|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 162
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:37 pm: | 
|
AP,
I agree with Bob as well, but I still consider this a great find. If we can find out what happened to Johnson later on in his life... who knows?
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 382
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 5:12 am: |
|
Dear A P Wolf,
I’m sorry but this is ludicrous. You produce another case involving two women and a man and say ‘ Hey look this happened here, therefore it must have happened there’. You’re getting as bad as old Nunners.
The facts of the Johnson case are what we have read through the newspaper articles, and I’m sorry but unless there is anything else to go on these, to my mind at least, describe an attempt by two prostitutes to roll a drunk. If you think otherwise that’s fine, your interpretation is obviously different from mine – but to insist only your interpretation can be correct is silly. Could I be wrong? Of course – but based on the evidence presented so far, the newspaper cuttings, I don’t think I am.
Apart from the name there is nothing to connect Johnson ‘Knifeman’ to Johnson ‘boatman’. There is nothing to say Johnson ‘knifeman’ was American.
If you think otherwise then please present your reasons for doing so, but simply saying ‘Oh well they’re both called Johnson’ is not really convincing.
Bob
PS What death penalty are you talking about?
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2511
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:24 am: |
|
By posting these inspired finds AP has shown us how such events unfolded and some of the social,physical and psychological factors that pertained to such cases.
Its not all about dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s .
The type of imaginative insights AP allows by posting such cases are just as important to our understanding of the case as punctilious details. |
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 13
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 9:27 am: |
|
I must admit AP you are indeed grasping at straws here and need to take a closer look at the British judicial system I think.
As I said earlier.The first case you put forward was before a magistrate,the second case had already been before the magistrate and was sent before the crown.
The first one would NOT have been hung because he did not rob anyone,and I know us english are a tad barbaric but we dont hang men for pushing women over,at the BEST he could have been charged with common assault.The magistrate was in obvious agreement and decided there was no case to answer.
In the second case the evidence is found in the house,the magistrate can not hand out a death penalty and see's a case to answer so he sends it before the crown - guilty as charged.
'A good plan violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan executed next week' - George S. Patton
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 9:42 am: |
|
I agree with you Nats, but I think AP does himself a slight disservice by putting any sort of spin on events before his wonderful finds - the actual reports - are posted. The 'large knife', for instance, that plays a dramatic part in AP's intro to the case, turns out to have no supporting evidence for its existence.
AP also tends to try and lead his readers in a certain direction, where he might do better just to let the stories tell themselves, and let his readers decide whether any useful comparisons can be made with the Whitechapel attacks.
Love,
Caz
X |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2701
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
|
There were no ‘promises’ made, nor have any conclusions been reached, that is apart from a few here who have reached their own conclusions a long, long time before me.
I believe Caz was the only person to see my true interest in this double event, that it was simply a double event - according to the witnesses - and thereby very valuable as an insight into the concept of the same man attacking Stride and Eddowes in such a short space of time.
This is a concept that I have long struggled with, and for me the case was pivotal in my understanding of the original double event.
It is merely interesting that I was able to find a JJ involved in the deaths of two young girls six years before the JJ double event.
No more than that.
I agree that I often shoot from the hip, and fire bullets wide off target, but every now and then I get one right in the eye.
I'm still very pleased with this thread and am enjoying the debate and discussion, even when a lot of the comments are hostile, at least I'm stood here with my foot on the line in the sand and I'm not hiding behind the petticoats of publication.
|
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 16
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Hey AP 
I'm never hostile honest and I think your work is stunning, mainly because it shows the violence that was ingrated among the poorer denizens of the East End of London in the LVP.
I did get the double event pointer but addmitedly I've never had much of a problem with our man doing two in one night,Kurten killed two in one night on more than one occasion,so did the Hillside Stranglers,so did Lucas etc etc.
What does it for me AP is that the men on the ground in 1888 thought Stride was a Ripper victim and he was disturbed at this work AND, wether you know it or not, you have gone a long way in showing that the officers of the time must have had some reason, other than the fact Eddowes was killed later, for seperating Liz Stride from the usual and placing her among the un-usual.
Sterling work.
'A good plan violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan executed next week' - George S. Patton
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2702
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 1:25 pm: |
|
I don’t know what haystack you guys seem to think I fell out of, but at least the girls understand what I’m trying to do with this other unrelated case.
You chaps are having a laugh aren’t you?
Come on, guys, this can’t possibly be serious, that you think me unable to distinguish between different courts of law etc. and so on and so forth.
The reason I put the other unrelated case up was to show similar examples and circumstances to those we dwell on now, from a behavioural and emotional viewpoint rather than a legal or criminal viewpoint.
And to demonstrate a few simple facts:
That questioning the credibility of a prostitute witness simply because she was a prostitute was unsound practice in the LVP and today.
Many were doing that very thing on this site.
That two prostitutes could also be friends without that harming the credibility of their evidence to the police or court when both prostitutes were involved in the same criminal event.
Much was made of this fact in the JJ case, and I was told that I was stretching credibility to believe that the two girls were not somehow involved in a robbery scam, and that because they simply were friends.
I wanted to demonstrate that this was a patently false view.
I did.
That a man who had knocked a prostitute down - for theft in this case - implicated himself by running away from the scene of the crime.
He did.
That if the beads had not been found in the man’s house then he would have likely been acquitted on the strength of his own defence.
Which was exactly the same defence you chaps give to JJ.
Simple little things that are so important.
I don’t mind a bit of honest criticism - and there has been some of that around here - but I ain’t happy with this constant nit-picking and these thinly disguised attempts to portray my good self as some kind of bumbling village idiot who just fell out of the stack.
I already apologised for my habit of shooting from the hip, but with so many cowboys around I think a gunslinger is keenly required.
I think what really jibes some folk around here is that I do not follow the usual and widely accepted method of research which involves finding and then keeping information in a secretive manner, sitting on it for months - years in some cases - while it is worked up into some kind of orgiastic feast of selfish and self congratulatory journalistic hype, and then having it published in one of the Rip Rags to the thunderous applause of about five old Ripposaurs.
And if anyone genuinely tries to discuss the finished article after publication, they are beaten with cricket bats and told that the author of the article does not ‘debate here anymore’.
Self-seeking, selfish, self- gratifying, supercilious but most of all disrespectful to the community as a whole.
I see nothing professional in a method of distributing information that relies on an old boy’s club and a few selective rags.
This is the real world here, this is fast and it is furious with its constant peer pressure. The things I float on this site are designed to prompt and promote discussion amongst an entire community, not just a few sad old men who refuse outright to discuss or debate their findings because they want to keep the old boy’s club exclusive; and they believe that they exist on a higher plane than us mere savages because they are ‘published’ now.
I launch - and re-launch - information as fast as I can fire the rockets, and at a rate that has a visible effect on the community as a whole, and I will continue to do so simply because the old men sitting on all this information do not appear to be able to deal with that information in a community spirit.
This is a war of progress, and it is a war I intend to win.
|
Guy de la Roche Dacqoz
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 9:53 am: |
|
Hello everybody,
I do think that historically speaking the case brought up by Mr AP Wolf is interesting indeed.
To say that he gets "as bad as old Nunners" whatever this means seems a bit of a hard comparison (at least by the tone it is said I mean).
It shows two prostitutes having some kind of "difficulties" with one guy right in the middle of the Ripper affair (in time and quite in space).
Now, as we know, prostitues were agressed and killed in this affair.
Still, being quite a newbie (bee?) may I ask the following question:
putting aside for one moment the condition of "unfortunate" of those two women,what could possibly be the link between the event which concerns them on the previous night of the "double-event" and the mysterious Whitechapel affair in seing them attacked by a man ?
Mr Bob Hinton, your questions are really thoroughful to say the least.
Indeed there seems to be nothing to connect Johnson "knifeman" to Johnson "boatman", and maybe even less to connect Johnson "mate" with Jack "man" but would it not be more accurate to begin wondering what could link Jack "man" (Johnson "mate" or not) with the mysterious Whitechapel affair as a whole ?
Mr AP Wolf has stepped one step further from the start in a given direction.
Why do you seem to agree with him on that point ?
Thanks for any answer.
Greatly appreciated.
Guillaume de la Roche Dacqoz de Vignancourt (please, no formality, just call me Guillaume de la Roche Dacqoz)
|
Guy de la Roche Dacqoz
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
Mrs Caroline Anne Morris,
there is I think no sin in trying to lead readers in one way or another.
Indeed this is what has been ever done in this mysterious affair.
Mr Leonard Matters did it (rationalizing some kind of vengeance in the motive of the case), Mr Donald McCormick did it (letting the facts absorbed by, and with difficulty, some kind of political foreign plot), Mr Stephen Knight did it (swallowing in the story an anglo-britsh political plot), Mr Fido, Evans, Hinton, Wolf and many others pouring down in the middle of the story the figure of the maniac.
There is absolutely no way they could have wrote a book telling a story without trying to lead in the direction of their conception of the case.
This must be the rule of the game.
It is anyway the only one I can conceive.
The result they obtain suffices at the end to speak for them and thei lead.
And there, there is no way to lead the reader.
If the result is good, then it is good.
If it is not good, then it is bad.
Of course we should convene about what is "good" and what is "bad", but this is not here our "propos" (excuse my "foreignity").
As far as I am concerned to lead the reader is an appropriate thing.
We might call it "dynamicizing" the case
The only way to be constructive.
Is it not?
Thank you Mrs Morris (without any acrimony of course).
Guillaume de la Roche Dacqoz. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 4:15 am: |
|
Mike,
If we can find out what happened to Johnson later on...
Perhaps the newspaper cutting I posted earlier ("The American arrested on Weds evening was released yesterday" - Times, 5th Oct 1888) offers some immediate answer to that. Could it have been that Johnson was brought in for questioning on Wednesday, 3rd October, in connection with the "Double Event" itself? Has anyone established who the "American" referred to by the Times report was?
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 164
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Gareth,
I read that, and it seems possible, maybe probable, but I'm wondering about Johnson further down the road. Was he a decent, gainfully employed, married sort, or did he get committed, or something like that? I think we'll have our hands full trying to isolate a James Johnson. Where I'm from, Johnson is the most common name, with perhaps Anderson second.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2513
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 5:48 pm: |
|
Returning to AP"s post tonight[no 2702].
There was so much of value in these postings but taking the first case where the credibility of a prostitute was certainly doubted and questioned leads me to understand some of the possible reasons why Jack the Ripper was never caught.
Bob [Hinton ]writes:..."two prostitutes...accuse a man,a man apparently of steady employment and good character,of a violent assault...."
and this apparently is sufficient to "dismiss" the very notion that this man must be anything but innocent!
Hang on-wasnt David Radar, the recently identified and notorious BTK,of "impeccable"character?
with impeccable credentials:
- a church leader
- a boy scout master
- engaged in "highly respectable"employment
as a local "law enforcer"?
Wasnt Peter Sutcliffe,also, our very own,home grown, UK, Yorkshire Ripper ,also in
- a "respectable marriage,living in a "very" respectable,neat and tidy house and engaged in regular,respectable employment?
WTF has being in "respectable employment" ever had to do with violent attacks on women Bob,throughout the history of violent and murderous attacks on women?
AP"s attempts to uncover correspondences between elements of these two cases is entirely
legitimate and laudable in my view and actually does recognise the susceptibility of both groups to misrepresentation in the justice system and in the press.
Natalie
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 408
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
AP,
Been out of circulation for a while. Just wanted to say it is always a pleasure to read your stuff. I do see where you are going, and damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead!
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2705
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 6:28 pm: |
|
My dear Baron Guillaume de la Roche Dacqoz de Vignancourt, got any quality brandy you want to share?
Do you mind if I call you Daco?
Natalie, you make all the points that I wanted to make, and better too!
Helge, I plan to take no prisoners.
Enough is enough, the post from Vanderlino on another thread where he refuses dialogue has persuaded me to launch the dogs of war.
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 170
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 7:32 pm: |
|
AP,
Hey! Don't lump me into Guillaume's title. I'm no frogeater! Besides, I complimented you on your find.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 20
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 9:28 pm: |
|
Hello Natalie,great post.
It does seem to have been an alarming habit of the Met to free basically anyone who had a job,a home and a wife, in fact,in light of this, Macnaughten & Andersons writings become clear - no 'respectable' man would do these things so it HAD to be a lunatic.
They did not know then what we know now however, evil very often hides behind respectability and insanity can appear as normal as daylight.
Given a choice would you be Monty Burns and have the money or would you be Homer Simpson & have Marges love?
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 987
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 3:20 am: |
|
AP, as I have often said, you are one of the people doing original work on and around the JtR case, who make these board truely and uniquely valuable. Your sharing of information and insights, your generosity in allowing us to enjoy some of the excitement of exploring and examing new information to eke out its potential relevance, is much appreciated by me.
The internet offers new ways of intellectual and academic co-operation, and this is an example of that for me.
Thank you and long may you continue.
I have not participated much in this thread so far because I have been away, and because I am still trying to absorb all the implications of this new "find". But that does not mean I am very interested.
Long may you continue, AP.
Phil |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 383
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 6:58 am: |
|
Dear Natalie,
I’m afraid you seem to be misunderstanding what I am writing – either deliberately or by accident.
Part of your post reads:
Bob [Hinton ]writes:..."two prostitutes...accuse a man,a man apparently of steady employment and good character,of a violent assault...."
and this apparently is sufficient to "dismiss" the very notion that this man must be anything but innocent!
Of course it is! If the only information you have is that which you’ve outlined above then you must assume the man is innocent. It’s called Presumption of Innocence and is a cornerstone of our justice system. Simply trotting out a list of people who were originally thought to have no connection with various cases is pointless. They were still presumed innocent until credible evidence was discovered to show otherwise.
What is the alternative? Assume that every person of good character and with absolutely no credible evidence against him is automatically guilty?
I think the problem here is that you seem to think this is a case of Men against Women. It’s not. It’s simply a case of two disreputable characters making a complaint against a reputable character with absolutely no supporting evidence to back up their claim.
What an investigator would do in this case is to ask himself ‘Is there any other set of circumstances that would fit this scenario?’ Of course there is – two prostitutes trying to roll a drunk!
Let me ask you a question. Why are you so convinced that this man is guilty? Don’t you accept the possibility that he might not be?
Let us put this another way. Two drunken sailors accost a nurse hurrying home from her work late at night and try to rape her. She fights them off injuring one of them and makes her escape. The sailors realising she will probably go to the police start screaming out that they have been attacked. The running nurse is stopped by a police officer and relates her tale.
Now according to you we must automatically believe the sailors and not the nurse. Why?
I’ve stated previously that I am quite willing to accept that I might be wrong – however on the information I have I don’t think I am.
Bob
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1549
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Bob
There are too many people on these boards who believe that if something is less than conclusively proved, then the opposite must be the case.
If you "dismiss" the very notion that this man must be anything but innocent - as you seem to accept - that's very different from saying that you don't think his guilt is proved.
Presumption of innocence is an important legal principle, but it has nothing to do with innocence being proved when a person is found not guilty. All that means is that the high standard of proof of guilt has not been met.
Chris Phillips
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 971
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 9:31 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
And then there's people like you who believe any old thing you like regardless of evidence and then complain when the evidence shows your side to almost certainly be wrong.
Same thing here. The odds that these two women roommates with reputations for pulling scams just happened to be assaulted by a guy with a sterling reputation and a knife that magically disappears on separate incidents the same night is astronomically low. I mean, use some common sense here.
It's one thing to bring up new reports, it's another thing completely to bring up old reports and twist the facts around on them so that they are completely unrecognizable (no wonder people think they are new!) as the stories we already heard about.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1551
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 10:03 am: |
|
Dan
If you could do me the courtesy of actually reading my post, you would see that I haven't said I "believe" anything here.
I don't know what your problem is, but I do not find it acceptable that you make continual accusations of "twisting" evidence, of "lying" and "deception", without producing proper evidence to back it up.
Whenever you submit a post, you see a request as follows:
If you feel your post may contain objectionable material, please edit it now
Please act accordingly. The same rules apply to you as to other people.
Chris Phillips
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2516
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 11:37 am: |
|
Hi Everybody,
Bob,
I will respond later.I think though that we will just have to agree to disagree!
Nats |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2706
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Thanks for all the positive comments folks, especially Phil, much appreciated.
Now, just to really throw the cat in amongst the pigeons, I have found ‘a’ James Johnson involved in a fracas in a brothel in Oxford Street in 1893.
This James Johnson accompanied two women to this house of ‘ill-repute’ , was promptly robbed and then thrown out of the brothel by the ‘husbands’ of the two women.
The case was tried by the ‘County of London Sessions’ on January 30th 1893, and one of the women involved received 12 months hard labour for her trouble.
I ain’t saying a word… yet.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2518
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Hi Bob,
If you read the last lines of my post [no 2513]you will see that I acknowledge "the susceptibility of BOTH groups to "misrepresentation"
in the Justice system and the press-and so it appears does AP.
You are mistaken too if you believe I see this case as a simple case of" men against women".I do not see it like this.In fact I suspect both the accused and the accusers had a lot more in common than either had with the Law Lords of the Crown.
What I see is a deeply flawed social and judicial system,which treated its most vulnerable ,most dispossessed and destitute citizens -usually the women and children of the "abyss"- with complete contempt.
Ask yourself,before you tell me whether I was supporting women against men ,a simple question. Whose laws were these?Whose interests were always protected?
Don"t tell me I should understand the Laws of Parliamentry Democracy because women didnt even have a vote!
Natalie
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2520
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 5:51 pm: |
|
To Steve Swift,
Thanks Steve,Lets keep on questioning the Status Quo-especially of the LVP!Lets keep the real flag flying!
All the Best
Natalie
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 830
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 8:34 pm: |
|
We have no proof that JJ was anything but a slightly less than wonderful person at this point.
We can
1) announce that since we have no evidence of guilt we must stop looking into this individual immediately. After all, in the absence of obvious current proof it is a waste to pursue any farther.
2) Withhold judgment and keep looking for information. I prefer the second. Now what follows is pure imagination and I only present it to make a point. Suppose AP finds out that JJ immigrated to Australia and settled in a remote village in the Outback somewhere. Following his arrival, four women on four separate occasions are found murdered and mutilated in that village. If we had followed option one we would never know that. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 972
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 11:16 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Why is it just after you get done making very obvious attacks on specific people and then all they do is respond, you go running and complaining about how personal attacks aren't allowed?
Do everyone a favor and follow the rules yourself and stop following certain editors around to attack them in direct and not-so-thinly veiled comments. You're getting to be just about as bad as Radka now.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1553
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 4:37 am: |
|
Dan
You need to give these endless accusations against me a break.
As you can see, I have not made an "attack" on anyone in this thread.
And my response to Bob Hinton had nothing to do with you. (In think you need to get your own place in the scheme of things into slightly more accurate proportion.)
So. I've asked you about a dozen times now. Please cut out the offensive personal stuff.
Chris Phillips
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 384
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 7:58 am: |
|
Natalie,
I’m confused. You say in your last post that you do not see this as a simple ‘case of men against women’
You then go ahead and say
‘deeply flawed social and judicial system,which treated its most vulnerable ,most dispossessed and destitute citizens -usually the women….’
And further on
‘Don"t tell me I should understand the Laws of Parliamentry Democracy because women didnt even have a vote!’
I don’t actually remember mentioning ‘Laws of Parliamentary Democracy’ let alone insisting you understand them!
I’m sorry but that sure sounds like you are making this a war between men and women!
The nasty men make the laws therefore women needn’t obey them!
Bob
|
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 29
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 8:16 am: |
|
Hello Bob
The nasty men make the laws therefore women needn’t obey them!
Changed too,
The nasty men make the laws therefore women HAVE to obey them otherwise they get a jolly good thrashing!
and I guess you'd just about have Victorian Britain in a nutshell.
Mr Norder,Phillips,Radka et al - seriously,you folks need to sort out your personal differences elsewhere instead of peppering the pages of these boards time and again with this nonesense.I mean HOW old are you?
Jog on
Steve.
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2522
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
Diana[re above post]excellent points with which I fully agree.
Steve,
thanks again and
thanks for the emphasis----
Bob,
re the laws of parliamentary democracy
I asked you a question
-Who made these laws?
the usual answer is
- whichever Prime Minister/Home Secretary -whoever was in office to oversee the bill/act whatever which passed them[ie through the usual Act of Parliament/House of Lords etc and I was merely pointing out that such laws could hardly have been arrived at through a process of parity with regard women,since women didnt even have a vote in the LVP and before.
But I am in fact perfectly happy to add men into that particular phrase you selected ,so that it reads [re the the judicial system and the LVP]
"What I see is a deeply flawed social and judicial system,which treated its most vulnerable, disposessed and destitute citizens- usually the men,women and children[and this final bit is important]
"of the abyss"-with complete contempt".
That is what I actually believe and I will stick by that.
Can I again ask you-Whose interests were always protected?
Natalie
ps Some of these laws ofcourse go back to the Magna Carta - especially those relating to property.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3077
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
Er Hi chaps.
There are lot of things being said here that may or may not belong on the Boards.Mind you a bit of healthy discussion never hurt anyone did it!!?? ...
Suzi
Never trust a man,who if left alone in a room with a tea-cosy would be able to resist the temptation of trying it on!
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3078
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 10:49 am: |
|
RIGHT
Have been reading and re-reading this thread!
It seems that we've come some way from AP picking up her cat and hurling it amongst the unsuspecting pigeons!!!
At the end of the day JJ seems not to have been the most likeable,(although 'respectable' enough ),of characters,prone to frequenting the shadier areas of the 'fair city' and obviously prepared to 'knife' his way out if things didn't go to plan.
However there is NOTHING apart from this propensity to link him to anything more sinister.....
I can't help but think that to be 'rolled' by these two girls was all in his days(nights) work and apart from the knifing.........not a lot to REALLY report there though in Whitechapel 1888!!
Suz
Never trust a man,who if left alone in a room with a tea-cosy would be able to resist the temptation of trying it on!
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 177
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
What I learned here is that men were the victims of these evil prostitutes, and JTR was probably doing what he did in self-defense, but he got a bit carried away. And who could blame him after all the nasty things these women did in the East End to men. He was avenging all the wrongs done to his fellow hairdressers, butchers, cotton merchants, poets/writers, and American mountebanks. He should be a national hero!
I do hope my tongue can be removed from my cheek after this tirade.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3080
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 11:37 am: |
|
Nats
As to the'process of parity'..an equality of station as I see it
The law today still will often (sadly) err on the side of a 'repectable' man/woman when something occurs that may be shall we say involves someone a bit 'shady'
...Nothing has changed here since the early C15th!!!!
(Reasoning here with your refs to Sutcliffe and dare I say it Kurten...all good family men!!!)
There is of course still a 'deeply flawed social system'...re Poor little Victoria...I rest my case!'
Suzi
Never trust a man,who if left alone in a room with a tea-cosy would be able to resist the temptation of trying it on!
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3081
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
Baron!!!!!!
Remove it!!!! before it's removed!!!!!!!!
Suzi
Never trust a man,who if left alone in a room with a tea-cosy would be able to resist the temptation of trying it on!
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2523
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
The systems of justice,as they pertained to the LVP, had quite a lot to do with how accuser and accused fared in such cases as that AP has brought to our attention Suzi..........
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2524
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 11:59 am: |
|
Hey Mike-I enjoyed that one- Ripper the Lionheart
of Whitechapel! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3082
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Yes Nats I know!!!!! .........
( I do hope that LVP retains to Late Victorian Period????????? it was the object of a Sunday afternoon 'what could it mean ????'session there briefly with some GREAT suggestions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Suzi
Never trust a man,who if left alone in a room with a tea-cosy would be able to resist the temptation to try it on!
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2525
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Hi again Suzi,
has Bob gone out for a walk or something?
Nats
x |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3083
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Rip Hard the Lone Heart maybe???.
OK...seriously though where were we??
Suzi
Never trust a man,who if left alone in a room with a tea-cosy would be able to resist the temptation to try it on!
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3084
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Nats
Im SURE he'll have a say at some point!!!!
Am here reading this on a Sunday afternoon and thinking how it's good to see the boards back to their usual 'Go get 'em ' self
Seriously though I do believe there's a lot being said here.well there was!!!!
Come in AP!!!!!!Calling Jersey ((????????))
Suzi
Never trust a man,who if left alone in a room with a tea-cosy would be able to resist the temptation to try it on!
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2707
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
Diana is quite right.
Why not?
Why not investigate this man’s background, as well as studying the details of this so-called ‘double event’?
And of course, Natalie, is quite right. Knitted right through this pattern is a war of the sexes, and it is about power and domination… that cannot be easily dismissed in the case of the Whitechapel Murders. Jack being the uncomfortable terrorist in this war, carrying out acts that would have received the tacit support of many males of the LVP.
But anyways, that’s a different subject.
I should say that I have sifted through about 500 police or court reports in the last couple of days, and of course there are various James Johnson’s that surface from time to time in such reports between 1880 and 1900, but it is possible to establish a pattern of offences for almost all of them.
For instance there is JJ the jewel and watch thief, who pops up every so often.
There is JJ the housebreaker/burglar.
There is JJ the copper.
The reason for them being in court in my opinion is a valid aid towards identification.
Hence we would not expect to see PC JJ in the dock for criminal offences, and we do not, we see him prosecuting criminals in court with his evidence.
In some cases it is possible to find JJ the thief up before the beak, sentenced to prison for stealing a watch, six months later or so he’s back again. This applies to the JJ burglar.
I hope people are able to see the distinction I make here, in other words JJ the thief is not JJ the burglar or JJ the cop.
Now we come to crimes that involve some element of sexual conduct or behaviour, and here I mean crimes where prostitution in some form or manner is concerned, or there is an obvious sexual undertone to the crime or situation.
Now is it more reasonable to suggest that we have here three separate and different JJ’s all appearing in records regarding criminal situations involving prostitutes (or young girls), or would it be more reasonable to suggest that this is the one and same JJ?
With what I have read recently, I do veer towards the latter conclusion, simply because the idea of three different JJ’s involved in crimes of a sexual nature in the same time period does not sit easily with the patterns of crime and criminal activity as reported for the Late Victorian Period.
Equally so, it is noteworthy that in each case involving the sexual JJ, two or more women are involved.
That is a gem, in search and research terms.
It is a source of much amusement to me that the same folk who tell me that there could not have been two Whitechapel Murderers are now telling me that there must have been three JJ’s.
If it’s poker you want to play, boys, I think I just called your bluff. |
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 33
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Top post as usual AP
With what I have read recently, I do veer towards the latter conclusion, simply because the idea of three different JJ’s involved in crimes of a sexual nature in the same time period does not sit easily with the patterns of crime and criminal activity as reported for the Late Victorian Period.
Sexual crime in the LVP is something,I believe anyway,that must be approached very cautiously and for a number of reasons.
First the obvious one, it was a different age and the people were different.This was an age where playing CARDS was seen as sinful!
Yet...you could trip on down to Whitechapel and engage very very young children for sexual purposes.
Sex was readily available for a few coppers from both males and females & even if you did not have the few coppers it was more than likely you could take it by force AND stand a good chance of getting away with it.
If you were a woman you could fully expect to be beaten black and blue by your spouse and have to accept it was 'the way things are'.
I'm of the opinion that if a crime with sexual overtones did make it as far as the courts in the LVP then it must be worth looking into simply because it actually GOT to court. The Cleveland Street case is a very good example,the place was a brothel for goodness sake,hardly a state secret! How many brothels did Abberline walk past everyday in the East End? - none of those ended up in court now did they.
Wife beating,rape,child abuse,paedophilia etc were all fairly common aspects of the LVP but rarely did they make it to court,those victorians did like their veneer of respectability did'nt they.
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2218
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 6:41 am: |
|
Hi Suzi,
At the end of the day JJ seems not to have been the most likeable,(although 'respectable' enough ),of characters,prone to frequenting the shadier areas of the 'fair city' and obviously prepared to 'knife' his way out if things didn't go to plan.
But the courts decided there was no evidence that JJ carried a knife.
I'm all for having great sympathy for a woman's lot during the LVP, but not to the exclusion of a defendant's right to justice, because he was one of thousands of men who picked up strange women on the street.
Hi AP,
How do you feel about the original 'double event' now? With your JJ and my two Croydon doubles, are you thinking our Jacky boy could well have bagged two in one night?
I hope you weren't upset by my words. It's just that most of the hostility you received from others could be avoided in future if you simply post your information and ask - or better still, wait - for our comments.
Love,
Caz
X |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2527
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
Just one or two points:
I seem to recall that the arrest of Peter Sutcliffe rested almost wholly on the coppers finding his knife[or was it hammer?].
They did thankfully -in the end-he had thrown it to the bottom of a dustbin.Without that one piece of evidence-found almost on a hunch, by one of the two cops who had become suspicious of him that night,Sutcliffe the "highly respectable married man in respectable employment" would have gone on murdering-having been interviewed and released several times before already and having gone on to murder a total of more than a dozen women.
There are many many cases where the "knife" or murder weapon has been "lost" never to turn up-
I can think of quite a number
Thank God they found Sutcliffe"s eventually! |
Guy de la Roche Dacqoz
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
Mr (?) "Baron Von Zipper", your reference to "frogeater" makes me infer that you suggest my nationality is French.
In time, boundaries have moved with the vanishing hopes of men, country have disappeared and others have been created because of their greed.
Blessed the one who is able to live without them.
My family comes from the same region (and has acquired today the corresponding nationality) as the one from which the ascendant of the Earl of Surrey and Sussex (or is it Sussex and Surrey ?) departed to follow the Conqueror.
Guillaume de la Roche Dacqoz de Vignancourt (I have spared you the rest, which might well be the best). |
Matt Humphreys
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 22, 2005 - 5:01 pm: |
|
A very interesting set of press reports but really a storm in a tea cup.
I think APW was a bit mischievous with this post - like tossing a leg of lamb into the lions' enclosure to watch them fight over it.
There is no evidence it is the same man in both reports.
There is no evidence that JJ has been identified correctly in the census.
There is no evidence other than the short press reports - especially lacking is any real detail of what the police did or did not discover about both incidents.
Both incidents went before a court and though they are by no means infallible we can only infer there was no real evidence against the accused.
Say what you like about prostitutes "with a heart of gold", life's unfortunates etc. the simple truth is I would lend more credence to the testimony of an otherwise respectable person than to that of a prostitute unless I had good evidence to the contrary, and so by necessity must the court, especially as you are innocent until proved guilty (no knife found, no injuries to either "victim" etc etc. The fact the man ran is irrelevant. It was the height of the Ripper scare and two women have just shouted "murder". Flight is not unreasonable.
I could go on picking holes in the importance of these reports.
A good post and well worth a look/discussion but surely not worthy of heated debate unless more can be discovered about JJ.
Matt |
Guy de la Roche Dacqoz
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
Well Mr AP Wolf, Daco seems a bit popular and sounds too near to Waco of very sinister memory, so let's put it at least at Dacqoz to obliterate any such "sinistrality" and, if you don't mind, at Count Dacqoz just to put it right and to keep some barriers standing against "popularity" if you see what I mean.
To God what is to God, to Ceasar what is to Ceasar, and to all and every others what belongs to each, no more no less.
Well done for all your research whatever it brings up and whatever any naysayer may say.
First thing to keep in mind is that you brought up an information that could be pertinent (or could not) to the mysterious Whitechapel affair but that we may safely guess has been completely missed for 118 years by the whole bunch of authors, many of whom would warmly thank the Lord if they could have dug out such a "nonnecessarily related" event to put on the shoulders of their "suspect", at least to have something solid to put before it.
Now, to come back to my question: what is the possible link of this episode with the mysterious Whitechapel affair (aside the women being prostitute which could be considered a prerequisite of any comparison of events anyway) ?
I would appreciate a clear answer.
I have read on this site your book (sorry for that but it is impossible to find it by other ways) and I have read how interestingly rebellious you are against all "established truth" of the case and in particular the motive and the "form" of the killer.
What prevents you for pushing the rebellion to the climax of a revolution and "décoller la tête du Roi" once for all ?
What makes you bow before the "form" of the case ?
Just "purity" or some kind of puritanism ?
Guillaume de la Roche Dacqoz, or, for your eyes only, Count Dacqoz.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
