|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1336
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 7:31 pm: |       |
Dear Glenn,
re this "group of insignificant and dirty prostitutes"
I am not so sure that others from the "upper" and "middle" classes wouldnt have been interested in them just because of their abject poverty and lack of consequence socially.
The "rent boys" of Cleveland Street were also mostly poverty stricken and there is plenty of proof that upper class gay men from Eddie"s aristocratic group which included JK Stephens and
through to Oscar"s literary group and onwards
used these boys,It is documented in the court case surrounding Oscar"s trial for one instance[not Eddie"s involvement but certainly the involvement of numerous upper class gentlemen.]
As for Eddie"s Dad he was way into the debaucheries of the age-especially in Paris and in his youth.I think the Can Can might actually have been invented for Eddie"s Dad and I think lots of the men from his class and the middle classes as well as the poorer classes were drawn to such antics.Reading Pepys Diary from much earlier on[17th century]gives a surprising view of a rather smutty character given his "superior" credentials.
But I do agree that the whole idea of a big conspiracy based around MJK and Cleveland Street with a lot of silly stuff about PAV and some ridiculous marriage he had is just that-so much tosh!
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2486
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 8:44 pm: | |
Jeffrey,
There are naturally a lot of Swedish films about historical events, set in Sweden, but hardly in many international or American films -- after all, Sweden is a small country.
Are you sure that MARK OF THE VAMPIRE was set in Sweden? I have no idea where it was filmed (seems like a typical English or American studio production rather than on location), but the film actually is supposed to take place in a Romanian or Czechloslovakian village, which is Eastern Europe, not Sweden.
Interesting. Some of the films you mention with Swedish elements, I must admit I haven't heard of, actually (movies is a favourite subject of mine as well). The double agents in Sweden and Germany is a popular subject for Swedish historians these days, but I didn't know a film had been made about it. Thanks for that tip.
So... do you think any real print copies from the mysterious and elusive LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT ever will turn up (and I dont mean the movie attempt made from the stills)? 
One of my favourites is the German NOSFERATU from 1922. When it comes to horror movies, the German silents are quite unbeatable, in my view.
All the best
Glenn, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2487
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 8:55 pm: | |
Natalie,
True. It happened that men from the upper class found it exciting to sexually explore the poor, low class prostitutes, just like many from the upper class found enjoyment in walking the streets of East End in poor man's clothing.
I wouldn't state that it was common, though, for men from the upper class to use low class prostitutes (after all, they were incredibly filthy) but it certainly did happen.
However, I was mainly wondering why these low class prostitutes should be involved in such a scheme (as we know, the story about the Prince doesen't work) and would be interesting enough to KILL, and in such an elaborate manner.
Furthermore, many of them lived practically on the streets and had few known relatives, so they would have been quite easy to get rid of in a more subtle way, if that would be necessary (for some unlikely reason).
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 26, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 536
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 9:55 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
I am pretty certain that MARK OF THE VAMPIRE was set in Sweden. THE COUNTERFEIT TRAITOR was made in the early 1960s, based on a memoir by one Eric Erickson (not to be confused with the noted psychiatric biographer) who worked in the oil industry. He ends up working for the allies, pretending that he is pro - Axis. He is able to go to Germany from Sweden for nearly two years, with high access to Nazi secrets about oil production. Then his contact in Germany dies, and the man's son, a Hitler Youth, informs against Erickson. The last half-hour follows Holden/Erickson's attempts to get back to neutral Sweden. Actually it is a good film, and Lili Palmer (in her memoirs CHANGE LOBSTERS AND DANCE) said it was one of her best film performances (as a Swedish born allied agent, caught by the Nazis, and executed).
Thinking about the subject there were also two films THE MATCH KING and THE NIGHT OF JANUARY 16, that were "suggested" by the career of Ivar Kreuger, the real "Match King", who killed himself in 1932 when his empire fell apart and his forgeries were being exposed (ironically by Benito Mussolini, of all people).
You are right, Sweden is a small country. But in the 17th - early 18th Century Sweden was very big in Europe. But I suspect Swedish history is more of interest in German and Russian (and Swedish) cinema. But I'll say this: there is room for more note of Sweden in American film. Look at all the Swedes (like Lindbergh's ancestors) who helped build up the country) or at such forgotten colonial events as the Swedish (yes, Swedish) colony in what is now Delaware and southern New Jersey. It lasted twenty years before the Dutch seized it (their one military success, as opposed to their loss of control of New Amsterdam/New York in 1664 to England. And we really need a good film biography of the great Swedish - American engineer, John Ericsson, who built the battleship "U.S.S. Monitor".
Best wishes,
Jeff
Sorry, nothing about Dr. Gull this time...or Stowell.
J.
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 376
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 10:03 pm: | |
Jeff,
It was the Swedish colony in what is now Delaware that first produced on these shores what became a staple of 19th century political lore in this country -- the log cabin!
Don. |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 119
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 10:11 pm: | |
To all,
Perhaps this particular section of the thread, where we incessently babble about who produces better movies - the USA or Europe - should be moved to another area. I've got a good title for that area - The "WHO GIVES A FLYING (YOU KNOW WHAT)" thread.
STAN |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 120
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 10:12 pm: | |
Just a thought, because I'm getting tired of saying "OH MY GOD WHO GIVES A FLYING ----" |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2488
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 10:25 pm: | |
Hi Jeffrey,
True. A large part of the population in the US actually originate from Swedish immigrants, so our significance can't be underestimated. However, we were not the only ones.
Yes, Sweden was the most powerful empire in Europe for a period of years , especially in the 17th century. This part of Swedish history hasn't been covered that much on film, though (probably because it would be enormously expensive), but loads of books have been written about it, not to mention Charles XII.
Some historical Swedish stuff has been filmed, but mostly not for the international market, and mainly for national television, not the cinema, so that is probably the reason why this seems elusive on an international level.
I am not sure what you mean by "set" (do you mean where it's filmed or where the events are meant to take place in the film?), but MARK OF THE VAMPIRE is NOT supposed to take place in Sweden, but in the Eastern regions of Europe where Transylvania is situated. Pretty much like the original Dracula. This is clearly stated in the information about the film on websites as well as in literature. It says "in a small Romanian village".
I just recently saw the film again on TCM and there this was confirmed.
So Sweden has nothing whatsoever to do with the story of the film, unfortunately -- Romania is quite far away from Sweden. Where it was filmed, I don't know, though.
Thanks for the info regarding the double agent stuff.
Regarding John Ericson, he was also a very noted inventor and industrialist in Sweden as he was noted in America for the U.S.S. Monitor. Sweden had a lot of prominent inventors in the 19th century (de Laval and Alfred Nobel to mention a few -- films have been made about both of them) and some of them managed to break through internationally as well.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2489
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 10:28 pm: | |
Stan,
"Just a thought, because I'm getting tired of saying "OH MY GOD WHO GIVES A FLYING ----"
And now you've just been given the opportunity to say it again.
But you're absolutely right.
Jeffrey, isn't there a thread on the Pub Talk for this, or should we create one?
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2491
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 10:55 pm: | |
"I think that what Walsh shows regarding Poe and Mary Rogers/Marie Roget is on par with what happened with Stowell with the Ripper. He changed his mind and tried to alter his original pattern of "facts" to fit an easier target. The only difference was that Stowell had not been as public a figure as Poe, so that he did not have to back track publicly."
Possible, Jeffrey. But were there really any changes to the story as we know it? From the time he presented it to Colin Wilson (quite some time before it was finally written and published) up til Stowell himself wrote that article for the Criminologist, it seems like all the major elements were maintained unchanged throughout (if we are to believe Colin Wilson), with the exception of that the Ripper's identity was hidden in the article?
Or am I misunderstanding something here?
Unless we know what Stowell had found in Gull's papers (and if he changed that information), it is rather difficult to determine who that presumed original target might be, isn't it?
However, I do believe self-delusions could be part of it, although it doesen't totally explain some of the obvious factual errors in his story -- facts he should have been aware of as a doctor and an academic.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by glenna on December 26, 2004)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 41
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 10:51 am: | |
Hi all,
Every time we get into a good challenging discussion the thread closes down.
Yes, there is evidence on the 'Mason's motive', which I am aware of. I don't reason without evidence. Masons' / Establishment. I'm afraid I can't detail it here.
Jeff, I'm interested in your viewpoint on the Dr Stowell outburst. Why would you consider him a delusionist, rather than a caniving troublemaker? he was well placed.
We can't dismiss the fact that he probably had Gull's papers.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2493
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:12 am: | |
Kitty,
"We can't dismiss the fact that he probably had Gull's papers."
No one is dismissing the fact that he may have had access to Gull's notes, as evident from the discussion above.
However, we don't know what Gull really wrote or referred to in those, and it could just as well have been personal theories and not founded knowledge. I would say, that most doctors probably had their views on the Ripper case anyway.
"Yes, there is evidence on the 'Mason's motive', which I am aware of. I don't reason without evidence. Masons' / Establishment. I'm afraid I can't detail it here."
I am afraid I must urge you to present that anyway, if you want to be taken seriously. You can't just say that you "can't detail it here" and then expect others to take your word for the validity of your theories. This is not how it works here.
If you have evidence you must present it, or else your quite certain views on these matters are worth nothing. Because no one else is aware of any evidence in this direction, you are the only one who claims you have.
Even Stowell, Harrison and Stephen Knight had theories regarding the Freemasons. Certainly you must have as well, if you stress this point.
All the best
Glenn, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 42
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:36 am: | |
Indeed I do, but the evidence is too significant to place on the web. I'm sure this will be met with understanding. Noone is obliged to submit evidence on the web, but everyone might discuss detail and theory and develop their understanding, and challenge each other to better work. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2497
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 12:05 pm: | |
No, Kitty, and I'll tell you why.
Because that will mean that you, me or anyone else could state practically everything!
You can't say A and then not say B.
If Stephen Knight could publish his story, then I believe you can lay forward your "evidence" as well. I am sure the Masons won't rip you up for doing so.
No one is forcing you to do something you don't want to, of course. But then you shouldn't have made the mistake to claim that you have "evidence" -- you just should have kept quiet about that and instead discussed this topic from a general point of view.
You're are not even discussing details; you are only saying, the Masons were involved, and then you keep quiet or doesen't respond. Fine by me, but don't expect anyone here to take you seriously with this approach.
Those who have argued that the Maybrick Diary is evidence for that the Ripper kept a diary, has been obliged to display it and subject it to testing. It's really nothing strange about that.
If your approach would be acceptable, then I could claim that I sit on recently discovered, unknown documents pointing at George Lusk as the Ripper, and expect people to believe me without presenting any factual evidence or at least an explanation. This is not how it works.
All the best
Glenn, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 44
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 12:37 pm: | |
I must have given the wrong impression. I will display evidence in good time. I would be most interested in any theories or comments people have, I wouldn't mind atall if people didn't advertise their evidence here on this board. They don't have to. I assure you however it is hard evidence to the required standard. It is up to us all how it works here, by the way, not just yourself, no disrespect. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2499
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 1:38 pm: | |
I am not setting up standard rules here, Kitty, I am just saying that you can't expect people to take you seriously and believe in what you say if you state certain things with complete self-assureness and claims to have evidence and then puts the lid on it.
As I said, with that approach, I or anyone else could state practically everything.
It makes every kind of discussion impossible.
All the best
Glenn, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2501
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 2:01 pm: | |
No one here is obliged to present evidence of anything, Kitty.
But that depends very much of how you express yourself during a discussion.
You are not theorising or releasing comments. You are saying, you know who did it and everyone else is wrong (which wouldn't be the first time in the Ripper context). You are practically saying: "I know these persons are responsible and you others who don't believe in it have totally missed the whole point."
Well, with that kind of approach you will sooner or later be forced to explain why. It shouldn't come as a surprise to you.
To discuss theories or commenting on them is something completely different from what you do.
All the best
Glenn, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 45
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 3:37 pm: | |
Of course I'll explain why, at some point. However, I'm interested in discussing all sorts of things, not just that.
Also, I have to bear in mind the web is read by thousands.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1214
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:00 pm: | |
Hi Kitty,
Are you planning a future publication on your theory, and are you as it were dangling a carrot by any chance.?
You are correct this site is read by thousands, and a huge majority of them proberly are waiting for your findings, but the trouble is the carrot will go rotten eventually.
Richard.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2506
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
Richard,
Good point.
Just one question, Kitty, do you believe that Stowell and Stephen Knight died of "natural reasons" (Knight from a brain tumour, poor guy), or do you honestly believe that they were assassinated? I mean, since you are so cautious...?
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 377
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
I will display evidence in good time.
Hmmmm, shades of the good old Saddam/Bullwinkle days.
Don. |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 46
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
Richard, Glenn, Don,
The truth is never in a hurry. Nor does it go rotten.
personally I believe Knight died from natural causes. However, colleagues I respect have expressed the opposite view. I simply feel Knight would have told us if he suspected an assassination. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2510
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
"Hmmmm, shades of the good old Saddam/Bullwinkle days."
Indeed, Don. I thought along the same lines.
Ah, those were the days....
All the best
Glenn, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 47
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:45 pm: | |
G, and Don, you know perfectly well you will have to wait for evidence worth seeing that blows theorising out of the water. There's no need to get grumpy and cantankerous. If I were to put it on the web here, I would have to open a new web-site! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2511
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 4:53 pm: | |
Kitty,
As i told you earlier:
If you have evidence you want to sit on, be my guest. You don't have to reveal it.
But as I also told you, you should have expressed yourself differently to begin with, if you didn't want these reactions. It's all your own fault. If you hadn't have this approach, there wouldn't have been any problem.
You can't discuss the case in such certain terms -- saying that everyone hasn't a clue what it's all about -- and then hold on to the facts that proves your theory. In a discussion it is really annoying when someone has this approach, especially if the person are ridiculing others for being ignorant about the case. It's suicide. I mean, it's not like we haven't experienced this earlier on the Boards...
But at least we know where you stand now.
No one os forcing you to reveal anything, but then you should be careful about your approach in the future.
All the best
Glenn, sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 48
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 5:47 pm: | |
My ideas are cool, and new, and I'm not giving them away that's all. Don't get dramatic. Glenn, you've got to find something else to do besides use this board! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2512
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 5:57 pm: | |
Believe me, Kitty. I have loads of things to do. I wish I had more than 24 hours at my disposal each day.
And I'm not being dramatic. I am just giving you some advice.
All the best
Glenn, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 27, 2004)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 124
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 6:13 pm: | |
Kitty,
I hope your super secret evidence isn't the basic timeline structure so obvious to anyone who bothered to research the entirety of the case?
1895 - The Lees / Gull / Thomas Mason story is printed.
1931 - This story is reprinted because of Lees' death.
1931 - Caroline Acland, daughter of Gull, decides to show notes to Dr. Stowell, coincidentally and neatly clearing him of the murders because he actually was the doctor to the person most likely to have been 'JTR' - which Stowell took to mean Prince Eddy.
1960 - Stowell reveals this to Colin Wilson
1962 - Phillippe Jullien names Prince Eddy as rumored to be the murderer.
1970 - Stowell article published.
1970 - Stowell cowardly states he did not implicate Prince Eddy.
1972 - Michael Harrison states Gull's patient was JK Stephen, not Prince Eddy.
1973 - Joseph Gorman goes on BBC and tells fantastical story.
1976 - Stephen Kight causes all hell to break loose.
I sincerely hope your info is more than this Kitty, because this is basic and already covered.
STAN RUSSO |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1337
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 6:39 pm: | |
Thanks for the timeline Stan,
For perhaps the very first time I am seeing the reason why JK Stephen is a viable suspect.However like Druitt we still so far have nothing whatsoever to link him to the back alleys of Spitalfields or Whitchapel.Also he was fair haired and very good looking not the chap alleged to have been seen by Sgt White emerging from one of the Murders.
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2514
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 6:43 pm: | |
Great time-line indeed, Stan.
I especially liked this one: "1976 - Stephen Knight causes all hell to break loose."
Still, it was a hell that would turn out to be rather profitable...
One wonders what new discoveries -- as Stan implies here as well -- could be dug up, considering this already rather extensive research being delivered by a number of researchers regarding this particular issue.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 49
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 7:05 pm: | |
Come on guys there's life outside this board!!
No, my stuff is new light on an old mystery, like I said. Dead cool. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2515
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 7:23 pm: | |
Kitty,
"Come on guys there's life outside this board!!"
Then... why are you here?
All the best
Glenn, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 51
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 7:28 pm: | |
Writing late at night. Got you lot on the web aswell. Kitty. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2516
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 7:48 pm: | |
Same here. That is why I am always here, I sit by the computer anyway when I am working from home.
Social life... what's that?
All the best
Glenn, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 52
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 8:10 pm: | |
Since working on the case, and the Masons, my free social time and free thought life has dwindled at times. It is very demanding. Sometimes I find myself bleary eyed as Abberline....! It is a big challenge compared to other academic work. Britain won't reconise it as Doctorate level study, yet that's what it is. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 537
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:18 pm: | |
Hi all,
Not much to say this evening on Masons, Stowall, Knight, John Sickart, the Ripper or a partridge in a pear tree. However,
To Stan:
I apologize but I do love movies and got carried away before. I will try to restrain my movie interests to the Pub Board in future. However, I was certain that MARK OF THE VAMPIRE was in Sweden, but I appear to have been wrong.
Which demonstrates we all can make mistakes...so rather than hector Kitty about when she will reveal whatever she believes she has found we should let her have her own time to do it in. She may be trying to see if anything further turns up to support her theory. I only ask Kitty that unlike somebody else on these boards, when you do present your final idea, don't start copywriting every comment you make.
You know Kitty, Glenn is right about the lack of information on Stowell's investigation and theory that we have...it prevents us from determining what, if anything, he really meant. So anything I have said, however interesting or however much I have seriously pondered Stowell's actions, is all theoretical. Because of that it must be taken lightly. It can't be used as more than a gossamer-light suggestion. It doesn't deserve more than that as a framework ("framework" itself is a misnomer - frames are of solid construction). But you asked me why I considered him a delusionist rather than a troublemaker. No particular reason, except that I was trying to be nice. Yes, I can consider him a troublemaker (in fact, my suggestion about Lord Randolph Churchill's syphilis and Stowell possibly considering him as the Ripper - if Stowell was tempted to speak out on that, he would probably have been a troublemaker to a prominent politician: Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill). But his wavering once he was aware of the official reaction to the release of the theory (which now suggested the Duke of Clarence as the Ripper) shows less a troublemaker and more of a dilletante who wanted to have a degree of notoriety, but did not want the social system to fall on his head. It did, and probably killed him (not by assassination).
I don't know if that answer will satisfy you or not. I hope it does.
I thought of saying that there have been examples of prominent figures in the orbit of the Royals having dubious acquaintances. Another royal physicial, Sir James Reid, was somehow pulled into serious financial problems by befriending the notorious crooked financier Whitaker Wright (of the 1903 "London and Globe" Corporation collapse, that led to a famous Old Bailey Trial, and Wright's suicide in the courtroom by cyanide, as sentence was being passed). And when Daisy, Countess of Warwick, blackmailed her lover Albert Edward, Prince of Wales ("Bertie" - the future Edward VII) to buy some incriminating letters, the go-between was the young Clarence Hatry, who would also be involved in a major financial fraud case in 1929.
So it is not beyond possibility that the Royals might have known somebody who was Jack the Ripper. But we get carried away, keep in mind that the game of "six degrees of seperation" involves all of us...so such odd connections actually are not so odd. Human beings do have a way of knowing other human beings to some degree or other.
I hope to hear more of your ideas some time...at your convenience.
Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2521
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 7:44 am: | |
Jeff,
To further annoy Stan...
What do think about LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT? Do you think any copies of the film ever will turn up?
And have you seen the version made by TCM, compiled of the existing still (I haven't -- it has only been aired in America, unfortunately)?
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3704
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:32 am: | |
From Lon Chaney's obit Aug 27th 1930 :
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2524
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:54 am: | |
Hi Robert,
what an interesting article! Thanks for that.
I didn't know his make-up (which was extraordinary -- and extremely painful, using thin metal wires to make his eyes stand out etc.) had been used as a reference in a murder trial. Ha!
Great stuff, Robert.
Sorry about this, Stan, Kitty et.al. but there is really not much other things happening on this thread at the moment...
All the best
Glenn, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 220
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:05 am: | |
WOW! Glenn, that made me jump!
He was awesome.I think the Phantom of the Opera is still,in this day of super-techno FX, the scariest thing I've ever seen on screen.
Mags |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2525
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
Yes, Maria,
Chaney was an American master genious and a hard worker; he sacrificed himself completely for his art.
I agree, the make-up for Phantom of the Opera (and for The Hunchback of Notre Dame as well) is spectacular, to say the least. As for London After Midnight, which displayed quite an innovative, new way to depict a vampire (or in this case, a fake one).
I agree, the old horror movies (especially the silent ones) is in my view ten times more scary than modern ones, because of its use of light, atmosphere and shadows. Seldom blood is ever shown at all.
My biggest favourite, and the most scary one, is the German Nosferatu, though.
All the best
Glenn, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
mvario
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 4:48 pm: | |
Jeff Stone wrote:
"Stop putting down the US. Our movies are no worse than your's."
First off, I'm an American. Second, I'm not putting down "our" movies, I'm putting down Hollywood. 90% of the stuff they've put out in the last 10 years is dreck.
Natalie Severn wrote:
"American movies whether they are of the Citizen Cane type of thing,The Godfather,Touch of Evil-again Orson Wells-and could be the best movie ever made] out class the lot in my view for cinematic brilliance and cool."
Notice all the films mentioned are quite old. I haven't seen too many in that class in the last 10 years or more.
Richard Brian Nunweek wrote:
"However against the likes of Spencer tracey, Jimmy Stewart, James cagney[ superb] and the female counterparts katherine Hepburn, Betty davies and Joan crawford. we run second in my opinion."
And notice that all these actors mentioned are long gone (as are the glory days of Hollywood). I think the last great generation of actors was that which included Pacino, Hoffman, and Deniro and those folks are aging fast. Today we have DiCaprio, Hanks, and Stiller.
Don't get me wrong, I think that some really great films are still being made and some really great actors are working, but I think the general trend in Hollywood is to put out least-common-denominator PG-13 movies with lots of action for the ADD generation, and even then its mostly sequels, remakes, and rehashes of old television programs. A film like Million Dollar Baby or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a pretty rare exception, not the norm.
-Mike |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 12:06 pm: | |
Indeed I do, but the evidence is too significant to place on the web. I'm sure this will be met with understanding. Noone is obliged to submit evidence on the web, but everyone might discuss detail and theory and develop their understanding, and challenge each other to better work.
More hot air from the resident troll. Is there no end to this time-wasting?? Some points Madam Emptiness:
a)... the evidence is too significant to place on the web.
This is simple self-aggrandisement. how have you come by this evidence? Who has evaluated it (off the web) to give it this alleged significance? Absolute rubbish without verification. No one sensible will give this sort of statement credence for a moment, Kitty.
b) I'm sure this will be met with understanding.
Not by me it won't!! I'll call it what it is - unsubstantiated clap-trap, which labels you a time-waster.
c) Noone is obliged to submit evidence on the web...
And no one is obliged to make statements such as you did to "tantalise" and tease. Having made such a statement the onus IS now on you to play your hand (not that I think for a moment you have one). You made the first move - ball is in your court.
d) but everyone might discuss detail and theory and develop their understanding, and challenge each other to better work.
Except that you provide No detail and very little dicussion and much supposed "challenge". there is a name for women like that that I could not write on this web-site. I have challenged you several times to cite detail, references or corroboration for your statements - even to set out precisely and clearly your theory. Every time you have ignored me. All posters here can see how hollow and futile your contribution is. I suggest they treat your latest offering with the .... it deserves.
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 2:14 am: | |
Natalie, you wrote: For perhaps the very first time I am seeing the reason why JK Stephen is a viable suspect.
IS JKS a "viable" suspect? I was under the impression that Harrison admittedly drew him out of the air for the purposes of his biogrphy of PAV?
THAT revolves around an unbelievable arrangement of dates and contains not one shred of evidence. If JKS is "viable, surely so is Queen Victoria who lied about having lunch with Eddy in 1888?
Jeffrey wrote: So it is not beyond possibility that the Royals might have known somebody who was Jack the Ripper. But we get carried away, keep in mind that the game of "six degrees of seperation" involves all of us...so such odd connections actually are not so odd. Human beings do have a way of knowing other human beings to some degree or other.
Well put. As most modern reputable research has indicated, JtR was almost certinly an Eastender of the Kosminski-type; or alternatively a middle class mental-misfit like Druitt. People knew both. Whether that includes members of the royal family of the time is questionable - but the point you make is entirely valid.
The flaw in the timeline proposed by Stan is that as far as I can see any relevant papers of Gull's are as likely to exist as Dutton's "Chronicles of Crime". Both have been mentioned by authors, but no one else has seen them. No doubt endless research will be done which will ultimately prove as fruitless as the hunt for the Spiering source.
I have no trouble with people spending their time on probebly fruitless quests, but now that we have established the clear unreliability of Knight, MacCormack and Stowell, is pursuing their red-herrings really the best way of spending time?
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 5:36 pm: | |
Do you actually believe anything that Knight says, Kitty. Well, at least I know where to place you in my "respec" table now - I've added a new minus section.
By the way, who are these "colleagues" you mention - others who's bona fides are shown by their dedication to Knight and Fairclough et al??
Sorry Kitty, your posts just make me laugh every time.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 6:19 pm: | |
It remains my belief that Dr Stowell deliberately mixed up names involved in the case, all of whom society figures connected to each other, to create a puzzle for students of the case to solve. [Italics mine.]
So that's what it comes down to then Kitty - your belief!! No evidence, no supporting arguments - just your belief. Well, that's worth NOTHING in my eyes.
Incidentally, I had noticed your unwillingness to engage in direct discussion with me. What's the problem? Do I respond in ways that you find unanswerable? or are you just frightened of robust argument based on facts not fancy (read belief)??
By the way, I couldn't give tuppence if you don't/won't respond.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 5:54 pm: | |
My ideas are cool, and new...
And totally unknown to us, secret and probably utterly imaginary.
My ideas are cool, and new...
Frankly I doubt it. Your posts to date reveal no knowledge of the case, no insights and an inability to use English correctly - some basis for new ideas. half baked fantasies I suspect.
Kitty, you've got to find something else to do rather than imagining you know something and exaggerating on these boards [irony]
Pah!!
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 11:01 am: | |
Every time we get into a good challenging discussion the thread closes down.
Perhaps if you contributed more and in a more constructive way, Kitty, things would be different.
Yes, there is evidence on the 'Mason's motive', which I am aware of. I don't reason without evidence.
Piffle - practically every post of yours has been without evidence, Kitty. I don't think you have read anything at all, or know anything. At least, your posts to date show a woeful ignorance of C19th London). I have not seen anything to suggest that your interest in masonry goes beyond a Knight-like prejudice and discrimination, which I find distatseful and unhelpful.
...Masons' / Establishment. I'm afraid I can't detail it here.
Then your evidence is no evidence - worthless. Uncited, unreferenced views have no purpose. Just wind blowing.
We can't dismiss the fact that he probably had Gull's papers
Again on what do you base that statement?
Come on Kitty, if you want to leave the playroom and join the adults, start acting like one - responsibly.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 2:01 am: | |
re this "group of insignificant and dirty prostitutes" ... I am not so sure that others from the "upper" and "middle" classes wouldnt have been interested in them just because of their abject poverty and lack of consequence socially... The "rent boys" of Cleveland Street were also mostly poverty stricken... As for Eddie"s Dad he was way into the debaucheries of
the age-especially in Paris and in his youth.
I think the working-class lads were cleaned up a bit when working in brothels such as Cleveland St. Aronson's "Prince Eddy and the Homosexual underworld" is a good reference; as is the fictionalised but I think relatively reliable "Sins of the Cities of the Plain" which Aronson quotes.
Edward VII when Prince of Wales was always interested in women, but I am unaware of any accounts of him dallying with such dregs of humanity as Nicjhols, Chapman, etc. If MJK was ever in a West End brothel, he might have met her, I suppose - but Edward's debauchery was mainly with women of his own stratum of society or in its orbit - Mrs Langtrey etc. There were rules too. The woman were mainly married, as a protection against bastard children being foisted on him.
Before linking PAV or his father with the JtR victims or their kind, I think we have to be MUCH more precise in our use of relevant evidence.
Phil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2530
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 12:50 pm: | |
Phil,
The fact that this thread really is useless to begin with is why it has been converted into a film discussion instead -- even that seems more fruitful.
"As most modern reputable research has indicated, JtR was almost certinly an Eastender of the Kosminski-type; or alternatively a middle class mental-misfit like Druitt. People knew both. Whether that includes members of the royal family of the time is questionable"
Once again, I can only agree with you, Phil.
Like reading my own thoughts on paper.
But I must admit: you're tough...
"dregs of humanity..."
"hot air from the resident troll"
"Madam Emptiness"
Hehe... I like your style.
But boy, are you gonna get it...
If you only knew what happens to people who speaks their minds on these Boards, or dear to question certain pet suspects...
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
