|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 980
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 12:20 am: | 
|
Hi Phil,
I am aggressive because you stormed in and made highly aggressive comments that simply can't be supported by the evidence.
He said the suspects in his memorandum were more likely than Cutbush, but he most certainly did not put the slant on it that you do that that was his {only} criteria for listing them as suspects, because we know that, despite his inability to get simple facts about his life correct, he thought Druitt was the most likely suspect.
Frankly, your claims that I need to look at the evidence and what the memoranda really say are laughable coming from a person who distorts the wrting so severely to make apologies for obvious and indisputable errors. It gets tiring for you to show up anytime Macnaghten is mentioned and try to pass the word "doctor" off as if it actually said something completely different, especially when you then turn around and try to claim that the people reading what it actually says aren't reading it correctly.
The memorandum wasn't "essentially correct in every way that matters" as you have put it in other threads, it was filled with errors, quite serious ones at that. You come off sounding like a Patricia Cornwell or someone like that caught in obvious errors but unwilling to admit them.
I mean, come on here, get real.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 995
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 2:01 am: |
|
What a very pleasant fellow you are, Mr Norder.
I think that it is you who "protests too much" in ladylike form - so keep the Patricia Cornwell insults for yourself. I have never been less than polite to you.
But I see why others might not wish to be a part of this forum any more.
I have never subscribed - or as far as I know read your publication. Any slight inclination to do so - by way of supporting a fellow member of Casebook - has now certainly been permanently buried.
As you say, my views on the Macnaghten Memorandum have been frequently expressed here. I stick by them. At least they reflect a study of the drafting and a knowledge of how civil servants think and work. They are not simply a perfervid attempt to argue some particular theory.
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 6:51 am: |
|
Hi Phil.
Don't even THINK about quitting the boards.
I for one am in total agreement with your views on Macnaghten and the memorandum. I see no distortion in your presentation, only your personal conclusions based on the evidence available.
Glenn Andersson refers to you as "the voice of reason". I couldn't agree more. There have been odd occasions when I might not have agreed with you on certain issues, but that is always going to happen in a case where there is so little concrete evidence.
But these things are no excuse for aggressive and impolite behaviour. I personally find your posts among the most sound and sensible to be found on these boards.
Keep up the good work Phil.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 996
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Thank you David, you words are much appreciated.
But, don't worry, I'm thicker skinned than to let uncouthness wear me down I rather agree with AP's sentiments in a different thread.
If Mr norder wishes we can embark on a line by line exegesis of the various drafts of the memoranda - it might be quite a good experiment anyway. But I doubt that Mr Norder would enjoy it, as it would prove him mistaken.
There - we shall see,
Thanks again, I do appreciate your posting as you did, Mr C.
Phil |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 208
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 2:51 pm: |
|
Hi,
I'm thinking about quitting the boards too. My tendency toward 'solitary vices' make me a target for Ripperologists. I don't want to end up like AK.
Wait? You mean I'm not the only one? Okay, I'll stay.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 739
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
It seems to me that this field lacks a quality that it had twenty years ago. In the old books on the case --those by Rumbelow, Farson, Begg, or even in some ways, Matters, Etc.-- there seemed to be a sort of unwritten code that theorizing wasn't one of the 7 Deadly Sins, and you wouldn't immediately be written up by the outraged keepers of the TRUTH. They knew that it was a given that the case was a MYSTERY, and that huge gaps existed in the case evidence--indeed, that's precisely why people were drawn to the mystery in the first place and enjoy speculating. Whatever mistakes those early authors may have made on occasion, there was a sense that they were genuinely attempting a case solution, or they were going to crack their skulls open trying. Even if Farson knocked Knight, or Howells & Skinner knocked Farson, there was a healthy comraderie, or of what might be called "intellectual generosity" for the other bloke or blokette's theory. I see very little of this going on nowadays. The atmosphere is quite unpleasant, particularly the tendency for a few self-elected firemen to run in and toss cold water when anyone wishes to endulge what might be proved to be a little healthy thinking beyond what strictly exists on the written page. If Newton didn't have faith in the unseen, he wouldn't have developed the laws of gravity. RP |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 293
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 3:38 pm: |
|
A note to Ben and Dan re:
"that "solitary vices" are of relatively little significance when assessing AK's candidacy for JTR. Such antics do not a ripper make."
Ben, I would direct you to read my article at http://roberthouse.com/other/ak2/ak3.html in which I address this. In my opinion it is a very important clue, so to speak... the generic profile of serial killers indicated an overwhelming tendency towards compulsory masturbation.
This from my article:
Over 80% of sexual killers interviewed in the FBI study reported "compulsive masturbation" in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Of these, 19 offenders also reported "sexually stressful situations" including "negative parental reaction to masturbation". It is generally inferred from Aaron's hospital file that the supposed cause of his attack of insanity was an uncontrollable public display of masturbation.
In speaking of the role of aggression in the development of sexual fantasies, Ressler et.al. notes the following example:
"One offender as an adolescent openly masturbated in his home, especially in front of his sisters,
... etc etc
Why do you think this is "insignificant" Dan?
RH |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 190
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 5:51 pm: |
|
Baron Von Zipper
Hi
14 - 36 was just a guestimate. At 37 I would still think that that same man would be able to do the same re solitary vises, however that would depend on the man, I would think.
Maybe if unable he could try viagra,afterall too much of a good thing can be hazardous to one's health, male wise only. females tend to be able to stretch this great atribut much further.
You tell me.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 191
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 5:54 pm: |
|
Baron Von Zipper
Actually I would interprept solitary vises, as in private, not public.
regards
Julie
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2752
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
RJ
You make such uncommon good sense with your post.
Every time one of us attempts to push the case into a useful new direction we are hammered into the ground by folk who just seem to want to keep the case on the ground.
Those who have something new to say are smashed.
Those who turn the beads of the accepted rules and regulations are welcomed with withered farts of joy.
But must we really turn the clock back?
I sit here, cranking that old clock forward, and damn their beads, I aim to succeed.
If I had to choose seven good men, you would be one of them. |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 192
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
Ben
I disagree that solitary vises means public.
If you have ever played solitaire, you play it by yourself, not in public for others to witness.
Julie
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2753
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
And Phil on the Hill
you are a diamond.
Don't let them dilute you with their acid.
The quality always shines through. |
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 46
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 7:19 pm: |
|
Add the name of Mr. Hill to the list of those who have remarked upon Mr. Norder's unwarranted aggressiveness and lack of account in posting. The list now includes Mephisto, Mr. Nelson, Ms Severn, Ms Comer, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Phillips, and myself as well as Mr. Hill.
Honestly, I cannot imagine why more posters did not recognize Mr. Norder for being what he is much earlier.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 56
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 7:20 pm: |
|
Sorry but it is time to come out of the closet for me *grin*
I thought what Macnaughten wrote was utter drivel to be quite honest and could never really understand why it was such big news.
So.....Swanson,Anderson & Macnaughten knew who the Ripper was did they? Okay explain to me HOW they knew this without the actual officers on the ground knowing - please someone tell me.
And....Dan Norder does actually have a point because the notes DO say that the three men named were more likely to have been the killer than Cutbush.Well hello......Bilbo Baggins was more likely to have been the killer than Cutbush, so how is this news?
Sorry but I'm not buying into what Macnaughten,Anderson & Swanson wrote at all.
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?"
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 209
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 9:14 pm: |
|
Julie,
How do we know if someone engaged in solitary vices?
He was seen doing it. That means the PUBLIC saw him. It doesn't necessarily mean he wanted to be on display. I have no idea what you are getting to.
If one is not caught and does not tell, how does one know?
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 581
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 11:06 pm: |
|
"there seemed to be a sort of unwritten code that theorizing wasn't one of the 7 Deadly Sins, and you wouldn't immediately be written up by the outraged keepers of the TRUTH. "
RJ, this is one of the finest posts I've read on these boards in a long time.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 210
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 11:45 pm: |
|
Rob H.
Be careful. There are so many who don't like that sort of statistic. They fear profiling. I agree with you, however. The inference that Aaron was a chronic masturbator is there alright.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 997
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 2:25 am: |
|
Steve,
Macnaghten's memorandum took on an importance, out of proprtion to its true value, because of the time when farson found it. The files were not open, and there was (as I recall) a tacit assumption that the police had known who the killer was, and that his name would be found on the files when opened (then thought to be around 30 years off).
Here, thanks to Lady Aberconway, it seemed we had a senior policeman of the time providing us with a glimpse of what the file might contain.
But I have no need to tell you this, I am sure.
The true understanding of the memoradum and its importance comes from studying it in context (both of the time it was written and conjunction with the drafts which exist) and in detail.
Only then do we comprehend what Sir Melville considered the purpose of his memo, and what it is and is not.
I have seen much nonsense written on these Boards about MM being "told" to write the memo, or that it is misinformation. Quite simply it was his job to do what he did - he was employed to provide advice to senior officials and politicians.
There is a slight possibility of the latter as a distraction from any Fenian angles in the case, but given when it was written, the likely contemporary audience (those with access to the file) and the timing of when it was written, I increasingly doubt that interpretation (though I have argued it in the past). It is slightly more possible (IMHO) that MM might have been seeking to protect fellow police officers, but whether simply because he wished to be helpful, or because of a cover-up,
One cannot stress too much the centrality and importance of the "file" to the civil servant of that period. Falsifying the contents of the file would have been almost the most heinous crime of which a public servant could commit.
I repeat what I have said many times, the memo is a quick and off-the-cuff note for the file, indicating the line to be taken should the press or MPs start down the "Cutbush was the Ripper" line, or because he wished to distract attention from them for other reasons, depends on your reading of the wider picture.
The drafts (which could all have been written in under an hour) make it clear that MM moved from personal views to a more disapassionate appreciation - look at the changes. It is also clear that he considered Druitt (on the basis of other evidence) the most likely suspect, but that was not his point in the memo.
Finally, it is clear he drafted quickly and from memory, and in the context of the memo his errors are not important. None of them change the nature of the line he was putting forward.
I would always advise people not to build too much on the basis of MM's memo, it would be asandy foundation for a theory. But as a snapshot of police thinking at senior level, and taken alongside Anderson's writings and Swanson's marginalia, I believe it has a lot of subtle information to convey to us.
As always context is king.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 998
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 2:31 am: |
|
Mr Radka,
Please do not associate me with yourself or your opinions in any way or at any time.
Whatever my differences or view of Mr Norder in this thread, I do not share your views or agree with them. Please do not quote me as doing so, or assume that I have any time for you or your opinions on any subject at all. believe me, I have infinitely more respect for Mr Norder (who at least seeks to make a positive and widely admired contribution to the subject) than I do for your arguments, theory or style of debate.
I wanted to make that clear to all.
Phil |
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 58
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 8:39 am: |
|
Hey Phil 
I repeat what I have said many times, the memo is a quick and off-the-cuff note for the file, indicating the line to be taken should the press or MPs start down the "Cutbush was the Ripper" line, or because he wished to distract attention from them for other reasons, depends on your reading of the wider picture.
That is a classic - in fact that should be made sticky for everyone to read, and I could not agree more.
But as a snapshot of police thinking at senior level, and taken alongside Anderson's writings and Swanson's marginalia, I believe it has a lot of subtle information to convey to us.
Well, the information it conveyed to me Phil was that,as usual,the senior officials sat in offices not knowing their arses from their elbows. The ramblings of Anderson,Swanson and MacNaughten have always bothered me because an awful lot of people take the things they wrote as gospel rather than, as you say Phil, taking them in context.
As far as any investigation into the actual crimes goes, I personally think they would have been better had they remained in some dusty vault.
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?"
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 294
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
Hi Mike,
"Be careful. There are so many who don't like that sort of statistic. They fear profiling."
Well, I've been in this type of discussion many times before, but just to clarify... most of the people on these boards who are critical of profiling, argue that it is not accurate in the sense of solving crimes. In other words, analysis of crime scenes etc and the detectives try to create a criminal profile of the person they are looking for. This is somewhat different from what I am talking about... this stuff is based on Ressler's (et al.) study of convicted sexual murderers. It is an attempt to determine if serial killers have similar backgrounds, personality traits, etc.
I am not really worried about bringing up these types of things. To me it is more a matter of statistics than anything else.
RH |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2259
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
Hi Julie,
Actually I would interprept solitary vises, as in private, not public.
I think you misunderstand the use of 'solitary' here. Think DIY vices - do it yourself. Masturbation can be termed a solitary vice, whether one does it in the smallest room with the door locked, or Kosminski-style, in a packed Albert Hall. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5208
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 11:18 am: |
|
Not while conducting, I hope.
Robert |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
My most probable explanation is that he masturbated in front of members of his family. He lived with his sister and her family. Whether he was caught masturbating, or did it in front of them on purpose, got off on it, or just did not realize the impropriety of it.... this is an open question. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2547
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
RJ
I loved that phrase "....particularly for a few self selected firemen to run in and toss cold water when anyone...----etc"
----a hilarious and farcical image if ever there was one!!
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Steve - part of the context is that Victorian officials were (IMHO) very unlikley to lie or falsify evidence, though they might bend the facts a little on occasion. That said, we know, that Anderson (from his secret service days) was capable of lying, notwithstanding his strong Christian principles.
One could argue that he justified lying in the Irish context as a necessity of state (one assumes he HAD to justify it to himself, few of us are that hypocritical!!). But that then raises the question, was he lying about JtR, and if so why?
If he was lying, then he persuaded both Macnaghten and Swanson of the Kosminski story, as both repeat it. But Melville Macnaghten appears (perhaps because he obtained private information from sources different to, or unknown to, Anderson)to have favoured the druitt solution. So where does that leave us?
I think that there were two views current in Scotland Yard in the early 1890s - one that believed that the house to house searches (or some other similar initiative) possibly backed up by a positive - but practically irrelevant - identification, showed Kosminski to be the killer. Anderson and Swanson took that view. The other opinion favoured Druitt by a process lost to us but hinted at by Sir Melville.
But I conclude that Anderson was not lying in this case, because he was able to carry his view across the Yard sufficiently strongly to have it repeated by others, but NOT strongly enough to deter MM was putting his own suspicions on the file. had Anderson lied (and had a political reason motive for it) then I think his view, influence and rank would have been sufficient
to enforce a single view across all his colleagues at least for public consumption.
Interestingly too, there is no obvious attmept on the files to push Kosminski as the solution - we know of him basically from Macnaghten (obliquely) and Swanson. So I perceive no cover-up or conspiracy on the face of the file. hence, I don't think Anderson lied in this case.
Neither do I think that MM's hints about private information were made up. I think he was genuinely convinced about Druitt, but that the memorandum shows him capable to splitting off his personal opinion from his official line.
Thus, my conclusion is that the police did not KNOW who JtR was. But i don't think the top brass were incompetent or worthless as you suggest. I think Anderson, Swanson and MM are demonstrably well-informed about the case. On the other hand, I think it irked them that they had no solution - could be thought to have let the biggest case of their age slip through their fingers - and as human beings rationalised away their failure.
They created reasons - suicide, useless identification, the narrow confines of legality (we'd have had him bang to rights but for the law!!) - which they then offered around their circles and to the public.
But that doesn't mean (IMHO again) that either Kosminski or Druitt shouldn't remain in the frame for us.
All this is, of course, just my logic - I recognise this is all interpretation not facts - but I believe that the argument is factually based, and I offer it as the basis of debate and constructive criticism (and - coincidentally - as my thousandth post here on Casebook).
Phil
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 194
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
Baron Von Zipper
That's just my point.
For one if he was seen, SO WHAT, he was only doing what most men and yes some women do, so why does this make him a suspect? Solitary vises or better known as masturbation is a very common and natural behaviour.
Was he caught doing this, maybe or was he just a victim of gossip based on assumption only.
So my point is this, if all PERSONS who have participated in solitary vises, than and now, we would all be suspect in the minds of those who consider this type of behaviour to be abnormal to the point where we would all be considered as murder suspects.
regards
Julie
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 212
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 6:50 pm: |
|
Julie,
No. It would have to been seen as chronic and with no regard to who was present or else it wouldn't have been mentioned.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 984
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 10:01 pm: |
|
Phil,
I applaud the times that you have tried to act as the voice of reason here -- though usually it's more of a shout -- but there's no way you can rewrite the text of the Macnaghten memorandum to fit your strange perception of what the man should have said to be taken seriously and then pretend that tha's what he actually said. You are changing his actual clear cut words by pretending he didn't think Druitt was a doctor. That makes no sense at all.
I compared you to Cornwell because you distorted clear evidence in order to feed your conclusions. You responded by trying to compare her to me by insinuating that I was acting like a woman. If your idea of defending yourself is to toss off puerile and sexist insults, you lost the debate long ago.
For you to talk about people leaving the boards and insinuate you might is just tedious, mainly because you personally are directly responsible for having already run off several posters and because you have threatened to leave several times already. If you can't take it when somebody treats you in a manner even slightly the way you typically treat anyone who disagrees with you, then perhaps you should leave. After all, if you get frustrated by being held to the same standards you hold other people to, trying to communicate with others on a regular basis is probably going to be too stressful for you.
And as far as the handful of other posters showing up in the thread to try to pile on,
Hello, Radka has been following me around for years making snide comments instead of dealing with the topic of the thread... You'd think you could have seen how poorly respected Radka is and chosen a different strategy than emulating his behavior.
If you have a theory, fine, have a theory. If the evidence contradicts your theory, change your theory to something that works instead of complaining about how it's unfair that people are so focused on evidence and romanticising the good old days when authors could come up with whatever nonsense they wanted and not be challenged on it.
Either way, it's a shame that whenever I post to a thread about some topic under discussion there's a gang of stray dogs trying to chew on my leg. People are trying to discuss real topics here, you can't keep turning every thread into an excuse to play attention whore all the time.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 213
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 10:12 pm: |
|
Dan,
I think leg chewing goes both ways. Anyway, you and Phil make a lot of great comments, no doubt based on a lot of research tempered with some reason and a bit of conjecture. Let us just debate nicely shall we? Also, I'm heading through Madison in Feb. I always stop at the Great Dane downtown. Can I interest you in a pint of the good stuff?
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 740
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 11:26 pm: |
|
"You have many contacts
Among the lumberjacks
To get you facts
When someone attacks your imagination
But nobody has any respect
Anyway they already expect you
To just give a check
To tax-deductible charity organizations
You've been with the professors
And they've all liked your looks
With great lawyers you have
Discussed lepers and crooks
You've been through all of
F. Scott Fitzgerald's books
You're very well read
It's well known
But something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?"
Bump-bump-bump-ba! |
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 65
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 9:10 am: |
|
On the other hand, I think it irked them that they had no solution - could be thought to have let the biggest case of their age slip through their fingers - and as human beings rationalised away their failure.
In a nutshell - yes. Anderson & MacNaughten the career civil servants were irked at the 'blight' on their CV's but ONLY because this was such a public case that had caused waves in the very highest circles - circles they moved in.
I think it was AP Wolf who pointed out somewhere on these boards exactly how many murders went unsolved during Anderson & MacNaughtens time in office, and yet they would have people believe JtR was a rare unsolved crime!
I think particular note should be made of the startling lack of investigating officers writing in later years on the fact that the police knew who the killer was. Swanson was hardly likely to disagree with 'my old master' was he.
''Well to tell the truth we knew who the killer was.We hauled him down to Brighton one afternoon and a witness identified him but sadly we could not arrest the man as the witness refused to give evidence against him because it would have meant the death penalty for the blackguard''
''So what happened Sir''?
''Well we let him go, but he knew we knew so he stopped killing after that, and then went quite mad.Jolly good luck for us actually because we could lock the villain up then.''
Seriously - does that sound even remotely credible to ANYONE?
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?"
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 215
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Steve,
Not the way it's slanted, no.
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 67
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 7:45 pm: |
|
Thats not slanted Mike,that is basically what MacNaughten & Anderson proposed but written in plain english(or plain scouse at any rate).
They are asking us to believe that they had this killer identified by a witness and yet let him walk free and all because the witness refused to testify in court!
I'm sorry but, ermmmm no.REFUSED to testify?????
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?"
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 216
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 8:10 pm: |
|
Steve,
Your language slanted it. I'm okay with that as that's how sarcasm works. Is AK a perfect suspect? No, of course not. Is it possible they believed he did it, but couldn't prove anything because no one was talking and Aaron was not very credible even if he was saying anything, and without statements, it was going to be tough to build a case? Yes, of course that's possible. That's another slant. Who knows what they were thinking? Not I, and I admit it fully.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 296
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
Steve and Mike,
Obviously the issue of the identification is rather unclear... we just do not know the facts. However, in my own mind I have a picture of what I infer happened, from the known or suggested evidence.
The witness, all debate aside, was PROBABLY Lawende. (or Levy, OK not to get sidetracked here)... In any case, Lawende did not get a very good look at the suspect, but he is the best witness they had, because the man Lawende and Levy saw at the end of Church Passage was in all likelihood, Jack the Ripper. The police were aware that Lawende claimed he did not get a good look at the suspect, but perhaps they were hoping when he saw Kosminski something would jog his memory and he could make a definitive ID. In all likelihood, Lawende may have looked at Kosminski and thought or said "Yeah that looks like the guy I saw, but I can't really be sure". The police may have pressured him to be "more positive" in his identification, or asked him to testify, at which point he refused, either because he knew he was not sure, or because he worried that the police did not have any other evidence against the guy, and he didnt want to carry the responsibility of sending him to the gallows.
In any case, it is possible that he refused to testify for the reason stated... that he was a fellow jew, but I tend to doubt it. I think his identification of Kosminski was tentative at best. But the police seemed to think they had found their man, but realized they did not have a case, so they kept him under surveillance, and then he was institutionalized shortly thereafter. That is how I read it.
RH |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 218
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Robert,
and that's your slant. I like your slant better than Steve's, but am open to other opinions of course.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 47
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 8:25 pm: |
|
That's not what the man said, Mr. House, and you know it. "Definitely ascertained fact" and "No doubt whatever" are an entirely different matter than "Tentative at best," as you say. You are MAKING THINGS UP, Mr. House. What you say does not fit Dr. Anderson's testimony, as confirmed by Swanson.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 595
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 8:59 pm: |
|
"It would have to been seen as chronic and with no regard to who was present or else it wouldn't have been mentioned."
Interesting...I see it more along the lines of the Victorian notion that masturbation drove posters...I mean PEOPLE... insane...and didn't connote public exhibitionism. If AK was admonishing the bishop in public, I think they'd have said something along those lines.
(Message edited by sirrobert on November 03, 2005)
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 70
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 9:57 pm: |
|
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?"
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 220
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 12:22 am: |
|
Sir Robert,
"If AK was admonishing the bishop in public"
I've never heard that one. I like it.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 221
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 12:24 am: |
|
Steve,
"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."
Good slant (Gotcha)
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1980
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
Steve,
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?
Whats one of the main purposes of an IUC?
To hear the suspects side of the story and hopefully (ha-ha) clear him of any wrong doing and not to get a cough, no sir, not at all. Open and fair minded at all times we are.
Its the only reason I can give.
A sorta " well sunshine. We've got a witness who can positively ID a man seen with one of the victims minutes before she was found dead. This guy may clear your name...if you didnt do it obviously."
If this is the case then the 'suspect' must have felt he would be vindicated or he did know the witness which.....is......what......Anderson and Swanson.....sorta....says....Hmmmm !
Hold on lads...I gotta plan...It involves a Bishop and...
Confused Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3112
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
why did they need to go to Brighton at all - i've never got that. wouldn't it be easier to bring the guy to London
Jenni
(still not writing her essay like a good girl!)
"Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry, This could be a case for Mulder and Scully"
|
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 50
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 9:59 pm: |
|
I've considered Mr. Swift's thoughtful post originally made above in its proper venue, the 'A?R M&R' thread. Please have at look at the dialogue a few threads above. Thank you.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 499
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
David, thank you for directing people to my insightful and earth shaking notions.
Truth Marches On !
Mags
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
Hi R.J.
A nice extract from "Dylan", and very apt.
Well quoted sir.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3124
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 11:00 am: |
|
Maria,
now i'm confused??
Jenni
"Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry, This could be a case for Mulder and Scully"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
Interesting...I see it more along the lines of the Victorian notion that masturbation drove posters...I mean PEOPLE... insane...
I don't think they could really have believed that, could they? I mean it wouldn't have taken too long before the average teenager (including Sir Robert himself - the original one I mean) realised that choking the chicken wasn't going to get them carted off to the funny farm.
Maybe in K's case it was excessive as well as indiscreet. In other words, I think there must have been aspects that would still appear abnormal by today's standards.
Love,
Caz
X |
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 297
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 3:41 pm: |
|
Did anyone ever hear from the Rachel Kosminsky who posted on here a while back?
Rob H |
|
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