|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 42
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 4:29 pm: | 
|
A?R Methodology and Research Thread
WELCOME to the specialized venue of “Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders,” copyright 2004 David M. Radka. This thread is founded under the approval of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
I. Founding Principles
1. This thread is dedicated to the development of methodology and research that could prove or disprove the A?R theory. It has a “Where do we go from here?” theme. A dry tone will always be maintained. Posts not directly related to the subject matter of A?R are prohibited.
2. I will not respond to any post deviating from the theme. Brief advisements pointing out a specific deviating post will be made if necessary. I will monitor posts and set the desired tone by example and advisement.
3. No personal discussions of any kind are permitted, even if they may be mild or inoffensive. No exceptions. I will not respond to any post containing personal content. There are other places on the Casebook for personal discussions.
4. The theme of the new thread is an evolutionary idea that can be accommodated and assimilated by the Casebook while preserving the Casebook’s original style and distinctness. A?R is a good place to get it started, because it was always intended as a dry, academic subject.
5. Everyone having something to say regarding research and methodology germane to A?R is welcome. Required adherence to the theme will eliminate any hint of favoritism shown to anyone. Sober decorum will always be maintained. All posters will be equally respected. But contentious or emotional posts, even if they may be related to the subject matter of A?R, will be ignored.
6. Posts to the thread should be by registered users.
7. All complex discussion of A?R on this web site is restricted to this thread. If an A?R-related matter should appear on another thread, I will redirect it to this thread.
8. A strictly decorous and thoughtful academic environment may help draw first tier Ripperological authors back to the Casebook.
9. I will make every effort to foster an intelligible flow of meaningful and novel dialogue by participants. Posters will be gently encouraged to read the archives before posting to avoid repetition.
10. We will aim for 0-5 posts per week, compared to 20-25 on the original A?R thread. Quality over quantity.
II. The A?R Thesis in a Nutshell:
I do not believe in the separateness of things. Nothing is intelligible in the empirical case evidence except as it relates to the whole. I call the whole psychopathy, a psychiatric disorder that applies to about one per cent of the population; psychopaths are a referent group observed and studied by psychiatrists. They are unlike any other type of people in several important ways, and are characteristically identifiable. Knowledge of the case is thinking about the whole, thus the basis of this thinking is the relation between the case evidence and psychopathy. This is accomplished by a dialectical review of the primary sources and secondary research on the case in light of psychopathy. By questioning the history of the case, correcting the historically acknowledged causal connections and disjoints among the separate evidentiary pieces, the Ripperologist develops a view to why the murders originally took place.
III. Brief Examples of Dialogue Questions:
1. The centuries-long debate between rationalism and empiricism has centered on rationalism’s claim that there are certain truths we know a priori, that is, that they are part and parcel of our minds irrespective of experience, whereas empiricism holds that we know nothing of truth but a posteriori, through experience. Psychopathy is a concept we know a posteriori, through empirical case studies of psychopaths made by psychiatrists. Therefore, do we really have a valid opposition between rationalism and empiricism in A?R? Or, do we have an opposition between semi-empiricism and empiricism instead? What is at stake here?
2. Can we reasonably use psychopathy as the epistemological center of study of the case? How would it be possible to define it sufficiently separately from the disposition of the evidence so as not to prejudice the latter by the former?
3. What are the ‘principles of skepticism,’ and how does skepticism influence study of the case?
…and any other reasonable item that may come up in an open-form dialogue. Intellectual freedom is the key.
Stay tuned for further founding information…
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2730
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
You have constructed a working pit-fall to trap Ripposaurs?
Well done, David, I hope it works.
But please keep them in the pit once you trap them. |
simon Townsend
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 5:25 pm: |
|
Hello,
I was wondering if someone would be able to help me with where to go next with my paper on "corruption in the police force" during the whitechapel murders. I was wondering if anyone here would know of some source that would I be able to get that would tell me which of the police officers would be more likely to take bribes, and something close to that. As, well if there are any good books that talk bout corruption on the police force or something similar to that idea.. if i can get some feed back it'll be of great help, thanks for your times guys |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 843
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 8:44 pm: |
|
Here's a website with info on sociopaths (different word, same thing).
http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/socio.htm |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 483
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
Simon-- in addition to the police per se, you should also look into the night watchmen and other security personnel. I've always suspected them' particularly the guards in the Mitre Square warehouses.
Mags
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 395
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
|
Dear Simon,
When you say 'paper', what exactly do you mean?
Bob |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 486
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
Of course when I say I suspect the guards I don't mean of the murders--just that I suspect they may have been a wee bit inaccurate in reporting exactly what they were doing and when and for how long they were doing it.
Hope that was gentle enough not to offend any in the watchmen's union.
Mags
|
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 49
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 9:55 pm: |
|
I’d like to thank Steve Swift for his thoughtful questions, and invite him to dialogue under the Founding Principles here. I have taken his text from the “Reconsidering Aaron Kosminski” thread. Mr. Swift, posting on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 9:57 pm, wrote:
1. “Thank you Mr Radka. "Definitely ascertained fact" "No doubt whatever" Now if you take the man at his word then this witness HAS just identified the whitechapel killer.”
>>Not necessarily. We don’t have to go that far to take Dr. Anderson at his word. All we need do is affirm that something happened to make him honestly think that the murderer had definitely been identified. The witness could have identified another person as the killer for reasons of his own, and unknown to Anderson. Such a witness would have to have information of such a pedigree as to convince Anderson that there would be no reasonable way for it to be incorrect. This could be accomplished by what the witness says being confirmed by Aaron Kosminski’s family. The witness identifies Aaron as the man he saw in Duke Place with Catherine Eddowes; and when thereupon asked about the matter by Anderson, Aaron’s family allows, for reasons of their own, that Aaron is likely the murderer. Aaron can’t speak for himself because he’s obviously demented. The essential parts of the identification procedure then fit together as viewed from Anderson’s perspective, convincing him for life that Aaron is Jack the Ripper.
2. “Now I freely admit I'm unsure what the law said in 1888 but...you sure as hell cant refuse to give evidence in court if you are so summoned.”
>>You are correct about the law; it required a witness to testify if summoned all right. But this assumes that Anderson WANTED to summon him. Anderson wouldn’t want to do so under the scenario in which (a) He has only one witness to identify the murderer, the other witnesses don’t identify Aaron (because Aaron wasn’t really at any of the crime scenes), which would enable a defense attorney to cast considerable doubt on the identification, and (b) Two of the witnesses who personally accompanied the identifying witness on the night of the double event do not identify Aaron, which would enable the defense attorney to cast even more doubt on the identification, and (c) Aaron’s family assures Anderson they will prevent him from committing any more crimes, but also refuses, quite understandably from Anderson’s perspective, to testify against him, and (d) There is no physical or other evidence against Aaron, and (e) Aaron is at that point demented enough to obviously not be able to commit serious crimes, and (f) Putting a Jew on trial for the Whitechapel murders is more trouble than it’s worth under the circumstances, with a possible eruption of simmering anti-Semitism a major worry following the murders, not to mention the personal risk to Anderson’s career if he can’t get a conviction.
{This is incidentally, even if I do say so myself, a brilliant interpretation, hard by the evidence, of the entirety of the previously unanswered questions concerning the identification. I’ve made this explanation before elsewhere, but I believe it has simply beaten everyone who’s tried to understand it. I’d like to ask skeptics to please get as particular as they can with this, so I may, perhaps for the first time, understand their questions and give answers in a dialogue setting. Please don’t simply say, “It sucks,” as has uttered a lazy poster in the past. That kind of thing goes nowhere, and won’t be responded to here.}
3. “So assuming(yes I'm assuming but its late lol) that I'm right - just exactly how could this witness refuse to testify on a positive identification. I'm sorry but they could have arrested him on at LEAST suspicion.....but they did not?
>>I think we ought to watch the use of the term “they” here. This whole business was conducted in secret. Anderson, the witness and Aaron’s domiciling family were likely the only ones who knew all the particulars about the Brighton affair, with Swanson knowing a few things only, and mostly second hand from Anderson on a need-to-know basis. Aaron was not arrested; he has no police record of any kind. There is no evidence that the police department as a whole knew anything of what went on with Anderson, the witness, the family or the identification.
4. “There is something more interesting to ponder.If this 'suspect' was not actually under arrest then just exactly how did they persuade him to go down to Brighton?”
>>There would be ways of doing this. Likely, Anderson would have talked either Aaron’s family or the workhouse or both into letting him take Aaron for a day or two in a carriage. Various plausible reasons could have been given for this to the respective parties under the circumstances. Aaron wouldn’t be in a position to mount a serious objection, being demented. So, albeit with some difficulty as Swanson reports, off to Brighton he went.
5. “Baron,Robert, I dont do slants - I tell it like it is. I see a couple of civil servants grasping at straws because they did not catch the most celebrated killer of their time and I see a fawning policeman agreeing with them.”
>>By “civil servants” I take it you mean McNaghten and Anderson, and by “fawning policeman” Swanson.
McNaghten: He didn’t believe Kosminski did it, and thus certainly was not “grasping at straws” concerning him in the memorandum. He was basically regurgitating what he had been told on the quiet, likely by Swanson, or, less likely I think, Anderson.
Anderson: What he says certainly doesn’t imply what you say it does. Anderson uses unequivocal language and states categorically that he knows the identity of the murderer by a reliable personal identification. When people like Sugden talk about how Anderson and Swanson came to believe what they did because they came to live in a world of wishes and half-truths, they are attempting to rewrite the evidence. You can’t do that and have an interpretation faithful to the evidence. Anderson said what he said, Swanson confirms him, and there is no reason to believe these two men were dotty.
Swanson: Fawning? In his private papers that he thought only he would ever see?
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 78
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 11:21 pm: |
|
I always knew that this 'identification' would not hold up in court,I just wanted to hear someone say it.Being seen with a woman who is later found dead is not proof of murder by any stretch of the imagination.But there is a problem even with this. IF Anderson is to be believed and this whole scenario really took place, then Anderson could have been in serious trouble.He was a police officer and duty bound to arrest this man,a police officer is NOT judge & jury and Anderson had no right to make such a decision......or did he?
I'd agree that Anderson was the 'voice' behind MacNaughtens memo' but he was,never the less, buying into a highly dubious little conspiricy if these events are to be believed.
Being seen with Kate Eddowes the night she died would,as I have already said, hardly have been enough to convict BUT.....it certainly would have been enough to arrest him on suspicion.Also ,as I am sure you are aware, the seaside home where this little scenario supposedly took place did not exist until March 1890, which was sixteen months after Kelly died. So what was Kosminski doing in those sixteen months?
If this identification took place in 1890 why did Anderson keep the files open for another two years?
But the thing that yells NO for me is the fact that nothing in the records suggest that Kosminski was homicidal - nothing.
I can see only two possibilities arising from Anderson & MacNaughtens writing (assuming that Anderson was the source of the suspicion surrounding Kosminski)
1.Anderson was lying.
2.The police had evidence that we are unaware of reguarding Kosminski.
Not a single investigating officer backs up Andersons claim - not one. So to believe in either Anderson or MacNaughten we have to see Anderson as self appointed judge & jury,taking it upon himself to decide Kosminski was guilty and seeing to it that he was put out of harms way and I just cannot buy into that.
You put forward a good argument David, but not a very realistic one.
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?"
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 745
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
"This is incidentally, even if I do say so myself, a brilliant interpretation, hard by the evidence, of the entirety of the previously unanswered questions concerning the identification."
Right you are, Radka, right you are. But, if I do say so myself, there is also another equally brilliant solution. But I'll save that for later.
Meanwhile, as a brain teaser for you this winter: consider the following:
How do we know Swanson was correct in believing the City CID were watching Aaron Kosminski?
Where would he have gotten this information? McWilliam? If so, why the hell didn't Major Smith seemed to know anything about it when Anderson ranted in the pages of Blackwood's?
What if Dandy Don got his information from a local Met PC who just happened to notice a bunch of plain-clothes gentiles posing as "factory inspectors" hanging out in front of Lubnowski's house? In which case Swanson got it all wrong and just assumed they were watching the slobbering lunatic?
In other words, the spy master Anderson jumped to the conclusion that the plain-clothes cops from across town were watching Kosminksi, when really they were watching someone else, and his natural suspicion of Major Smith prevented him from confirming his beliefs?
Now wouldn't it be something wild and wonderful if the surveillance described by Cox of a shop-keeper suspect-- who couldn't have been Aaron Kosminski, who hadn't 'attempted work in years'-- was really on, say a boot rivitter?
The plot thickens.
RP |
Scott Nelson
Inspector
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 158
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 1:29 pm: |
|
R.J.,
You forgot (?) to mention City Police Inspector Robert Sager, who appears to refer to Kosminski as the one under surveillance. Sager, according to his newspaper obit., met with the MET at the Leman St. Station almost daily during the Terror. His watch could also echo Cox's story. But, personally, I've always felt that Cox's story centers around the lunatic, Hyam Hyams. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 747
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 2:02 pm: |
|
Scott--yes; but that's just the bleedin' problem. What do we make of Major Smith in the light of the fact that his boys were keeping tabs on (probably) at least two Jewish suspects? Cox's comments are particularly interesting because he's really very much in line with what Robert Anderson believed -- that the East End jews were a 'closed' community who would not cooperate with the gentile police. Yet, when Anderson claimed as much, Smith blew a fuse. I can see why Martin Fido thought there might have been something more to Smith's reaction than meets the eye. RP |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 227
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 2:32 pm: |
|
David
"I will not respond to any post deviating from the theme. Brief advisements pointing out a specific deviating post will be made if necessary. I will monitor posts and set the desired tone by example and advisement."
Let me see if I understand the theme: Rhetoric, Dicursive (meaning, I will talk in circles rather than get to the point) dialogue, castigation of those who don't agree, academic (see Discursive)ruminations, a priori and a posteriori argument (see discursive). Sounds like fun. How do I join?
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
AAR
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 1:42 am: |
|
I thought the name was Robert Sagar? |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 52
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 6:57 pm: |
|
Mr. Swift wrote:
1. “I always knew that this 'identification' would not hold up in court,I just wanted to hear someone say it.Being seen with a woman who is later found dead is not proof of murder by any stretch of the imagination.But there is a problem even with this. IF Anderson is to be believed and this whole scenario really took place, then Anderson could have been in serious trouble.He was a police officer and duty bound to arrest this man,a police officer is NOT judge & jury and Anderson had no right to make such a decision......or did he?”
>>You have an interesting way of putting things that seems to get at deeper implications in matters being discussed. I’d think Anderson would not be blamed for not arresting someone if he felt there wasn’t enough evidence to justify an arrest. There are plenty of people out there who live on the shady side, but against whom the police don’t have enough to justify hauling them in, or hauling them in YET. Just because Anderson has one witness giving unequivocal affirmation perhaps doesn’t mean that’s enough to get Aaron convicted, in his opinion. Anderson may have been running the string until the string ran out on him. In other words, he may have released Aaron back to his family thinking it would be just for a while, until more evidence or a confession could be obtained. But then something might have happened, such as Aaron becoming very insane, which resulted in his committal. This could have clinched matters, short of an arrest, for Anderson. With respect to making a report to the police department, on that point I think you would ordinarily be right. If Anderson has got some evidence against a suspect he deems reliable, I would think he ordinarily should make a full report. He didn’t, and to my mind he is nominally blamable for that, but there are reasons for why he wouldn’t have. Under various scenarios, he may have made guarantees to the family, the witness or both in return for their cooperation. Or he may have felt that not having arrested Aaron from the start, it would be better if he didn’t mention him thereafter, or did so only selectively and confidentially, fearing criticism from other police officers. Whatever happened, once Anderson embarks on a certain course, he can’t change history and go back on it. What’s done is done, the die is cast, the Rubicon is crossed, and he has to continue with and live with the consequences.
2. “I'd agree that Anderson was the 'voice' behind MacNaughtens memo' but he was,never the less, buying into a highly dubious little conspiricy if these events are to be believed. Being seen with Kate Eddowes the night she died would,as I have already said, hardly have been enough to convict BUT.....it certainly would have been enough to arrest him on suspicion.”
>>We need to think here: “What’s arresting Aaron going to get Anderson?” He’s got no physical evidence; only one of several witnesses identify Aaron; Aaron himself is completely insane, making it difficult or impossible to prosecute him; if he’s arrested all hell may break loose in Whitechapel, Jew vs. Jew, Jew vs. Gentile, if a conviction can’t be obtained and maybe even if it can. The fact that Aaron wasn’t arrested, I think, begs to be interpreted as insufficient evidence to convict being available. Things that seem “dubious” to us may not have to Dr. Anderson. You’ve got to try to imagine the pressures of that time, and what a bomb he was sitting on.
3. “Also ,as I am sure you are aware, the seaside home where this little scenario supposedly took place did not exist until March 1890, which was sixteen months after Kelly died. So what was Kosminski doing in those sixteen months?”
>>Likely whatever he was doing before, it having nothing significant to do with the Whitechapel murders. Probably going progressively nuttier, beginning to bark, and so on.
4. “If this identification took place in 1890 why did Anderson keep the files open for another two years?”
>>In order to not have to answer any questions concerning why they were closed. Remember, Anderson figures he knows who the murderer is, so he also figures nothing important is going to happen in those files if he keeps them open. Nobody is going to catch jack the Ripper and put information regarding this in the files, because Jack the Ripper is already caught, committed to an asylum, dead.
5. “But the thing that yells NO for me is the fact that nothing in the records suggest that Kosminski was homicidal - nothing.”
>>That is because he wasn’t. He wasn’t homicidal, there is no record he ever hurt anyone, and he wasn’t Jack the Ripper.
6. “I can see only two possibilities arising from Anderson & MacNaughtens writing (assuming that Anderson was the source of the suspicion surrounding Kosminski) 1.Anderson was lying. 2.The police had evidence that we are unaware of reguarding Kosminski.”
>>How can we say that the police had evidence that we don’t have evidence that they had? I don’t see a reason for us to be saying this, the case evidence taken as a whole. There is NOTHING about Aaron in any police file save the second-hand information about him in the McNaghten memorandum. And with respect to Anderson lying, where is the evidence of this? He had a suspect, he told Swanson and possibly McNaghten some of the details of the matter, but he didn’t have enough evidence to arrest. Where is there major lying on Anderson’s part?
7. “Not a single investigating officer backs up Andersons claim - not one.”
>>Swanson does, Steve. Plus, not a single investigating officer beyond Swanson knows enough about Anderson’s claim to fundamentally disagree with it, either. Show me where anyone reports cogent details of the identification and calls it wrong. The fact of the matter is that Anderson kept it secret save for Swanson and perhaps to a lesser extent McNaghten, therefore there wouldn’t be anyone else who could back him up. I think we’ve got to consider that if Anderson has made the decision and is handling the Kosminski investigation in secret, he’s not going to necessarily feel bound by all the rules and regulations of the Met, as he would if the investigation were being done according to standard procedures. The question for us thus becomes: Why was he handling the investigation in secret? And not--Why didn’t he follow the rules?
8. “So to believe in either Anderson or MacNaughten we have to see Anderson as self appointed judge & jury,taking it upon himself to decide Kosminski was guilty and seeing to it that he was put out of harms way and I just cannot buy into that.”
>>High level police make judgment calls like this all the time. Happens every day. Additionally, please think about what you are saying here with respect to the empirical case record, Steve. The behavior of getting the suspect identified by a witness and then returning him to society isn’t merely something we are attributing to Anderson, it is what Anderson HIMSELF SAYS he did, as annotated and confirmed by Swanson. He VOLUNTEERS this information to the public. Therefore we aren’t responsible for IF he did it, but instead only for WHY he did.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 54
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 7:17 pm: |
|
Mr. Palmer wrote: “…as a brain teaser for you this winter: consider the following:
How do we know Swanson was correct in believing the City CID were watching Aaron Kosminski? Where would he have gotten this information? McWilliam? If so, why the hell didn't Major Smith seemed to know anything about it when Anderson ranted in the pages of Blackwood's? What if Dandy Don {meaning Donald Swanson} got his information from a local Met PC who just happened to notice a bunch of plain-clothes gentiles posing as "factory inspectors" hanging out in front of Lubnowski's house? In which case Swanson got it all wrong and just assumed they were watching the slobbering lunatic? In other words, the spy master Anderson jumped to the conclusion that the plain-clothes cops from across town were watching Kosminksi, when really they were watching someone else, and his natural suspicion of Major Smith prevented him from confirming his beliefs? Now wouldn't it be something wild and wonderful if the surveillance described by Cox of a shop-keeper suspect-- who couldn't have been Aaron Kosminski, who hadn't 'attempted work in years'-- was really on, say a boot rivitter? The plot thickens.”
>>The plot thickens indeed. Mr. Palmer has a great idea that shows he’s really thinking about A?R. I think it a top contribution to our dialogue here. What he is essentially doing is giving an alternative—and perhaps superior—explanation for why the witness went to the Met to implicate Aaron in the murders. Here is what the A?R Summary says regarding this:
“32. Why Did Joseph Hyam Levy Identify Aaron Kosminski To Robert Anderson Eighteen Months After the Cessation? Both to maintain the status quo of the cessation in light of the psychopath’s instability of personality, scheming, and inability to leave well enough alone, and to free himself from an extraordinarily bad situation. (1) During the eighteen-month period the principals of the private conspiracy came to understand one another’s respective strengths and weaknesses regarding the forces behind the cessation. Levy and the psychopath’s significant other would be garnering increasing insights into the murderer’s personality, and the psychopath would be attempting various measures to marginalize the hold they held over him and gain privileges. (2) By identifying Aaron to the police secretly and without testifying against him, Levy humanely puts Aaron permanently into an asylum, the best place for him to be considering his condition. (3) Aaron is at the same time permanently excluded from the psychopath’s domicile, so there can no longer be any troublesome questioning of whom holds primary authority in his family. (4) Because (at least in Levy’s estimation) the police are now settled on Aaron having committed the murders, their investigation will be halted, and there will be little possibility that the real murderer could be arrested and brought to trial, which would compromise him (Levy.) (This is part of the deal Levy makes with Anderson in return for identifying Aaron, although Anderson remains unaware of these implications.) (5) By making a final disposition of Aaron, a change to which might compromise the psychopath, Levy climactically tears the mouth of the leech from his flesh that had been sucking him dry since the Duke Street sighting, and is free. It would be more difficult for the psychopath to scheme to use Aaron to manipulate Levy, such as to turn in Aaron for the remains of the reward, if Aaron were sequestered from the psychopath in an asylum.”
Mr. Palmer wants to make an addition to these five points, which in turn very nicely explains why the City police were illegally staking out Aaron’s family’s house in the Met’s district. (The Summary lacks an explanation for this highly irregular procedure.) Mr. Palmer suggests the City was staking out the real murderer, not Aaron. Once the family noticed the stakeout, they’d want to do something to protect themselves, and this may have been what spurred them to send the witness to the Met to turn in Aaron. Aaron was at that time a demented schizophrenic likely unable to speak for himself, therefore he was headed for the asylum eventually anyway. The family may have determined it was a City, not a Met stakeout by recognizing some of the plainclothes officers lurking across the street as City police, or by noticing plainclothes police following the murderer in the City. The witness wouldn’t go to the City police to turn in Aaron, that wouldn’t solve the matter, because the City didn’t suspect him, it suspected the real murderer. Thus the witness went to the Met instead. There he found a sympathetic ear in Robert Anderson, and engineered the identification. When the City observed Aaron being spirited away, they misreported internally within their organization that Anderson had nabbed their suspect, not Aaron, from the staked out address. They then terminated the stakeout, since they now were aware that Anderson was onto them, and didn’t want to be accused of pooping about the Met where they didn’t belong. How did the City get wind of the real murderer? There are plenty of ways this might have happened in accord with the murderer’s being a psychopath. Sandbagged into cessation by the witness and his own family, he may have become progressively more irritated with his restrictions and eventually begun boasting of his former prowess at some pub, and this may have gotten back to the City police. Perhaps he was drinking in the City.
Or, he may have been Robert Sagar’s suspect, as Mr. Nelson has suggested, his boasting being responsible for the police to begin thinking him insane.
Thanks so much, Mr. Palmer, for an especially bright contribution.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 57
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 21, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
Was Robert Sagar Jewish? Carl SAGAn was. Zager is also a Jewish name. McNaghten speaks of a "city PC in Mitre Court." Could this be a discombobulated take on Sagar, given Anderson's story of a Jewish witness who wouldn't testify? (Robert Sagar was a city police inspector.)
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1695
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 11:29 am: |
|
Hi David
As Scott Nelson showed in a post from 2003, Robert Sagar is in the 1891 Census as aged 38, Inspector, City Police, living at 13 Rose Alley, Bishopsgate, with his wife Clare and children Robert, Sarah, and Cecil. His birthplace is shown as Simonstone, Lancashire. A Lancashire genealogy site for the Grimshaw family would appear to indicate the Sagars were a longstanding Lancashire family and not Jewish: "Thomas Grimshaw, of Oakenshaw, was born sometime from 1630 to 1635. He married, first, Oct. 26th, 1658, Mary, daughter of John Sagar, of Habergham Eaves (and sister of Mr. Charles Sagar, master of Blackburn Grammar School, and later a notable Nonconformist minister)."
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 60
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Thank you for an excellent contribution, Mr. George. It is a good reflection of our Founding Principles here.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 64
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 10:18 am: |
|
Responding to a point made on the "Goulston Street Graffito--What Did Jack Do With the Chalk?" thread. Mr. George wrote: "If it was written by Jack the neatness does raise the question I posed, about how he did it in terms of having illumination. I can guarantee that few of us could write a straight series of words on a wall without illumination. The question that c.d. and Natalie discussed about how he did it when he was running away from committing murder, when his adrenaline was high, is also interesting to consider."
>>A?R asks and answers these questions. The murderer didn't write the graffitus right after the murder when his adrenaline was high, but sometime later, after he'd had a chance to think about his problems regarding the Duke Street sighting and compose the message. And when he went back home or to his shop to get the chalk, he might have brought out a lamp with him to light up the Goulston Street alcove for his work, accounting for the neatness of the handwriting.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1696
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
Hi David
You might be right that "Jack" did go to a bolthole to compose himself in between the murder of Kate Eddowes and the finding of the graffito and bloody piece of apron in the doorway of Wentworth Model Dwellings. Jon Smyth proposed a similar scenario in his dissertation here on the Casebook, "A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk Graffiti and a Lost Hour."
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 764
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Could someone in contact with Paul Begg please forward the following question. In the first edition of the A-Z is a photograph of Aaron Kosminski's burial site. The headstones are impressive. What is the nature of this graveyard? Is it at Leavesden or somewhere else? (I can't find this infomation in print). If this is a family plot,has any research been done on the other burials? |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2878
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Hang on, RJ, I'll get my trusty water glass out, and my oujiaaaa board, and see if I can't make contact.
Yes, I have Paul Begg knocking on the underside of the table, but he probably just wants to finish off my brandy.
He says he did it. |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 103
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 1:50 pm: |
|
A re-post by Simon Owen from "What Can Be Seen In This Picture?" earlier today:
"Although I don't agree with the choice of suspect , my opinion is that the AR theory is a very impressive attempt to come up with a complete and inclusive solution to the Ripper case.
I wish more people would have a go at posting a theory which might explain the case , surely having such theories to examine would be better than quibbling over minor points like ' was the table rectangular or square ? ' for instance ?
I do feel that there are some posters on these boards who think that the case cannot be solved , and therefore pour cold water on any attempt to come up with an answer or link elements of the case into a whole : the result is that we end up examining fragments of information without relating them to anything , and if some great idea did arise it would probably be lost because of this. Creating logical theories to explain the case is the way forward in my opinion.
Surely the only true value of such micro-examination of objects such as the Kelly photographs is to provide substance for a logical theory of the case , a solution to the matter ? If we don't relate our examinations to trying to provide an overarching meta-narrative of events then we'll still be quarreling over the same points in 20 years time !!! This may be fun for some , but I fear it will drive many of the most talented amateurs away out of sheer boredom and irritation."
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Scott Nelson
Inspector
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Here are some questions and suggested answers to the City vs MET surveillance scenarios, including Henry Smith's role:
Why DID the City drop interest in their suspect on Aaron's incarceration? There is nothing in the evidence to explain this. Did Sagar say why they dropped interest in his man? Is it related in any way to what Anderson and Swanson say about the identification? The fact the City dropped interest would seem on the surface to indicate their suspect was no one other than Aaron. If the City was NOT watching before the identification, then what happened to cause them to watch later? The implication would be that they got wind of the identification and decided to then begin watching, but why would they do this? Wouldn't they figure that the Met had attended to the matter and left it at that? Why would they break the borough rules and covertly station people inside Met territory beginning AFTER the identification?
It is possible that the City Police may have been watching Kosminski before the Hove Identification, as well as after. Because after the identification and the surveillance, the City Police were told the suspect could not be charged because of a faulty identification. This scenario strongly suggests that it was the City Police who first picked up information on Kosminski, and then for whatever reasons, the MET obtained slightly different (and better?) information and they decide to quickly act on it. I think that after the positive identification, but with no forthcoming evidence from the witness, Anderson decided let the City Police resume watch on him. If the City Police were involved in the surveillance of Kosminski from before the Identification, they knew the suspect’s habits better anyway, so they could follow him more successfully than the MET.
After a time, the suspect’s “friends” thought it advisable that he should be removed to an asylum. Some of the City Police involved in the surveillance didn’t know the full details of the suspect having been “removed” to the seaside home and the asylum, or if he had even been arrested. From Cox’s account of the suspect and his fate, it is likely that he didn’t know what ultimately happened to the suspect after he stopped his nightly prowls. Sagar may have known a little more because he echoes what the MET Police said about Kosminski being sent to the asylum. Sagar conferred with the MET nightly at the Leman Street station during the surveillance of the brother’s house and probably debriefed his City colleagues daily on the suspect’s observed activities, but then Sagar had heard little else after he was suddenly told that the suspect had been locked away for good as a lunatic. It is likely that Sagar then debriefed his superior, City Assistant Commissioner Henry Smith, but Smith could discover no further details other than that the MET had put a suspect in an asylum with no obtainable evidence to secure a conviction. It’s a case of who had the most clout or who was the more ambitious of the two forces, translated to the personalities of Major Henry Smith vs. Robert Anderson. And who was in a stronger position to know the facts (City- one murder victim, MET- more than one murder victim). In succeeding years, Smith, like other police officials involved in the case, only recalled that the Ripper was never caught, but should have been. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2997
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 7:00 pm: |
|
I think it pertinent to point out that the City Police and the Metropolitan Police chief officers had what we might now term as a ‘hotline’, a telephonic and telegraphic system of instant communication between the various heads of departments at both headquarters, and this some years before the Whitechapel Murders.
They did communicate and share information on a daily basis. |
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 590
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 12:39 am: |
|
I usually never come here, but found myself with nothing else to do. Now I remember why I usually never come here. Sorry for intruding..
Love,
Lyn x
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 110
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 6:38 pm: |
|
POST BOYCOTTED. The post of Lindsey C. Hollifield made on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 12:39 am is boycotted pursuant to Founding Principles item #3.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 296
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 2:43 am: |
|
Boycotted? Why? It makes as much sense as anything else Ive read on this thread. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 455
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 6:07 am: |
|
Hi,
How do you boycott a post? Presumably you don't read it - but then if you haven't read it how do you know to boycott it!
Bob Hinton |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 456
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 6:09 am: |
|
While I'm in a posting mood, what exactly is 'A?R' supposed to mean?
Bob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3463
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 6:25 am: |
|
A>R probably makes more sense than Boycotting posts!!!!!!............Is it me???????????????????
??????
Suzi |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3373
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 6:46 am: |
|
If you reply to something you can't boycott it.
By definition you haven't.
I mean not to be picky - but when you think about it its true is that one.
Anyway, you'll probably boycott this too.
Jenni
"I won’t die, of deception"
|
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 600
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 8:11 am: |
|
Me and my fingers..
David, Hon. You need to learn to ignore me when I get to posting random thoughts during the middle of the night. You've been on the Casebook long enough that you should at least have got the hang of that by now. Thank goodness everyone else here has, and seem to love me anyway. (Guess that's what unconditional acceptance really means.)
David, I wasn't meaning to be offensive. But if that's the way you took it, so be it. That was entirely your choice. However, It would be nice if you took the time to learn a little more about others on the Casebook and what makes them tick. Even if you don't claim to understand them. (It's quite easy. I do it all the time.)
Anyway, to clarify my 'boycotted' post (I do feel rather special! I've never even opened up a sweat shop in a third world country..) which apparently breached some Founding Principal numbered '3' (???).. I simply stumbled upon this thread when I had nothing better to do, and realised that I was both confused and bored within the first couple of posts. That's all, really.
Merry Christmas, David,
Lyn
(Message edited by lindsey on December 23, 2005)
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 313
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 9:14 am: |
|
I move to have all boycotted messages stricken from the record, your honor... including this one.
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1076
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
Hey David, you can't start trying to enforce your rules when you haven't been following them yourself. See #7 on the list above... It says you will keep mention of A?R limited to this thread only, but you (with the help of Mephisto and some anonymous unregistered accounts that look conspicuously like sockpuppets of yours) have once again been trying to take over all sorts of other threads.
In other words, by all means boycott any posts here you don't like, as long as you boycott yourself everywhere else, per your agreement above.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 608
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Dan Norder (whoever you are):
I think we're supposed to be preventing the boycotting of posts on this thread. Or something. We're certainly supposed to be keeping things on topic and we need to make sure we iron our fingers in future to prevent *anyone* from typing obliviously without having first read the rules, and sidetracking without thinking. And *no one* should be taking up this thread with anything other than serious A?R stuff, anyway. But (forgive me, I'm darn sure this post will be boycotted as, if it didn't before, it's about to border some more of my random personal thoughts) I just wanted to point out that your last post borders the breachment of Founding Principals #'s 2 thru 6 (I think -- sorry, but couldn't get through the rest of the rules.. and I'm not entirely sure I managed to get through the first six IMHO)
Thought I ought to point that out.
So, Shape up, Dan Norder (whoever you are)
Love,
Lyn x
Post script: Dan Hollifield, or Vila Resthal -- whatever his names are, and whomever he is -- might prefer that my name not be associtated with his at this time. Sorry for any confusion, and please don't tell him I'm actually his wife. Thank you for understanding.
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 924
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:17 pm: |
|
please don't tell him I'm actually his wife.
As the saying goes, the husband is always the last to know.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 609
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Heh, that Dan Hollifield person blew it when he married me.
Crap, I just breached #3 again. Sorry, David, Hon.
Love you anyway, and have a merry Christmas, and my New Years resolution will be to only post on the appropriate thread. (Funny thing is, I can post there to my hearts content, and never offend anyone. Do they even read my posts in that department?)
Lyn x
(Crap. I just breached again. It's a problem I have, I tell you...)
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 610
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Donald.
Dan Hollifield, or Vila Resthal even (never could spell either name right) ..crap. Where was I going with this?
Well, when you can tell me where I was going with this, please do call or e-mail.
Thank you.
In appreciation,
Lyn x
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 112
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 8:14 pm: |
|
I cannot control what others do, only what I do. I will not reply to any post made to this thread that contains personal material. According to Founding Principle #3, this thread is not to contain any personal material whatever. There are other places on this web site for our personal discussions.
This boycott covers everything from Lindsey C. Hollifield's post at Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 12:39 am through her post at Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:33 pm.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 613
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 9:30 pm: |
|
And I've pretty much tried to contain everything to Pub Talk. Just that others got me sidetracked into posting here (so blame everyone else first, then blame me -- if nothing else, blame the English for producing me, and if that doesn't work, blame everyone in the Universe for not fitting into your theory).
Dan Norder (whomever you are..)
I charge by the hour to keep stalkers off your back. My tally is getting close to the price of a dinner at the Hilton. Without Paris Hilton, or that would make it cheaper. I just want my money, so hand it over, dude.
And count your lucky stars, David, that I didn't do what Don Souden suggested I do.
Ah.. I'm just typing when I should be wringing out the dish cloth instead.
David, what the heck is such a big deal at this time of year? What happened to "goodwill to all men and groupies" at Christmas time?
Love,
Lyn x
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 614
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 10:07 pm: |
|
Crap. My husband came home and I made him read through this thread in its entirety, and all he could offer was, "where's my beer, Woman". So, I suppose he's no help when a woman has a problem.
Oh, plus, he also said, "Honey, please leave the poor perv alone"
That's Vila for you. I honestly don't know who I sleep with these days, but his name always seems to be Vila, no matter how many times I poke the dude next to me.
David, please do get over the fact that English people will stumble all over your mighty works and find it funny, and and still make a cup of tea in the morning, and if they find out that you were offended mid-sip, so be it. It was after all your choice.
Please do have a merry Christmas,
Love,
Lyn x
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 6:48 am: |
|
I say this is fun. Can I have some Founding Principles too?
Bob's Principle No 1: Steps and or ladders or other lifting equipment as deemed necessary by Founding Principle 83 (a) Subsection 4 f, (Original Sanskrit version) will be provided at all times to assist Mr Radka from his high horse.
Bob's principle 2. Another trumpeter is to be hired immediately in the vain hope that it will stop Mr Radka from succumbing to the urge to blow his own.
Bob’s Principle 3. No post shall be boycotted unless it has been posted at the North Pole for at least six months following the first appearance of such post where it shall be deemed worthy of being boycotted. Such post is to be checked on a daily basis by said boycotter to whit - Mr Radka.
Bob’s Principle 4. No person shall attempt to limit the amount of boycotted posts to be read, before a decision is made whether or not to boycott the first post read after such a decision has been made, before the geese fly south for winter, unless of course such a decision has been boycotted.
No doubt I’ll think of some more in the future!
Bob |
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 616
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 7:43 am: |
|
Dear David Radka,
This will be the last time I post on this thread. I'm probably so outta here anyway, as soon as Stephen sees my contribution from the past couple of days.. However, I did just want to let you know that I have e-mailed Stephen requesting that all boycotted posts (including this one, because I have no doubts you'll boycott anything I post unless it's in agreement with you - and I can't do that. Sorry) be erased so that you can have your thread back the way you like it. Hopefully he'll be able to do so before you burst a blood vessel or something. But please be aware that it's Christmas Eve, so it might not get done straight away.
Peace, David.
(I'm serious about the Peace bit.)
Lyn
**Bob Hinton** - You're too funny!
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3465
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
Mr Radka
a)you 'cannot control what others do'.....Good point and some SERIOUS observation there!Boycotted posts should be taken unto the high place..and then spat upon (Sanskrit burbling)
b)Once the eagles and birds of the mountains have finished with the Radkoid creature they sleep easily among the jolly ones
(MoreSanskrit burblings)
c)WHEN I learn how to boycott a post HEY! it may be fun !....failing that may just think......'boycotting posts!'??? God that'll be boring.....Rather clean out the oven!
Lyn
What the HELL is a boycotted post?
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3466
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 10:14 am: |
|
What Larks -Bob Old chap!!!!!
He he
Suzi x |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4294
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
I just read Bob Hinton's post above and it was a long time since I had that good a laugh. My stomach still hurts. Good old Bob. 
Before I break any more Founding Principles:
Merry Christmas everybody and Happy Holidays!
Radka included, of course.
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1079
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 2:00 pm: |
|
I sure do hope the posts above aren't removed, they are some of the most entertaining ones I've seen here in a long while.
Perhaps at some point David will realize that his disappointment in having his thread be filled with posts unrelated to what he wanted to discuss will clue him in on how everyone else here feels when he's always taking over everyone else's.
It might be too much to hope though that this particular Scrooge will change his ways after having a personal vision from the Ghost of Casebook Christmas Present....
Speaking of Christmas present, who is my secret Santa?
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 932
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 12:28 am: |
|
Er -- isnt Christmas about forgiveness and love? God sure has forgiven me for lots of things. I think He wants me to pass it on. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
