Stride's was not a ripper victim. !

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Edit Profile

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post Archive through February 01, 2005 Richard Brian Nunwee 50  1  2-01-05  4:24 pm Archive through February 16, 2005 Cludgy 50  1  2-16-05  12:58 pm Archive through February 22, 2005 Caroline Anne Morris 50  1  2-22-05  3:40 am Archive through February 26, 2005 Sandy 50  1  2-26-05  2:38 pm Archive through March 02, 2005 Restless Spirit 50  1  3-02-05  9:33 pm Archive through March 05, 2005 Jane Coram 50  1  3-05-05  11:17 am Archive through March 07, 2005 Caroline Anne Morris 50  1  3-07-05  7:34 am Archive through March 12, 2005 timsta 50  1  3-12-05  2:45 pm Archive through March 14, 2005 Phil Hill 50  1  3-14-05  1:55 am Archive through March 16, 2005 Jeff Hamm 50  1  3-16-05  3:10 pm Archive through March 20, 2005 Glenn G. Lauritz And 50  1  3-20-05  6:11 am Archive through March 24, 2005 Mephisto 50  1  3-24-05  1:26 am Archive through March 29, 2005 Robert W. House 50  1  3-29-05  12:34 pm Archive through April 08, 2005 Richard Brian Nunwee 50  1  4-08-05  2:50 pm Archive through August 18, 2005 Jack_curious 50  1  8-18-05  10:23 am Archive through October 16, 2005 Stanley D. Reid 50  1  10-16-05  10:42 am Archive through October 18, 2005 Frank van Oploo 50  1  10-18-05  3:26 pm Archive through October 21, 2005 Baron von Zipper 50  1  10-21-05  11:22 pm Archive through October 25, 2005 Helge Samuelsen 50  1  10-25-05  8:39 am Archive through October 28, 2005 Harry Mann 50  1  10-28-05  4:50 am Archive through November 01, 2005 Sir Robert Anderson 50  1  11-01-05  9:01 pm Archive through November 05, 2005 Steve Swift 50  1  11-05-05  9:04 pm Archive through November 11, 2005 N. Beresford. 50  1  11-11-05  5:27 pm Archive through November 15, 2005 Stanley D. Reid 50  1  11-15-05  9:45 pm Archive through November 18, 2005 Jane Coram 50  1  11-18-05  7:06 pm Archive through November 23, 2005 Monty 50  1  11-23-05  3:38 am Archive through December 02, 2005 Dan Norder 50  1  12-02-05  9:35 pm   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   Monty Assistant Commissioner Username: Monty Post Number: 2042 Registered: 3-2003 Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 4:28 am:        Caz, Young man, theres no need to feel down, I said….. Sorry for my delayed reply as well. All to do with diabetes clinics, washing machines and Christmas decorations. “How would that be picked up as an enticement for new recruits? (It doesn't help that I keep thinking of Village People, camping it up to "We want you, we want you, we want you for a new recruit")” If your race is being blamed for almost every problem within the local community then a call to unity is understandable. Maybe it was not meant as an enticement but as a thought provoker. Maybe it was meant as a slur against the Jews. Maybe, maybe, maybe, I do indeed see your point as well as Helges. And I too concede the points made by the both of you. Cheers, Monty It begins.....   David Radka Detective Sergeant Username: Dradka Post Number: 80 Registered: 7-2005 Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 2:08 pm:        Mr. Norder wrote: "If you state something as true, you should be able to back it up, not just continue to declare it true over and over and call people who have evidence on their side but disagree with you ridiculous. This is a fundamental concept in presenting an argument and trying to get other people to believe it." >>Mr. Norder has a distorted notion of what "presenting an argument and trying to get other people to believe it" is all about. He is obtuse to most criteria of truth used in the academic world, especially as used in the arts and sciences, and instead insists quite inappropriately on the criterion of the most skeptical hard science for everything. Under Mr. Norder's criterion for truthfulness a solution of the Whitechapel murders is impossible, because we don't have enough hard evidence such as a credible confession, "Jack the Ripper's knife," etc. It is easy to take the position on the case that Mr. Norder takes. You don't need to be insightful, thoughtful or to know much. It is especially counter-insightful to think of Ripperology in terms of the hard sciences, like physics. David M. Radka Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders" Casebook Dissertations Section   Helge Unregistered guest Posted on Sunday, December 04, 2005 - 6:03 pm:        Dan, I see you are still not letting this thing go, and so I need to post yet one more time. "But there's a difference between arguing for an opinion and what Helge (and a handful of others) do here, which is to present things that are not only highly dubious and unproven but contrary to the evidence that we do have as facts, and then be insulting and misleading when called on it" So it is only allowed to present things that you personally consider proved and in accordance with facts the way you see it? Well, that is pretty much my point. Was I misleading when called on it? Maybe wrong sometimes. But misleading? I kind of thought that implied that I knew I was wrong... Insulting? Well, maybe I am sometimes. I hope most people did not find me insulting. It was never my intention. And whenever people have told me they though I was unfair, I have always apologized. If you personaly felt insulted by me, that was only because in my opinion I called YOU on YOUR totally unsupported claims. You said among other things that I took numbers from thin air. I don't think you can prove that. The things you said did in fact tell me that you did not understand the principles I was trying to get across. But still you were quite adamant that you were right. Maybe I have been wrong, but lately you certainly have not put much effort into proving why and how, except state your opinion. Martin here, on the other hand, explains why he think I was wrong on one point, and I accept that. "The main problem in this field is that there are too many wholly unsupported ideas and often outright falsehoods being tossed around as if they are facts." Yes, and where are the evidence for the flesh on the table theory? Have anyone come up with irrefutable evidence? Not in my opinion. But falsehoods? Falsehood imply that those that disagree with you intentionally lie. Again, if the only thing accepted on these boards are what you accept as true, then there is not much point is there? Which is exactly why I made my decision to leave! And Dan, have I ever accused you of anything, except not having understood the calculations I did on the Kelly photograph? Maybe I am wrong, but certainly you did not understand it, that was pretty clear. "Those people who are completely off in the ether with no grounding in reality whatsoever have convinced themselves that I am evil incarnate." Well, I may be in the "ether" in your opinion. But I have never thought any such thoughts about you whatsoever. "If you think I personally attacked you you should report it to Stephen." Why should I? I am not mad at you. Not at all. The decision to leave was based on pure rational thought. I have almost left Casebook on two separate occasions before, and that was not because of you. What I feel is that we should allow some measure of speculation here, to see where it ends without getting personal. Obviously we should also point out errors and discuss that which is open to debate (which happen to be just about everything) That you should be the catalyst in the end was certainly not because I was particularly angry, upset or had any axe to grind concerning you as a person. It just happened to be that way. Ah, I'm in a ranting mood, so let me just keep going... "A source from centuries earlier that speaks about Juwes not in a Masonic sense at all." Well, that kind of illustrate my point about actually reading what posters say before jumping to conclusions. You was so hung up on the masonic link that you did not see that I actually said that this was highly unlikely, but that Juwes did exist as a word in its own right. That was my main point. Or at least I thought it was. And I'm also pretty sure you have not yet read the book I used as a reference to the use of Juwes within Freemasonry. So why do you act as if I did not submit any evidence at all? What is good enough for you? I simply refuse to be dragged into submitting more and more evidence, because you will probably never be satisfied anyway. About the Juwes I could also mention that the Golden Dawn, most easily described as a splinter group of Freemasonry, "...a secret society that is dedicated to the practice of ritual magic and the study of occult science...", sometimes refer to the Three Ruffians as Jubela, Jubelo and Juwes. And, no, that does not mean I think this is connected to Jack the Ripper at all. Freemasonry sometimes refer to the same three collectively as the three Jubes. With a B...that is no misspelling. And sometimes as the Juwes. I personally find it exceptionally strange that Knight should have influenced their thinking to the degree of making them use his (if that was the case) invented word Juwes. You clearly do not. But that is no reason to ridicule my opinion. "Seriously, dude, what the hell? The ruffians in the story killed someone who was a Jew, so why on Earth would they use the term "Jews" to refer to them?" Well, that was very logical. Since you do not see any reason for Freemasons to use the term Juwes, they cannot have done so? And I suppose modern Freemasons are simply overlooking this fact? Seriously, dude... I could try to tell you that the connection to the Jews lies within the basic story of the Secrets of the pharaoh and the Jews wishing to obtain these secrets. It is all somewhat connected to the biblical stories, of course. (And, no, I don't believe in any of the versions in case you wonder) But my purpose here is not to give a lesson in the history of Freemasonry, suffice to say that Jews are actually very important in this story, (as they are in the biblical one) and anyone looking into this will soon understand why. This can go on and on. And that is the reason I call it quits. There is really no point to it. We can both try to pick on each others beliefs and\or opinions ad infinitum. I will only say one more thing. You claimed I have been insulting a lot of people on these boards. That has never been my intention. However, I cannot see why you believe you yourself are on some kind of moral high ground. Because if I have insulted anyone, I have probably (I sincerely hope) never been so rude as yourself. What you said about me, I can easily say about you: "...all you do is state things as facts, insult people who don't believe you..." But I won't. Because in the end you do not insult me. It is just that I think further discussion is pointless. And that is my decision. Helge   Dan Norder Assistant Commissioner Username: Dannorder Post Number: 1047 Registered: 4-2004 Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 5:51 pm:        Hi David, No, that's not hard physics, that's just the standards used in all academic fields... Well, except for philosophy, of course, where people get to make up whatever they want. But then that seems to be your background, so perhaps that's where you are confused. Hi Helge, I can see that you are passionate, but then you haven't really done anything about that little problem with stating things as facts that contradict what we do know and not providing anything to back it up. For example, you claim that the Masons "sometimes refer to the Three Ruffians as Jubela, Jubelo and Juwes" without a source. If it were true that some of them now used Juwes in this way, it again would not be pertinent to this discussion at all unless you could show that they did so before Stephen Knight's book, which is the first source anyone has found claiming the Masons used Juwes in any context. But you'll find that these modern sources actually say that the third name is Jebulum, not Juwes... "Juwes" was what Stephen Knight came up with to describe all three, not one of them, and he did so based upon already knowing about the Goulston Street Graffiti and wanting to link the Masons. So, here's your chance: If you have an actually source to support this statement of yours that not only goes against what can be shown in 19th century Freemasonry references but also what Knight claimed in modern times, go ahead and provide it. Otherwise you're just making yet another unsupported claim that contradicts every source on the topic. Dan Norder, Editor Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies  Profile    Email    Dissertations    Website   Julie Inspector Username: Judyj Post Number: 248 Registered: 2-2005 Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 8:37 pm:        David Radka David, instead of crapping on Dan all the time, each of his posts, why not add your expert opinion? I know you are opinionated, as no doubt we all are, but targeting a specific person doesn't cut it. Why not add your unbiased opinion, or expert if you fall into this category, but for christ's sake David stop being a post targeter and become a poster. regards Julie   Helge Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 9:32 am:        Dan, Of course I could provide you with my source for the use of Jubela, Jubelo and Juwes. But it does not matter. It is not pre-Knight, so according to YOUR definition it does not matter. But please re-read my original post. I said it was in use by the Golden Dawn, not the Freemasons. Although the Golden Dawn is more or less a splinter group of Freemasonry I never said I could prove that particular use was also used in Freemasonry. But it is quite telling that the word pops up also here. But actually this info can be found also in sources availble on the internet, so anyone interested might possibly dig a source out. But according to your definitions it is invalid evidence before even submitted, so why bother? What I say is that the word is in use today, and that most probably it was used before today, even if we have no actual written evidence. That this concerns "secret societies" makes this not at all impossible. You claim that the use of Juwes in such societies is influenced by Stephen Knight. I say that sounds presposterous. Why on earth should such conservative societies let a rather obscure reference in a largely discredited book make them change their religion, sort of speak. You base your conclusion on negative evidence. That is valid only to make assumptions, never to prove anything. So the ASSUMPTION is that the word was not in use pre-Knight. I say that the fact that it is in various use today might negate this assumption based on the thought that it sounds improbable that Knight was that influential on re-arranging the thoughts of secret societies. I have also pointed out the fact that the Jews (as a race and people) is actually a theme of the teachings of such societies. Freemasonry used to be rather anti-semitic. I will not prove that it was, anyone interested might research this bit for themselves. The scenario of Hiram Abiff and the three Ruffians is an obvious analogy. Hiram was the son of the widow, chief architect of Solomons Temple. Son of the Widow makes sense in an Egyptian religious perspective. Solomon was king of the Israelites. And you say Jews are not in the picture? In case anyone have forgotten who Solomon was: http://jeru.huji.ac.il/eb32s.htm A time where there was enourmous tension between Jewish religion and the so called pagan religions... A make or break time for the Israelites and their God. A time when it was believed that a great Secret was lost in the process... This is the theme of it all. There never was an actual Hiram Abiff killed by three Jews. It is all to be interpreted symbolically. (a very good and thoroughly scholarly work on the issue of the Egyptian/Sumerian link to the Israelites and their religion are "Legend, the Genesis of Civilization" by David Rohl) Anyone will see the Jewish connection in these stories if they take the time to actually look. Helge   David Radka Detective Sergeant Username: Dradka Post Number: 82 Registered: 7-2005 Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 4:56 pm:        Julie wrote: 1. “David, instead of crapping on Dan all the time, each of his posts, why not add your expert opinion? I know you are opinionated, as no doubt we all are, but targeting a specific person doesn't cut it.” >>I don’t see it as “crapping on Dan,” but as doing a public service. Mr. Norder is himself a problem for Ripperology. Thousands of people read these posts, and most are relatively unsophisticated in the case. To listen to Mr. Norder, one would think the views of various posters have been proven wrong when they haven’t. Mr. Norder aggressively mischaracterizes arguments and debates that take place here as previously having been totally resolved in his favor, when nothing of the sort has taken place. Additionally, he makes dissimulative claims that various posters have misunderstood or even misrepresented their research when he has not adequately researched or understood the subjects under discussion himself. Mr. Norder is a shallow person who nevertheless demands that others respect him and his views, and I’ve found that most people are willing to oblige when placed into such a situation, especially if they aren’t prepared to do their own thinking. If you want to see this classic trickery in action for yourself, spend some time reading through the original A?R thread. I’m not going to name names, but a number of intelligent people communicating with me are concerned about Mr. Norder. 2. “Why not add your unbiased opinion, or expert if you fall into this category, but for christ's sake David stop being a post targeter and become a poster.” >>My unbiased opinion is that anyone reading these message boards should step back and take a deep breath when reading what Mr. Norder has to say. From his perch atop ‘Ripper Notes,’ he presents himself as a tireless ombudsman and defender of the little guy and the beginner, faithfully debunking deceivers and manipulators in the name and spirit of science itself. What he wants you all to do is trust in him, admire his dash and verve, and then subscribe to his journal. Analyze and compare what he says to the best of your ability. Don’t take a pig in a poke. David M. Radka Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders" Casebook Dissertations Section   Julie Inspector Username: Judyj Post Number: 253 Registered: 2-2005 Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 8:34 am:        David Radka, David, You've come back again with very insulting comments about Dan Norder. We all have problems at times getting our points across in a fashion understandable to others. Maybe others are misinterpreting or maybe we are miscomminicating. I recall the old boards David, and you were a bit of a hellraiser when you wanted to be. You've ticked me off a few times to say the least. However as adults, communications, debates and even disagreements are totally acceptable, that's how we learn from others. But name calling, personal attacks to one's character and professionism takes the enjoyment out of the boards. I don't intend to argue with you and certainly cannot and will not tell you what to do, but I certainly have no interest in reading your posts under the circumstances. It's too bad David because I have no doubt you do have lots to share with us on the board. I've learned to be selective these days,, and not get emotionally charged by posters who continually argue, and certainly not those who defame others unnecessarily. regards Julie   Robert W. House Inspector Username: Robhouse Post Number: 298 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 10:44 am:        Can we get back to the matter at hand, First, I really don't see any point in debating the spelling of the word Juwes. It clearly means Jews... end of story. I want to get back to Monty's earlier point about the meaning of the phrase itself, which I personally think is a much more relevant topic for discussion. And Monty, I tend to be open to the interpretation you put forth... "Juwes are the men not to be fcuked with", although I don't think this needs to be in any way dependant on inbterpretation of "Juwes" as a gang moniker or something of that sort. In short I can see this as being written by a Jew. My real point is that I think it is crucially important that this be analyzed in the context of the Jewish situation at the time. We must analyze the state of anti-semitism and anti-alien sentiment that supposedly first broke surface in 1888. I think that when it is considered in this context, we might be able to understand the meaning better. But my understanding of the state of anti-semitism at the time is somewhat limited. I am aware that there was a general anti-jewish sentiment, especially among the poor east-enders, and also that there was anti-jewish writing in newspapers.... what more? Riots? Gatherings? I mean, exactly how extreme was the anti-semitic fervor in London in 1888? I feel that I need specific examples. Rob House   Natalie Severn Assistant Commissioner Username: Severn Post Number: 2697 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 12:57 pm:        Rob, Prof William Fishman wrote the most highly acclaimed book on this subject,East End Jewish radicals 1875-1914.He is the son of an East End immigrant tailor. In ,"the Streets of East London2 he writes, "By 1888 prejudice had broken surface.[to me this implies it had only been "latent" until then] were already mouthing rhetoric derived from the lowest common denominator-the irrational fears and hatred festering in the mind of the slum dweller.The Whitechapel murders that year provided the setting for a minor outbreak of Judophobia.After the Ripper murder a local editor observed under the heading "A riot against the Jews": On Saturday in several quarters of East London the crowds who assembled in the streets began to assume a very threatening attitude towards the Hebrew population of the district.It was repeatedly asserted that no Englishman could have perpetrated such a horrible crime as that of Hanbury Street,and that it must have been done by a JEW- and forthwith the crowds began to threaten and abuse such of the unfortunate Hebrews as thy found in the streets.Happily the presence of a large number of police....prevented a riot actually taking place. [East London Observer 15 September 1888] Fishman goes on "The aftermath of mass expulsions from Moscow and Kiev with a rising unemployment in the 1890"s dramatised the issue again through a vociferous outburst of anti-immigrant propaganda.Agitation against the "destitute alien" grew in volume and intensity,1892 being a peak year which registered the first large scale entry of the problem into active politics. I think this covers the extent of it during the period in question.There were no large riots or anything but simmering resentment waxing and waning with a flurry of activity in 1888. Its interesting though that these small scale riots happened just after the Hanbury Street murder and a little before the Stride/Eddowes murders---- therfore making the word ,JEWS, a very imflammatory word indeed. Best Natalie   Stanley D. Reid Chief Inspector Username: Sreid Post Number: 674 Registered: 4-2005 Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 5:31 pm:        What does all this have to do with whether Stride was a Ripper victim or not? I must have missed something so please enlighten me. Stan   Natalie Severn Assistant Commissioner Username: Severn Post Number: 2701 Registered: 11-2003 Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 6:22 pm:        Stan, I posted the information about anti semitism in 1888 Whitechapel because Rob wanted to know the extent of prejudice in the east end at that time and how the use of the word Jew [presumably in the graffiti]fitted into that context. Stride was killed virtually within the precincts of a Jewish club and Eddowes[and Nichols]were killed near Jewish clubs -in Nichols case right near where regular Jewish gatherings took place-outside the Board School.Hanbury Street too had a well known Jewish Meeting Hall right near where Annie Chapman was murdered and Wentworth Street was the heart of the Ghetto. Natalie   Sir Robert Anderson Chief Inspector Username: Sirrobert Post Number: 659 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 8:21 pm:        "I really don't see any point in debating the spelling of the word Juwes. It clearly means Jews... end of story. " I wish it was. But in all seriousness, as I have posted earlier, how do we know we're not looking at the LVP equivalent of a "Son of Sam" letter, or a communication from the Zodiac ? We spend our times here discussing the actions of a madman, but when it comes to the GSG we're supposed to assume he was being literal ? How do we know that the Juwes weren't the little green men following Jack around, forcing him to kill ?? Sir Robert 'Tempus Omnia Revelat' SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com   David Radka Detective Sergeant Username: Dradka Post Number: 86 Registered: 7-2005 Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 10:24 pm:        "Sir Robert" wrote: "How do we know that the Juwes weren't the little green men following Jack around, forcing him to kill ??" >>What evidence do you cite showing that JtR believed he was being spoken to by little green men? David M. Radka Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders" Casebook Dissertations Section   Caroline Anne Morris Assistant Commissioner Username: Caz Post Number: 2406 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 8:55 am:        Hi David, I took Sir Robert to mean that if a serial killer wrote the message, we might all be wasting our time trying to interpret it rationally as a rationally expressed statement of anything; why would it be? He simply illustrated this point with the little green men example. If we knew what the words meant beyond reasonable doubt, it might help us decide that someone other than Jack wrote them. But not knowing IMHO will always leave open the real possibility that Jack left his mark here for reasons even he may not have completely understood. While the motive to chalk this message remains unclear, the action itself is not out of place with the more usual activities of a serial killer, the motives for which are equally obscure. Love, Caz X   Sir Robert Anderson Chief Inspector Username: Sirrobert Post Number: 663 Registered: 2-2003 Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 10:59 am:        Thanks, Caz. That is indeed what I meant. Let's take a look at this letter by Berkowitz: "A note, addressed to Captain Joseph Borrelli, was left at the scene which identified the .44 caliber killer as 'Son of Sam'. ...I am deeply hurt by your calling me a woman hater. I am not. But I am a monster. I am the 'Son of Sam.'... ... when father Sam gets drunk he gets mean. He beats his family. Sometimes he ties me up to the back of the house. Other times he locks me in the garage. Sam loves to drink blood. 'Go out and kill,' commands father Sam... The note eerily concluded with these words: "I'll be back, I'll be back!  To be interrepreted as - bang, bang, bang - ugh!".  The note was signed "Yours in murder - Mr. Monster". " The police spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out who Sam was, and quite reasonably thought that the killer might be his son. We now know that Sam was Berkowitz's neighbor's dog. Sir Robert 'Tempus Omnia Revelat' SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com   N. Beresford. Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 11:19 am:        Well, to set the record straight - if it were not for the inspired and intuitive thinking on the part of scientists we'd all still be walking everywhere.   AAR Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 5:32 am:        I do not think Mr. Radka may be related to U.S. film legend Gary Cooper. Cooper was a man of very few words, often simply "yes" and "no."   David Radka Detective Sergeant Username: Dradka Post Number: 87 Registered: 7-2005 Posted on Saturday, December 10, 2005 - 9:39 pm:        A most unusual post by "Anti-A?R" (AAR) above. I'm trying to think who would pick up on this. Could it be Scott Nelson? AAR always writes very few words. David M. Radka Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders" Casebook Dissertations Section