|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 3:45 pm: |       |
hello,
bcos personally i would never write on a book thta belonged to me i might make notes crtitising it but these would be seperate, then again i am a bit of a book freak
chow!!
jennifer |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1268
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 5:13 pm: | |
Hi all
Chris G, yes Swanson may have initialled the notes from sheer habit born of his Scotland Yard days. It would be interesting to know whether all his annotations were initialled.
The other possibility, that he was authenticating the notes for posterity....I just wonder, if that was the case, why he doesn't seem to have said anything to his family about it, or left a letter for them to open after his death. It doesn't look as if he was bothered whether anyone read the notes at all - unless Chris S is right, and they were for a friend who was borrowing the book.
Saddam, it's a bit late for him to be writing all this for himself, 22 years after the event. You may be right, but I find the book-lending idea quite appealing.
Robert |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 1:03 am: | |
These exchanges are tiresome, and I hadn't planned on posting any further on this thread, but David asked me for a response, so let me humour him.
David is far too intelligent be surprised and shocked by my response. He knows quite well what he is about, and he knows precisely in what spirit his original post was made.
Let me explain why I found it disagreeable.
Dave wrote:
1. Purchasing the Littlechild letter means that Francis Tumblety is the suspect to disprove. (Stewart P. Evans.)'
This is a low-blow. It is a simple declarative sentence and can only have one meaning. Note that Dave reduces Stewart Evan's opinion of the case to the ownership of the Littlechild Letter. Of all the verbs in the English language to chose from, Dave decided on the verb "to purchase". Dave is a careful thinker and a careful wordsmith. He is basically stating that Mr. Evan's opinion of the case has a mercenary motive. He owns the Littlechild Letter, so Tumblety is his suspect. Am I being unfair here? I don't think so. Let me, however, keep the question open. If I'm misinterpetting Mr. Radka, I'd be happy to hear from him what he meant by the above statement, and why he stated it in the manner he did, because, frankly, I can see no other way it can be interpretted.
"3. Because he killed himself right after the Miller's Court affair and because his family thought him capable, Montague John Druitt is the suspect to disprove. (Donald Rumbelow.)"
This isn't an overwhelmingly horrible comment. Rumbelow wrote a by-in-large objective book on the case. But his opinion (if he even had one) was based on the statements of a senior Scotland Yard official and not on family whispers. It was an entirely legitimate historical approach.
5. Because of what two Lesbians who knew him are reported to have gossipped to one another about, Roslyn D'Onston is the suspect to disprove. (Melvin Harris.) "
This is a sad little comment. First of all, I'd have to wonder about Dave's motive for mentioning the sexual preferences of Cremers and Collins. (Setting aside whether or not it's even historically accurate). Is it relevant? Or are we seeing a logical fallacy uttered by our resident philosopher? Or is it fairly obvious that Dave is attempting the age-old ad hominem slur (yes, I use the word "slur" again) in order to reduce Melvin Harris's theory into something ridiculous? For anyone who wants to see Harris's real reasons for naming Stephenson as a likely suspect , I refer you to the True Face of Jack the Ripper. And I wonder whether Dave's mention of Cremers' alleged sexual preference doesn't fall a bit short of the Casebook's policy on mentioning such irrelevant matters. Personal sexuality is so old hat that such staements approach the lame.
Sigh. I'm not really good at this sort of thing. Normally, Dave's post would have passed without much notice. He calls me "a frightened man." Nothing can be further from the truth. Dave doesn't frighten me. He is a man of considerable intellectual gifts. A better man (to use his word) than I am-- I have no doubt. But I wonder. Maturity of thought sometimes plods along and out gains those with brilliance of thought.
What I think irks David is that someone actually has the nerve to call him on the carpet. He likes to talk about people's "blindness." No, I didn't view Dave's post in isolation; he has a long history of claiming his fellow theorists are "con men" and "crooks" (two phrases that can be found in the archives--I'll post examples if he wants), and, because of this history, I felt a response was needed to the above comment.
Finally, let me quickly add that David's own theory might have merit. It probably does have merit. Then again, it might be utter donkey dung. How am I to know? All I can really know is that he has been promoting it for a good long while now. But it's much easier to be the food critic for the East Centerville Gazette than it is to be a decent cook. Personally, I think Dave's "epistemology" is delusional. But whatever the truth, I recommend Dave lets the public taste of his own home cookin' before endulging in any more of his condescending rants about everone else's approach to the case.
RJP
|
Michael Blayne Raney
Police Constable
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 8
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 2:24 pm: | |
RJP,
I agree,have a pint on me! 
Mikey  |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 4:25 pm: | |
1. "Mr. Evan's opinion of the case has a mercenary motive. He owns the Littlechild Letter, so Tumblety is his suspect."
>>Mr. Evans is not mercenary. To say that I ascribe a mercenary nature to him is to gossip stupidly about me. Such gossip has a long history of success on these boards, however, since a large number of naive people post here, people who don't bother to question what is said and go ahead and believe what seems easiest to understand, or what they are led into believing.
2. "Rumbelow wrote a by-in-large objective book on the case. But his opinion (if he even had one) was based on the statements of a senior Scotland Yard official and not on family whispers. It was an entirely legitimate historical approach."
>>I have no quibble with Mr. Rumbelow making a case for Druitt, using the memoranda as an "historical approach." But there isn't much evidence beyond the memoranda, one must understand. If you START with the memoranda, if you MAKE IT YOUR CENTER, and if you then can't go much further, then starting with the memoranda in the first place is called into question. Simple logic.
3. "Dave is attempting the age-old ad hominem slur (yes, I use the word "slur" again) in order to reduce Melvin Harris's theory into something ridiculous?"
>>Slur, schlmur. Harris himself states in "The True Face" that Cremers and Collins were Lesbians. In this manner, Harris puts the question of their believability into play. Lesbianism goes much deeper than simply a decision of what sex one is going to go to bed with. If a significant portion of what we know about D'Onston's candidacy for being the Ripper runs through them, then we must question whether they wern't exaggerating between themselves, making up and feeding on a story to fit their preconception that D'Onston as a man may not have been very good, because to them men are not very good.
3. "He likes to talk about people's "blindness." No, I didn't view Dave's post in isolation; he has a long history of claiming his fellow theorists are "con men" and "crooks" (two phrases that can be found in the archives--I'll post examples if he wants),..."
>>No let's wait one minute here. Mr. Palmer is attempting to transfer one thing I've said about one group of people, to something else I've said about a different group of people. He is banking, with good reason I think, on the fact that the folks who read his garbage aren't thoughtful enough to think back on what I've said or reread my posts. I've referred to many Ripperologists as blind, because they don't know entirely what they have. In fact, I've often read the case solution said almost outright by posters who don't appreciate how far their own statements really go, logically. But I've referred to only a very few Ripperologists as con artists. Specifically a certain three. Certainly I've never refered to Evans, Begg, Harris, Skinner, Sugden, Rumbelow, Fido and other respectible writers in this manner. Transference is a central trick of Mr. Palmer's malignant gossip.
Indications that all Mr. Palmer is doing is ambushing me with false information in front of people who don't know any better are so massive in his last two posts that readers should consider whether they want to believe anything he posts here again.
David Radka
|
Michael Blayne Raney
Police Constable
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 10
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 5:26 pm: | |
David Radka, why do you assume that any Lesbian would think "D'Onston as a man may not have been very good, because to them men are not very good."? LESBIANS HAPPEN TO LOVE WOMEN, NOT HATE MEN. What planet do you come from? Hopefully your biggoted comment offended more than just me. I am Gay and I do NOT think women are bad people.
Mikey
|
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 7:48 pm: | |
Hi All,
I tried very hard to stay out of this, but I can't let this pass.
>>Mr. Evans is not mercenary. To say that I ascribe a mercenary nature to him is to gossip stupidly about me.
But David, you used the word "purchasing". My interpretation was exactly the same as RJ's. He gave you an opportunity to clarify that statement, just in case he (and I) had misinterpreted your remark. However, instead of explaining:
>> Such gossip has a long history of success on these boards, however, since a large number of naive people post here, people who don't bother to question what is said and go ahead and believe what seems easiest to understand, or what they are led into believing.
You launch into a diatribe about the history of the boards, and yet again, have a go at the intellect of the people who post here. I won't even get into that, I'll just point out that you still haven't addressed RJ's request for clarification. I'd like to hear it too.
>>Slur, schlmur. Harris himself states in "The True Face" that Cremers and Collins were Lesbians. In this manner, Harris puts the question of their believability into play.
I read the same book, and my interpretation was that Harris mentioned it to establish the nature and background of the relationship between Collins and Cremers. It's been a number of years since I read the book, but I don't recall Harris saying anything about them being unreliable due to their Lesbianism.
>> Lesbianism goes much deeper than simply a decision of what sex one is going to go to bed with. If a significant portion of what we know about D'Onston's candidacy for being the Ripper runs through them, then we must question whether they wern't exaggerating between themselves, making up and feeding on a story to fit their preconception that D'Onston as a man may not have been very good, because to them men are not very good.
Um, weren't you the guy who dated a girl for several years, and she left you for another woman? Don't you think it's possible your personal experience is coloring your perceptions and your attitude?
Mikey, RJ, first round is on me :-)
Jim
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 21
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 10:21 am: | |
Cost of casebook CD: $25
A few books on the subject: $100
Finding this:
"Um, weren't you the guy who dated a girl for several years, and she left you for another woman? Don't you think it's possible your personal experience is coloring your perceptions and your attitude?"
out about a guy on the message boards who seems to think he's solved the case and couldn't figure out how to get his attachments un-hidden in Outlook Express....... priceless
Thanks Jim.. if true, that answered a lot of questions.
crix0r
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 2:11 pm: | |
gee hello there,
i have some things to say
number one i thought we were not supposed to insult people on the basis of there personal lives 'whether they were the guy who whatever or whatever' even if they are being a bit weird about what being a lesbian means!
now i haven't read all of mr radlka or mr palmers posts above but this thread started by me (i apologise) has desended into a rant about which one we like better or whatever, what has this got to do with anything.
no i don't know any one who is a lesbian, but i don't suspect that it means you hate all men! does this mean i (ie female hetrosexual)hate all other women?
is that all you men think about!
its getting ridiculous
'thats all i have to say on the matter'
cheers
jennifer |
Jason Scott Mullins
Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 23
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 2:30 pm: | |
Hello Jennifer -
Perhaps it is time to just get back on track. The only big assumption that I made and no I am having a hard time proving to myself is whether or not these were serial events done by the same person, or if they were something else altogether.
I know we ascribe some of them to be by the same hand, but sometimes I have a hard time pinpointing exactly why. Evidence is lacking, so I think we all assume that there just could not be more than one person at the same time, killing in a similar way.. but, sometimes I just don't know if that is correct or not..
Just a random thought..
crix0r
P.S. "is that all you men think about!" Is what all us men think about, Lesbians? Personally, no, they do not occupy a lot of my thought  |
Michael Blayne Raney
Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 11
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 2:40 pm: | |
Jennifer,
Once again I let Mr. Radka get in the way of my better judgement. I must apologize for allowing myself to stray off the topic of the thread. I'm sorry.
Sincerely,
Mikey |
Thomas C. Wescott
Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 16
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 3:29 pm: | |
Hello all,
To set a few things straight - Stewart Evans wrote a book about Tumblety because he felt, as a historian, he had an obligation to. He has never categorically stated (as many writers do) that he is certain he's found the Ripper. He has simply proven that Tumblety was a (possible THE) leading suspect. Do I believe he was the Ripper? No. But Stewart and Paul's book is interesting and provided fresh new insight into the case.
As far and D'Onston and lesbians. Mabel Collins was not a lesbian and was in fact D'Onston's lover. Was she bi and having an affair with Vittoria Cremers? Possibly. Was Vittoria gay? More than likely. Does this have anything to do with D'Onston's candidacy? No. Are some lesbians man-haters? Yes. All? No. Was Vittoria? She doesn't seem to have been.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 11:03 am: | |
Really, David, if you’re going to insult me, at least spell the insult correctly. It took a moment for it to register that you were trying to call me a sycophant.
This is delusional nonsense. You have every right to question the conclusions of past theorists. It’s the stuff that discourse is made of, and I offer no resistance in such matters. Utterly ravage their theories--if you can-- but use actual logic and fair-play and not some dishonest sort of reducio ad absurdum wherein you entirely misrepresent both their theory and their thought-processes. You disarm them by misstating them and dismiss 115 years of research with some smug, self-serving jab about "what we need is assumption control." Because, yes, I know, you are once again plumping for your idea, the need for finding the "epistemological center" in the secondary sources.
I'm not afraid to think, David. I know you in your odd way were attempting some philosophical point, but what was concealed in your ill-mannered rant is the fact that it all boils down to your unproven speculation. This (as I stated in my original response) is itself an assumption. The mass of criminal cases are solved by one thing: donkey-work. The validity of your approach remains to be seen, and, personally, I'm rather immune to messianic seduction by those who play-act at being the infante terrible. The invalidity of all other approaches also remains to be seen, and I wouldn't be so smug if I were you.
I picture someone sitting in a wing-back chair at 221 B Baker Street, rings of Opium Smoke curling around his head, a picture of Nietzche on the wall, and a bust of Socrates on the mantle-piece with the A-Z in his lap and ---through the sheer mental brilliance of his logic and insight ---he sees the “epistemological center” of the disconnected evidence found in secondary sources and "solves the case.” It's a wonderful romantic notion--if it works. As always, I wish you the best of luck. But until it works it is speculation and boasting,and it doesn't bode well for the methodology if the theorist has to supply the opposition with wooden swords. You haven’t yet won the field, my friend. And personally, I'm arrogant enough (and I'm sure some of the theorists above probably think highly enough of themselves, too) that I personally don't particularly care to hear mantras about proper-think from someone whose central idea I don't agree with. Expect a little resistance now and then.
And now, I shall retire until my own thesis is complete. David and I do have some common-ground. For one thing, we're both fairly so-so spellers. Regards, RJP
P.S. for the record:
"For myself, I neither liked or disliked him [D'Onston]. He was Mabel Collins’ friend and simply part of the day’s work so far as the business was concerned.” ---Vittoria Cremers.
|
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 68
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 11:33 am: | |
Ok,
I don't like what David writes on these boards most of the time (believe me!!), but do you honestly think he likes having his private life aired publicly. I mean, maybe he doesn't mind a whole bunch of strangers knowing about his past love life, but personally if I'd told a few people who I'd known longer, I would feel very upset to find them spilling that information out onto the boards. Maybe the fact that his girlfriend left him for another woman had coloured his perceptions, but I don't think we all needed to know. He may talk utter drivel at times but he is human too. That's all I have to say on the matter.
Sarah |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2893
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 11:41 am: | |
Sarah:
Well said.
David:
I think everyone's had enough of your posts about lesbians.
Everyone:
Stick to the subject at hand. No one's personal life is relevant to this or any other discussion on these boards.
Keep it civil or take it to email.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 156
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 22, 2003 - 3:04 pm: | |
stephen,
thank you so much
jason thats not what i meant and back on track is where i want to be so i will say, i agree with you, the idea they were all killed by one person, is one of the main assumptions, i don't know how much evidence there really is for this
jennifer |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 11:09 am: | |
"Stewart Evans wrote a book about Tumblety because he felt, as a historian, he had an obligation to. He has never categorically stated (as many writers do) that he is certain he's found the Ripper. He has simply proven that Tumblety was a (possible THE) leading suspect."
>>This statement on the part of Mr. Wescott places Stewart Evans in an uncomfortable and uncongenial position. On the one hand according to Mr. Wescott, Mr. Evans writes a book on the candidacy of Francis Tumblety as the Whitechapel murderer, but on the other, he shamelessly and mischievously abrogates responsibility for promulgating any notion that Tumblety was the murderer. Because Mr. Evans cannot have it both ways, he is presented as a senseless author who produces a bizarre mutation of fact and fiction, a monstrosity and travesty unimaginable to the proper person of letters.
I do not believe that Mr. Evans and his work should be seen this way. Stewart did a professional Ripperlogical job, and he stands on his work. It is honorable to write a book to promulgate a suspect, if not always wise to do so. No dishonorable discharge should be made of Stewart as a Ripperologist based on what he has done; in fact he should remain highly respected.
Saddam
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page