it is possible they heard the shout, but it most likely wasn't from Mary's room. As the people around that neighborhood say, "it was common".
Absolutely. If I remember correctly, Philips estimated her time of death at somewhere around 06:00 AM, which is highly unlikely. Since Kelly's body was so butchered, it is pretty hard to estimate her time of death. The loss of blood, the various removal of organs would have accelerated that. I'm not sure how much Bond and Phillips took that into account. Bond to me had the right idea though, but we'll have to reconstruct what time she ate which is next to impsossible, but still - we can make a good guess and i'll try.
So we know that that around 11:45 PM Mary is sighted with Blotchy. Evidently Cox looked down and saw only a pot of beer. If Blotchy and Mary were carrying anything else, we'd know. So no food. I'm not exactly sure if the police found food in her house, but I've never seen anything of that sort, so we'll presume she had zero food in the house. She must have eaten somewhere before going back to her room. For us to hit somewhere around her supposed death at 02:00 AM she must have eaten around 10:00-11:00 PM. This is highly likely given that Mary was drunk and coming home with the guy that probably brought her this stuff. Highly unlikely she had eaten before that given the time the food was in her stomach. This also completely discounts Hutchinson's testimony and other such sightings after because they'd push her time of death way after she was more than likely killed, even past 04:00 AM. The earliest she could have eaten to fit in the 04:00 AM scenario was 00:00 AM or 01:00 AM, give or take. We know she was in the house with Blotchy at the time and highly unlikely to have food at the house. So if we reconstruct the events:
Prater meets her somewhere around 20:00 PM, they exchange greetings and part ways, she leaves her house. Mary plies her trade and meets Blotchy somewhere, he charms her and they spend some time together (evidently the Ripper seemed to spend some time with the majority of his victims except Eddowes who he blitzed.), he probably buys her food and a drink, they have a good time and Blotchy suggests they find some desolate place to "try" her services, Kelly agrees and suggests her home to which he happily agrees and invites him to her own room (his other victims had lodgings, so he was at a serious disadvantage as to how to kill them and mutilate them fast in the open), but Kelly was perfect. Now he could do with her body whatever he always desired to do (probably why she is his last victim - he achieved everything he wanted. But that is my speculation). So they go back, Cox meets them and Mary starts to sing. Now obviously she signs for a hour and more and Blotchy doesn't kill her because that'd raise a lot of suspicions if she stops suddenly. Hell, maybe he enjoyed it. I don't remember anyone commenting how good Kelly's voice was. Anyway, somewhere after Cox leaves and Prater returns home at around 01:00 AM Kelly stops singing and Prater says there was no light on coming from the partition. It is likely that at this point they are getting ready for sex. Mary undresses herself, gets ready on the bed, Blotchy slits her throat and proceeds to mutilate her without a sound. This is the only scenario that fits with all the evidence gathered, unless some witnesses were completely off with their accounts of her.
Problem is Mrs. Kennedy didn't even know Mary. Mary being the girl she saw is also highly unlikely given Bond's autopsy report and the last time Mary had eaten food. Some witnesses also say they saw Mary basically the next day which is not only highly unlikely, it is impossible. We have to be very careful when taking to account what every witness say he/she saw.
Yes, but only the part that is most believable - that he was probably there but concocted the story of meeting Kelly and Astrakhan man. Lewis only sees presumably him and no-one else.
Michael W Richards
If the above actually represents your conclusions then we arent talking about the same events. Th murder of Annie Chapman instigated a search of trained and skilled medical students or practioners, there is no other murder in all the Unsolved murder that suggested someone of that calibre. "There were no meaningless cuts" Phillips said, so he saw intent and purpose. Phillips believed that the cuts made on Annie were done so as to obtain what he specifically sought.
So when I say meaningless in room 13, you can have your pick. Almost all the was done to her was no so as to obtain her heart, which was the organ tken from Mary.
As for prostitution, perhaps you forget that Mary didnt have a room to bring clients home to until Barnett was gone, then she had Maria there. In reality she had one or two days when she even could have done so, and not one account of someone there that saw her bring anyone in before Blotchy. You could say he represents a client, but that would only be true if what he was buying was a serenade for about and hour or so.
Evidence is not static, it falls to one side or the other when new information is introduced, like dominoes. I suggest you use all the dominoes.
Michael Richards
The murder of Eddowes did, too, as per the autopsy. Your only real thing to go on here is to say that Chapman wasn't butchered as much as Eddowes and while that may be true, we see a gradual increase in the killer's mutilations all throughout the killings with the exception of Stride (which if she is a Ripper victim, he was likely to be interrupted, same as Nichols).
Furthermore, the idea that there were no meaningless cuts is very far from the truth. Her neck was being cut the way it was is "unecessary", the killer also cut two third from the bladder for no reason, as well as the upper vagina. Apparently he cut through her colon, as well. IMO, if we're talking about skill, with Eddowes the killer displayed far more skill to do what he did with zero lighting and very little precious time to carry out his work.
Phillips may speculate whatever he wants, we do not know what the killer sought. If the goal was to seek an uterus, they were far more suitable victims, in far more suitable places and environments that the killer could take them from. It is 99% a trophy of his, it has nothing to do with anything else.
But that would suggest that Chapman's uterus was the sole goal for the killing, or that Eddowes killer only sought the kidney, etc. The goal was to murder and mutilate, pose the victims and take whatever organ as a trophy the killer wanted. This is the only thing we can say for certain about the situation. What use would Chapman's organ carry for her killer? Same use as Mary's heart, I would imagine.
But here's the thing - witnesses describe Mary as a prostitute. So we know for a fact that even with Barnett and after him she slept with clients. Now I do not believe it was ever stated what location she used for her clients, but if everyone knows she is a prostitute, it's pretty clear to guess that at least sometimes she brought them home. Mary began prostituting again after Barnett lost his job which was a couple of months before her killing. There is also no recollection either or so that Mary brought clients. It is never mentioned and it doesn't appear to have been relevant to the investigation. She may have brought some, but nobody really mentions it one way or another.
As for the serenade and what not, Jack spent some time with at least 4 of the C5. And if Blotchy is not a client, then who is he? Nobody close to Kelly seems to have known him, including Barnett. The all too common in Ripper's killings "shabby genteel" springs out of nowhere and disappears, no-one the wiser. There is no conceivable sense for him to be a close friend of Kelly, so the only real conclusion we could come is that he is a client. If he isn't a client and is instead a friend of Kelly, as you would suggest, then it is almost impossible for him to not come forward and explain himself. You can't have it both ways.
Ive responded inside your post...
As for Stride, the only logical way to include her is to suggest interruptions, yet none are indicated or present in the evidence.
I might also be inclined to see the near pitch black operation and possible short timing on Eddowes as limiting what we would see in terms of skills, but if he demonstrated medically trained skills sets in near dark on Hanbury, then I would expect similar standards in Mitre Square. There arent.
Philips saw the most Canonicals in death of any physician, and it would be his opinions that should carry the most weight. And in fact his comments suggest he did see what the killer ultimately wanted by the way and order the cuts were made, and again that there were "no meaningless cuts".
Youve made assumptions about why he killed...maybe better to let the evidence tell you what he wanted. Like in Strides case, the evidence says he wanted her dead...thats it.
There is no way to dispute Mary had sold herself, there is the matter of the arrears in her case, what she told Barnett about being afraid, and the fact that the only man we see her take into the room aside from Barnett she sang to for over an hour. The circumstances dictate what she was doing that night...and I dont see solicitation.
If he isn't a client and is instead a friend of Kelly, as you would suggest, then it is almost impossible for him to not come forward and explain himself. You can't have it both ways.
Not only did he not want to come forward, he may have run when spotted on a tram a few days later that week.
There are no broad strokes here....not all the women appear to have been soliciting, so its not an MO requirement.
There was bruising on Chapman's face, wasn't it? I remember thumb marks around her eyes....
Not on Chapman, I think there were a few bruises on her chest, three I think. And one beside her eye, but Phillips said they were old bruises, likely from the fight she had with another woman recently.
Stride was "controlled" via her handkerchief and Eddowes had no signs of being bruised anywhere. But it is possible for the Ripper to have placed his hands on her mouth without bruising them.
It's possible, only because we can't honestly say it's impossible. Pressure marks leave bruises in general, like we see (read), on Nichols face. One on the side of her jaw and the second on the opposite cheekbone, consistent with a thumb & fingers of the same hand spread across her face.
We have no evidence Mary was ever heard screaming. Lewis and Prater testimonies contradict each other, we do not even know where the "oh murder" even came from. Don't get me wrong, it is possible they heard the shout, but it most likely wasn't from Mary's room. As the people around that neighborhood say, "it was common".
The Daily News reports that shortly before the cry of "oh, murder" there had been a row in the court. Between who & why we are not told, and this is the only report of a row that I recall seeing. So perhaps the cry was connected with the row?
Whether Kelly was already dead by that time we can't be sure.
I'm not exactly sure if the police found food in her house, but I've never seen anything of that sort, so we'll presume she had zero food in the house. She must have eaten somewhere before going back to her room. For us to hit somewhere around her supposed death at 02:00 AM she must have eaten around 10:00-11:00 PM. This is highly likely given that Mary was drunk and coming home with the guy that probably brought her this stuff. Highly unlikely she had eaten before that given the time the food was in her stomach. This also completely discounts Hutchinson's testimony and other such sightings after because they'd push her time of death way after she was more than likely killed, even past 04:00 AM. The earliest she could have eaten to fit in the 04:00 AM scenario was 00:00 AM or 01:00 AM, give or take. We know she was in the house with Blotchy at the time and highly unlikely to have food at the house. So if we reconstruct the events:
Where I think you are in error is the part where Prater says there was no light in her room. That suggests to me Kelly was back out on the streets, that is also consistent with the press report that some residents saw her out after one o'clock. Then of course there's Mrs Kennedy....
Problem is Mrs. Kennedy didn't even know Mary.
I don't know where you get that from. Kennedy makes no claim to not knowing Kelly, she even lived opposite Kelly at No.2, so how could she not know her immediate neighbor 3-4 ft across the court?
Mary being the girl she saw is also highly unlikely given Bond's autopsy report and the last time Mary had eaten food.
I think we all know how inaccurate medical estimates have been in this ripper case, even the doctors don't agree with each other. Plus, Bond has a reputation for being contrary with his medical peers. Look at the Mylett case as a good example, how Bond disgreed with about 5 or 6 of his peers, even his own assistant Hibbert disagreed with him.
Some witnesses also say they saw Mary basically the next day which is not only highly unlikely, it is impossible. We have to be very careful when taking to account what every witness say he/she saw.
I don't buy that argument but some prefer to think it was possible. A clear case of mistaken identity in my view.
More than that, Lewis saw a couple pass up the court ahead of her, she then noticed a man standing opposite (Hutchinson), so the couple Hutchinson was following (Astrachan & Kelly) must have been there. Lewis also described the woman as 'the worse for drink', which is just how Hutchinson described Kelly.
Kelly must have been murdered sometime between 3:00-4:00 in my view.
Kennedy saw her about 3:00am, so Kelly & Astrachan must have both left the court about the time Hutchinson walked away. Astrachan may have walked westward down Dorset St. in the opposite direction to Hutchinson, while Kelly walked eastward to the Britannia on the corner.
I suspect Astrachan was rattled by Hutchinson, first staring him in the face, then following on close behind, only to stand across the road the entire time he was with Kelly. Perhaps he thought he was going to get mugged by Hutchinson, and that may truly have been Hutchinson's initial intent.
He presents a different persona to the police in his interview, but that's only to be expected.
True, but then again that's also why you'd include Nichols, as well. You have a woman who is actively soliciting, described as a prostitute, who is killed in a very lively and risky place. A woman that was dispatched very easily without a sound or alerting anybody, in a very similar manner to the rest of the killings. A very short distance later that would almost perfectly coincide with the walking distance, the Ripper operates on Eddowes. Murders happen very rarely, and for a murder of a similar capacity to the Ripper's killings to happen on the same night within walking distance of another killing is a pretty big coincidence, to be sure.
Hanbury wasn't near dark, it was probably becoming fairly bright at the time Chapman was killed. Certainly not as dark as Eddowes would have been. And how did he not display similar skills? Brown suggested that the killer had considerable knowledge in regards to organs and where they are situated. He was also operating under a very limited time and apparently even despite that was effective in doing what he wanted with Eddowes aside from stealing the kidney. This showcases more skill than anything. I don't know why you place Chapman's killer as having been more skillful just because he didn't do anything other than steal the uterus. Both Chapman and Eddowes' killer achieved what they wanted to achieve, only Eddowes' killer took his time to do other things, as well.
Philips also believed all the C5 were killed by one man, yet you conveniently ignore that. Why? We've also discussed the "meaningless cuts" statement.
True, but you also have to take into account the fact that there are easier ways to kill someone than doing it so brazenly. Her killer was also not an amateur, that's for certain. He knew perfectly well how to incapacitate her. I know that's Whitechapel but even in Whitechapel there weren't many of those.
What other purpose would she have to invite a stranger in her house, undress herself and get ready for bed or sex (given the position her neck was cut from) if he wasn't a client? And is there any set procedure as to what should be done with a client? 4 of the 5 C5 spent some time with the Ripper.
Hm?
Annie and Nichols definitely were. Stride went out her way to make herself very presentable and was said to have been seen with clients. Very unlikely she would be doing anything else around midnight. Eddowes wasn't a prostitute, but her situation at that point was very desperate and she had no money for her room. Kelly was a known prostitute who Barnett left because she was "back to her old ways". What would any of these women be doing with other men around midnight?
"The injuries were certainly not self-inflicted. The bruises on the face were evidently recent, especially about the chin and side of the jaw, but the bruises in front of the chest and temple were of longer standing -- probably of days"
Evidently he controlled her in some way.
No killer does a murder or a crime in the same way always. My point was that the killer obviously slashed their throats first. How he went about it is up to speculation. If he strangled them with bare hands, that would leave a lot more bruising than any of the victims have showcased except Mary whose face was butchered and there's no way to tell.
Or perhaps it was nothing? First time hearing about it. And what would a "row" imply? A row would cause some sort of commotion. And we know McCarthy was around the vicinity. Nobody of the witnesses seem to report it, so I don't believe it.
Nobody can be sure at what time Mary died because of the state of her body, but we can make a pretty reasonable guess. Anything past 02:00 AM is very suspect because the traces of food remaining would push her time of death way before she was even discovered. It's not about opinion anymore but about the fact that she must have eaten somewhat close to her time of death. This is based on everything we know about the digestion process.
Why? Per Cox's statements Mary was already drunk with even more alcohol in the hand of Blotchy that is highly likely they drank to the bottom. Mary's neighbor Pickett and her husband confirm that up until 12:30 AM Mary is still singing, Cox returns home somewhere around 01:00 AM, she attests that Mary is still singing, but curiously enough when she leaves back out again whether she continued singing or not isn't mentioned. Prater comes back home after the man she is waiting for doesn't come home. She comes home around 01:30. Her testimony is that she waited outside the Court, even conversed with McCarthy. Nor Blotchy or MJK are seen leaving her room. When Prater returns home no glimmer of light is seen and apparently the singing has stopped. At this point, whatever happened, even if Mary is still alive, Blotchy is in her room, unless he is a ghost. It would be impossible for Mary to leave without her being noticed or the witnesses being incredibly wrong or outright lying.
She is supposedly seen around 02:00 AM by Hutchinson, asking him for money (but why would she ask him for money when Blotchy should have given her money? Plus, apparently she ate and drank. Maybe for her room?). Then the most absurd thing happens. As she is walking by, a man approaches her from out of nowhere and they both suddenly, like they know each other, go back to her room. Here's my problem with this - Astrakhan, by the dialogue Hutchinson gave him, seems like a client. But a client doesn't just stop a random woman on the street and talk her into ******* him. It makes no sense. Hutchinson's testimony also never mentions Kelly as drunk, in fact she appears quite sober, capable of conversing with him freely while Cox said Kelly could hardly reply reply to her. Then we're supposed to believe that Kelly went out again before getting another man back in the house. What's more is that Hutchinson never described Kelly or what she was wearing. I'm sorry, but this simply makes no sense whatsoever. You'd have to suspend your disbelief quite a lot to go with this scenario. Even if we presume Cox is lying and we discount the whole event from earlier, it still doesn't make any sense.
It is a pretty easy conclusion to make given that Kennedy was not a resident at Miller's Court but was simply visiting her parents that night. Even if she knew Kelly by her previous visits, she probably did only vaguely. How much trust you can put in her recognizing Kelly at 03:00 AM pitch black?
But we're not talking on opinions here, but on Kelly's digestion system which is the same as any other human. Even if he was slightly off, it doesn't make sense for her to be killed much after 02:00 regardless.
Which is exactly why you shouldn't believe every witness that says something, especially dubious witness descriptions.
But the couple Lewis saw directly contradicts Hutchinson's testimony. For one, Hutchinson's whole testimony is that he followed Kelly and Astrakhan back to her place. Kelly and Astrakhan stopped at the entrace to the Court, exchanged kissing and sweet words for some time. Then they went in Kelly's room with Hutchinson overlooking them and waiting for them for some time. Not only is Lewis location wrong, but the couple couldn't be Kelly and Astrakhan per Hutchinson's description because they'd be passing him while he was looking for Kelly in the court.
But are we supposed to believe that a very drunk Kelly just went through 3 clients in the space of 4 hours? That's very, very unlikely.
Mark J D
... As for Stride, the only logical way to include her is to suggest interruptions, yet none are indicated or present in the evidence...
You know, the more I've thought about that line (whoever wrote it: it's hard to unpack the attibutions at this point...), the better do I grasp the enormous difference Lechmere makes to the way these events look...
Most argument still occupies the space between 'the Ripper was interrupted, probably by Diemschutz' and 'Different knife and cut, besides the lack of mutilations: it wasn't the Ripper who killed Stride...'
But with Lechmere slotted in as our perpetrator, we get to run this another way: an imaginary scenario in which it *was* the Ripper, and he *wasn't* interrupted...
The obvious differences observed in relation to his lashing out at Stride for whatever reason (and not for a moment do I believe he was seen) are to do with the uniqueness of the situation, socio-geographically speaking. His mum, current stepfather and eldest daughter live in a house literally streets away; he'd grown up in numerous houses in that area and lived there until mere months before; he's likely been close by for hours before the murder, possibly talking and drinking with people who knew him; it's not impossible that he had 'history' with Stride, who might have known or recognised him as a local; and there were old acquaintances of the family living literally in sight of Dutfield's Yard in the Marshall household. If he'd been visiting his mum or walking her back home in the dark, he probably didn't have his usual knife on him; and he'd probably downed a few pints by closing time -- very much unlike his 'armed and alert' workday morning killings.
With all this in mind, it seems to me that the one thing we *shouldn't* expect to be seeing in Berner Street is a 'normal' Ripper killing.
And, finally, if -- as we are constantly being told -- Lechmere 'really was known as Charles Cross', the one thing he -- as the official, named discoverer of Nichols' body -- couldn't afford to do was be remembered by a load of former neighbours as having been visibly present in the area where another obvious Ripper victim was then immediately found.
You want to argue that Stride doesn't look like a Ripper victim? That's exactly what Lechmere wanted you to argue -- and exactly what Mitre Square was intended to confirm!
Get my drift, esteemed fellow detectives...?
-- Oo-er... Is this off-topic for the thread?? Apologies if so...
Bests,


Focused on providing safe, exceptional quality river trips, Boundary Expeditions is an industry leader for river guiding on the Middle Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho.
We flow with the river to help slow down time, inspire connections, and share in moments of gratefulness.
Boundary Expeditions is an industry leader in river adventures focused on providing safe, exceptional river experiences while inspiring guests and staff through connections with nature.
Boundary Expeditions specializes in custom trips and smaller groups providing premier service to our guests.
Adventure, Conservation and Education are the pillars Boundary Expeditions has built its company on with a focus on organizing amazing river trips while treating Mother Nature with the utmost respect.
Boundary Expeditions is owned and operated by Justin Howells and Eric Ladd who have over 50 years combined river guiding experience and a strong passion for watersheds around the globe.
In 2015 Boundary Expeditions formed after merging with Adventure Guides, an outfitting company that has operated on the Middle Fork of the Salmon River since 1980.
From the moment you arrive on a Boundary Expeditions journey you're a part of our family, and we aim to show you incredible service and an unforgettable river experience that will keep you coming back for years to come.
We hope to see you on a Boundary Expeditions adventure soon!


text:
Financing Your Future Today
UNO's "best career fair to date" invites more than 100 employers
Hope BrusstarOctober 10, 20181 Comment
More stories from Hope Brusstar
Spotlight: Holladay retires, pursues passions
Career Services holds an annual career fair and offers a variety of other resources for UNO students and alumni. Photo provided by Brennan Probst.
On Tuesday, Oct. 2, about 120 international, national and local employers congregated at UNO to meet students and fill thousands of job positions. The career fair was planned and hosted entirely by Career Services, the on-campus office whose primary goal is to prepare UNO students for the workforce.
"This was probably our best Career Fair to date. It honestly gets better and better every year!" said Director of Career Services Celyn Boykin.
Students and alumni who registered for the fair received free name tags and a labeled map of the University Center ballroom and gallery lounge, both of which were completely full with the employers' many tables and displays.
Chevron, Chick-fil-A, DXC Technology, the FBI, General Electric, the Naval Oceanographic Office, Nike and Ochsner were just some of the many present at the career fair.
These are only a few of the several dozen employers with which Career Services must coordinate to plan the career fair. Nearly every employer brought with it a set of fresh opportunities for students and the community at large.
Said Boykin, "UNO is one of a consortium of universities that has a partnership with DXC Technology, who recently opened an office in New Orleans to provide job opportunities to our students and over 2000 technology jobs to the state of Louisiana."
Meanwhile, industrial distributor Fastenal has been offering management trainee programs to students.
"[They] work around the student's schedule, allowing them to develop their skills and build practical, real-world experience before entering the work force," said Tyrone Shoemaker, Career Services' job location and development coordinator.
General Electric also offers a similar program. "UNO has built a great relationship with GE, which has recruited many students for their apprenticeship program, which often leads to a career," said Boykin.
After one career fair ends, Career Services begins planning for the next one.
Hard work goes into every facet of the event. For example, the career fair's map of employer tables requires hours of design, and the spreadsheet of open job positions matched to major programs at UNO "takes several weeks to compile," said Boykin.
When Career Services isn't coordinating its annual career fair, it is offering a plethora of other services for the student body's benefit.
Said Boykin, "We offer students and alumni assistance with their resume, with mock/practice interviews, job and internship searches and matching, networking skills, career assessments, career coaching, various career orientations and career workshops each semester."
In addition, UNO coordinates with Tulane, Loyola, Dillard and Xavier to plan for the Superdome's annual Mardi Gras Career Expo, which also brings local and national employers.
"We also offer one on one scheduled appointments with our team to assist with any of the students' employment or career needs," said Shoemaker.
Meanwhile, those preparing for the job market can visit myapps.uno.edu and download the Handshake app onto their phones, using the same sign-in as for their UNO accounts.
"Handshake allows students to search for jobs and internships as well as other opportunities for career related events from local and national employers," added Boykin. On the app, students can also schedule an appointment with Career Services to address their needs in searching for a career.
Career Services exists to aid the students and alumni of UNO, whether that means giving career advice to inexperienced students, or hosting a massive job fair to engage and encourage students.
"The reports by employers that they hired a certain amount of students from this event or a student coming back to us and sharing their story that they were hired is priceless," said Shoemaker.
"This is the reason we host this event. It is for the benefit of the students," said Boykin
Hope Brusstar, Editor-in-Chief
Hope Brusstar
A lifelong lover of dogs, cats and nonfiction, Hope has an avid curiosity for the world around her. She really likes keeping things...
One Response to "UNO's "best career fair to date" invites more than 100 employers"
Best Management trainee program on October 1st, 2019 3:25 am
I like taking courses and I was looking for the best management trainee programs for myself.
MoMentum: mental illness in the black community
⚠Adderall is taking over⚠
Universities come with a variety of challenges and many things to prepare for. One equalizer that every college weather its community college foreign ...
What to expect from the new airport terminal this holiday season
The truth behind the nacho stand
Journalism, Oh where art thou
UNO Student Spotlight: Lalibela Walto of Get the Bleach ad UNO's Rock Ensemble
Words and wisdom for surviving finals week
A liberal students take in a conservative arena
Is RateMyProfessor a 100% success
Dealing with Mental Health Issues on Campus
The truth behind Chick-fil-a on campus
UNO's Royal Disaster
Sign-up now for our weekly newsletter!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Someone who loves playing with language as much as I do asked me to think of my initial impression of Sankt-Peterburg and say the first words that come to mind to describe it: "один месяц в три словах" (one month in three words), she said. I thought I would share my response with you along with some photo memories.
Local Cultural Explorations. This is a field assignment in which you are responsible for facilitating cultural explorations of Sankt-Peterburg sites that are meaningful to you, and to educate us about this particular place and the story/stories that tells. We are going beyond the classroom and into the city. Examining the city will allow us to reflect on and discuss the cultural characteristics of urban settings, what they reveal about the human interactions, and the human cultures they reflect.
Pushkin, former Detskoye Selo (Children's Village), located 24 kilometers from St-Peterburg has been chosen as our first destination!
Learning about the traditional and avant-garde Sankt-Peterburg -golden in its autumn lights and thriving and vibrant at night- from the best storytellers in town.
Stories are paradoxically unique and universal: they exist within us, they define us. Stories allow us to reflect on our personal trajectory, understand the complexities of life, and develop an awareness of the variety of voices involved in authentic narratives.
Kudos to the Sankt-Peterburg Polytechnical University for becoming part of the World Cities Network and hosting such great academic gathering this past September; specially to my colleagues in the Institute of Applied Linguistics for generating meaningful conversations on Global Culture and for inviting me to be part of this international dialogue.
Russian is a very complex language. It keeps its distance at first with the Cyrillic alphabet –that can be written in block print and cursive script, and your teacher expects you to learn both, конечно! It has a very demanding sound inventory –in which some consonants can be hard or soft, vowels can be stressed or unstressed but the accent is mobile. It teases you with its gender capricious behavior and a grammar ruled by verbal aspect, and it doesn't believe in the value of articles.
My language learning ride has been challenging and provocative. I am relearning my world with clumsy strokes of Russian, I am in an state of disorientation that can only hope is transient; but I must trust the child in me, the most potent muse of all, to embrace the rhythm of learning, to keep playing with words and making mistakes. До скорой встречи!
Ya hace más de un mes que estás ahí!!! Madre mía, como pasa el tiempo. Veo que estás disfrutando de lo lindo con esta experiencia, aprendiendo y descubriendo la cultura rusa en una ciudad espectacular. Es una alegría poder verte así de contenta. Mucho ánimo con el idioma y muchos besos.
Gracias, Sonia, por leerme y por tus palabras de cariño.


text:
Tim Johnson on Gun Control
Democratic Sr Senator (SD)
Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets.
Congressional Summary:
The term 'large capacity ammunition feeding device' means a magazine or similar device that has an overall capacity of more than 10 rounds of ammunition
It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
Shall not apply to the possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed before 2013.
Shall not apply to qualified or retired law enforcement officers.
Proponent's Argument for voting Yes: Sen. BLUMENTHAL: This amendment would ban high-capacity magazines which are used to kill more people more quickly and, in fact, have been used in more than half the mass shootings since 1982. I ask my colleagues to listen to law enforcement, their police, prosecutors who are outgunned by criminals who use these high-capacity magazines. I ask that my colleagues also listen to the families of those killed by people who used a high-capacity magazine.
Opponent's Argument for voting No: Sen. GRASSLEY. I oppose the amendment. In 2004, which is the last time we had the large-capacity magazine ban, a Department of Justice study found no evidence banning such magazines has led to a reduction in gun violence. The study also concluded it is not clear how often the outcomes of the gun attack depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than 10 shots without reloading. Secondly, there is no evidence banning these magazines has reduced the deaths from gun crimes. In fact, when the previous ban was in effect, a higher percentage of gun crime victims were killed or wounded than before it was adopted. Additionally, tens of millions of these magazines have been lawfully owned in this country for decades. They are in common use, not unusually dangerous, and used by law-abiding citizens in self-defense, as in the case of law enforcement. Reference: Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act; Bill S.Amdt. 714 to S. 649 ; vote number 13-SV103 on Apr 17, 2013
Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains.
Congressional Summary:AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To ensure that law abiding Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage.
On page 37, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following: "Allowing Amtrak Passengers to Securely Transport Firearms on Passenger Trains.--None of amounts made available in the reserve fund authorized under this section may be used to provide financial assistance for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) unless Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. ROGER WICKER (R, MS). This amendment aims to ensure that gun owners and sportsmen are able to transport securely firearms aboard Amtrak trains in checked baggage, a practice that is done thousands of times a day at airports across the country. I emphasize that this amendment deals with checked, secured baggage only. It would return Amtrak to a pre-9/11 practice. It does not deal with carry-on baggage. Unlike the airline industry, Amtrak does not allow the transport of firearms in checked bags. This means that sportsmen who wish to use Amtrak trains for hunting trips cannot do so because they are not allowed to check safely a firearm.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Sen. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D, NJ): I object to this disruptive amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi. He wants to enable the carrying of weapons, guns, in checked baggage. One doesn't have to be very much concerned about what we are doing when they look at the history of attacks on railroads in Spain and the UK and such places. This amendment has no place here interrupting the budgetary procedure. The pending amendment is not germane and, therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Reference: Wicker Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.798 to S.Con.Res.13 ; vote number 2009-S145 on Apr 2, 2009
Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership.
Amendment SA 2774 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State's International Aid bill: To prohibit the use of funds by international organizations, agencies, and entities (including the United Nations) that require the registration of, or taxes guns owned by citizens of the United States.
Sen. VITTER: This is a straight funding limitation amendment. Many folks who haven't followed the proceedings on this in the U.N. may ask: What is this all about? Unfortunately, it is about an effort in the United Nations to bring gun control to various countries through that international organization. Unfortunately, that has been an ongoing effort which poses a real threat, back to 1995. In 2001, the UN General Assembly adopted a program of action designed to infringe on second amendment rights. The Vitter amendment simply says we are not going to support any international organization that requires a registration of US citizens' guns or taxes US citizens' guns. If other folks in this Chamber think that is not happening, that it is never going to happen, my reply is simple and straightforward: Great, then this language has no effect. It is no harm to pass it as a failsafe. It has no impact. But, in fact, related efforts have been going on in the U.N. since at least 1995. I hope this can get very wide, bipartisan support, and I urge all my colleagues to support this very fundamental, straightforward amendment.
No opponents spoke against the bill. Reference: Vitter Amendment to State Dept. Appropriations Bill; Bill S.Amdt. 2774 to H.R. 2764 ; vote number 2007-321 on Sep 6, 2007
Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows.
Require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)50; N)50; VP decided YES Reference: Lautenberg Amdt #362; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-134 on May 20, 1999
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations.
The Hatch amdt would increase mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, fund additional drug case prosecutors, and require background check on purchasers at gun shows. [A YES vote supports stricter penalties].
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)48; N)47; NV)5 Reference: Hatch Amendment #344; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-118 on May 14, 1999
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows.
Vote to table or kill a motion to require that all gun sales at gun shows be completed by federally licensed gun dealers. Also requires background checks to be completed on buyers and requires gun show promoters to register with the Treasury. Reference: Bill S.254 ; vote number 1999-111 on May 11, 1999
Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks.
Vote to table [kill] an amendment to make it unlawful for gun dealers to sell handguns without providing trigger locks. Violation of the law would result in civil penalties, such as suspension or revocation of the dealer's license, or a fine. Reference: Bill S 2260 ; vote number 1998-216 on Jul 21, 1998
Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology.
Johnson adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":
Make America the �Safest Big Country� in the World
After climbing relentlessly for three decades, crime rates started to fall in the 1990s. Nonetheless, the public remains deeply concerned about the prevalence of gun violence, especially among juveniles, and Americans still avoid public spaces like downtown retail areas, parks, and even sports facilities.
We need to keep policing �smart� and community-friendly, prohibiting unjust and counterproductive tactics such as racial profiling; focus on preventing as well as punishing crime; pay attention to what happens to inmates and their families after sentencing; use mandatory testing and treatment to break the cycle of drugs and crime; and enforce and strengthen laws against unsafe or illegal guns. Moreover, we need a renewed commitment to equal justice for all, and we must reject a false choice between justice and safety.
Technology can help in many areas: giving police more information on criminal suspects so they do not rely on slipshod, random stop-and-search methods; allowing lower-cost supervision of people on probation or parole; and making it possible to disable and/or trace guns used by unauthorized persons.
Above all, we need to remember that public safety is the ultimate goal of crime policy. Until Americans feel safe enough to walk their neighborhood streets, enjoy public spaces, and send their children to school without fear of violence, we have not achieved public safety.
Reduce violent crime rates another 25 percent.
Cut the rate of repeat offenses in half.
Develop and require �smart gun� technology to prevent use of firearms by unauthorized persons and implement sensible gun control measures.
Ban racial profiling by police but encourage criminal targeting through better information on actual suspects.
Require in-prison and post-prison drug testing and treatment of all drug offenders.
Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC11 on Aug 1, 2000
Rated C+ by the NRA, indicating a mixed voting record on gun rights.
Johnson scores C+ by NRA on pro-gun rights policies
While widely recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world. But our successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service our nearly three million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs.
The following ratings are based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionaire sent to all Congressional candidates; the NRA assigned a letter grade (with A+ being the highest and F being the lowest). Source: NRA website 02n-NRA on Dec 31, 2003
Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Tim Johnson.
Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Tim Johnson.
Click here for SenateMatch quiz answers by Tim Johnson.
Click here for AmericansElect quiz answers by Tim Johnson.
Click here for MyOcracy quiz answers by Tim Johnson.
Click here for Huffington Post quiz answers by Tim Johnson.
Click here for a summary of Tim Johnson's positions on all issues.
Click here for issue positions of other SD politicians.
Click here for issue statements from SD archives.
Other candidates on Gun Control: Tim Johnson on other issues:
SD Gubernatorial:
Dennis Daugaard
SD Senatorial:
Gordon Howie
John Thune
Larry Pressler
Mike Rounds
Rick Weiland
SD politicians
SD Archives
Retiring in 2014 election:
GA:Chambliss(R)
IA:Harkin(D)
MI:Levin(D)
MT:Baucus(D)
NE:Johanns(R)
SD:Johnson(D)
WV:Rockefeller(D)
Retired as of Jan. 2013:
ME:Snowe(R)
WI:Kohl(D) Senate Retirements 2014:
MT:Walsh(D)
OK:Coburn(R)
Senate races Nov. 2014:
AK: Begich(D) vs.Miller(R) vs.Treadwell(R) vs.Sullivan(R)
AL: Sessions(R,unopposed)
AR: Pryor(D) vs.Cotton(R) vs.Swaney(G) vs.LaFrance(L)
CO: Udall(D) vs.Gardner(R) vs.Baumgardner(R) vs.Buck(R) vs.Hill(R) vs.Stephens(R)
DE: Coons(D) vs.Wade(R)
GA: Nunn(D) vs.Perdue(R) vs.Swafford(L) vs.Kingston(R) vs.Gingrey(R) vs.Handel(R) vs.Broun(R)
HI: Schatz(D) vs.Hanabusa(D) vs.Cavasso(R) vs.Pirkowski(R)
IA: Braley(D) vs.Ernst(R) vs.Butzier(L) vs.Whitaker(R) vs.Clovis(R)
ID: Risch(R) vs.Mitchell(D)
IL: Durbin(D) vs.Oberweis(R) vs.Hansen(L) vs.Truax(R)
KS: Roberts(R) vs.Orman(I) vs.Batson(L) vs.Wolf(R) vs.Taylor(D)
KY: McConnell(R) vs.Bevin(R) vs.Grimes(D)
LA: Landrieu(D) vs.Cassidy(R) vs.Maness(R)
MA: Markey(D) vs.Herr(R) vs.Skarin(I) vs.Gomez(R)
ME: Collins(R) vs.D`Amboise(R) vs.Bellows(D) MI: Land(R) vs.Peters(D) vs.Wiedenhoeft(R)
MN: Franken(D) vs.McFadden(R) vs.Johnson(L) vs.Abeler(R)
MS: Cochran(R) vs.Childers(D) vs.McDaniel(R)
MT: Walsh(D) vs.Daines(R) vs.Curtis(D) vs.Rankin(I) vs.Edmunds(R) vs.Bohlinger(D)
NC: Hagan(D) vs.Tillis(R) vs.Haugh(L)
NE: Sasse(R) vs.Domina(D) vs.Haugh(L) vs.Osborn(R)
NH: Shaheen(D) vs.Brown(R) vs.Smith(R) vs.Rubens(R) vs.Testerman(R) vs.Martin(R)
NJ: Booker(D) vs.Bell(R) vs.Sabrin(R)
NM: Udall(D) vs.Weh(R) vs.Clements(R)
OK-2: Lankford(R) vs.Johnson(D) vs.Shannon(R)
OK-6: Inhofe(R) vs.Silverstein(D)
OR: Merkley(D) vs.Wehby(R) vs.Conger(R)
RI: Reed(D) vs.Zaccaria(R)
SC-2: Scott(R) vs.Dickerson(D) vs.Wade(D)
SC-6: Graham(R) vs.Hutto(D) vs.Ravenel(I) vs.Stamper(D) vs.Mace(R) vs.Bright(R)
SD: Rounds(R) vs.Weiland(D) vs.Pressler(I) vs.Howie(I)
TN: Alexander(R) vs.Ball(D) vs.Carr(R) vs.Adams(D)
TX: Cornyn(R) vs.Alameel(D) vs.Roland(L) vs.Sanchez(G) vs.Stockman(R)
VA: Warner(D) vs.Gillespie(R) vs.Sarvis(L)
WV: Capito(R) vs.Tennant(D) vs.Buckley(L) vs.Lawhorn(I) vs.Raese(R) vs.McGeehan(R)
WY: Enzi(R) vs.Cheney(R) vs.Hardy(D) Abortion
Senate Office SH-136, Washington, DC 20510


UK-based outfit size?have again linked up with adidas Originals to reinvent a vintage silhouette.
Originally designed in the 1970s as a lightweight running shoe, the TRX Runner is getting a facelift in two colourways for 2018 — a tonal grey and an orange suede.
The noir version of the TRX features hits of lighter nylon and white Three Stripe leather branding. For the orange suede, yellow leather offers a sunny contrast, while the nylon uppers present a subtle depth.
The TRX Runner will be available on June 30 from the size? online store.


IT outsourcing contracts are not naturally a zero sum game. Although the prospect of failure is very real, most of the time matching the right customer and offer is a win-win for buyer and seller alike. However, more often than not it plays out as a win-WIN scenario — with one side getting just a bit more of the pie than they deserve given their investment. Most of the time my job is to put the "capital W" in the buyer's hands, but I've had a go at supplier strategy as well.
The real wins and losses are not determined in the top-line numbers that bubble up to executive summaries, but exist in the asterisks and fine print buried inside the master services agreement, order form, and service level agreement.
My goal is to share tidbits from each side's contractual playbook to show how innocent-looking terms can shift the balance in an outsourcing relationship and what you can do to either eliminate the imbalance or mitigate it through a compromise if the other side digs in.
The concept of capturing the "capital W" applies across a broad cross-section of outsourced services from bandwidth to data center to managed services and CDN.
I'm not a lawyer and nothing I ever share should be construed as legal advice. If you are signing contracts without legal review, you will get in trouble, no matter how experienced you are.
Context matters – Applying a specific term in isolation without incorporating context can hurt more than it helps. For example, in bandwidth, shorter contracts were client-favoring, but applying that same principle to data centers left buyers with a nasty surprise in 2006-2008.
There are finitely many ways to get it right. For example, there are 3 typical measurements of latency that are both legitimate and completely unlike each other in structure and thresholds. If yours isn't mentioned, it doesn't mean that it's wrong.
There are infinitely many ways to get it wrong – For example, we've seen dozens of creative ways suppliers give lip service to uptime or low latency and do not provide a substantive guarantee at all. So even if you incorporate each piece of advice I give, your contract can still have time bombs just waiting to go off if your contract lacks a proper review from a specialist who can sniff out an end-around approach that undermines real commitment from the supplier.
The bottom line: You don't get what you deserve. You get the IT outsourcing contract you negotiate. You can have company size, brand strength, growth pattern, cash flow, and everything else on your side, but if you miss the other party's trick plays, they will still get the "capital WIN" while you settle for "lower-case win". Conversely, a good knowledge of the IT outsourcing playbook – or good advice – can get even a startup into a better deal than a Fortune 50 company.


text:
Read Next:	'Parasite,' 'Jojo Rabbit' Win ACE Eddie Awards for Top Feature Films
December 5, 2012 9:32AM PT
U.K. to invest $9.7 mil in training
Gov't attempts to boost growth in creative industries
By Robert Mitchell
Robert's Most Recent Stories
A$AP Rocky Testifies at Assault Trial in Sweden
Julian Assange Arrested Inside Ecuadorean Embassy in London
Letitia Wright, Lakeith Stanfield Nominated for BAFTA's Rising Star Award
LONDON — The U.K. government will invest £6 million ($9.7 million) over two years in skills development for Blighty's creative industries, it was confirmed Wednesday.
The measure was unveiled by chancellor of the exchequer George Osbourne in his autumn statement on the U.K.'s finance and economy.
"Our creative industries are worth over $57.4 billion a year. They are a key part of our economic growth strategy," said creative industries minister Ed Vaizey. "But they need to make sure that they can continue to compete in the global marketplace. This new investment will make sure that our creative industries have people with the right skills to make sure they stay at the top."
The new fund, co-invested with the industry, will total $19.3 million and offer entry level and professional training for up to 3,300 people working across the film, television, animation and video games industries. The government investment will match funds already in place, including National Lottery funding provided by the British Film Institute. The funds will be accessible from April.
"The U.K. creative industries are renowned for having a world-beating skills base. A new challenge is making sure that we can effectively resource increased levels of production, as a result of the tax credits, to the same high standards," said producer and chair of the Film Skills Council and Film Industry Training Board, Iain Smith. "It is fantastic to see today's financial commitment from the chancellor to support skills and talent development for high-end TV production, film, animation and computer games to help our industries step up to this challenge."
The investment will be handled by entertainment industry body Creative Skillset's Skills Investment Fund, which previously managed film industry investment and now extends its remit to cover television, animation and games. Since 2007 Creative Skillset has managed investment funds totalling $40.3 million for skills training in film and television to nearly 6,000 people.
"In recent years we have seen considerable growth in the film, TV and animation industries. They are a significant part of the creative industries, who overall provide 5.1% of U.K. employment," added John McVay, chief executive of producers' body P.A.C.T. "Creative Skillset's Skills Investment Fund has already helped our members create business opportunities in film. This welcome announcement will extend the same approach to high-end TV and animation which will help these industries grow further and faster."
BBC Breakfast
British Film Finance
British Film Industry
British Film Tax Credit Lottery
Creative Skillset
George Osbourne
Iain Smith
John McVay
Uk Film Finance
Uk Film Funding
Uk Film Industry
Uk Film Making
Uk Government Film Council
Uk Tv Finance
More Film
The Producers Guild of America are announcing the winners in the motion picture and television categories for its 31st Annual Producers Guild Awards on Saturday night at the Hollywood Palladium. The evening began with a rousing performance by Idina Menzel of the "Frozen II" Oscar-nominated song "Into the Unknown." "Leaving Neverland," the documentary detailing sexual [...]
Netflix Praised by 'The Irishman,' 'Marriage Story' Filmmakers at Producers Guild Panel
Streaming giant Netflix received strong support from filmmakers behind "The Irishman" and "Marriage Story" at the Producers Guild of America's nominees panel on Saturday at the Skirball Cultural Center in Los Angeles. Jane Rosenthal, one of "The Irishman" producers, said Netflix embraced the vision that she and Martin Scorsese had for the $170 million film. [...]
Gabriel Harel Discusses Dystopic Parable 'The Night of the Plastic Bags'
With his first short film, the animated "Yùl and the Snake," Gabriel Harel won Europe's Cartoon d'Or for the continent's best animated short film, given at the 2016 Cartoon Forum in Toulouse. Now, Harel's awaited sophomore effort, the animated "The Night of the Plastic Bags," competes at UniFrance's MyFrenchFilmFestival, and is available on a swathe [...]
'The Glorious Acceptance of Nicolas Chauvin': Nationalism Wrapped in Charisma
Winner of Locarno's Signs of Life section, Benjamin Crotty's "The Glorious Acceptance of Nicolas Chauvin" has enjoyed more than 12 months of festival success and critical acclaim as it reaches the end of its festival run at UniFrance's MyFrenchFilmFestival. A modern take on one of France's most influential yet widely unknown characters, the film headlines [...]
Alexander Ludwig on Sharing his Recovery Journey, Playing the 'Bad Boys' Tech Guy
With his towering height and stature, Alexander Ludwig looks every bit the action star, first appearing as Cato in "The Hunger Games," and more recently as fierce Norse Viking chief Bjorn Ironside on History Channel's "Vikings" and in "Bad Boys for Life," the third installment of the "Bad Boys" franchise, with Will Smith and Martin [...]
Box Office: 'Bad Boys for Life' Scores Big With $66 Million Launch
"Bad Boys for Life" is showing plenty of power at the North American box office with an impressive launch of around $66 million at 3,740 venues over the four-day holiday weekend. Sony's sequel to 1995's "Bad Boys" and 2003's "Bad Boys II" far exceeded the studio's pre-release forecasts of a $38 million weekend. The film, [...]
'A Bump Along the Way': Film Review
While "Derry Girls" continues to be the last word in young, raucous female rebellion on the Emerald Isle, "A Bump Along the Way" has a little something to add. Sin the same Northern Irish city as the hit Netflix sitcom, but shedding the '90s nostalgia for the Snapchat age, Shelly Love's appealing, unassuming debut feature [...]


OVERVIEW/ANALYSIS: I found The Golem and The Jinni to be a fun, magical fairy tale of a romance with a fair bit of excitement to it. But it is pretty clear that this is also a serious, literary work, raising meaningful philosophical questions, while using the folklore of two different cultures to inform the immigrant experience, offering a fascinating look at a place and time, and linking the experiences of the old and new worlds. These two takes seemed to call for different outlooks and so the result is two reviews in one.
Both entities faces challenges. The Golem, named Chava (which means life) by the rabbi must cope with the flood of wishes that assail her consciousness from the thousands of people around her. She must learn to keep her identity secret. This includes coping with the fact that she does not sleep, and that it is not considered ok for a young woman to be seen walking the city streets at night, even if it her purpose is honorable. Like many immigrants before her, she is helped by prior arrivals. She learns to bake and gets a job in a bakery. Unable to go out at night she takes on sewing. How immigrant is that?
The two embody, in a way, the immigrant experience. Coming to a new country, learning new ways, changing in order to fit in, coming to value what has been found, building a life. But character growth, consideration of serious moral subjects and a moving relationship are not all that this book has going on. There is danger afoot. Keeping the action moving, we get not only a look into the jinni's ancient past, a fascinating and moving segment, but there is pursuit on those cobble-stoned streets. A person with evil intent is tracking the scent of magic and surviving this onslaught is the main motive. As we have come to care about both our primary characters their safety matters.
CONCLUSION: Not only has Wecker populated her fable with two wonderful leads, but her backup players are extremely rich. In fact this is one of the best supporting casts I have seen in a while. The Golem and the Jinni has love, parental and romantic, philosophical heft, a vibrant picture of a place and time, the equivalent of an action/adventure trial-by-danger and enough magic to shake a wand at. In short it is everything in a book that you could possibly wish for.
Gotta confess, I kept seeing Amanda Righetti (The Mentalist) in the role as I read. Hey, the guy's got needs. (This raises the wonderful theoretical possibility of a high-end retail business, Build-a-Golem. Schmul, more clay, hurry up.) Unwell in his steerage accommodation, Otto is looking for a little companionship and wakes his special friend. Just in time, as it turns out, as Otto, and his burst appendix, fail to make it to the particular new world he was hoping to reach. This leaves a rather bewildered, powerful and telepathic mythical creature heading for Ellis Island. She finds an unusual way to cope when asked for her papers, which I will not spoil, then, wandering around the city, is taken in by a retired rabbi who sees her for what she really is. (Yeah, he's a lot older, but he really sees her) The Golem truly is a stranger in a strange land, but she is not the only oddity on shore.
In Little Syria, an immigrant community near the southern tip of Manhattan, a Maronite Catholic tinsmith, Boutros Arbeely, is brought a copper flask to repair. While beginning work on the piece with a soldering iron (no rubbing of the magic container this time) he is blasted across the room, and before you can say Robin Williams three times fast, there on his shop floor is a naked man. And it's not even Halloween in the Village. Really, he is a creature made of fire and mist, but is confined by virtue of an iron bracelet into the form of a human. In this imagining, iron is something a jinni can't do anything with, I guess like bad fashion sense. Sorry, no puff of smoke. But this magic man is a hottie. He is, of course, cut and handsome, but in addition, he is a natural metalworker. Boutros, despite the jinni's arrogance, gives him a place to live and a job. He's never had a friend like him. I see in my tiny mind the steamy Colin O'Donoghue (currently Captain Hook on Once Upon a Time).
Ya think these two illegal immigrants might cross paths? Duh-uh. But it will take some time, as each has his and her own road to travel. If I had three wishes the first would be to be able to write as well as Helene Wecker. She manages to combine several layers to make a compelling whole. She compares a bit of folklore from two different cultures and looks at how they work in a new place. She offers philosophical consideration of deep human issues. She offers a wonderful view of a place and a time, and there is a motive force here that keeps the story moving, and presents our two leads with a mortal threat.
Sounds a little creepy in this context, doesn't it? As a creature built to be a slave, but lacking a master, the golem must become her own master in a way, (a Ronin?) accepting guidance for sure, but facing real existential dilemmas. What happens when the guy in charge is no longer around? She engages in a discussion with the jinni about the messiness of free will versus the certainty of slavery to the will of another, raising up issues not only of actual slavery, but of blind allegiance, whether to a military cause, a political party, a religious persuasion. When is a person responsible for his or her actions and when does responsibility lie elsewhere?
The jinni, while he may still have a trick or two up his sleeves, chief among which is the ability to mold metal with his bare hands, is still stuck in a human body and is forced to cope as a human. The Golem, named Chava, must constantly struggle to hide her real identity. She struggles as well to control her impulses, in a way, like Shelley's creature, a child attempting to grow up. And she does pretty well, whether restraining herself from satisfying the flood of mental wants and needs that her telepathy picks up, or the occasional urge to pound some a-hole into bits. She is not the most outgoing sort, and is seen by many as a stick in the mud at times.
So, are these two crazy kids gonna get together or what? Yeah, yeah, we'll get to that. Different paths, remember? The jinni happens to be hanging at the Bethesda Fountain in Central Park when his attention alights on a young thing of a late-teen socialite, Sophia, kept on a leash (or is it in a lamp?) by her mother. Her entire life is planned out for her. Someone follows her home and things heat up. Chava, is not a slave to carnal whims, she may or may not even have carnal whims. But the rabbi has a mensch of a nephew, Michael. Sadly fallen from The Chosen, but a very nice young man who runs a hostel for new immigrants.
What to do with those long nights? Walking of course. Well, for Mister Ahmad, anyway. It was not considered proper in that era for a young lady to be seen walking the streets alone late at night. It creates the wrong impression, and attracts the interest of unsavory sorts, like the police. As an illegal, and a non-human, that would not do. So Chava does what any young, energetic young lady in the turn of the century Lower East Side would do. She takes in sewing. In fact there is a lot in this book about the immigrant experience, legal and not, at the end of the 19th century. Two communities both nurture their new arrivals, struggle to get by, to make a better life, attempting to leave behind some of the problems of the Old World. The two embody, in a way, the immigrant experience. Coming to a new country, learning new ways, changing in order to fit in, coming to value what has been found, building a life. Receiving new names.
CONCLUSION: Not only has Wecker populated her fable with two wonderful leads, but her backup players are extremely rich. In fact this is one of the best supporting casts I have seen in a while. You will not need to endanger your community through the use of dark magic or possess a magic vessel to find your next great read. The Golem and the Jinni will be available far beyond the shtetls of Europe, the deserts of the Middle East, and the New York City limits. This modern Sheherezade has written a magical book and there is no rub. The Golem and the Jinni is all that you could possibly wish for.
NOTE: This review was originally posted here. German Cinema Golem image courtesy of The Bridge. Gort image courtesy of Carnegie-Mellon. Colin O'Donoghue pic courtesy of 24 Media. Amanda Righetti picture courtesy of Mentalist wiki. Washington Square (NYC) picture courtesy of Andre Kertesz and Higher Pictures.
This book sounds both exciting and thought-provoking. As you mentioned, it definitely has echoes of Dr. Frankenstein's creature, who is abandoned by his creator and has to decide who he is and what his connection is to humanity. Thanks for the review!


We are excited to present CLOUD7, the awesome Berlin-based label offering stylish, contemporary products and accessories for dogs and dog lovers.
Their lovingly designed range of high quality dog leads, dog collars and dog accessories have been created to enhance and strengthen the relationship between people and their beloved dogs.
The brand's foundation and philosophy is based on the core principles of eco friendliness and fair trade.


text:
Raoul Caudron (Paris, 7 de dezembro de 1883 - Saint-Étienne, 1 de junho de 1958) foi um treinador de futebol francês. Ele dirigiu a seleção de seu país na Copa do Mundo FIFA de 1930, sediada no Uruguai.

Treinadores de futebol da França
Treinadores da Copa do Mundo FIFA de 1930
Naturais de Paris

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Looking for a temporary (or not so temporary) furniture solution? CORT offers a wide selection of high-quality furniture for rent near 85307, as well as convenient delivery, setup, and pickup options.
When it's time for a transition in life, consider renting furniture instead of purchasing it for good. With CORT, you can have furniture when you need it, and not have to worry about it when you don't. As a Berkshire Hathaway Company, CORT is committed to affordability and quality. That's why we offer flexible leases, professional setup, and a variety of payment options. Plus, we have furniture rental showrooms across the U.S. and a network of global partners in 85 countries. So wherever you go, we can go there, too.
Turn your temporary living arrangement into a stylish sanctuary by renting everything you need—even sheets, towels, and dishware! CORT not only rents out essentials like sectionals, coffee tables, and dining sets, we also have housewares for rent such as dishes, pans, pots, and even chopsticks. Our furniture for rent will have you putting out a "Home Sweet Home" doormat in no time. And if your temporary living space becomes your long-term home, [content-text-2-10] And should your temporary arrangement become a permanent one, you can buy your rented furniture at an affordable price. It's time to embrace an easier way to move! Find a CORT Furniture Rental Showroom near 85307 today.
Off to college? Great move! Before you spend your savings on furniture you'll only use for a few months or years at a time–read this! Our student packages make it easy for you to focus on your studies while we handle your furniture arrangements. Just tell us where your school is located. Then, select a lease length (like six to 12+ months), pick the student furniture bundle that's right for you, and decide if you want our stylists to pick out the pieces, or you want to play interior designer. It's up to you! Check out and we'll arrange a time to set up your furniture in your apartment. You don't have to lift a finger. (Just open the door!) We'll pick up your furniture at the end of your lease term, too! Furnish every room in your off-campus apartment or just the bedroom. We know students' needs! Now you can be smart and stylish. Our great plans and student discounts make it simple for you to rent what you need for college in Arizona or elsewhere. Starting at $99 per month for a 12-month lease.
Setting up a satellite office for the busy season? Expanding your business in Arizona? Turn to CORT for corporate furniture. We have customizable workplace furniture solutions that grow alongside your company. Boost revenue and attract talent by designing an environment that impresses clients and streamlines productivity. Let's bring your vision to life with the right corporate furniture for rent near 85307. Whether you're preparing for a merger, bracing for an increase in foot traffic, or furnishing a satellite office— CORT is ready to go to work for you with affordable office furniture.
If you're a home stager, real estate agent, or homeowner, you know firsthand that selling a home isn't cheap or easy. The housing market is challenging near 85307! Furniture for home staging comes at a price—and buying it makes no sense. That's why we rent home staging furniture near 85307, offering decor in all styles and sizes to enhance any type of home. Rent a few accent pieces, or furnish entire rooms. CORT has the style and flexibility you need. Rent home staging furniture to bring out the beauty in any space, and sell that space at a higher price—quick!
Moving for an internship? Furniture rental gives you the option to live stylishly, but also within a student's budget. Is your military family constantly moving for assignments? Cut stress and save money with CORT military packages and discounts. Hiring seasonal workers to get your biz through the busy season? Rent office furniture for your short-term hires! CORT gives you choices, and you're never required to buy furniture. Find a CORT Showroom near 85307 to get started, or browse our catalog online.


84 degrees, soft breeze, leaves almost full on trees and deer romping through the woods.
It's about time to have dinner outside.
Soft shell crab po boy with scratch ceasar dressing for the greens and tomato on fresh baguette from The Bread Box and Bakery in Perkasie PA.
Duckhorn Chardonnay is a nice compliment to the casual sandwich.
Happy early summer all. What's your favorite quick/easy dinner?