|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Greg James
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 2:36 pm: | 
|
In the 1991 hardback edition of “The Jack the Ripper A to Z” it states quite clearly under the entry for Joseph Sickert that the Yorshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, had allegedly harassed and threatened the life of the artist. Of course it was Joseph Sickert who claimed to have been the illegitimate son of the artist Walter Sickert and who also alleged that an illegal marriage had occurred between his grandmother and Prince Albert Victor. Ironically Walter Sickert himself has now also been identified as a possible Ripper suspect.
I also note that the 1996 paperback edition of the same work does not mention the Sutcliffe harassment allegation. But was there any substance at all to the story? If there was I find it difficult to imagine how such a situation could have occurred. For example had Sutcliffe also been inspired by ‘Jack the Ripper’ rather as Peter Kürten, the ‘Monster of Düsseldorf’ had apparently been?
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 367
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Hi Greg,
This meeting between Joseph [Gorman] Sickert and Peter Sutcliffe is covered more fully in Melvyn Faircloughs book, "The Ripper and the Royals" [Duckworth London 1991]. However we only have Joseph's word for it, and he is not considered
reliable.
Best to read the book and make up your own mind.
Rgds
John |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3408
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 7:58 pm: |
|
I have read somewhere that Joseph Sickert claimed that Sutcliffe once had been his driver. True or not, is this story connected to the alleged threats?
Al the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 368
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 8:38 am: |
|
Hi Glen,
According to the account in Fairclough's book, Sutcliffe was the driver of a car that once tried to run Joseph over.
Rgds
John |
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 19
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Hi Greg
According to Sickert's interview with the News of The World 13th May 1984, Peter Sutcliffe had been stalking him for six years, dating from the time of the BBC documentary of Walter Sickert's Jack The Ripper story, on one occasion banging on his daughter's door late at night.
According to the newspaper report Sutcliffe harrassed Sickert with phonecalls and letters ( 3 of which he claimed to have passed on to the Yorkshire Police after becoming suspicious that Sutcliffe was the Yorkshire Ripper)
The two supposedly met in a cafe and Sutcliffe wanted to talk about the Yorkshire Ripper crimes.
Sickert then alleged that Sutcliffe tried to run him down with his car, whilst there was a passenger present.
As regards influencing Peter Sutcliffe,I don't know what truth there is in any of the story, but interesting that according to Sickert Sutcliffe's obsession started after the documentary in 1973 and Peter Sutcliffe's first acknowledged victim was in 1976.
Debra
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 369
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 2:37 am: |
|
I have serious doubts as to whether there is ANY truth in Joe Gorman/Sickert's story.
The "Sutcliffe tried to run me down" story seems a re-embroidery of the Netley tried to run down Alice Margaret story Knight took from Gorman!!
If you read Fairclough (Chapter 11) there is more.
Gorman claimed masons were out to "get" Stephen Knight and that the brain tumour that killed him was "chemically induced".
There is supposed to be a typewritten agreement between gorman and knight, sent on the day the latter died - if true this could be produced, I assume.
"Friends" of Gorman were supposed to have found the first draft of Fairclough's book seditious (!!) and sent it to the crown prosecution Service who visited Gorman's home on 10 May 1986 and took away some documents (what is not revealed) leaving a receipt. A facsimile (interestingly NOT a photograph) is provided - its validity and authenticity could now be checked out under the UK's Freedom of Information Act.
Two days after the CPS, Special Branch visited to ask about the book which might be "treasonable". They took away more photos and letters.
These visits are reportedly revealed on the front page of a local paper - and could be further checked out.
Personally, I find the whole concoction unbelievable.
Can anyone recall the last prosecution for "treason" in the UK - which is what sedition is? It is frankly not credible that the authorities would act in such a way. There is no record of the authorities taking any sort of interest in Knight's book or the earlier Barlow/Watt BBC series.
We know that the so-called Abberline diaries are crude fakes - presumably perpetrated by Gorman. I suggest that the rest of the stories and the evidence (such as the receipt) probably - almost certainly in my view - come from a similar source.
Phil |
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 7:46 pm: |
|
I have neither wit nor energy to deal with this old caperer at this time of night.
|
Greg James
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 11:19 am: |
|
I think it is unfair to simply pass Sickert off as being unreliable in this respect. Yes it is true he had admitted to having embellished his story concerning the Whitechapel murderer but this is hardly surprising under the circumstances. The story in question was entirely based upon hearsay and as a result of this would inevitably have been prone to factual inaccuracy and even exaggeration. However relatives of Joseph Sickert have been able to confirm that such stories referred to had actually been in circulation within his family and this must count for at least something.
To suggest that Sickert had also made up his Sutcliffe story is little short of accusing him of being a pathological liar. Indeed such a position is somewhat risky for what if conmen or other such rogues were to further victimize Sickert? (If he were still living I'm not fully up to date) He wouldn't be able to ask for help because no one would believe him. Indeed such a point of view is both unfounded and, in my opinion, slightly dangerous. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 371
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Hi Greg,
First of all Joseph Sickert died a couple of years ago, details were posted on these boards at the time.
The big problem, to me at least, with Joe's story is that there is no independent proof of his claims; one either belives him or not.
Some time ago I tried to investigate the claim he made that Mary Kelly was sent to Cleveland Street by solicitor Edmund Bellord, whom Joe claimed was a partner in a firm called Perkins and Bellord. I did eventually find this company and found that they did not commence business until about the 1920's, and the Bellord mentioned was in fact the nephew of Edmund. However Edmund Bellord did have a brother who was an estate agent in the Cleveland Street area in the 1880's.
That is always the problem with Joseph Sickert, things can never be proved!
Rgds
John |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 407
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 2:02 am: |
|
There are also question about things like the "Abberline Diaries" (complete with errors) which appear to have been fabricated.
The danger with Joe Gorman is that theorists pick up bits of his various stories that suit them, and then try to justify it. He is an unreliable witness (in legal terms - I'm not implying he was around in 1888!) and should be treated as such.
IMHO NOTHING that Joe ever said should be used unless it can be independently and reliably confirmed.
Phil |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 159
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 3:12 am: |
|
Phil,
Phil Phil Phil Phil Phil.
Laughing out loud Phil.
Phil.
Phil.
I really feel for you Phil.
Phil.
Remember this day Phil.
Phil Phil Phil Phil.
Remember the day when it was so obviously pointed out that you were duped.
Phil.
Phil.
Good work. Great job in your police work and intuitive approach. Everything Joseph Gorman said is a lie. Just remember this day Phil.
Good work Phil.
I hope you recover from all this Phil. After you figure it all out finally, or after its over Phil.
Phil Phil Phil Phil.
Good luck. You'll need it.
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 410
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
I shall certainly remember it as the day I received an insane and inappropriate post.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2303
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 8:42 am: |
|
Phil,
I think you offended Stan or something!
Jenni |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 411
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
Did I??
He probably needs to be able to quote Joe Gorman for some pet theory he has!!
Phil |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2310
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
Phil,
I don't know about that.
Still, I wouldn't have thought Mr Gorman the most reliable of sources myself.
But what do I know?
Jenni
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 160
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Phil,
Insane? Sure. I was drunk when I posted that.
Inappropriate? I don't see how.
Offended? No. I don;t have a personal stake in this case. I do find it funny that someone like Phil, who posts such lengthy and thorough posts about other topics, would just dismiss Joseph Gorman as a liar, and leave it at that. It's really thorough.
See the difference between me and you Phil is that simply because Joseph Gorman has lied in the past, I don't feel some need to end my research there. And dont feel like you're the only one who has missed this simple explanation.
Isn't it possible that Joseph Gorman has done nothing but lie about the murders, but on purpose?
That one flew right by you Phil, didnt it? Again, dont feel bad, it has flown by most people. Mainly because they have some personal stake in the case and find Jospeh Gorman's lies upsetting, so they dismiss everything he says. It's incredibly thorough, if you ask me. And that was sarcasm, if you didn't catch it.
From your last post it's obvious you have a personal stake in this, or else you wouldn;t have stated that I NEED to be able to quote Gorman for some pet theory. It's as if you are hoping I NEED to, to make yourself feel better when I am wrong, because no one could possibly use Gorman within a theory, right? To do so would be upsetting to most.
That is unless you were the one who didn't fall for his lies. Lies made specifically to make him appear as if he were not credible, along with his own ideas on the case.
And thats the difference between you and I Phil. You see a man who has lied and disregard everything he says. I see a man who has lied and investigate further, to see why he lied. What purpose would his lies serve? And then it becomes clear.
But you keep making those abrupt conclusions. It is solid and thorough research.
As far as inappropriate, to return to that ridiculous comment you made Phil, what are we three years old here? Perhaps less etiquette and more common sense. I'm not here to serve tea to the Queen, but to challenge ridiculous posts like yours about dismissing things without taking the time to ask why. One thing you, like most, never understood, it's just as important as to why the murders took place as it is to find out who committed them.
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 161
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 2:53 pm: |
|
And here's a little extra for you Phil,
Jeez, what would make Joseph Gorman even seem less credible? Any idea? Any?
Perhaps concocting a story where he was actually stalked by the Yorkshire Ripper without any proof? Would that do it? Would something so absurd, having nothing to do with the 'JTR' case, make Gorman seem even less credible?
So if someone wanted to make themselves seem less credible, this story would do it huh?
But you'll probably dismiss this also. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you'll read this and actually take a moment to think about it. I could be wrong though. You might simply dismiss it because to actually entertain the thought means you were Royally duped, no pun intended. You can't have that now can you Phil?
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 413
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Stan - leaving your extraordinary rant to one side - I'll just say I don't place much faith either in drunks or habitual liars.
Actually, now you're sober, you might care to re-read my earlier post. the last line actually reads, "IMHO NOTHING that Joe ever said should be used unless it can be independently and reliably confirmed.
So I didn't dismiss anything, Stan. That said, if you want to waste your time on pursuing the matter that is up to you, frankly I have other and better things to do.
Gorman has demonstrably lied twice - once to knight by his own admission; and clearly in regard to the worthless "Abberline Diaries" - I am afraid that is enough to me.
Only a conspiracy theorist will twist that in the way you are doing, with absolutely no basis other than your own wish. You give none, I backed up my statements with evidence as I see it, you might do the same - though of course, you cannot.
As I mentioned in a previous post, some of the evidence Gorman claims in regard to Sutcliffe and "officials" is actually mentioned in Fairclough's book - have you read that? But the evidence is not convincing - write to the publishersd and ask to see it. You can, as I stated above, check with official sources under the UK Freedom of Information Act (you don't have to live in the UK to do so). The authorities have, at the very least to confirm or deny that they hold the information even if there is an exemption. If they do not, you might have grounds for some suspicion as it would be a rare case. Check with Criwn Prosecution Service, MI5, the Met - or anyone else you deem likely to be involved.
But as I have said, your "rant" was mis-judged. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether I am right or wrong in absolute terms. In evaluating the evidence critically, judiciously and on balance, as any historian is trained to do, one makes judgements. I made mine. As i said, if confirmation were to emerge from an independent and reliable source (NOT you by the way, Stan) but someone like AP, Chris Scott or a reputable author, I would look at my decision again.
By the way, precisely what criteria do YOU use when evaluating evidence? How does Joe Gorman meet that criteria?
Phil
However
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 162
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
Phil,
I love the fact that by having an alternate opinion than yours and a different approach to research I become a non-credible source and not a reputable author.
It must be great to live in your world, where you run things and those that differ or disagree with King Phil are less worthy of analyzing evidence.
It's also obvious you're not capable of understanding my point. You say that Gorman demonstrably lied twice. You have no clue how far off you are on that. By actually studying the case and Gorman, who is now involved in the periphery of the case, I place the lies at a much higher number than 2. But you didn't care to look into it.
As you said - "I couldn't care less whether I am right or wrong in absolute terms"
So my question is - What the hell are you doing here if you don't care about being right or wrong?
When you want to learn something you obviously missed let me know. This unreputable, unreliable man will give you one free lesson.
Why do I know you are too vain to take me up on that offer King Phil?
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 163
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Phil,
One time offer. Want to play the learning game? I'll ask you a question and you give the answer. You might actually learn something?
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 418
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Not from you Stan, you might not be sober at the time.
Please note: This is the LAST post of yours to which I will reply, since you have nothing to say and your rudeness is calculated. Also since you didn't answer my direct questions, why should I respond to yours?
The twice Gorman can be shown to have lied, relates to the two occasions on which he did so - Knight's and Fairclough's books - I certainly couldn't be bothered to ennumerate the individual untruths. Why should anyone waste their time doing so?
While I am writing, get this straight:
I love the fact that by having an alternate opinion than yours and a different approach to research I become a non-credible source and not a reputable author.
You misunderstand. You are a non-credible source because you yourself stated you posted when drunk!!! How unreliable can you get?
...where you run things and those that differ or disagree with King Phil are less worthy of analyzing evidence.
I neither said nor implied that. I simply stated my approach. I make my own mind up, I do not simply follow the conclusions of other's blindly. You are entitled to your approach, but if it is less than rigorous and thorough and open to challenge by your peers - as mine always are - then they will be challenged and critiqued by me, if not by others. If i stand for anything, it is some sort of standards in evaluating evidence, since thinking such as you demonstrate in the posts above is largely what has made Ripper-studies such a laughing stock.
It's also obvious you're not capable of understanding my point.
Which was? or is it that I disagree with it, NOT misunderstand?
By actually studying the case and Gorman, who is now involved in the periphery of the case, I place the lies at a much higher number than 2.
Gorman is not now involved in the case, he's dead. Do you infer by the same logic that Barnardo and Carroll should be regarded as suspects in the same degree as Druitt and Tumblety, since their names have been mentioned in connection with the case.
I would also point out that, in studying the case, you might note that Gorman's first colleague (Knight) deliberately and knowingly concealed and misused evidence.
But you didn't care to look into it. Look into what?
As you said - "I couldn't care less whether I am right or wrong in absolute terms" ... So my question is - What the hell are you doing here if you don't care about being right or wrong?
The remark related to weighing evidence. I can only evaluate what we have, and so my conclusions may be wrong if fresh evidence or new thinking emerges. That's common sense nothing more. In legal terms, a verdict can be challenged if new evidence emerges and a re-trial takes place. intellectually, that is the approach I take.
But I never theorise about JtR. the evidence is simply too unreliable.
This unreputable, unreliable man will give you one free lesson. Just one lesson - in what? drinking? Or writing banal and pointless posts?
Why do I know you are too vain to take me up on that offer King Phil?
Not too vain, just lacking in time to play childish games with vexatious and boring correspondents.
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 164
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Phil,
Well I'm glad we got that straight. You're the best and I'm nothing. Now the case can move on.
You are a sad sad little man. Heavens forbid that you actually learn something from a jackass like myself. What would happen to your world if that occurred?
You still don't get the point. So here it is again for ya'.
Yes Joseph Gorman lied. Yes he lied on more than one occasion. Yes this can be proven. Why is that where the research into Gorman stops. Why can't those lies be calculated like my apparent rudeness? And if they are calculated and purposeful, then theres more to look into, rather than just throwing in the towel Phil. Like you have done with Gorman. As far as you're concerned anything having to do with Gorman and the 'JTR' case is garbage and wrong. Thats real thorough. But then again you keep bringing up legal issues, as if by some reasoning you want to take the murderer to court. Newsflash - 'JTR' is dead. There won't be a trial.
Here's some info for you to ignore, being the thorough researcher that you are.
Gorman claims to have possession of the Abberline Diaries.
Fairclough claimed to have seen them but not read them in full.
Gorman has cited material from within them based upon a 1989 article by Neal Sheldon.
This has led us to the obvious conclusion that they are fake, and Gorman is lying again.
So - what do you learn from this?
Gorman is a liar and don't trust or even look into anything he says.
What do I learn from this?
If Gorman uses erroneous information from a 1989 article by Neal Sheldon, stating that this information came from within the Abberline Diaries -
WAIT FOR IT
WAIT FOR IT
WAIT FOR IT
How on Earth does Gorman announce the existence of the Abberline Diaries to the public on April 21st, 1988? If they are supposed to contain information from an article that hasn't been written yet?
DO YOU FOLLOW YET?
Its not the credible nature of Gorman that's important. It's actually his uncredible nature that is what is important.
By not throwing in the towel I've discovered this great discrepency. You missed it, not wholly because you threw in the towel on Gormon's crediblility, but because you are not a thorough researcher, and despite the amount of evidence you regurgitate on these boards from the work of others, you will never be a good researcher, because you don't care whether you are right or wrong, only whether or not you look like you might know something, by regurgitating others' work.
So there is just a little snippet of the information I know because I didn't give up on Gorman when it was shown he was a liar. The same way I didn't give up on Donald McCormick when it was shown he was a liar, which I proved in my book, by eliminating 2 suspects who never existed.
Where you stop, that's where I kick it into high gear. What I know on the case would shock you. Not because it's 10x more than what you've read and spat back out to make yourself appear knowledgeable, but because its something that totally escaped you, because of your admittedly weak research methods.
So keep up that good work Phil. And yes I do drink. I guess that makes everything I've ever said wrong and not credible. I wonder? Does it rain ignorance on your world?
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 165
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
To all,
Since Phil will not respond to the above post we will just have to wait until my theory is published and the entirety is revealed. Then and only then will we hear from Phil on the subject, who will be spatting out the information that others have researched and hypothesized.
Why I am using him, in case anyone wonders, is not because he has upset me Jenni, but because I just don't particularly like those with superiority complexes, especially when it is not warranted.
Unlike other authors I will call a spade a spade, rather than just not dealing with the obvious narcissism displayed by those who feel their opinion and ideas are the only true ones. People like that just need to be knocked down a peg or two. Unfortunately the board has such an abundance of them that they can join forces to reinforce their own ineptitude.
That only makes me want to show them that truth more.
So anyone who would like to ask me a question about the case, or any suspect, or even throw some opinions around and discuss them please feel free to e-mail me at JSDUKER@AOL.COM
I shall now give the boards back to the purveyors of stagnancy and ask them to keep up the good work. The case is going nowhere in your hands fellas. Well done.
SJR |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 652
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 12:30 am: |
|
And here I was going to come right out and call Gorman a pathological liar instead of only insinuating it...
"the obvious narcissism displayed by those who feel their opinion and ideas are the only true ones [...] only makes me want to show them that truth more."
Nuh?
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 423
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 1:26 am: |
|
Quod erat demonstrandum - I don't think anymore needs to be said.
Sad really.
P |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 166
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 1:42 am: |
|
Yes it is. You'll never know how sad it really is though. Keep piggybacking off the work of others. It's working for you.
SJR |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 914
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 6:26 am: |
|
Stan,
You know, I am the reigning irrational shrew on the boards and I really don't like it when people challenge my throne. I am starting to feel competitive.
|
AAR
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 2:52 am: |
|
Phil, I have to agree with you. Don't you find it amazing how some people write a 'Ripper book' then seem to believe that they are a leading authority on the case? That, of course, does not follow. |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 167
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 1:51 am: |
|
AAR,
Excellent post. You are absolutely right. Those who gather enough information to have a book published, especially a reference book on a specific topic of the case, really shouldnt believe they know anything. I mean, that's just silly.
That would be as if someone, who just stated the information that others have discovered and actually formed an opinion of to make some contribution to the case, appear as if they really knew the case versus just repeating what they had read on a website.
Keep up the good work AAR. We're all counting on you.
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 432
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 2:15 am: |
|
NO AAR, I don't agree.
Someone who writes a book on the Ripper case probably can be regarded, at least to some degree, as an authority given the sustained research and thought that would be involved. Putting words on paper isn't that easy. I have never written a Ripper 9or any other) book and I take my hat off to those who have.
Now, whether I have respect for the theory promoted is another matter. But the fact that I don't agree with Philip Sugden's choice as suspect, doesn't mean that I don't think his book is the best ever on JtR, superbly crafted, researched and thought-through.
What I have absolute contempt for are those who believe that reference books on the Ripper or specific aspects of the case and their authors are worthless.
I have deep admiration for Sugden, Begg, Fido and the authors of the A-Z and other reference works, that make it possible to check facts easily and relatively reliably.
At least that way most of us don't go around making ridiculous statements about bruising that isn't there, and mis-stating sources. Such things simply shouldn't happen these days, and those who perpetrate such mistakes show themselves up.
Sorry not to be able to agree, AAR,
Phil
|
AAR
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 2:32 am: |
|
Fine, but please note I did say 'leading authority'. I was not aware that Sugden chose a suspect, he merely said that Chapman was the best of a bad bunch but made it clear that he did not think he was the Ripper. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 439
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Then why spend 25% of his book writing about him?? |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 168
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
There's actually an answer for that, which I know. Not sure anyone cares to hear though.
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 443
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
I assume it is to mislead us all because the establishment is into a massive cover-up to spite you Stan. That it?
And the answer is no, I don't care to hear it. |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 170
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Then I'd turn away Phil, cause some people might care to hear it.
Sugden was forced into including the chapter on a suspect he was to push by the publisher. He really doesn't, or didn't believe 'JTR' was Severin Klosowski, but rather when forced to include a suspect he chose the suspect he believed was mistakenly endorsed by Abberline. It was more of a backing of Abberline, than a backing of Klosowski, who wasn't endorsed by Abberline until March of 1903.
And it's nice to see you're still as disrespectful as ever Phil, even after an apology, praise for an earlier post to AAR and an attempt to move forward. Good to see your short sightedness extends past the case.
And keep thinking that because one conspiracy is wrong with regards to the case that that means every and all conspiracies have to be wrong. By that logic, you disrespectful uppity waste of space, since one suspect is innocent all suspects are innocent. But I don't suppose you'd understand the implications of your own bullshit Phil.
Now I'm through with you. You may go.
SJR |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 7:47 pm: |
|
Hello,
Is nastiness really needed to make a point? I am seeing this more and more on these boards of late.
Why is everybody so cranky? If it is not a problem with language, it's subject matter etc. Nobody seems to get along. I am finding it harder and harder to post, because I am afraid I'll get graded on my post, or will get torn appart(should I have said ripped?)
I agree we all need serious research, based on fact and logic. As Phil has posted on another thread there are several on this board who have and are spending many hours bringing information to us. They know who they are. They have NEVER talked down to me and have always treated even my stupid questions seriously. Not once have they ever said anything to me degrading or making me feel like I am a stupid person. Lord, knows they could!
I just don't feel this board is the place for petty bickering back and forth, sorry just my humble opinion.
Carolyn 
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 342
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 9:14 pm: |
|
Stan Russo hears a strange noise in the woods, it must be Bigfoot.
Stan Russo sees a light in the sky, it must be aliens.
Joseph Gorman talks. We see a patent lie, Stan Russo sees a hidden truth.
Those who speak against Stan Russo are merely narrowminded.
Stephen King killed John Lennon.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 171
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 9:23 pm: |
|
Tom,
Thanks for proving my point. If someone sees one conspiracy, oh I don't know, something like a fake assassination attempt on Arthur Balfour with a connection to 'JTR', for which we of course have no independant confirmation for (SARCASM SARCASM SARCASM BECAUSE WE DO), then they must see Bigfoot in the woods, right?
Point proven so nicely for me Tom. Good job. I think you know Phil.
SJR |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 343
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 12:36 am: |
|
Stan's totally pissed at me. He said I turned a friend (him) into an adversary. And it was because of the last post I made. Apparently, Stan doesn't believe in Bigfoot. My bad. I take that back. However, I still don't see the connection between Balfour and a man who wasn't alive in 1888 and who's only connection to the Whitechapel murders is that he CLAIMS to be the son of a man who WAS alive at the time of the murders but (drum roll) also has no connection to the crimes. One thing that is often overlooked is that Joseph Gorman is just as likely NOT to have been Walter Sickert's son as he is TO have been his son. Therefore, the burden of proof must FIRST be PROVING that he was Sickert's son, because there is a measure of doubt. Then, and only then, should anything he say that supposedly came from Walter Sickert be given a serious listen.
There's my screwed up backwards logic regarding this matter. Moriarty (think Stan) will now have the chance to - right in front of your very eyes! - explode my unsounds logic, exposing me for the fool that I am, a feat that I've spent 30 years making rather easy for him.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Hello, Phil, I don't believe we've met. Are you an adversary of Stan's? |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 172
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:35 am: |
|
Tom,
Of course you can't see the connection, because it would take a degree of understanding that you do not possess. But for the rest here it is.
As is known, MacNaghten once held a belief that 'JTR' was connected to an assassination plot against Arthur Balfour. This was proven from documentation made public in 1956 by Raplh Strauss and Douglas Browne in their book. Now, as we all know, there was no attempt on Balfour's life, despite this statement by MacNaghten, documents seen by Browne and Strauss, memoirs of Monro that back it up which state that the Fenians attempted "to inaguarate a system of assassinations of eminet persons, Mr. Balfour especially" and most importantly knowledge from numerous books on the Fenians and the IRA that within the Fenian organizations during 1888 there was so much in-fighting that no terrorist campaigns were being undertaken.
Take all that together - MacNaghten sees something to link 'JTR' with a Fenian assassination of Balfour, Monro's memoirs show that there were threats of assassination against prominent people, especially Balfour, Douglas Browne and Ralph Strauss verifying it, no terrorist plots being uindertaken against England during 1888 according to high ranking Fenians, recorded in numerous history books on that subject which all say the in-fighting among clashing Fenian factions basically halted the terrorist campaigns against England in the late 1880's - and then understand that no assassination attempt was made against Balfour, no Fenian was planning any attempt, letters were sent to the Special Branch indicating that there was a planned assassination, MacNaghten seeing these letters, of which he made the connection between the false assassination and 'JTR', and the fact that in the MacNaghten Memorandum of 1894 no mention of this Fenian suspect is ever made.
That's a conspiracy TOM. When more than one person conspires to commit an act against a person or a group, in this case falsely making the Special Branch, a governmental group, believe the Fenians were planning an assassination attempt against Balfour, which they were decidely not, while also connecting it to the 'JTR' murders, which MacNaghten saw documents of, verified by Strauss and Browne, which had no real connection to it. Conspiracy. Someone, or more than one, sent letters to the Special Branch claiming assassinations attempts were to be made against Balfour, and in some way linked this to the 'JTR' murders. Backed up documented facts. Now if that isn't a conspiracy to commit a false act against a governmental group, perhaps in order to do whatever, as it surely had a purpose, then I don't know what is.
So there's your link. If you'd bothered to study the case past Robert Donston Stephenson and his obvious guilt in your eyes, of which you've never shown any proof, evidence, indications of wrongdoing or even theory, you might have been able to notice these problems.
So everything isn't as neat and tidy as you believe it Tom. And it doesn't have to be as big as the JFK assassination to be a conspiracy.
Why I am pissed at you I have explained to you, which you can feel free to reveal.
What you don't get, and never will TOM, along with some others, is that it really doesn't matter if Joseph Gorman was Sickert's son, or whether he was stalked by Peter Sutcliffe. that garbage doesn't matter. Personally I don't believe either one, which goes along with my idea that Gorman was a liar. But unlike you I won't stop there. I won't throw in the research towel. I'll ask why did he lie? What purpose does it serve? And I'll look into it. Your logic is that Joseph Gorman is such a bad person, cause he is an obvious liar, which is proven and we all agree on, but he's not bad enough to have lied about these things on purpose, to maybe make himself look ridiculous and uncredible. That would be impossible. Great logic. Bad man and liar, but not bad man enough to lie for a reason. Backwards logic. Show me how it is not.
More backwards logic provided by Tom - We have to prove Joseph Gorman is Sickert's son before we can believe his lies? That's what you are asking. What Gorman is saying Sickert told him, are lies. PROVED LIES. But before we are supposed to believe his lies, which is not what I am professing, I have to prove he was the son of a man who was most likely impotent, and sixty-five when Joseph Gorman was born? Let me restate this - I must prove he was someone's son, which is a lie, before I can believe his other lies, which are proved lies. More backwards logic. Some would call it bass ackwards. I would agree.
What you fail to realize is that its not Gorman's credibility that should be called into question, its actually his lies that are more revealing, and are what I researched, discovering some interesting problems. Some of which I listed, but no one cared to comment on. Why?
Here's why. Because when the real ardent (SARCASTIC) researchers like yourself Tom, Phil Hill and others hear the name Joseph Gorman or Joseph Sickert they immediately have a reaction - can't trust a word he says. Well no ship(t) Sherlock. Gorman was a liar, but what if he was a deliberate liar? Never thought of that, because your research habits are weak, and your logic is all backwards, which is why you will miss things, that others may hypothesize, which of course produces sidetracks to the case such as comparisons to Bigfoot or NASA moon landings.
So continue with your smarmy comments about Bigfoot, etc, to make me out as a loon. To you, as well as Phil Hill, all conspiracies are on equal footing, as you proved in your post, and he proves every time he challenges an alternative opinion to his own. The conspiracy committed by Charles Keating in the 1980's with junk bonds is the equivalent of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster to you, because you have no ability to see past your own ego, that others might actually have discovered something, or might actually have an original thought on the case.
SJR
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 445
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:47 am: |
|
No I'm NOT an adversary of Stan's, Tom, or of anyone on these boards.
Stan is Stan.
He's actually like a little child, who doesn't relate in an adult way to others and has tantrums. Try to understand him, Tom.
The truth HE can't face is that there is no need to hypothesise a conspiracy in the Ripper case. Nor is there any convincing evidence of one.
As for the "fake assassination attempt on Arthur Balfour with a connection to 'JTR', for which we of course have no independant confirmation ...(SARCASM ...BECAUSE WE DO)" - it is for STan to cite his evidence so we can all test it out and confirm its accuracy.
I regret that big Stan (the way he likes to see himself) has a reputation for carelessness inaccuracy and mendacity (whichever word fits best) when it comes to evidence.
There was something about bruising on Eddowes body that Stan claimed was referenced in Browns's post mortem report. It turned out that there was no such reference to bruising at all. Stan's much vaunted theory was based on nothing except his own bravado and fantasies.
Stan is a busted flush I regret. All hot air and no substance. Shame.
By the way, don't be bullied by him or afraid of him, he cannot hurt anyone.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 446
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:52 am: |
|
(I posted my last piece before seeing Stan's rant about the evidence he purports to relate to the "Balfour conspiracy".
Given Stan's previous form, I strongly suggest everyone tests out his claims.
As for Joe Gorman, the probable reasons he lied are - he liked or couldn't help lying; and/or he was a fantasist. There is no credible reason to suppose anything else.
phil |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 173
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 2:50 am: |
|
Phil,
Apparently a show of strength for your own opionons is a tantrum. To an effitte Little Lord Fauntleroy they would appear as such, so can we really blame him for misunderstanding belief and opinion backed by strenght for childish tantrums. Often when children are brought up overly prim and proper they misunderstand what a real tantrum is, because they weren't allowed to ever have one. I mean, what would the Queen say if they were allowed to show emotion?
No need to hypothesize a conspiracy? See what you really believe is that I went looking for a conspiracy and when I didn't find one I invented one. That's pretty sad, but also understandable because you seem to have missed any mention of anything out of the ordinary because so did many other researchers, and we know you only read and repeat what is the majority opinion. Gorman is bad - end of story.
For Stan to cite his evidence? OK, I'll do the work for you again Phil and Tom, just like every other researcher, who have put hours into studying this case only to have piggybackers like you try to pass their hard research and information off as coming from your own work.
There it all is. Perhaps instead of asking for assistance with this information, which has been all out there for years and years and years, maybe you should actually put the work in yourself? Probably not. And if it ever becomes majority opinion, which it probably will not, but if it does, you'll be right there to state it to people and try and make it look like you've done one ounce of actual work.
Perhaps you should back up your claim about carelessness, inaccuracy and mendacity when I approach evidence. It seems awfully Phil Hillish of you to ask for substantiation on my information regarding the Balfour plot, yet can just state a direct libelous statement without any proof or background info. Don't worry, I wouldn't sue you for libel Phil, I'd actually have to be in the same room with you, and I wouldnt want that.
Eddowes' brusing on her body. Hmmmm? No reference at all. Brown's report as quoted in The Jack the Ripper A - Z, written by Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner, 3rd edition, 1996, page 58, 7th paragraph, 1st sentence: "After washing the left hand carefully, a bruise the size of a sixpence, recent and red, was discovered on the back of the left hand, between the thumb and the first finger". I guess "a bruise the size of a sixpence" means no bruises. Good work Phil. You missed another one. But there is more. Same book, page 59, 6th paragraph, 1st sentence: "On the left cheek there were two abrasions of the epithelium ... under the left ear". Not sure I would have a major problem in stating that these abrasions were also bruises, as the whole point of what i was trying to get across with regards to this topic, was that Eddowes was held down and the cuts were made.
Interestingly enough Phil, you weren't involved in that conversation. Perhaps get your facts straight, before you regurgitate the words of others, like you always do.
The bruising of internal organs was something I was hypothesizing in a discussion about the killer's attempt to actually take the wrong kidney. The stabbing of the liver, repeatedly, (page 60 of that book) indicates to me that the murderer was trying to get past the liver, to the kidney, which was his target. As we know the murderer removed a large portion of the other kidney, it seems like a not too crazy hypothesis that perhaps the murderer wanted the kidney. The stabbing and moving around of the liver , pancreas and spleen, all documented on page 61, 7th paragraph, 2nd and 3rd sentences, in front of the harder to reach kidney, indicated to me, not only that the kidney was saught after (because the other kidney was almost wholly removed), but that the murderer possessed anatomical knowledge, but not the expertise of a surgeon. Coincidentally Dr. Brown shares the same opinion with regards to the murderer having surgical skill (page 63, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence), under oath. I must be wrong huh? And it was a discussion, not an entirely developed theory, which I have since developed, unlike yourself who has no original ideas, EVER.
So for bravado and fantasies, I guess analyzing the report and coming to conclusions is bravado and fantasy. These rules are weird.
Yes, no substance whatsoever. Nothing at all. Oh wait, Phil tried to cowardly backtrack after he read my stated information. In 10 years he'll be quoting it to some newbie, trying to pawn it off as his own.
Bully? If you don't like me calling you and Tom out on what you say, then don't say it. I'm sorry you were bullied by people all throughout school Phil, as I believe, but this isn't bullying. This is calling you out on your crap. As far as hurting anyone, thats just funny, because I don't remember ever threatening anyone with physical harm. Please refresh us all Phil. Or did you mean hurt as I would hurt your feelings? If your feelings are hurt Phil, sorry. Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. You brought this on yourself. I shall continue to professionally show the members of this public forum what you are, even though most of them know already.
Please test away. It's not like this evidence isn't out there. You just have to have some ability to not stop after you hear the awful word lie.
As for Joe Gorman. Why did he lie? This is fantastic. Phil lists the reasons. The first one is by far the best. He liked lying. As an alternative to merely liking lying, he might not have been able to help it. So let's show Phil how stupid this is.
Walter Sickert died in 1942. Joseph Gorman claims he received this information about the Royal Conspiracy theory in 1939. Forgetting that the Royal Conspiracy theory is DISPROVED, because thats not the point right here. There is an alternative point which TOM, and PHIL, decided to ardently give up on after they head the ugly nasty word lie. Joseph Gorman liked lying. he liked it so much he waited 34 years to tell this lie. Great logic. Maybe he couldn't help himself? Still he waited 34 years. For a man who couldnt help himself, he seemed pretty persistent in keeping this information secret for 34 years.
Another possible idea is that he was a fantasist. So now let's blow this awful piece of garbage theory out the window. If Joseph Gorman was nothing more than a fantasist, it still doesn't explain why he kept his fantasies secret for all those years. Here's a better one. as a fantasist, creating all sorts of fantasy, please explain the inclusion of a man who died 23 years before Joseph Gorman was born, John Netley? How did he know of such a man, who led such an insignificant life that it was only recently discovered when he actually died? Please explain that within your Gorman as fantasist theory Phil.
And while you're at it, scroll up and answer the earlier questions about Gorman's lies I posted for you to explain. Oh that's right. you stated you will not respond to my posts anymore. Oh but wait, weren't these last two posts a response to my Balfour post? Yes, they were. So now that you went back on your word, scroll up and answer those questions within your Gorman as a liar liker, or a pathological liar, or a fantasist. Put the work in Phil. But we all know you won't.
So feel free to challenge me on anything Phil. Because unlike you I can back it up. And if i may have misspoken after having one or two or five thousand beers, well heavens to Betsy, please don;t alert the Queen.
For those of you on the boards who are frustrated with the fighting among posters I'm sorry. This is what it has come to. Unlike other authors, who choose to ignore Phil Hill and the others just like him, I call them on their bull. As I have stated again and again my e-mail is open for anyone who wants an honest answer to an honest question. Unfortunately this is the state of the case. people who'e ego's are much bigger than their actual ability, and the people who will call them out on it. I have always said my book is not the greatest book out there, or that my ideas are without a doubt 100% the way it happened, but I will keep coming up with ideas. Unlike others who are merely happy with piggybacking off the hard work of others.
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 449
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 4:53 am: |
|
I scanned your post Stan (I didn't read it, of course, because life isn't long enough).
Exactly which comment of mine did you find potentially libellous, by the way?
I did notice that you asked: please explain the inclusion of a man who died 23 years before Joseph Gorman was born, John Netley? How did he know of such a man, who led such an insignificant life that it was only recently discovered when he actually died? Please explain that within your Gorman as fantasist theory Phil.
One possibility put forward, as I recall, was that Netley might actually have been Gorman's real father. Even if that were not true, there is nothing to rule out the fact of a family or friendship association of which Gorman became aware.
No problem to me at all.
If Netley existed, he must have been known to someone after all!!
As ever with pity, where you are concerned:
Phil
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 176
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 5:27 am: |
|
Phil,
Well books are actually longer than my post and contain loads of information on the case.
But nevertheless, the libelous statement was regarding my reputation for carelessness, inaccuracy and mendacity, as evidenced in my post where I say those are libelous, yet follow it up by saying don't worry, I'm not going to sue, for stated reasons. Please provide the substance for these claims and remember, the opinions of one or two or three people, which can't be shown to be consistent, does not form a reputation for inaccurracy, especially to a published author, whose monetary income you are now infringing upon with your libelous statements. But again, won't sue, cause, well scan the post again.
As far as your answer to Gorman knowing Netley, here's the thing. I asked YOU to explain it within YOUR fantasist theory. I didn't ask you to regurgitate what others have already hypothesized. I already know those concepts. But let me discuss them for you, since you haven't given those concepts much thought.
Netley might have actually been Gorman's real father. Actually, that idea was that he may have been Gorman's real grandfather, not father, as a man who dies 23 years before a child is born can not be his father. Anyway, here's the problem. If netley was the father of Alice Crook, Joseph's mother, why would Gorman include him as not only a 'JTR' co-conspirator, but also as a co-murderer? That was his grandfather. there's no benefit to Gorman to have his grandfather linked as a murderer and conspirator.
Family or friendship association. Okay, then if he was a friend, why include Netley as a co-murderer or co-conspirator? If he was a a member of the family, see above. Even if he did include him as one, under your ideas, it is still a lie, and easily disproved by Dr. Llewellyn's statement regarding blood splatters in the Nichols murder. So now he's inventing fantasies about someone his family was friends with or related to that can be disproved so easily by simply reading an inquest report. I guess the goal would be to make his life seem important, but then the easy lie, which Gorman admits to in 1978, cancels that out anyway. So everything you've come up with makes no logical sense, as I've shown. Someone does not just make up lies, because he likes lies, can't help it or is a fantasist, but waits 34 years, to then destroy the little memory of a blood relative or family friend.
You say no problem to you at all. Of course, because there is no logic behind it and it does not hold up under scrutiny.
If Netley existed? Well thats a good one. Perhaps nobody ever existed, or should we hold birth and death records, as well as newspaper reports highly uncredible now, because Netley now becomes weird and tough for you to explain? Sounds to me like someone is ready to alter history, for their own benefit.
He must have been known to someone after all. Yes, you are right. Why don't you take it a step forward and figure out who, and who could have told Joseph Gorman, and why he was included in Gorman's fake Royal Conspiracy theory. That's what we call doing the research Phil.
As ever with pity, where I am concerned.
See Phil, it's okay. You thought I was just some jackass who wrote stupid stuff when he was drunk and made a fool out of himself by calling you out on your opinions. You were wrong, not about the drunk part, not about the stupid stuff part, but about the fact that you thought you could challenge my opinions and win, thinking I have no clue what I'm talking about. Maybe you should re-read your post to AAR, where you acknowledge that authors do put in the detailed research. Remember that one, the one I praised you for writing, while you snubbed your nose back at my apology.
So pity me Phil, but guess what, I don't hear a response about my bruising comments, or that I can't back up my stuff in this last post. I'd hate to think you were starting to see the truth.
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 451
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 6:07 am: |
|
That's what we call doing the research Phil.
No Stan.
Research involves documents, archives, records and other material, which is not available to me in the case of gorman.
What you suggest: "Why don't you take it a step forward and figure out who, and who could have told Joseph Gorman, and why he was included in Gorman's fake Royal Conspiracy theory. " is called wool-gathering or thinking. there is no research involved.
Madmen and philosophers apart, just working out what might have happened in your head is only useful or of value when supported by EVIDENCE (not a concept you understand, obviously).
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 179
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
Phil,
See your wrong again Phil, because research can be done on the history of Gorman's statements, which you obviously care nothing about, putting you on the real short end of this debate.
You have offered up a couple of ideas, bad ideas which are easily shot to hell by logic and actual information we know. So if you are going to say something so general like "... he must have been known to someone after all", then back it up by going out and finding out who. Use any documents you like. I found it out by reading every book on the case, every report I could find, every article I could find, every analysis of every article I could find and every analysis of every analysis. So step to it, or else leave your blank statement " ... he must have been known to someone after all", hanging in the wind with no substance behind it. How do you know that? Where's your evidence? What made you say that?
The answers would take research, into whatever you want to read. Research I've already done, and already answered your question from.
Wool-gathering or thinking? Well you wouldn't want to start thinking now Phil, after years and years and years of just regurgitating the ideas of others. Thinking would only get in your way of what you are trying to accomplish.
Evidence? I see you haven't said a word about the Abberline Diaries, other than they are fakes and thats it. See I know you haven't commented on how someone (Gorman) could announce their existence one full year before the article written by Neal Sheldon appeared, which Gorman used to plagurize information from, saying it was contained within the Abberline Diaries, because you can't offer up a solid answer backed upon known information. See I can, because I've discovered the discrepency, through research, and unraveled it through more research.
April 21st, 1988 - The Abberline Diaries are announced in The Evening Standard.
I researched that, or did I?
1989 - Neal Sheldon writes an article in True Detective, that contains some factual errors.
I researched that, or did I?
1990 - Gorman tells Fairclough that this erroneous information, unknown at the time to Gorman that it is erroneous, is contained within the Abberline Diaries.
I researched this, or did I?
1992 - after the release of The Ripper and the Royals Neal Sheldon, the ardent researcher that he is, discovers these errors and communicates them to Fido, Begg and Skinner, the authors of the A - Z.
I researched this, or did I?
You probably don't uinderstand the significance that Joseph Gorman is announcing he has fake material a full year prior to information he claims was in it is even written. You don't understand it because only madmen and philosophers think. You don't. it's a waste of time for you. You're more than happy to just say, "hey, Gorman is a liar. thats good enough for me. Dum dee do dum dee do dum". Thorough researchers will wonder why the timeline is askewed?
There's an answer, which I have discovered, through ... WAIT FOR IT ... research. From every possible source you can imagine in that thing you don't use for thinking. And please keep showing me where my hyposthesizing about this askewed material has me altering evidence or providing the world with inaccurate material. Oh wait, you've stopped doing that because I called you on your BS. I'd like to know, but it just isn't there Phil, is it?
And the answers are available to everyone. You just have to have the will and the mind to go looking for it. Those are two necessities when researching a 116 year old murder case. Two important requirements that you've clearly stated you do not have, or wish to possess.
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 454
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 8:47 am: |
|
Stan: I don't know what planet you exist on - you just make things up as you go.
I thought: I found it out by reading every book on the case, every report I could find, every article I could find, every analysis of every article I could find and every analysis of every analysis.
counted as "piggy-backing on other peoples' work" by your lights.
Nice to know you are just as falliable as the rest of us, just more muddled than most.
Pathetic!!
Where's your proof that the "Abberline Diaries" actually EXISTED when announced in the press. An announcement does not constitute proof of existence. Logically, Gorman wrote them subsequently, after Shelden's article appeared.
Neither does looking things up in books or papers constitute REAL research, compared to the work of people like Chris Scott or AP. What you did is the sort of thing schoolkids do for an essay. Get real, sunshine. |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 181
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 9:28 am: |
|
Phil,
It's amazing that you haven't gotten one real important point right yet, just from a law of averages perspective. But it hasn't happened.
In doing the requisite research, by reading everything I could get my hands upon, I was able to formulate wholly innovate analyses about the case, not just regurgitate what others have said, which is what you constantly do. If you can make out the bigger words read my book. You'll see a number of new concepts and ideas based on existing information. That's not piggybacking, that's advancing and thinking, which is what we all now know you have no interest in doing, SUNSHINE (RIDICULOUS).
I am more than as fallible than the rest of everyone who has looked into the case. Not once have I ever claimed I was infallible. There is a mjor difference between infallible and uncredible, which you might not understand, seeing as you don't like to think.
It's actually pretty nice that you're proving my point that you just don't get things Phil. I never said the Abberline Diaries existed. I said they were announced, as existing, in public, on April 21st, 1988. Nice try, but you really missed the boat on that attempt. I honestly don;t believe they ever did exist, which makes their announcement in the newspapers that much more of an important event. Why wait 15 years after you go on the BBC to announce the existence of Diaries that probably don't exist? Well I'm gonna do something you don't do Phil, I'm gonna think. Hmmmm? Hmmmm? Hmmmm? I got it. Maybe that date holds some importance, the date of the announcement of their alleged existence? I mean, if they never existed, why wouldn't Gorman tell us they existed in 1973, or 1976, or 1978, all years in which he made public statements about the 'JTR' case. Maybe it was because he really liked to lie. So much that he chooses not to add another lie to it, huh? Oh yeah, I got those three years from research I did from reading books and newspaper excerpts related to the case.
Logically, Gorman wrote them subsequently, after Sheldon's article. Three things. First, I never said that. No one has ever seen what is inside these Diaries, so who says anything is written in them at all. Now you are inventing things. Secondly, obviously any information he told Fairclough was told after Sheldon's article, as time travel is an impossibility. Thirdly, and here's the part you keep missing, how does this all correlate to announcing their existence on April 21st, 1988? I know. Do you? I'll give you a hint. You can find it in books and newspaper articles on the case. You know, some research, unless now that's not research.
Neither does looking up things in books or papers constitute real research, compared to the work of people like Chris Scott or AP. Well maybe you can answer this question Phil. Where does Chris Scott get his census information? I always though it was from reading census reports, on paper. I could be wrong though. Perhaps he magically transports himself back to walk along with the census takers? Perhaps AP gathered his/her information from magical beans, the same beans given to Jack, who created a magical beanstalk? Or do you think AP got his information from reading information on Cutbush, written on papers, just like everyone else. See the difference between you, and people like AP and Chris Scott, and even myself included, is that we read all the available information, from every source we can find, and then try to come to some sort of salient conclusion, using our minds to think, remember, that thing you don't do. Here's what you do. You read information, see that the majority believes in it, and then boldly announce it, coming off as if anyone who disagrees with you is somehow less than you. Just one of the many reasons why you are you, and I could never be like you. Also why you will never be considered alongside great researchers like Chris Scott and AP.
Interesting, a 250 page essay, on over 70 suspects, collating all the known information on them up to that date, for an easy to use reference guide to help researchers along. Of course real researchers can't use my book. That wouldn't be research, right? Once again I never claimed my book was the ultimate, alongside the heralded books written by Ripper historians. You keep trying to put those words in my mouth, but I'll keep putting you in your place. Because someone needs to, and the more you fight, with your weak cards (see I know poker too), the easier it is for me to expose the fact that you've got nothing in your hand, SUNSHINE.
SJR
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 457
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
Well son, you have now completely flipped your lid. That was a rant NOT a post, and said nothing sensible.
End of exchange for me - I almost said discussion, but that is impossible with you, no rules, no organisation, no sense and no insight. just nonsense!!
Oh, and call yourself a writer? the grammar in this product of your pen is as twisted as your logic. I am more than as fallible than the rest of everyone who has looked into the case.
Work that one out folks.
By kid, join the adults sometime.
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 183
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
Phil,
Dad(I guess),
please explain how it was a rant and not a post. Show what is not sensible, because as I see it I merely challenged your garbage, as I have done for the last day. If you are going to comment on 15 things then i have to fully explain them all to you as if you were a little child, which my post would seem overly long to. Nap Time?
End of exchange - well I knew you couldn't take the competition much longer. You haven't answered any of my case related questions with anything worth analyzing past insane logic, which I have shown and will continue to show as the days and months and years pass by.
Well it is hard to have a discussion when one person just keeps beating the other's ideas into the ground and exposing them for what they are. There's no real give and take. It's more like here's some more garbage, topped by more garbage, topped by even more garbage, which I of course show how bad the garbage is, from a logical perspective.
No sense? Yet for some reason you haven't answered those questions that keep getting popped up. But theres that whole thinkiing thing that you hate.
Yes I am a writer. And there you go. You got me. I wrote a sentence that is grammatically incorrect. You did it Phil. Congrats. You just made your decade. Now grammar aside, how about you address the issues which you challenged me on, and I was respectful enough to answer, such as the bruises on Eddowes and the Balfour assassination. When will it be Phil's turn to answer for his comments?
Never, because Phil will bow out of the exchange, although he has said that before. To all the new posters, this is generally what happens when someone is so thorughly beaten on the case specifics, they say they will gracefully bow out, or end the exchange. These are both euphamisms for running away like a coward with my tail between my legs to try and save any little dignity or credibility I have left. if you haven't figured it out by now Phil, there isn't any.
The truth is Phil, I have forgotten more about this case than you could possibly ever know. That's not to make me feel better about myself, because I really don't have the over-inflated ego you do. Being so much better than you isn't that great an accomplishment, in my eyes. Sort of like being taller than a dwarf. So what?
As far as the adults, when you want to get serious and answer the questions I've asked, as I have addressed every single issue you have brought up in my rants, or posts to those who actually see them for what they are - making a fool appear as such, let me know. You are always welcome back for another beating. it took mike Tyson two fights to realize he couldn;t beat Evander Holyfield. I will show the same courtesy to you, and then of course beat your awful, ridiculous, illogical ideas into the ground. Murphy's Law - priceless.
Now those are rules Phil, or Dad apparently. You ask me a question and I answer. I ask you a question and you ignore, coming back with more garbage, and grammar discrepencies. Well I guess you don't understand rules and procedures, so your comments regarding rules don't have any foundation. Come to think of it, it blends nicely with everything you say, 10 parts BS, 0 parts intelligence. And just another comment on the grammar, which you so so so got me on; BY, as in saying good bye, has three letters in it. Those big words are tough aren't they?
SJR. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 539
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Stan,
I thought you decided a couple of days ago to play the Adullamite . . . promises, promises.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 192
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 2:17 pm: |
|
Donald,
I did, but then I decided to call a spade a spade. And thanks to some very kind words from a number of different posters to keep at it, I believe I have proven my point.
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 462
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 3:32 pm: |
|
Your point is blunted, and your spade a shovel, Stan-Stan the rubbish man!! And most of what you post deserves that title.
Your posts amazingly speak for themselves, as any sane reader will recognise.
What were the kind words from others ? "Requiescat in pace"? |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 195
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Phil,
The point is over your head.
The spade is you, in case you didn't catch that. again probably over your head.
Rhymes? Very adult. It appears that rather than challenging me on what I have written, the actual facts, which I back up every single time, Phil has chosen to attack from a different angle, with rhymes.
Well if it is rubbish, please point out exactly what, and exactly why, because I don't see anyone else joining in with you, on your general opinions. Perhaps because they see you are dead wrong, and maybe glad that someone finally pointed it out.
Amazingly they do. Filled with factual information, insights, ideas, concepts and possible advancements of the case from actually thinking about it. And you are right, a number of posters have recognized that and begun asking questions because they might feel I can offer them answers, where as you can only offer regurgitated commentary, which most people who have studied the case already know.
I don't know about the others you refer to Phil. Like I said I don't see anyone else coming to help you. They don't see a bully, they see someone who is throwing tons of information at you, and backing it up with sources, like Evans, Fido, Begg and Rumbelow. What they also see, and what I see, is your posts becoming smaller and smaller, while simultaneously retaining the same percentage of worthless unsubstantiated trash.
I do not speak Latin. Remember, I'm the drinker, the one who you are so much better than, even though you can't seem to prove it on the page. if it means "Rest in Peace", then Phil, heres some info for you - I always do. And when I get back up, I'll be right here to see if you've learned your lesson.
And I'm still waiting for that one shred of erronoeus material I've presented, from you. It was only like a post or two ago Phil. You haven't forgotten about that already?
SJR |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3237
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Enough - Stan/Phil, take it to email.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
