|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through November 28, 2003 | Glenn L Andersson | 25 | 1 | 11-28-03 6:24 am |
| Archive through December 05, 2003 | Glenn L Andersson | 25 | 1 | 12-05-03 12:20 pm |
| Archive through December 06, 2003 | John Hacker | 25 | 1 | 12-06-03 8:22 am |
| Archive through December 10, 2003 | Natalie Severn | 25 | 1 | 12-10-03 12:16 pm |
| Archive through June 04, 2005 | Howard Brown | 50 | 1 | 6-04-05 2:13 pm |
| Archive through June 15, 2005 | c.d. | 50 | 1 | 6-15-05 2:24 pm |
| Archive through August 26, 2005 | Caroline Anne Morris | 50 | 1 | 8-26-05 7:41 am |
| Archive through September 26, 2005 | Baron von Zipper | 50 | 1 | 9-26-05 9:24 pm |
| Archive through December 18, 2005 | Thomas C. Wescott | 50 | 1 | 12-18-05 9:51 pm |
| Archive through December 22, 2005 | Maria Giordano | 50 | 1 | 12-22-05 9:48 am |
| Archive through January 06, 2006 | Ben Holme | 50 | 1 | 1-06-06 7:25 pm |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Thomas C. Wescott
Chief Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 545
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 11:48 pm: | 
|
Ben is positively obsessed with Lawende's sighting, despite Lawende's inability to identify the victim. He could only say her clothes were dark, like the victim's. But, by God, Lawende's barebones description of a man MUST be the very picture of Jack the Ripper, therefore all suspects don't match it are out the window. We went through this on the Hutchinson thread.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 298
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 3:19 am: |
|
Ben,
For those who still believe Hutchinson was telling the truth,there seems to be no opportunity for Tumblety to have been in her room to kill and mutilate.
A Jewish person goes with Kelly to her room about 2.15am,is not reported to have left before the cry of murder was heard.What opportunity is there for anyone else to have been there?
Seems the only solution is for everyone to believe Hutchinson lied,or supply information that puts Kelly on the street after the Astrakhan person left.Complicated isn't it?
Of course she was seen later in the morning wasn't she?Was a tall American person known to be in Dorset St then? |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 344
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 6:35 am: |
|
Harry
You are of course considering a lone killer rather than two?
Jeff |
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 156
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 10:53 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
You are, of course, spot on:
For those who still believe Hutchinson was telling the truth,there seems to be no opportunity for Tumblety to have been in her room to kill and mutilate.
Precisely. It's an either-or situation. Nobody can assert that Hutchinson was telling the truth AND claim that Tumblety was the best suspect for Kelly's murder.
Tom wrote: Ben is positively obsessed with Lawende's sighting, despite Lawende's inability to identify the victim. He could only say her clothes were dark, like the victim's.
You are quite wrong. Here's what Lawende said: She had on a black jacket and bonnet. I have seen the articles at the police-station, and believe them to be those the deceased was wearing.
The majority of Casebook's discerning readership will have taken the trouble to scrutinise the time-frame in relation to the Eddowes murder, arriving at the inevitable conclusion that the couple obsevered by Lawende were murderer and victim. I explored this sreamingly obvious reality in the "Lawende's Description" thread.
Consider the alternative: Man and woman innocently depart Mitre Square the moment Lawende's back is turned at c:1.34am. Tumblety enters with a different but identically-attired woman. This woman is Kate Eddowes. After the obligatory small-talk, Tumblety butchers her extensively, and finally departs the scene before 1:40am. The first couple, who according to Tom were entirely innocenet, didn't bother to attend the inquest to clear their names.
Those researchers who promulgate this palpably absurd scenario do so because Lawende's description - really quite detailed, despite protestations to the contrary - does not indicate a man who looked like Tumblety or D'Onston.
I realise the above is inconvnient - but why not have a re-think?
Tom -- You never did respond to my most recent post to you on the "Why Don't We Just Believe" thread. Still waiting for you to put me right.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1331
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Hello Ben:
You mentioned..."The first couple, who according to Tom were entirely innocenet, didn't bother to attend the inquest to clear their names..."
Not to niggle or nitpick,but if the man was accompanying a prostitute, that about the last thing he would want to do in going to the police.
He may have been married. Even if single,its still unlikely that the man would willingly go. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 301
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 3:07 am: |
|
Jekk,
I believe there was omly one person who was responsible for the Ripper murders,and that he acted alone. |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 302
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 3:16 am: |
|
Jeff,
Excuse my mispelling of your name.I think the information points more to a lone killer,than one wiyh an accomplice. |
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 159
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 9:52 am: |
|
Hi Howard,
Even if single,its still unlikely that the man would willingly go.
Surely it is preferable to be considered a habitual user of prostitutes rather than a potential murder? What if this oh-so-innocent had been spotted by Lawende and chums subsequent of the inquest? Having neglected to come forward, he would have a lot of explaining to do.
Remember, there was nothing to stop the identically-attired woman coming forward.
Cheers,
Ben |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2467
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
You do make me laugh. You believe the real killer came forward in the form of Hutch and now you think a habitual user of prostitutes who was with one moments before Eddowes was attacked would come forward voluntarily too? He'd be terrified that you would be the interviewer. 
And you and Harry should get with the programme regarding Tumblety and MJK. Any other probs with the former killing the latter - eg not removing her womb with a view (sorry!) to adding it to his collection, or not being in a position to, if it ever turns out he was banged up at the time after all - and the tall tale-telling 'tache-sporter's fans can always shrug and wheel in the acme MJK was not a ripper victim device, which comes with a handy one-off killer like Barnett or - er, Hutch himself to fill the void.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on January 08, 2006) |
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 161
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 1:46 pm: |
|
You believe the real killer came forward in the form of Hutch and now you think a habitual user of prostitutes who was with one moments before Eddowes was attacked would come forward voluntarily too?
You forget, Caz, that according to D'Onston/Tumblety theorists, the first woman was not Kate Eddowes. Thus, man #1 need not fear any ripper-accusations as he had a potential alibi (a living one  ) to corroborate his version of events. Of course, this necessites woman #1 attending the inqest, but that's the whole point - why wouldn't she?
I'm afraid you've failed to acquaint me with "the programme" concerning MJK and Dr. T. My orginal premise is hardly invalidated: Nobody can assert that Hutchinson was telling the truth AND claim that Tumblety was the best suspect for Kelly's murder. This obsrvation relates soley to the issue of Tumblety-as-Kelly's-killer.
Best Regards,
Ben
(Message edited by BenH on January 08, 2006)
(Message edited by BenH on January 08, 2006) |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1335
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Hi Ben:
You forget, Caz, that according to D'Onston/Tumblety theorists, the first woman was not Kate Eddowes. Thus, man #1 need not fear any ripper-accusations as he had a potential alibi (a living one ) to corroborate his version of events. Of course, this necessitates woman #1 attending the inquest, but that's the whole point - why wouldn't she?
I don't follow you here,Ben.
If the first man and first woman who entered Mitre Square were not involved in anything other than a little coitus...and even if Lawende did see this first man subsequent to the Eddowes inquest or even further on...it would be Lawende's word versus the first mans. The guy could have lost his job,a possibly previously unblemished reputation, maybe even his wife and kids. Pretty good inducements to remain mum until he was formally requested to appear anywhere near a court or cops. By then the man would have probably had all his ducks in a row.
Maybe its me,but if this first couple did not have anything to gain [ other than gaining a stain on their reputations ] by going to the police, what would their "reward" be in light of the potential loss[es]?
As to why one of the street prostitutes [the first woman in this case ] not coming forward, its pretty easy to see why. Street prostitution isn't a profession one boasts about.
Cheers
How |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 1:49 am: |
|
Surely Tumblety is listed as a 'widower' on his death certificate. Did Mr. Vanderlinden mention this? |
W. VdLinden
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 6:27 pm: |
|
Mr Palmer.
You have a slippery grasp on the English language I see. After answering in detail your long attack on myself and my article on Francis Tumblety you now post that this was mostly a “smoke screen.” You may want to actually look that term up before you use it next time. Perhaps you are confusing it with the mental fog you seem to be in.
You begin your strange “rebuttle” with this: “Mr. Vanderlinden-- You seem to have trouble with elementary reading skills, so let me repeat my original statement.
‘Whether or not Tumblety was married is irrelevant. The only point is whether or not Dunham may have heard such a statement from his lips.’ Was that sentence really so difficult to comprehend?” (I liked the part about “difficulties with elementary reading skills,” it made me laugh as I read the rest of your post.)
Not difficult to comprehend Mr. Palmer, just merely difficult to credit. I had written that as there was no evidence that Tumblety had ever been married Charles Dunham’s highly suspect assertion that Tumblety had married a prostitute should be looked upon as a fantasy. You, while attempting to defend Dunham’s words, gave two examples which you apparently believed proved that Tumblety had been married at one time. One of these examples you incorrectly attributed, with the other you failed to mention problems with its source. You then turned around and made the incredible claim that “Whether or not Tumblety was married is irrelevant. The only point is whether or not Dunham may have heard such a statement from his lips.” “Irrelevant?” You can’t really be serious? Another example that Charles Dunham was lying in his interview” with the New York World (2 December, 1888) and you think this is irrelevant? Well, of course you do Mr. Palmer, let’s not forget your bias here. As for the next amazing declaration that “the only point is whether or not Dunham may have heard such a statement from his lips,” how can you possibly say this when the issue here is the unreliability of any and all of Dunham’s words? How could you even begin to prove this to any but your own biased satisfaction? As the statement was so fatuous I ignored it.
Next you once more attempt to attack my two unbiased sources. Oh, pardon me. You don’t even want to mention Dunham’s biographer Carman Cummings do you? Can’t point out that the number one expert on Charles Dunham has written that Dunham’s “interview” with the New York World “sounds more like a written account and was probably, like most of Dunham’s work, and act of imagination offered for profit.” You can’t nit pick this statement can you? Well, you attack Michael W. Kauffman by stating “the point was that Kauffman stated that "all" the tales told about Tumblety's misogyny could be traced back to Dunham....which was transparently false.” So, what did Kauffman actually write?
“Press coverage of this [jack the Ripper] case brought to light some chilling details, such as Tumblety’s violent hatred for women and his gruesome collection of wombs that he kept in jars. Unfortunately, those stories could all be traced back to one Charles A. Dunham, the convicted perjurer who once went by the name of Sandford Conover.” (Michael W. Kauffman, American Brutus, Random House, 2004, page 385)
Now, Mr. Palmer, as I have already stated Kauffman is an unbiased expert on Conover’s activities in connection with the Lincoln assassination. He is an important source (well, for those who have even a modicum of objectivity) on Charles Dunham’s character and reliability as a witness. Do you really think that Kauffman’s opinions regarding Dunham and his trustworthiness should be disregarded because he wrote the word “all” in the above paragraph? Especially since “all” references to Tumblety’s uteri collection do only come from Dunham? Is this nit picking at the minutia or simply the inability of a biased researcher to accept any new evidence, or new way of looking at old evidence, and who clings with a sad desperation to his long cherished beliefs? I’ll let you figure that one out.
In your previous post you made the claim that Tumblety’s trouble with the Canterbury Music Hall was obscure and brief.” I pointed out that not only was this not obscure but that it was reported in the newspaper of a small town in Ontario, Canada. Explaining to me why you think the St Thomas Weekly Dispatch would print this information is totally irrelevant. The point, which I thought was fairly obvious, is the fact that if the St. Thomas newspaper had access to this story it would seem to indicate that it was picked up from a wire or news agency. This “obscure” little bit of news was probably printed all over North America. However, your point appears to be that since Dunham mentions Tumblety and the Canterbury Music Hall (and, once more, you fail to acknowledge that Dunham’s “interview” gets all the known facts of this incident wrong, gee, as if he were making it up) Dunham must have known Tumblety. What did you think I meant when I wrote in my article “it is clear from the World’s article that Dunham must have known Tumblety by sight, known that he had been in the capital during the war, read his book The Kidnapping of Doctor Tumblety and knew something about his troubles with the Canterbury Music Hall in Washington…” You seem to have trouble with elementary reading skills.
“You also don't seem to appreciate that Tumblety mentions Conover in his 1872 pamphlet.” Really? Gee, what did you think I meant when I wrote in my last post “ It is also very interesting that Tumblety writes about “Sandford Conover” in his pamphlet of 1872 and not his friend “Colonel” Dunham. Why is this if, as Dunham claims, he and Tumblety were such good acquaintances? It is “Colonel” Dunham who his invited to Tumblety’s rooms with his “Lieutenant-Colonel.” It is in “Colonel” Dunham’s room that Tumblety unburdens his tale of being married to a woman who turned out to be a prostitute. Sanford Conover is one of Dunham’s other identities yet Tumblety does not mention this. Why?” More of your problems with the old elementary reading skills Mr. Palmer?
Let’s cut to the chase. You write “But I'm tickled that you finally revealed your source for Tumblety living in the most elegant hotel in Washington D.C. and being escorted back & forth by a military entourage. Yup, just as I suspected: you were referring to Tumblety's own pamphlet. No wonder ‘Ripper Notes’ was hesitant to give the souce (sic). Let me let you in on something, Mr. Vanderlinden: Tumblety probably didn't smoke cigars with Lord Russel and Ulysses S. Grant, either. If you really think this is credible source in comparison to a contemporary report of Tumblety's court case, then all I can say is, ‘May Heaven help you.’”
This goes beyond having trouble with elementary reading skills and into problems with elemental reality. I posted my source for Tumblety’s address in Washington as Willard’s Hotel as being Evans, Stewart, & Gainey, Paul, The Lodger. The Arrest & Escape of Jack the Ripper, Century Ltd. 1995. Page 199. Bite me. Somehow, information written in clear and concise English regarding Stewart’s book becomes twisted and manipulated by you into “Tumblety’s own pamphlet.(!!??)” Collar too tight is it Mr. Palmer? The paragraph containing the information about Willard’s Hotel which I posted is demonstrably from Stewart’s book and can be found on the page which I cited but that doesn’t stop you from claiming the right to say otherwise based, apparently, on your own little version of reality. Changing my words to suit your own desperate needs is infantile, something one would expect from a twelve year old. But you go further and triumphantly exclaim “…it was I who pointed out that Wolf Vanderlinden's "source" for his "fact"(?) was based on nothing more than Tumblety's own air-castle…” The wool you are trying to pull over everyone’s eyes seems to be that if you discredit the source of my information then you discredit the information itself. How can you possibly attack Stewart Evans and his research? Hard to do and it might not go down very well so you decide to bend the truth, shall we say, and rewrite what I wrote to your own satisfaction. Some might call that desperate and pathetic Mr. Palmer but I won’t because, you see, the jokes on you. In fact you’re the butt of it.
Your feeble attempt at discrediting the information that Tumblety actually lived at Willard’s hotel while his offices were at Pennsylvania and 7th Street (thus destroying Dunham’s claim that Tumblety had living quarters and office space in the same building) seems to have backfired. An interesting piece of information was e-mailed to me after my last post by someone who posts on the Casebook. I won’t mention his name because who would want to be dragged into your little web of slander and deceit? He told me, Mr. Palmer, that Tumblety’s address is listed in the Washington City Directory for 1862. So, we apparently know exactly where Tumblety was living.
Now, you claim that Tumblety was living at some “boarding house” because a news report of his civil suite against the Canterbury Music Hall mentions “the people at his boarding house.” I claim that he was living at Willard’s Hotel because Stewart Evans says this in his book. But what does the Washington City Directory for 1862 say? Any guess Mr. Palmer? Any at all? The City Directory, I was told, lists Tumblety’s address as THE WILLARD HOTEL. Apparently, both Stewart’s book and Tumblety’s “own air castle” are correct and Dunham, and yourself of course, are, sadly, once again wrong. I can’t wait to see how you, as usual, twist and manipulate and misquote this information.
This brings me to your statement “Yup, just as I suspected: you were referring to Tumblety's own pamphlet.” An amazing admission on your part Mr. Palmer, one you will have to explain. In your post on Saturday 15 October, 2005, on the Tumblety and the Lincoln Assassination board you posted “Unfortunately, this puts Wolf Vanderlinden's claim in his recent Ripper Notes article that Tumblety was living at the Willard Hotel in serious doubt. If you recall, this was used as "evidence" that Dunham was wrong about the location of Tumblety's lodgings. But I don't recall any citation for this claim.” You now admit that you already knew about Tumblety’s connection with Willard’s Hotel, whether I cited it or not, so why claim that my statement “was in serious doubt?” What purpose could this observation serve other than to attempt to cast doubt on my veracity and trustworthiness and to manipulate the truth? But you go further, don’t you? You wrote on Friday, 16 December, 2005, on these very boards that I “finished-off by throwing in a completely undocumented and uncited 'fact'...that was, in reality, untrue.” Once more, you state that you knew of Tumblety’s admitted connection with Willard’s Hotel all along. Information does exist that shows that Tumblety did live at Willard’s Hotel so you cannot now, nor could you then, substantiate your indefensible claim that this information is “untrue.” What other reason could you have to make this claim other than to once more attempt to manipulate the truth in order to throw doubt on my truthfulness as a writer and researcher?
The Casebook has language restraints so I cannot come out and say what I actually think of you, your character and your tactics, Mr. Palmer. It wouldn’t be allowed. I will say this, however. Don’t presume to lecture me or anyone else on these boards on what your puerile ideas as to what the historian should or should not think are. You have amply demonstrated that you have neither the credibility nor the integrity to do so.
Wolf. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 939
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Ben,
I think you may be expecting much too much from people all round. Certainly, there are abundant reasons why the male (if indeed the trio from the club saw a couple other than Eddowes and Mr. R.) would not be eager to come forward and admit he was propositioning (or asking directions to Romford for that matter) and as far as the female is concerned, you need only look at the behavior of Mary Ann Connolly ("Pearly Poll") to see how disinclined she might have been to get involved.
Connolly's good friend and partner in raising soldier's morale. Martha Tabram, was killed and she certainly didn't impress the police with her willingness to help find the murderer. Moreover, if there was a second couple there, neither one may even have realized they had been observed when they were. Odds are neither consulted a watch or even carried one while they spoke and their concept of when they met could be as precise as "I dunno, some time that night, I guess."
And that brings up a good question. Since Harris, Lawende and Levy all base the time of their sightings on a glance at a clock in the Imperial Club just before they left, did anyone check to find out how accurate that clock was? So much of the event in Mitre Square hangs on rather precise timing and much of that timing is dependent upon just one clock that might have been fast, slow or even (least likely) accurate to the second.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 162
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 6:18 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
I think you may be expecting much too much from people all round.
Oooh..I don't think so, Don. I find it unfathomable that many researchers are seemingly so entrenched in their suspect theory, that they reject the most likely course of events in favour of a demonstrably flawed and inplausible one. The can be no other incentive for doing so other than to bolster their suspect of preference.
Yes, it is a remote possiblity that the couple observed by Lawende were not JTR and Eddowes, but is it likely?
There also exists the remote possibility that the man and women were innocent of nefarious behaviour, and that neither attended the inquest. Again, can we say with any circumspection that the above constitutes the most likely explanation?
Incidentally, Howard is quite incorrect to suggest that a prostitute would neglect to approach an inquest out of shame for her occupation. Indeed, Mary Ann Cox and Pearly Poll offered living refutation of this assertion.
What if woman #1 entertained suspicions that man #1 went on to kill Eddowes after they parted company? Moreover, wouldn't this woman wish to aid in an invesitagion which could result in the disposal of a man who might otherwise have killed her at some point? Pearly Poll would have harboured no such perturbations as the ripper's reign of terror had yet to fully establish itself.
The case for Tumblety being the murderer of Kate Eddowes must, of necessity, hinge on a dubious succession of coincidences and "maybes".
Coincidence: Woman #1 was wore a black jacket and sported a bonnett very similar to those found on the body of Kate Eddowes.
Coincidence: This first woman was conversing in an alley with a man just minutes before her identically-attired double, Kate Eddowes, arrived on the scene with JTR.
Coincidence: The man observed by Lawnde was very similar in height and age to previous sightings of the Stride suspect, as observed by Messrs. Schwarz, Smith, and Marshall.
The last is by no means an astonishing coincidence, but when added to the proceeding two, it effectively enervates the whole nonsense premise involving another couple.
Maybe the clock at the imperial club was innacurate. Well yes, maybe...but were none of these men in posession of watches? Unfortunately, we NEED the clock to be wrong in order to keep Tumblety in the running, just as we need those precious coincidences.
And I am accused of expecting too much? |
Thomas C. Wescott
Chief Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 548
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 6:36 pm: |
|
Ben,
I'm not in the business of setting people straight, which is why I didn't bother to respond. When I post an observation and am told I'm doing so to bolster a theory - simply because my accuser is trying to do just that - then I'm generally not long for that thread. You're convinced the witness sightings are a) 100% accurate, b) all of the same man, and c) are all Jack the Ripper. How can I possibly argue with that? Incidentally, I would probably rank Hutchinson among the top 5 suspects, but we're dreadfully wanting for information on him. You apply the same argument against Tumblety that you do against D'Onston and everyone else. But these same sightings you hold as your Rosetta Stone do not describe either a 'stout' man or a man of 'military bearing', so I could turn that on you and say that 'proves' Hutchinson was not the Ripper. But I know better.
Wolf,
Good to see you on the boards, but your posts are too damn long! Ha ha.
Yours truly,
Tom wescott |
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 165
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 6:56 pm: |
|
H Tom,
I assure you that I intended no malice during our previous discussion. If my D'Onston related musings were inflammatory, I apologise. However, if I'm unschooled on any particular issue, I would be hugely appreciative of an opportunity to re-assess previously held convictions.
I stand by my statement that both D'Onston and Tumblety are extremely unlikely candidates for the Eddowes murder, but if I've glossed over something important, I'd hate to persist in ignorance unecessarily!
Best Regards,
Ben |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 940
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 7:14 pm: |
|
Ben,
Where have I gone wrong? I am not and never have been a Tumblety partisan. He was a strange one and was alive and even in London for some of the murders (maybe all, I don't know -- which should give you an idea of how much I have considered him) and that is about all in his favor as a suspect.
All I was doing with my last post was pointing out that if (and it is a big one) the couple seen by Lawende et al. was not Kate and J.T. Ripper there are many reasons why neither of that couple would have come forward -- if they even knew where and when they had been observed. What that means to the Tumblety/D'Onston theories I don't know or much care about.
As it is, I did cite Ms. Connolly and the fact that despite the brutal murder of her friend she did not prove a terribly cooperative witness and if this hypothetical other woman didn't know Kate she would likely be even less forthcoming than "Pearly Poll." And if you want to play the game some more, if this hypothetical woman had been in the position of say Eddowes or Kelly, she would not want her "man" to know she'd been plying the game, would she?
Finally, whether or not Harris, Lawende or Levy carried a watch, they based their timing on the Imperial Club clock. Indeed, regardless of what suspect is favored, almost every theory about Mitre Square depends on some very tight timing and it just struck me as interesting that all these timelines are dependent to a great extent on a clock whose accuracy must be in doubt unless there is a record somewhere that it was checked. Even a minute or two fast or slow would have interesting implications for the Mitre Square murder.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4314
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 7:25 pm: |
|
The reason for Pearly Poll flunking in her ability to point out any of the soldier was probably intentional due to fear of reprocussions, especially if soldiers belonged to her regular clientel. Clearly she was scared and didn't want to get involved.
However, Ben, I think you are making too much out of the witness descriptions. They are just too vague in oder to be labeled as 'coincidences'. They could fit any man in East End and they really contain nothing out of the ordinary. Cloth cap was one of the most common headgears of the working class, long into the 20th century, and what else have we got? Moustache? Dark clothes?
Hmmm....
That being said, I agree on that Tumblety, for example, is very unlikely since he is simply too far off from any of the descriptions we have in connection the murders of Eddowes and Stride. D'Onston doesn't seem to fit either. But that of course is depending on the fact that some of the witnesses actually DID see Jack the Ripper, which we can't be 100% sure of.
However, I do believe that the couple seen in Church Passage might have been Eddowes and the actual killer, I see little reason to doubt that, considering the time frame, although Don is correct in pointing out that the timings from different witnesses are difficult to rely on and probably only the watches of the doctors or the PC:s can be trusted with some kind of accuracy.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on January 08, 2006)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4315
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 8:17 pm: |
|
Another thing, Ben...
In my experience, quite a lot of people are not very keen in getting involved in a murder case and it is certainly very common that people are very reluctant to come forward in such a context just as there are cranks and weirdos who loves it.
A prostitute might not care, who knows, although I personally believe many would consider it bad for business to be publicly involved in such a serious police matter and apparently Pearly Poll also seems to have been.
But more importantly, a CLIENT...? What if he's married etc.? Yeah right, like he would agree to come forward and 'clear his name'.
Of course, they could have been an 'ordinary' couple and not prostitute and client and that would put things in a different light.
But I personally believe it was Eddowes and either some kind of aquaintance or her killer (we actually have no proof of that she was a prostitute).
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1337
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 8:26 pm: |
|
Hi Ben:
In the case of Connally, the police went around to George Street after finding out Tabram lived there. During this inquiry,its probable that the police,upon finding out from a third party/other resident of the lodging house Tabram lived in and that Poll and Martha were friends,requested that should they see Connally,they wanted her down at the station. Yes,she went through all the procedures...but maybe only after the police were made aware of her friendship with Tabram....because as Don and Glenn remarked,she did miss the August 10th appointment.....
In the case of Cox...you got me. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 942
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 9:11 pm: |
|
Howard,
In the case of Mary Ann Cox she had little to lose. She did admit she was an "unfortunate," but her testimony had nothing to do with her soliciting anyone. Simply what she saw and heard in the Court. Doubtless everyone, including the police, knew her profession and she could only be arrested in the act of soliciting. Now her testimony and that of other admitted prostitutes living in the Court might have made McCarthy uncomfortable, however.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1103
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 08, 2006 - 10:59 pm: |
|
Hi Tom,
I thought you were the one who wanted to see a full debate on the issues RJ raised, and now you're joking that the responses are too long?
Yeah, I suppose those of us raised on MTV have shorter attention spans than normal. Let's summarize then:
For six months or so RJ Palmer has been running around these boards accusing Wolf Vanderlinden of knowingly distorting evidence and presenting false information as if it were true (and also accusing me of knowingly taking part) but wouldn't back his accusations up with any specifics. Under pressure by several posters in this thread, he finally gives his argument, and ends up accusing Wolf of being deceptive and wrong when he said Tumblety lived at a specific hotel at the time that a known con man had claimed he saw the legendary uteruses in jars at another location portrayed as his home. Wolf replies by saying Stewart Evans' book on Tumblety backs him up on that. RJ then distorted what Wolf said by claiming that Wolf only got it from Tumblety's autobiography. Wolf repeats that he got it from Stewart's book, and also points out that there is independent confirmation of this fact in city records. Tumblety was indeed living at a hotel at the time in question, and thus the known con man's story about uteruses in jars and so forth cannot be true. This conclusion now confirms the earlier suspicions by two independent expert authors on that con man's life who have no bone to pick in any Ripper argument, and who RJ insulted the professional reliability of because they didn't have years of experience studying the Ripper case, missing the point entirely (probably intentionally) that it was that non-involvement that made their conclusions more reliable.
How's that? I guess by the original MTV standards that was still quite long. Here's an even shorter summation then:
RJ was caught doing the very things he's been (repeatedly, loudly and falsely) accusing other people of doing. An apology for the attempt to ruin other people's professional reputations through unsupported and deceptive charges would seem to be in order.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Chief Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 551
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 12:47 am: |
|
This is why I generally avoid suspect discussions. They turn personal very quickly. Yeah, RJ was way off on his accusations against Wolf and I remember having called him on that. My recommendation was - and is - to shake hands (electronically speaking), let by-gones be by-gones, and debate the information and evidence at hand. A casual reader has to sift through all the animosity and accusations to get to the good stuff.
And if RJ did apologize for his aspertions, what then?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. And are some specimens in jars - 23 years before the murders - really the be-all end-all in the argument for Tumblety? |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 307
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 4:12 am: |
|
Caz,
I do not need a programme.All I need is for you or anyone else,to supply information,that Tumblety or someone else of your choosing,had an opportunity to enter Kelly's room that night,when the only information to hand,is that a Jewish person was already there,and was not reported to have left previous to her killing and mutilation.
A simple request. |
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 166
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 10:44 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
However vague we might consider the witness descriptions to have been, we cannot ignore the overwhelming preponderance of sightings which refer to a man of 5"5 to 5"7 in height, around 30 years of age, and of stout build.
Certainly, the descriptions are hardly sufficient for us to pinpont any particular suspect. Indeed the above description may be deemed applicable to a any number of East End men, but should we dismiss as mere "coicidence" the fact that a man of this generic appearance (30, stout, 5"6ish) was seen in the company of soon-to-be-murdered women? I would suggest not.
We very rarely hear of any middle-aged or post-adolescent men in these witness statements, and we never hear of anyone over 5"9 in height. Again, one cannot help but attach significance to this.
I would respectufully disagree with your observation that: (The descriptions) could fit any man in East End
They couldn't fit any man. They couldn't, for example, fit a sixty year old with a prolific white beard, and they certainly couldn't fit Francis Tumblety. The belief that Tumblety was Jack the Ripper is predicated on the notion that NONE of the witness saw the ripper - not even Elizabeth Long. But is this possible? Barely. Is it likely? Absolutely no way.
Best Regards,
Ben |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4321
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 11:52 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
Nah, I believe you are missing the point. Firstly, height is a very difficult thing for people to determine, and besides age, that is one parameter that we should treat with caution. We all have our own perception of measurements.
Secondly, a lot of people are 'stout'. And what is 'stout' really? That again could fit hundreds of people in East End and could mean different things to different people.
The same goes for peaked cloth cap and dark clothes. Not to mention moustache, which nearly every guy had in the 19th century!
There is NOTHING out of the ordinary that with certainty can be said to tie the descriptions together. The only thing that sticks out as interesting is the red neckerchief mentioned by Lawende.
The rest is features that could fit a tremendous amount of men in the East End. It is just not good enough in order to draw any conclusions from - and certainly not good enough in order to call it 'coincidence' - and generally witness descriptions are one of the worst possible indicators in a criminal case, unless they corroborate each other on features that are extremely out of the ordinary.
This is all common knowledge for those who have experience in reading a lot of witness reports.
You can't use witness descriptions as an argument for anything, unless they stick out in an interesting way and corroborate each other on those points. We need more than peaked cap, moustache and dark clothes in order to be able to use that with any success in the Ripper case. I mean how many men in their 20s or 30s would you find in East End fitting such a description? 500? 700?
Now, who is the better for that, Ben?
I agree with you, though, that some of the witnesses probably DID see the Ripper - in my mind Elizabeth Long or Lawende. Or they both did - and the man wore different outfits.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 799
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Dan Norder's post, as always, seems oddly removed from reality.
"For six months or so RJ Palmer has been running around these boards accusing Wolf Vanderlinden of knowingly distorting evidence and presenting false information as if it were true.."
Slow down, fellows. Please scroll up and read my actual words less than a month ago (Dec 16th)
'I slightly criticized your colleague Wolf Vanderlinden's article is because it contained inaccuracies and drew false conclusions based on partial information. But then, I've already noted the venom in which you slur anyone who challenges your conclusions, so I pulled my punch. I won't make the same error next time. Wolf first misquoted Dunham (leaving out two qualifying words) and then compounded his error by misinterpretting the subtle meaning of the statement, and then finished-off by throwing in a completely undocumented and uncited 'fact'...that was, in reality, untrue."
That is what I wrote. Everything I said is, as far as I know, still true, and I still stand by it; nor was the tone of my statement even remotely similar to Norder's accusations above.
It's funny how the Ripperology Old Boy's Network works. Norder, on the strength of publishing a magazine somewhere east of North Dakota, can slam as many fellows as he wants. (Simon Wood, Radka, Cornwell, etc.) but tweak the tables so slightly, and the United Nations must be called in. Vanderlinden did leave out two qualifying words in Dunham's statement by an odd hacking of the sentence, (the words being "I believe"), and I think his skepticism made him throw out the baby with the bathwater in regards to Dunham, and he stated that Tumblety was staying in the Willard Hotel for which he supplied no citation in his article. He now, some months later, reveals that he has a citation from the 1862 City Directory. I will await verification. In rebuttle, I have already given my contemporary source for the boarding-house. Once again, the address at 7th Street & Pennsylvania was comprised of boarding-house, small hotels, and shops.
The broader point here, I think, is being lost. Mr. Vanderlinden's long-time schtick has been to expose how the "suspect driven theorists" contort the evidence to suit their theories. Mr. Norder has now taken up this same battle cry with a vengence, hence his rather monotonous rants about "Cornwellisms" over the past two years.
I have merely pointed out that the so-called "objective" theorists can be guilty of a similar, but often more subtle, distortion. It's a valid point and I stick to it. One of the most powerful of these distortions is the non-sequitor. Demonstrating that Dunham is a con-man is a good example. This has no bearing on their being a 'crack' in the Tumblety case. It's an absurdity to say it does. A man can sit in a pub and tell tall tales about Neville Heath all afternoon...it in no way tells you whether or not Heath was a murderer. The debunkers here are giving an illusion of having 'proven' something, when, in reality, they haven't.
If Mr. Norder is as concerned with the truth as he is with his own ego, I challenge him to finally get around to addressing my long standing question.
This is what Mr.Norder wrote on August 24, 2005.
"The press was already well used to trying to link him to the great scandals of the day." -Dan Norder.
Please scroll up for the full details of this conversation.
Has Mr. Norder found an example of this yet? If not, is he willing to retracted the statement and admit that it was a completely unfounded and unsupported distortion?
If the latter, can he hazard a guess as to what led him to make the statement?
RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on January 09, 2006) |
Thomas C. Wescott
Chief Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 553
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Hello all,
The man Schwartz saw handling (not attacking) Liz Stride was almost certainly not Jack the Ripper. This is evident not only from the likely timing of the attack, but from the man's behavior. As Lawende, he saw a couple standing at ONE OF FOUR ENTRANCES INTO MITRE SQUARE. He did not see them enter the square. He did not see either the man or woman clearly. Jack and Kate could have been going in any one of the other entrances as the men passed by this couple. So while there's the possibility that Lawende saw Jack and Kate, it is only that, a possibility. To exclude a suspect based solely on his lack of resemblance to the descriptions given for these men is careless and foolish.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 167
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Tom Wescott is hoist with his own petard. He makes brazen accusations of "foolishness", and then proceeds - in foolish fashion - to misinterpret my postion concerning Tumblety's candidacy as JTR.
I never once claimed to have "excluded" a suspect. I used the words "barely possible" in reference to Tumblety.
Ask yourself the following questions, Tom:
- Is it likely that the man observed by Elizabeth Long was not the killer of Annie Chapman?
- Is it likely that Annie Chapman overwent a growth spurt during the final minutes of her life, as would be necessary in order for her to be just "somewhat" shorter than the comparative giant, Tumblety.
Can you honestly respond in the affirmative? Say so if you think so. If not, my "barely possible" observation remains intact, and you are misguided in the scorn you heap on my position concerning Tumblety.
The skeptics may argue:
"Elizabeth Long might have erred in her estimate of the suspect's height...by a foot"
Granted, but is this likely?
When presented with a choice between a likely scenario - such as Lawende sighting JTR and Eddowes - and one which is unlikely, but not entirely impossible, which should we opt for? My humble suggestio would be to go with what is most likely.
It is likely, for example, that the Ripper's bolt-hole lay to the East of Mitre Square. This is a common sense inference based on the position of the blood-stained apron. It is unlikely that the Ripper, heading either West from his bolt-hole or North-West from Berner St, would bypass the nearest and most obvious entrance to Mitre Sq (Church Passage) and make an uneccesary perambulation to the other side, entering from the Western perimiter.
Church Passage would have been the nearest entrance, which neatly corresponds not only with Lawende's sighting, but with the most obvious route from Bishopsgate Police Station to Aldgate. Heading West down Bishopsgate St, then taking a left onto eith Houndsditch or Camomile St and down towards Aldgate High Street, Eddowes' nearest entrance to Mitre Sq. would ALSO have been Church Passage.
Is it likely, then, that two individuals, coming from seperate directions, would scorn the easy option of the closest AND most secluded entrance to Mitre SQ, prefering instead to make a circuitous perambulation to the Western Perimiter. Is it likely that at some point during this deeply random stroll, another woman, with very similar wearing apparel should commnence chatting with a stranger on the other side? No way.
Now, who still thinks that the man and woman observed by Lawende were anyone other than JTR and Eddowes respectively? Hands up!
(Message edited by BenH on January 09, 2006) |
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 168
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 3:19 pm: |
|
Okay okay, we have St. James' Place to the North, BUT as the ripper had entered Aldgate from the East or North-East, he would not have encountered Eddowes had she made the made the inexplicable decision to head into St. James Place where the client pickings would surely be slim.
(Message edited by BenH on January 09, 2006)
(Message edited by BenH on January 09, 2006) |
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 169
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 3:33 pm: |
|
I mean, of course, SOUTH-East in my post above. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3521
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Who says the person observed by Long was the killer
what is the evidence?
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." - Winston Churchill
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 800
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 7:21 pm: |
|
Mr. Vanderlinden - Tread very carefully. Here's what you wrote on Saturday:
"An interesting piece of information was e-mailed to me after my last post by someone who posts on the Casebook. I won’t mention his name because who would want to be dragged into your little web of slander and deceit? He told me, Mr. Palmer, that Tumblety’s address is listed in the Washington City Directory for 1862....
But what does the Washington City Directory for 1862 say? Any guess Mr. Palmer? Any at all? The City Directory, I was told, lists Tumblety’s address as THE WILLARD HOTEL"
Unless, I am very much mistaken, I have a photocopy of the Directory in question. Unfortunately, it is in storage at the moment, but I will get to it as soon as possible.
In the meantime, here's an interesting post by Mr. Riordan, dated Feb. 11th, 2005, 1:28 p.m.:
"In fact, all of Tumblety’s advertisements and the city directory show his office on Pennsylvania Ave – no where near H Street."
It seems we have a little enigma, Mr. Vanderlinden. It seems rather odd that a City Directory would list hotel guests, by I will get back to you within two weeks.
Now, instead of distorting my position, perhaps you should spend some time in explaining to your editor the difference between a primary and a secondary source. His last posts shows he has some confusion on that point. The quote from Evans & Gainey's book was clearly a reference to Tumblety's pamphlet. Please don't blame those gentlemen for your own research. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on January 09, 2006) |
BH
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 09, 2006 - 6:57 pm: |
|
Hello all,
Ben Holme here. Forgive my constant misspelling of the word "perimeter". I wrote in haste!
Is anyone else experiencing password-related woes, or have I been given the boot? |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2090
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 4:58 am: |
|
*Monty raises hand*
Ben,
The possibility that the couple seen by Lawende outside Church Passage was not Jack and Eddowes is fairly high.
The 'Prostitutes Island' of St Boltophs was only yards away from that very same spot and sightings of couples around that area was not uncommon.
Whilst I concede the possibility the couple were indeed Jack and Catherine it cannot be taken for granted that they were.
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
