|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 86
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 7:35 pm: |       |
I am very interested in the first rumours that emerged in late 19th century London about the J t R being a conspiracy. I have some evidence, but it would be really interesting to know as much as possible. No spoilers please, just positive ideas and what you know. I'd be most grateful for this.
Thanks in advance for the help. |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 691
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 8:28 pm: | |
The first conspiracy rumour I know of appeared in a periodical named the Topical Times sometime in October and took the form of a letter to that publication reading:
I believe the cowardly assassinations to be the work of Irish American desperadoes, and that they are committed solely for the sake of showing that atrocities in England, or rather in London, are just as possible as they are in Ireland.
I know this isn't the conspiracy you were hoping for, but to the best of my knowledge there were no rumours of any kind of a conspiracy regarding the Royals or the Masons until well into the twentieth century.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 90
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 6:37 am: | |
There were indeed very early royal-association rumours and inuendoes, picked up by Sir Conan Doyle who extrapolated them for his story, when he was writing for the Strand magazine. I'd love to hear more about them.
The Irish in London late 1900 are an interesting lot, aswell. I'm hoping for no answer in particular! :-)
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
The Royalty and Masonic conspiracy theory didn't appear until the latter half of the twentieth century. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 1:54 am: | |
Although technically a conspiracy exists where 2 or more people are involved, I don't think that in the case of JtR we should mix up:
a) ideas about "royal", masonic or other conspiracies; and
b)possible links to terrorism - the possible Fenian (Irish) connection.
To do so risks losing accuracy and causing confusion. For instance a "cover-up" might be associated with both types of action, but would have totally different motives. In the first, protection of the establishment or prominent individuals; in the second more directly "political" reasons, such as seeking to manage public opinion so that negotiations can continue.
Too much in Ripper studies is made more difficult by a lack of clear analysis and of detailed identification, assessment and cataloguing of evidence. We also need to pay close and accurate attention to the period, its personalities and politics, economics and issues. This provides all-important context but it requires us to hold back from leaping to conclusions or seizing any stray piece of information and lumping it into a general and often anachronistic argument.
I'll admit that I am happy to consider a Fenian angle, where I am totally sure that no masonic or royal conspiracy existed. But that is based on my knowledge of the background and pre-occupations of men such as Munro and Anderson; the Irish terrorist incidents of the 1880s; and the existence of knives that have been associated with both Phoenix Park and JtR.
On that basis, I believe Alan Sharp's very interesting press report from Topical Times - of which I was previously unaware, and for which I am grateful - should relate to my category (b); rather than just being considered support for a "conspiracy".
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 9:36 am: | |
...Sir Conan Doyle... extrapolated them for his story, when he was writing for the Strand magazine.
So Kitty, the scourge of sloppy researchers, now uses extrapolation from fiction as source material? Well, it shows where your standards are girl (lower than I can stoop, certainly) - and Conan Doyle's fiction is probably more reliable than some of your own assertions.
I'd love to hear more about them.
The Irish in London late 1900 are an interesting lot...[My italics.]
Do you mean late nineteenth century? If so say so. or does late 1900 mean what it says? if so, its a little late for JtR isn't it? Just how confused are you?
Your evident lack of any sort of recognisable education (words and now dates) certainly explains a lot about your crazy approach to anything approaching scholarship. |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 121
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 8:34 am: | |
Dear Phil,
I am academically qualified, but that is my own concern.
Thanks to those who contributed, for the interesting contributions. What is coming across is that this is an under-researched area.
It has recently been established that I've asked for people to cease insulting me personally because they disagree with what they think is my angle on matters ( which incidentally I haven't revealed.) |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 122
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 8:49 am: | |
I admit I capriciously provoked discussion about a contraversial area, but that is not a reason to insult me personally.
I would be very interested in intelligable ideas on Fenian activity, it is a demanding research area of great interest to an able few. |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 699
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 9:09 am: | |
Hi Phil
There is a fair amount of information about the Fenians and the Irish "backdrop" to the crimes in the book (plug, plug, plug), so hopefully I've just won myself another customer (ulp, only just over five weeks till it's on the shelves and I haven't finished compiling the index yet! Scary!)
However it is an area I intend to develop further and hopefully provide a lot more information on at a later date.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1548
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 9:26 am: | |
Alan,
ahh your book. Remind me when is that out. it isn't long is it?
Jenni
ps it keeps sounding better and better!
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 407
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 3:44 pm: | |
Hi Alan,
You've got yourself another customer, 'cause I'm looking forward to your book as well!
Best wishes for 2005, by the way.
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1366
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 3:56 pm: | |
Me too Alan.Congratulations,looking forward to reading up the research in it as well as your thoughts on those matters.
Natalie |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 132
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 4:21 pm: | |
It will be fun to read, Alan. What's the book called? |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 704
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 4:45 pm: | |
Details are here. I still don't have a UK distributor so it will only be in the shops in Ireland, but Amazon will be selling it, as will Loretta Lay.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 136
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 4:53 pm: | |
Alan, it looks really super, and a great help. Long overdue on the shelves. 'Blimmin' well done, if I may say so. Many thanks. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 10:41 am: | |
Kitty - the only "insults" are those related to your frequently erroneous statements, allied to the complete lack of sustaining evidence which you provide, or the many indications that you are under-read in a subject on which you claim to be some sort of an expert!! - see the comments on Fenians below from Alan). By the way, I assume from your frequent difficulties with vocabulary that your academic qualifications clearly did not include English grammar. Something of a bar to post-graduate degrees in my experience!! Are you surprised that I question your bona fides?
You admit to being capricious, and to having given no clues to your angle, but you expect to be taken on trust and your failings overlooked. You give nothing, reject the hard-achieved and explicit researches of others, yet expect us to accept your somewhat high-flown claims about your own research without providing any evidence. That's the mark of a con-man, or woman.
A bit one-sided wouldn't you say.
By the way, I am not the one who has insulted Americans generally (but generalisations like that are such an academically qualified thing to do though, aren't they?) I am not the one to have asked you to be silent or sought to ban you from a thread.
My questions - however sarcastic - have simply sought to press you into a mutuality of exchange of ideas - not the one-sided siphoning of ideas you seem to have in mind. Most of my posts have contained straight-forward questions or raised issues, which you have completely refused to respond to or engage in. My efforts have consistently been to open discussion, yours always, it seems, to close it down.
I think people are beginning to gauge what sort of poster you are Kitty. I don't give you long here. |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 142
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 11:17 am: | |
Phil,
I'm sorry you can't refrain from childish allegations and absurdities, but I am a qualified, serious researcher, and can't hang about the web chatting all day. It's certainly not my aim to hang about here often, as I am a serious researcher working full time. That's not to say the web-site doesn't 'have its moments'. There's really no need for you to keep justifying yourself to me and making accusations, I'm truly not interested. I'm not going to post my evidence on the web, but that's my discretion, a sensible descision as a qualified researcher with a genuine future. Anyone experienced would tell you the same.
You seem desparate to affirm yourself here. If the web-site here is your only hope for a future in research, then you go for it here. But you should know you're up against some very serious research. The sooner you behave appropriately, the better for you. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2680
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 11:46 am: | |
"I'm not going to post my evidence on the web, but that's my discretion, a sensible descision as a qualified researcher with a genuine future. Anyone experienced would tell you the same."
No, Kitty, you are terribly wrong.
A "serious researcher" does anything he/she can to find information that makes us understand more about the case. A number of serious researchers here -- Chris Scott, Alan Sharp, AP Wolf, Alex Chisholm etc. etc. -- have shared their information and published them here on this site, so that it is available to others.
You see, they don't put themselves first -- but their genuine need to find info about the case.
The fact that they share their information with others doesen't in itself exclude them from publishing their own stuff anyway.
If you were a serious researcher -- genuinely interested in the case (and not solely in your own career), you would have posted your source material to Stephen and this website.
The fact that you don't do this, just shows that you are NOT interested in the case, but only in yourself.
You don't know the meaning of the expression "serious researcher", Kitty, so please don't put such nonsense in your mouth -- that is just pathetic. You are no better than anyone else here, and your "unique" source material or "evidence" doesen't weigh heavier than others.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 04, 2005)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 145
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 11:54 am: | |
No, it's my descision to be discreet. That's a respectable decision.
That's all.
Got to go.
Chill. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 1:30 pm: | |
...I am a qualified, serious researcher, and can't hang about the web chatting all day. It's certainly not my aim to hang about here often, as I am a serious researcher working full time...I'm not going to post my evidence on the web, but that's my discretion, a sensible descision as a qualified researcher with a genuine future. Anyone experienced would tell you the same.
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much!"
Who are you trying to convince, Kitty?? Yourself?
There's really no need for you to keep justifying yourself to me...
When have I EVER tried to justify myself to you?
I couldn't to be honest, care a jot about your research, as nothing you have said to date makes it appear other than a childish whim - talking to East Enders!! As you have repeatedly shown your ignorance of London and British history, you undermine your own claims at every step.
As I have tried consistently to argue since I found this site, Ripper-studies needs higher standards and greater rigorousness in debate - research into the period and the society, NOT half-baked new theories.
I have sought to probe statements you have made on numerous occasions, frequently in entirely serious posts. I have set out, without an extraneous word my refutation of the conspiracy theory twice now.
You simply refuse to discuss ANYTHING. It has no connection to your research - these are genral points in the public domain with which any serious student of the Whitechapel murders should be familiar and open to engage. the impression is that you are not up to it. I sympathise with those who see something parasitical in your posts - seeking ideas to fill your own bancruptcy.
If you'll take me on argument to argument, I'll commit to dropping all personal remarks or point scoring. I'll even apologise if I have given offence. Dare you match me? |
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 190
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 3:09 pm: | |
Phil, a complaint has now gone to Stephen Ryder about your agressive and innapropriate behaviour. I don't consider you my intellectual equal, and that is why I have asked you not to approach me with your 'shouting.' it's simple. I do not wish to dialogue with you atall. Please respect the fact. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2714
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 3:27 pm: | |
Phil,
Just leave it. It doesen't lead anywhere anyway; just ignore it.
I would hate to see that anything would stop your registration process.
It is just not worth it, mate.
Take my advice and don't et this steal your energy.
The more she gets provoked, the more worse it gets and the other threads gets into trouble.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 403
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 3:47 pm: | |
People, get a grip. Can't you understand you are being "Gulled"?
At first, with the hints of evidence just waiting to be revealed, it seemed simply a case of "Radka Redux," but sadly that is not the case.
Whatever else might be said about David Radka (and much of it has), he IS a serious researcher. Moreover, although like all of us David is not as smart as he thinks he is, there is no question he is an intelligent person. Neither, however, can be said of the feline virus infecting so many threads.
It's a game. If you truly enjoy being manipulated then play the game, but I'm sure you all have better things to do.
Don.
(Message edited by supe on January 06, 2005)
"There were only three times I'd have sold my mother into slavery for a cell phone . . . and two of those would have been crank calls." |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1599
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 3:56 pm: | |
Don,
indeed you are correct. good point - well made.
Jenni
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Kitty
Inspector
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 194
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 8:50 pm: | |
Goodbye from Kitty is on the Conspiracy board. - no disrespect- some people here don't realise how abusive they come across to people who don't know them. Phil might think he comes across as innovative and sarcastic and funny, but when people read his e-mails he just comes across as hostile, shouting and rude, and so people who're used to calm and good research are just surprised at him. Way to go! He might want to know that there are more successful ways of communicating. To me he just came across as a shouting adolescent. I laugh at a guy who is genuinely funny, but to me, Phil was just an agressive failure.
Furthar, if I ask a guy to leave me alone, whether he thinks he's the 'funniest thing out' is irrelevant. If I think he's an agressive nuisance deliberately destroying discussion he should go if I've courteously asked him to leave . Anything else just isn't too clever. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 9:30 am: | |
I would point out just one - indeed, others have said it on my behalf before, I think - I don't see how I can be the subject of a complaint, when every post has been passed by management before appearing here.
If the mods had thought my behaviour inappropriate, then I assume my posts would not have been passed.
In any case, I have simply and repeatedly challenged for evidence, positive contributions, or responses from the individual concerned. I don't see anything untoward in that.
But I gather that she has now left. So, thankfully and hopefully, we can now consign the whole experience to history.
Phil |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
