|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 235
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 6:57 pm: | 
|
Hi all,
Okay, I know next to nothing about D'Onston, other than that he was into black magic, and wrote several letters to the press. I have looked at the suspects page, (and the dissertations and message boards relating to him) and from what I've read so far, I'm not YET convinced that he was Jack the Ripper. I still am going with "Jack the no namer" for now.
But, however, my fiance is convinced. And, not only is he convinced that D'Onson was the Ripper, but he has criticised me heavily for not believing that D'Onston was Jack.
Okay.. I know the Casebook is not a marriage counseling service.. all I'm asking is for reasons why others might think that D'Onston could have been the Ripper, so that I can look into other directions - and if no one can give me clear answers, then maybe I can stand my argument with the fiance. Or, if I see sound argument for D'Onston, I can *possibly* agree with him.. Or dump him... (heh heh!)
Any pointers would be much appreciated!
Bestest,
Lyn
(His argument, by the way, is that, by us knowing that D'Onston was in fact the Ripper, the Casebook would get no money, 'cause the case would be closed, and none of us would have a hobby anymore. Yes, I laughed in his face! I do think I need to trade him in for a newer, more open model. May do that tonight.. but I did want to at least give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm a good person really!)
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
David Knott
Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Hi Lyn,
My reasons for thinking that D'Onston is the best suspect are :-
1. He was suspected of being JtR by four people who knew him personally at the time, at least three of them independently of each other.
2. He moved into Whitechapel shortly before the first murder and left shortly after the last.
3. There are certain aspects of the murders that are suggestive of an occult motive, such as the removal of organs and the positions of the murder sites.
4. His need to be involved (writing for the Pall Mall Gazette and to the police) is a recognisable trait of certain killers.
5. His change of name to Roslyn, and claiming relationship with the Roslyns, is more than likely an expression of his Neo-Jacobitism (in the same way that SL Mathers adopted the name MacGregor). If this is indeed the case then there may have been a motive, in the bicentenary of the Glorious Revolution, with Sir Charles Warren's previous work for the Palestine Exploration Fund in mind.
6. The most compelling reason for me to think that D'Onston was not JtR, is that he was simply an attention seeking braggart, but many of his 'tall' stories have now been shown to be true.
David
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1283
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Hi Lyn
There are a number of questions about D'Onston that need to be answered. I cover some of them in my dissertation here on the Casebook, "LETTER FROM THE SICKBED: D'ONSTON WRITES TO THE POLICE." He was obviously an older suspect and tall for any of the witness sightings. But then if black magic made him invisible, his size would not matter, would it. But perhaps the biggest objection might be as David says in his point 6, he was "an attention seeking braggart." Since D'Onston seems in this respect opposite to what we know of the Ripper, a killer who slid off into the night and did not give away his identity, we might wonder if the self-promotion in which D'Onston engaged is something that the killer would have done. Also, is the fact that as David put it, four people thought he was the Ripper really important, i.e., he was one of many people that individuals thought could have been the Ripper, and was he just trying to make himself seem more interesting and mysterious... or could he really have been the killer?
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 246
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 9:20 pm: |
|
David, and Chris,
Thank you both for your input.
I remain unconvinced that D'Onston was the Ripper (for now, at least).
The fiance and I are still at loggerheads here, but I am standing my ground until I see evidence that points directly to D'Onston.
But, thank you, both,
Lyn
P.S. Chris, I also stand my ground that Pompey is the better team  Still luv ya, though!
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 3:31 am: |
|
Lyn,
You might be wrong about D'Onston .. but you're spot on about Pompey!! (if only!!!)
David |
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 253
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
David,
Yup on both counts! I am still open to more evidence against D'Onston. And regarding Pompey, I think we have a great team at the moment. I miss Harry, though..
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1450
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:11 pm: |
|
Hi Lyn,
Now this is going to be seriously tongue-in-cheek (in other words, I've probably got most of my facts here totally wrong!  ), but anyway, my daughter and I were having this conversation on the bus this morning and we ended up with a scenario that went something like this:
D'Onston pads down hospital corridor in nightcap, dressing gown and slippers, sneaks out into the night and sidles up to woman of the night:
"Good evening, my good woman of the night, would you care to accompany me to an exact spot of my choosing, for a brief anatomy lesson? There's a muffin in it for you."
"Ooh, sir, cakey? For me sir? 'Ow could a poor girl refuse such a koind hoffer?"
Woman of the night trots obediently after the pyjama-clad figure, until he reaches the required spot, which is happily unoccupied by 'courting' couple, stray dog or ne'er-do-well, and here endeth her last lesson.
D'Onston nips back over the hospital wall in the nick of time before nursey brings him a warming cup of cocoa and a plate of eggy bread, to set him up for his next nocturnal adventure.
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3001
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Hahaha... 
That was a good one, Caz.
I really enjoyed that.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 3:04 am: |
|
Four people who knew him personally at the time? |
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
AIP,
George Marsh, WT Stead, Mabel Collins, Vittoria Cremers.
OK - the last two weren't quite 'at the time' but near enough!
David |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
And let us not forget Inspector Rootes, whom I beleive claimed to have known Donston for about twenty years.
Regards
John Savage |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
As you note, Collins and Cremers were much later, we don't know that Stead's suspicions were at the time, so that leaves just Marsh. None of these was a witness of the highest caliber. |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
But Roots didn't suspect him of being the Ripper - or are you starting another myth? |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 296
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 6:23 pm: |
|
Cremers and Collins knew D'Onston in 1889. I'd hardly call that far removed from a murder series that concluded at the end of 1888.
As for Caz's comments regarding the myth that D'Onston had to 'sneak' out of the hospital, take into consideration a few things: 1) he was self-registered, and self-diagnosed with an ailment that would necessitate walking about, 2) His friend and employer, W.T. Stead, would have quite been aware of D'Onston's circumstances during that period and STILL thought him to have been the Ripper. This allows us to conclude that, based on his knowledge of D'Onston's circumstances, Stead was convinced that D'Onston had 'opportunity' to commit the murders, and, finally, 3) Marsh's testimony puts his first meeting with D'Onston - at a pub - at a time when D'Onston was still a registered patient at London Hospital. We have here not only the possibility that D'Onston could come and go from hospital grounds unimpeded, but the likelihood.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 3:25 am: |
|
Cremers and Collins - dotty females.
W. T. Stead - eccentric spiritualist.
Marsh - a pub loafer.
Hmmm ... good judges of who might be the Ripper or all a little off-base? |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 298
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 10:28 pm: |
|
AIP,
I agree that Collins was a dotty female, though I must disagree regarding Cremers, as her memoirs are quite impressive. She had amazing recall. Having said that, she was obviously rather gullible in her younger years. Though, apparently, age and wisdom did not cause her to change her opinion of D'Onston. And despite her dottiness, Collins was very close to D'Onston. She clearly wanted a serious commitment from him, but changed her mind and became fearful of him after she learned something that convinced her he was the Ripper. As for Stead, ALL rich Victorian men were eccentric! You must remember that he was in a position to know more about the Whitechapel murders than almost anyone short of high ranking police officials. He thought D'Onston was the Ripper. As for Marsh, little is known about him, though his statement betrays him as someone who paid pretty close attention. He was no dummy. Absolutely none of these opinions prove D'Onston was the Ripper, of course. But I'd say they suggest he deserves a close inspection.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 220
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 11:00 pm: |
|
Hi AIP !
"Cremers and Collins - dotty females.
W. T. Stead - eccentric spiritualist.
Marsh - a pub loafer.
Let me have him first,girls !!!
While these two ladies may have been a little detached [ that 19th century quasi-New Age thing] for their time,they may have been also ahead of their time intellectually and in self-perception [ thats a compliment,ladies,not a slight !]. They were smart women. I know some women that were into that sort of stuff years ago and they could be considered a little detached from the nuts and bolts world most of us live in,but hardly naive or dumb. In fact,they were too smart...they saw my motives from the git-go !
Stead,from reading about the man,had some conflicting character traits,like many of us have..but nonetheless socially conscious which implies a sense of responsibility.
You're hitting below the belt about "pub loafers" ! Many a good man has sat behind a pint of beer at night and been capable the next day..
In fact,they might even have been above average in their credibilities ! |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 503
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 3:51 am: |
|
Tom,
What exactly about Stead in your mind would put him in a position to know more about the case than anyone except high-ranking police officials? He might be expected to know more than the average person off the street, but I don't think it would necessarily go much beyond that.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1454
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 4:05 am: |
|
Hi Tom,
As for Stead, ALL rich Victorian men were eccentric! You must remember that he was in a position to know more about the Whitechapel murders than almost anyone short of high ranking police officials. He thought D'Onston was the Ripper.
Yeah, and the high ranking police officials thought - er - who was the Ripper? Kossy? Tumty? Druey? Anyone but D'Onsty, in other words?
Anyone who 'thought he [or she] knew' who the Ripper was, regardless of there being no direct evidence against any one suspect (otherwise it would surely have led all the top cops to think alike and finger the same inadequate bloke in their various memoirs), was IMHO marginally less likely than anyone else to have recognised the real Jack if he had bopped them on the nose.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on February 01, 2005) |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 8:27 am: |
|
Cremers and Collins - er, as I said, dotty females believing in all sorts of nonsense.
Stead - as I said, an eccentric spiritualist and believer in nonsense.
Marsh - pub loafer, unemployed salesman, and opportunist. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1731
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
was Stead particularly eccentric.
I mean eccentric in what way?
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 303
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 8:35 pm: |
|
Dan,
Stead was the editor of a powerful paper with many professional and personal connections. This cannot be disputed. This put him in a position of knowledge. What he DID with that knowledge, I can't entirely say. My point is that his was not an uneducated opinion that can be disregarded as lightly as, say, Marsh's. Clearly, Stead was not convinced beyond doubt of D'Onston's guilt, or else he'd have turned him in (at least, I'd like to think so).
AIP,
You're merely repeating yourself. And keep in mind that the argument against D'Onston does not by any means rest on the opinions of these four individuals. As for your description of Marsh as 'unemployed' salesman; though it is true he was not employed at the time of his acquaintance to D'Onston, this could very likely have been by choice and indicitive of his success as a salesman. After all, why else would he be travelling to the east end daily to hunt the Ripper instead of looking for work. Opportunist? I guess that would describe many of us, as we're hunting the Ripper as well. Howard's characteristically PC response aside, you're not making a very strong argument here my friend.
Jennifer,
No, Stead was not especially eccentric.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 723
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 9:11 pm: |
|
On the other hand, walking around in a prison uniform every Nov 10 is slightly eccentric.
Dave
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 504
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 9:27 pm: |
|
Hi Tom,
Being in charge of a newspaper that constantly belittles the police doesn't really tend to get someone more knowledge about a police investigation than everyone except high ranking police officials. It's not like he sat down with Sir Charles and discussed the secret details of the Whitechapel Murders over tea.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 2:16 am: |
|
Did I say I was making and argument against D'Onston? No, of course I didn't. And if Mr. Wescott cares to read back a bit he will see that I was questioning the statement that "He was suspected by four people who knew him at the time."
In 1896, the date of the statement by Stead that "For more than a year I was under the impression that he was the veritable Jack the Ripper", we are given no idea of when Stead was "under this impression". Just an "impression", not very convincing.
Eccentric? Well Stead believed that Lees talked with an Indian spirit guide and Stead asked for advice from him. And if he believed in Indian spirit guides an "impression" at one time that D'Onston was the Ripper doesn't carry much weight at all - does it? |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1286
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
Hi all
Yes W. T. Stead, Victoria Cremers, and Mabel Collins all suspected D'Onston of being the Ripper, --- and yet they did nothing about it? Not very civic minded of them was it? Stead particularly had a highly developed social conscience, as shown famously in his crusade against the white slavery trade. See Eduardo Zinna's article on "Tea, Scandal and the Ripper’s Shadow" which references "The Maiden Tribute." And yet although Stead vigorously worked to stop young females being drawn into prostitution, he was content to allow women to be eviscerated and mutilated on the streets of the East End knowing who was responsible?
Remember that at the time of the crimes, everyone was under the perception that the Ripper's crimes took place over a longer period than we generally do today, when we think mostly of the crimes as having taken place in the short time of the Autumn of Terror, Aug.-Nov. 1888. Londoners at the time saw the crimes continuing into the summer of 1889 and beyond with the Pinchin Street torso, Clay Pipe Alice, etc.
Really? All this time, Stead was happy to continue to associate with his old journalism buddy, Robert Donston (Roslyn D'Onston) Stephenson? Even to the extent of accepting an article from the man about the case. How grubby, how amoral -- quite unlike the upright campaigner of "The Maiden Tribute."
No, perhaps we are missing something here. Could it have been that Stead more likely told people in a joshing way that eccentric old alcoholic [vide Roots's opinion of D'Onston] Major Robert D'Onston Stephenson was such an odd individual he could have been Jack the Ripper, but probably was not? Couldn't there have been levity and kidding even then, and when Stead proposed D'Onston as the killer he really didn't mean it?
Is it the fault of today's theorists to take these offhand ideas of Stead, Cremers, Collins and the strange Aleister Crowley at their word? Shouldn't these thoughts be binned along with all the other oddball and half-baked notions and theories about the case. It might be one thing if Anderson, Abberline, or Reed said D'Onston was the killer, but should we put the same sort of store in the ideas of such people? The policemen after all were paid to catch killers these others were not.
All the best
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 2:28 pm: |
|
Hi again
Another point to be made about the D'Onston - Cremers - Collins - Stead axis of stories is that D'Onston spread these stories about himself, in the case of impressionable young women no doubt to make himself seem more interesting and romantic, an edge of danger perhaps, and with Stead, who knows, perhaps a hint of a bloody aspect to his nature helped to sell articles on black magic in Africa that he wrote under the name of "Tautriadelta." A lot of people like to build up a romance about themselves, an air of mystery or achievement. And yet this sort of behavior is exactly opposite what we might expect of the seemingly silent killer who slid away into the night, isn't it? A man who did not want to be caught and who would kill again, in most instances, trying not to leave any "clews" for the coppers to find (as we have discussed before, the jury is out on whether the bloody apron found in Goulston Street, a genuine clue, validates the graffito as an additional clue left by the killer).
All the best
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 221
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 10:01 pm: |
|
Chris makes a good point about whether we should take the word of Stead or "feelings" of the two ladies in question today...
We would, if in their place,inform the police,if we felt someone close to us was JTR. Thats most of us..quite possibly these two women in a male-dominated society in which women were "conditioned" to not speak up,felt intimidated..even radical chicks like these two free-spirited women were.... [ for Tommy ] in 1889...Collins had a fear of blackmail to boot.
We can't know why they didn't. One possible reason is that there wasn't anything tangible or evidentiary to bring forward to the police in the case of Collins,save her exclamation to Cremers...Cremers,however,is a slightly different story.
We don't understand the explanation of the discovery of the ties,if Cremers is being truthful,in not speaking up. Could it have been a fear that You and I don't or wouldn't have? Was RDS that fear-inspiring to the psyche of Cremers,who calmly recounted the story years later ?
I,for one,am glad that this sort of open and objective discussion is developing on RDS. Arguing against the seemingly disjointed bits of information on him can only improve our understanding of him because we all seek the truth in the final analysis. More can be found on him,if more only research is done in England...so get off your prats,you Limeys!!! [ again..for Tommy ]
Stead,of course,was one of those goal-minded people who,because of their character and goals,as Chris pointed out in his posts above,should have spoken up if he was such a do-gooding person....frigging socialist! [again for Tommy ]
Stead was in league with D'onston in a journalistic capacity. We know Stead,in the 1896 article in Borderlands "was under the impression he was the veritable JTR".."
Quoting from the late Mr.Harris,perhaps RDS had an alibi for the dates the C5 were killed on or some other saving grace that Stead refused to act on. We just don't know if this was the reason Stead never said anything until later...
And likewise,a man of the prestige and social standing,not based on some fly-by-night attributes,of W.T. Stead, who had a bit of grandstanding to his character,could have possibly seen something about the man that gave him this distinct impression....and yet for possible legal reasons didn't.
Tom...P.C...me? Whew ! That hurt !
How |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1288
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 11:11 pm: |
|
Hi Howard
Thanks for your reply to my posts. I am glad you are open minded to information on both D'Onston and Stead. I think being so enables one to fairly examine the evidence. D'Onston remains for me an intriguing suspect, as does Tumblety, which is why I have written about both men and will continue to study their lives. Again, I think there are strands in both individual's stories that might lead us to suspect either could have been the murderer, although as self-advertisers one wonders if either man could have been Jack the Ripper because, as I noted in my last post, that type of behavior seems to run contrary to what we know of the Ripper crimes. Not to mention as well, of course, their older age and lack of correspondence to the description of the man observed with Eddowes before the Mitre Square murder.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 223
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 12:02 am: |
|
Dear C.G.
In reality,as you know and everyone else here also knows,it doesn't matter which monster performed the crimes. If it DOES,then those of us feel that way are counter productive to the continuing effort in researching the case.
From my perspective,someone who,although not convinced of a specific suspects' culpability, as you,for example,are not,only add to the knowledge of the case by the very fact you care enough to investigate him. THIS is the real need the field has which Tom,among others,are supplying. Stan Russo meant that with his article in Ripperologist,in his way....to not disqualify a suspect that even he felt unworthy by using the more "acceptable" gauges of determining suspects,i.e.,age....A lot of my "pumping" RDS up here and elsewhere is mostly an effort for people to contemplate his worthiness as a suspect-culprit. I believe,in some cases,its possible that the possible ritualistic aspect in assessing the WM are in fact overlooked,due to some of the "history" of the personalities involved with the promotion of RDS as a suspect. I get no money,no perks,not even a hearty hand clasp for it. All I want is this guy to be researched more. Sometimes my methodology looks "in your face". I do want to get into young British people's faces and ask them to please use their resources in England to contemplate looking into RDS' family archives, or other areas, if possible as an addition to whatever they are already considering. Thats it. Bottom line. End of story.
....and the witnesses. Hmmm...I hate to play Devils Advocate here,but three men on the way home may well have been more involved with their discussion prior to spotting that man with Eddowes,in what they may have determined to be a normal,de riguer,man and hooker hook up...But,in fairness and in the same spirit you have towards matters,its something to not be overlooked.
Later C.G.....
How |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 526
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Chris George--Hi. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You write. "although as self-advertisers one wonders if either man could have been Jack the Ripper because... that type of behavior seems to run contrary to what we know of the Ripper crimes."
I'm not so sure I can really agree with this. Such interpretations are subjective. The idea of the murderer being an introverted 'non-entity' is a popular one, but I tend to think that the crimes show a certain amount of ego. Donald Rumbelow has spoken and written about the murderer's vanity, his arrogance: as if to say, "I did all this." In the case of someone like Dahmer, he lured his victims back home where he commit his unspeakable acts in privacy. But these crimes seem very different to me; they are committed in public spaces. There seems to be a deliberate attempt to shock and scandalize, to stir things up.
In regards, to D'Onston Stephenson, I wonder, is boasting even quite the right word? I seem to recall that Cremers stated that he didn't boast, but always related his stories in a very off--hand, detatched, and unemotional manner. It was one of the things that she found chilling.
To me, it doesn't matter much that Cremers or Stead or Marsh were 'half-baked', because the case against Stephenson isn't reliant on the integrity of those who suspected him; rather, the case rests on his own strange compulsion to implicate himself in the crimes, over what was evidently a fairly long time. This included writing a letter to the police that was particularly odd. Considering Stephenson's later actions as reported by Collins and Cremers, it's difficult not to see that letter as being deliberately ironic. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on February 03, 2005) |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 224
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 8:16 pm: |
|
Thanks very much for adding that to the thread,R.J.
Dear Chris....One possible explanation for Vittoria Cremers not pursuing the matter any further,may well lay in what AIP stated previously about Cremers being a little "dotty".
I know I'm not telling you something you didn't already know or read before [ and most probably before I did],but may,in in the spirit of objectivity,overlooked.
This Theosophist movement held specific tenets that believed in reincarnation. Part of these tenets is the belief in a sort of karmic payback,which is reaped in the next life...according to these people's belief system.
Cremers went on, truthfully or not, and explained to O'Donnell that she was told by RDS that there were only 5 murders...and that there would be no more subsequent to November 9th,by the hands of the Ripper.
Looking at the Cremers statement a little further, it is debatable whether her comment that she believed " that it is not for me[Cremers] to interfere with the laws of destiny..." applied to every circumstance she encountered in life. That is for certain, a "dotty" remark by a self-absorbed human being.
Regardless of the solpitistic weltanschauung of Ms. Cremers, she did make the statement. Unfortunately,her excuse-reason of having a value system that earthly responsibility was not very high up on her moral ladder, may well be the answer to why she didn't go the extra step.
In fact, many people,not just "dotty' women, have reasons for not "rolling over" on others. Many people have been able to live out lives of crime in neighborhoods,with the citizenry's full awareness of what they are doing,which includes murder, because of fear of retribution, due to being "connected" or "being a crazy dude who you shouldn't mess with". Who knows if RDS had filled the heads of the ladies with stories of his "connections", regardless of their veracity,which may also had a part to play in Cremers and Collins being mum on the issue. An evil Walter Mitty type perhaps ?
One final note about Collins. It appears she had performed some acts that she could have been "blackmailed" for. A person's vanity often comes before all other considerations,and perhaps Mrs. Collins had that in mind too...
Back to you,C.G.
Thanks again,Rajah ! |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 1:17 pm: |
|
Hi RJ and Howard
The stories of Vittoria Cremers and Mabel Collins are one thing, but I suppose what I was really getting at in my post of Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:03 pm was how could Stead, with his developed and well-demonstrated social conscience, live with himself knowing D'Onston might have been the Ripper and not turn him in?
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 225
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 5:56 pm: |
|
Dear Chris:
You could probably think of better reasons than I,but here are a couple of possible reasons.
There's nothing more dangerous than someone with nothing to lose. Stead was most definitely not someone like that. He had a lot to lose in some ways,and a lawsuit settlement to a guy who sponged money for most of his life like the creep Stephenson did,could have entered W.T.'s mind..Stead's gut instinct may have told him to "cool it with this erudite,but strange,bird."
Stead may well have considered RDS for some of the reasons we that lean toward him do now. We have nothing to lose by scrutinizing this weirdo.
Stead could have thought about the possible ramifications of having hired RDS in the first place to write for the PMG....he may have considered the possible damage to his prestige of going to Scotland Yard and declaring his belief or suspicions...he may have considered problems if RDS was cleared due to no evidence and what RDS would do...had he gone to Scotland Yard,he may not have known about the episode with Marsh beating him to the punch,when he went to Roots,which could have been embarrassing to Stead,although he would only find this out afterwards.
Its not uncommon for people who have attained social status to once having "made their bones" to let others do their "dirty work". Once attaining their status,the descent can be quicker than the ascent was....they are always aware of that.
From a different perspective and admittedly not a nice one at that....Throughout history,people with social reforming aims and agendas have tolerated and at times "used" the plight of people to further their ultimate goals and highlight their soapboxing...I don't want to slight the name of Mr.Stead,but...it isn't that farfetched.
Back to you,C.G... |
Jack Green
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 6:01 am: |
|
I feel a SoapBox moment coming on….
For some reason every decade needs a kooky Ripper explanation, from Stephen Knight on it has never been enough that the Ripper could have been an unknown uninteresting nobody.
People look for patterns and rituals and secret codes because that is what the world of Hollywood and popular fiction tells us makes an interesting story.
There is something about 20th/21st century man that cannot just accept that sometimes if not usually the simplest explanation is the correct one.
People think that JFK couldn’t possibly have been killed by just one man, man couldn’t possibly have walked on the moon, and terrorists couldn’t have possibly organised the attack on 9/11. We look for Hollywood plot twists and sub plots that just don’t exist in real life. And these wildly silly theories of Black Magic and ritual fall exactly into the same pattern.
Honestly, its reads like a Victorian ghost story. And so much of it is wrong. Theorists say the bodies were exactly aligned with the 4 points of the compass. Well that’s wrong for a start. Anyone with a map and the faintest idea of how to read it can see that. They were all exactly a certain distance apart - well they are if you move them a bit and fiddle here and there with the actual murder sites. Or, you can play a sort of dot-to- dot game and if you bend the lines a bit you get the outline of a fish! A known magical symbol. Firstly the dot to dot fish just isn’t there unless you really really look for it, secondly the fish symbol used is not one that practitioners of occult ritual would particularly use.
Being a practising pagan, and having a little more than the basic understanding of Magic (black or otherwise)displayed by some, I can tell you there are hundreds of symbols used by pagans and Black Magic practitioners, give me a map and give me 4 (or sometimes 5 Stephenson theorists cant seem to make up their minds)spots, and I will find you an ancient symbol that would fit into the pattern.
As to the silly idea that a patient could come and go without once being spotted padding back to his ward bloodstained and carrying the grisly artefacts we know the Ripper took from his victims, Caz already addressed that beautifully in her earlier post.
A killer operating in such a confined area could not risk killing 5 times in such precise locations, Jack needed to be opportunistic, to take his chances when and where he could. And let’s not lose site of the fact that Jacks body count is unlikely to be the 5 we call ‘canonical’. Not once to my memory has the final tally of a serial killer not been added to and taken away from upon the killer’s apprehension.
Sorry to burst any bubbles but life isn’t like films, life is ordinary and dull, life isn’t filmed in Technicolor nor does it have an award winning plot, the simplest answer is most often the correct one. This kind of silly romancing of the Ripper killings just ads another layer of rubbish that needs to be cleaned away before serious research can begin to get closer to the facts of the case. |
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 9:39 pm: |
|
Hi!All
D'onston was analyzing the case just like we are.
He sent his analysis to the papers,talked to his friends while we,we have to post it at casebook.org.Is anyone who has a dissertation a suspect?
|
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 9:38 pm: |
|
Hi!All
D'onston was analyzing the case just like we are.
He sent his analysis to the papers,talked to his friends while we,we have to post it at casebook.org.Is anyone who has a dissertation a suspect?
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 227
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Hi Jack !
You don't have to worry about bursting anyone's bubbles,sir. Everything you stated could very well be true.
D'onston is an interesting suspect to men like Rumbelow and Evans. I'm pretty sure they are grounded gentlemen....and serious researchers.
D'onston may have been what some folks claim him to be[ as zxcter theorized...a proto Ripperologist]....Thats indisputable....
Your reference to Caz "beautifully" describing her take on RDS leaving London Hospital wasn't really taken seriously. She is beautiful, but her light hearted post was just that...light hearted. There's too much damned seriousness involved in the WM and discussion of it. If D'onstonites can't take a joke...forget 'em !
We don't know if RDS was able to leave on his own volition from the hospital. This "confinement" to hospital may very well not have been the actual situation at all. As a man with a possibly bogus "ailment",we don't know if he bullshitted his way with the nurses or doctors... he could have been allowed to leave the grounds. No one is certain one way or the other,not the naysayers,neither the proponents of RDS as the Ripper.
He was familiar with the East End and could possibly have had a "flat"...a bolthole...to store his ill-gotten gain. The statement you made that it is "silly" to believe that RDS-as-Ripper could bring back blood-stained or soaked garments to London Hospital is silly. None of the people I am aware of that lean toward him being the Ripper have ever considered this to be a possibility. Any assumption that he did do just that,whether tongue-in-cheek or seriously stated, is silly in itself.
I personally know a woman who is a practicing pagan myself. Her take on the 4 points [ the first 4 victims ] is the exact opposite of what you posted. She sees it in a different light and that there are signs of ritual activity. Me? I don't believe in paganism,and don't really care about the practice personally,but according to her there are "signs" that there are. I think RDS was a man who believed in all the mumbo jumbo of necromancy and could possibly gain some tangible "asset" from killing the women...
I also have a recent e-mail from Dr.Dawn Perlmutter,a PhD in anthropology and reknowned expert in occult/ritual practices that runs counter to what you, a novice, in necromancy,opined on this thread. I will post it here after this post. Dr.Perlmutter has been called in on numerous murders by "modern" police forces [ those of the 20th and 21st century ]to examine murders that appear to be or were ritualistic. Believe it or not,the cops are a lot like D'onstonites,in that they consider the ritual aspect to "modern" murders a reality.
When we compare crimes such as the Zodiac or any other to the Ripper,we,the D'onstonites,aren't saying they are the same...only that killers do have patterns and idiosyncrasies that appear similar. To bring up the JFK assassination,the Moon landing [ which my dad had a part in,by the way...] and the 9/11 tragedy in the context as to how D'onstonites approach his candidacy isn't how we see it. In fact,its a non sequitor.
So,as I said above, I personally am happy that you ,as well as anyone else, chimed in,Jack. Like you,I don't believe in television plots and movie scripts.
Looking forward to more from you.
How |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 229
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 2:58 pm: |
|
Dear Jack........
As I declared above...here is an e-mail from Dr. Perlmutter...
I had asked her to give her opinion on the possibility of a ritual aspect to the murders.
From : Dawn Perlmutter
Sent : Tuesday, February 1, 2005 7:26 AM
To : Yours truly...
Subject : Re: quick question for Dr. Perlmutter
Howard,
Sorry I didn't get back sooner, I have been swamped with work this week. My response is that I don't think any of it is coincidence. The very nature of ritualistic crimes is that absolutely everything has symbolic meaning to the perpetrator, the difficulty is figuring out their meaning. No matter how random the scene appears there is a logic to it. Every detail has been carefully planned and premeditated.
Dawn
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 230
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
...before I forget Mr.Green:
Regardless of how those of us who "press" for more research into RDS in 2005...He just didn't pop up overnight. Mr. Melvin Harris wrote a book a decade or so ago about him and he has been around for longer than your post indicates.
Have a good week....
How |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 528
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Howard-- Funny seeing you here. The ability of Stephenson to 'come and go' unnoticed from the Hospital is a valid argument, but only if some contemporary source can shed light on the particular ward, and whether or not it afforded any privacy. Frustratingly, there doesn't seem to be an authoritive answer that I'm aware of. The Currie Ward still exists at the London Hospital...at least in name. (Drats. A fellow who used to post here worked at the Hospital, but I didn't think to ask him). It would be interesting to know if the 'Currie Ward' is within, attached, semi-detached, or detached from the main block...
See ya. RP
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 231
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Rog...
Ahh..Thats what I'm a-gonna do...Let me check that out about the Currie Ward...I'll be back... |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 232
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 9:43 pm: |
|
Regarding Stead's connections within the Police department..
A reference in one of Stead's "Maiden Tribute" expose' pieces mentions a private conversation that he had with Howard Vincent, who was head of the C.I.D before Munro or Anderson...In fact its difficult to believe that a successful newspaper editor would not have a contact "high up" in the police department.
None of this has direct bearing on Stead's
suspicions against Stephenson. It might,however
have bearing on Stephenson's claim that Stead had
heard from the police that Mary Kelly had been
sexually assaulted...Dr.Bond's report in "The True Face of JTR" by the late Mr. Harris,is neutral on the point of sexual contact between victim and killer...
How
(Message edited by howard on February 05, 2005) |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 308
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 10:29 pm: |
|
Hello all,
The suggestion that D'Onston couldn't leave the hospital is just that...a suggestion. There's no viable reason to think he could not, and a number of reasons to suggest he could and, in fact, did take leave of the hospital during his stay there. Until there's good proof that a self-administered patient, such as D'Onston and John Merrick, could not leave the hospital, there's no reason to think they could not. In Merrick's case, there's abundant clear evidence that he did. I see no reason to believe that D'Onston was any different.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1796
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
Hi Tom,
I'm not disagreeing with you about self admited patients. but Merrick, i thought he was more of a boarder than patient as such? i would have thought he was an exceptional case not one that could be used for comparisons?
That's all,
Cheers
Jenni
"What d'you think about that? Now you know how I feel"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1469
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 4:24 am: |
|
Hi All,
Even if D'Onston could come and go as he pleased, wouldn't nursey eyebrows have been raised if they noticed that he had absented himself from his bed for a couple of hours or more, on a number of occasions in the middle of the night, all corresponding with one of the grisly Whitechapel murders?
How does the bolt-hole theory work in practice? What are the logistics involved for each of the murder times/locations/victims? He leaves the hospital at some point wearing a certain set of clothes. Does he first go to his bolt-hole to change into another set and collect his knife, before setting off to encounter a suitable victim and attempt to persuade her to accompany him to a pre-selected and reconnoitred spot?
I wonder in particular about the Annie Chapman murder and the scenario that would involve D'Onston being absent from the hospital during the early hours, while he takes his trophies back to base, and does what he wants or needs to do before returning with, presumably, some sort of explanation for where he has been, in case nursey is curious.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1806
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
|
good point. what are we expecting him to have done with the organs? |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 7:07 am: |
|
If D'Onston was in the habit of absenting his bed during the night and going for a wander, maybe every night, then it would be nothing unusual or noticeable if he was not there at the times of the murders.
Arguing the pros and cons of how D'Onston got out of the hospital, what he wore, how he selected victim and location is all a bit pointless (as are a lot of Ripper debates). Not enough information and knowledge is available to state anything with accuracy. Suffice to say he could have done it (so far as knowledge goes).
The above post is full of its own speculation none of which is supportable by any known fact about the murderer. Why is it presumed that an explanation would be required of him? |
Jack Green
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
By the way, Howard thanks for the history lesson but I am well aware that RDS has been ‘fingered’ in the past as a suspect. I have re read my post and I cant see where I said it was only recently, but let us not fall in to the usual RDS proponents game of attack and bluster.
One of the reasons I have never bothered posting on the – jtrforums - site is the inability of some RDS-ites to argue their point without attacking the person making a contrary point, trying to discredit someone of a contrary opinion does not strengthen the case against RDS
This is not a criticism I am levelling at you personally Howard just an observation.
However, I digress. I would like to expand a little on my other post of today and say Building a theory on the ‘canonical’ 5 is like building on shifting sands. There is a strong possibility that the count could be wrong. Kelly, Stride, Tabram and indeed Millward could all easily be either included or excluded. The chances of the ‘canonical 5’ being exactly right is fairly slim, obviously RDS theorists would argue that the theory proves the 5 to be correct but that is a precarious statement and one that is self limiting. I have never been happy with Stride as a victim, but the arguments for and against the various victims candidacy are not for here, they all have their own section on this board. Therefore, I will say without qualification here that I don’t believe Stride belongs in the list and refer you to the relevant discussion if you want a rational as to why I believe this. No Stride means no points of the compass, no imaginary fish and no pattern of 930 (or whatever) feet. Let’s throw Tabram in and all bets are off, you get more of a banana shape than a fish. Is this proof that Jack was in fact a Chimp? There is no proof that a chimp couldn’t come and go from the Zoo whenever he chose, so if you cant prove it wasn’t impossible it must therefore prove that it did happen! Obviously I am being silly and a little conceited and to some degree playing devils advocate as I have no preferred suspect of may own I just enjoy rattling other peoples theories to see how well they stand up.
|
Jack Green
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 4:50 am: |
|
Howard thanks for your reply.
And thanks for posting your ‘experts’ Email to you. I am at a bit of a loss as to what you think the brief reply to an unseen question actually proves. Even the most random of serial killer will play out some kind of ritual or other. I don’t dispute or indeed doubt that there could be some element of ‘ritual’ involved in these killings. And you expert simply says that. Ritual doesn’t mean occult.
However you wouldn’t believe how unimpressed I am by the views of so called ‘experts’ so sighting expert opinion hardly carries water at all. ‘Experts’ tend to be humans (generally) and, expert or not, when we are dealing with no solid non scientific ‘evidence’, they are as susceptible to opinion and bias as us mere ’novice’ mortals.
You want proof that expert opinion is worthless?
Have a look at the Maybrick case. Plenty of experts have added their opinion there. One of the ‘experts’ said that the handwriting had to be from a serial killer. One ‘expert’ said the scratches in the watch had to be over ‘tens of years old’. So there we go case solved it was Maybrick we can all go home the experts have spoken! Or have a look at the tens and tens of cases where people have been imprisoned by the weight of ‘expert’ evidence only to be released years later their sentances quashed when the ‘expert’ has been shown to be wrong.
Nahh Howard, ‘expert’ opinion isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
Even if we were to accept RDS as a valid suspect and worthy of research, the facts remains
Proving something isn’t impossible isn’t the same as proving it happened and proving that the killer did kill to some sort of pre-planned occult pattern doesn’t prove it was RDS.
Proving the murders were ‘ritualistic’ doesn’t prove they were ‘occult’.
The 4 victims were not placed precisely north east south and west.
If the killers body count is even slightly different i.e. add Tabram or lose Stride the whole house of card falls to pieces.
There is no fish. To make a fish in the very least we need 2 if not 3 more bodies,
Even if it were not impossible it is ‘unlikely’ RDS managed to sneak in and out of Hospital at all hours, go to precise locations, find a victim, kill them sneak back and all without once being spotted.
The Kelly killing was unnecessarily brutal to be ritualistic. If the motive for the crime was ritual it would have been a cleaner kill
RDS was older, taller and quite ‘distinguished’ looking compared to the few eye witnesses.
There are far to many leaps of faith and assumptions in the case against RDS to make any kind of interesting case beyond a macabre melodrama its too full of holes, if this theory were a boat it would be at the bottom of a lake.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
