|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 370
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 4:00 pm: | 
|
Folks...
I've searched to no avail [ please delete this thread if it is a repititive question..].
Does anyone have a copy of the FEBRUARY 15TH ARTICLE[ 1889 ] IN THE PALL MALL GAZETTE written by Stephenson, regarding his views on devil worship?
My intent is not to bring up devil worship,but to read the article in its entirety.
On pages 126-127 of the True Face of JTR, Mr. Harris for some reason or the other,didn't post the entire article...
The balance of the article he didn't include ostensibly says RDS "eliminated" a witch doctor...but Harris says it is unclear "how"..
Anyone have a copy or know where it can be found?
Thanks....
(Message edited by howard on May 08, 2005) |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3240
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 6:07 pm: |
|
Hi Howard -
Is this the one?
http://casebook.org/dissertations/collected-donston.3.html
From 15 February 1890...
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3241
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Hmmm... I believe I have the wrong year on that article. It must have been February 15 1889 as you say, since it refers to the January 3rd article.
If anyone can confirm the date it would be appreciated.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 371
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 08, 2005 - 7:03 pm: |
|
Steve........
I knew you were good for something,dude.
The date may be off by a year,but it is the correct story.
I think I see why Mr. Harris didn't post the entire story,as he did with other equally long and elaborate articles from RDS, in the "True Face".
Why? Because it doesn't say that RDS confesses to murdering anyone as it is claimed that he says he did or said.
Oh, these Moustache Petes and their tricks !
Look at the following excerpt of this tall tale and see if RDS claims to have murdered anyone...
"I possessed a talisman, given me by Bulwer Lytten (who also taught me the use of it), which not only enabled me to defy all her spells, incantations, and curses, but which was eventually the means, not only of her death, but of her absolute annihilation. Still this talisman, ancient and powerful as it was, could only preserve from mimical magical processes, and demoniac agencies ; it could not protect from death or ordinary physical dangers. Such a talisman has yet to be discovered. "
Okay. Read it ?
Is it me or does it say he warded off the boogie woogie woman with a talisman ?
Is it me or does this story look like a bedtime story or a tale to entertain a group,huddled around a fire on a Winter's night ?
Or does it say he murdered someone?
How many of you have read,whether or not necessarily believing in the culpability of RDS , that RDS killed a woman in Africa ?
I'll put my neck on the chopping block here and state that if Mr. Harris didn't intentionally overlook the excerpt I posted [ thanks to Steve's efforts...] then he has to be taken to task for directing people to believe that RDS did murder some hoochie-coochie woman in Africa....RDS has enough on his plate to make him a viable suspect....but recently I have been on a mission to get ALL of us to re-look at RDS based on facts and not assumptions [ I have some other items,believe you me...]
Anyone else down with me on this one?
P.S. Steve.....Thanks a million for this find.
How Brown
Moustache Pete Slayer, Inc.....with facts,not talismen. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 476
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 9:02 am: |
|
Howard, as i read the extract, it DOES imply the woman was killed.
"I possessed a talisman... which not only enabled me to defy all her spells.. but which was eventually the means, not only of her death, but of her absolute annihilation... "
It does not, of course state that Donston killed her or was even involved. Someone else might by then (eventually) have owned or used his talisman.
Harris was such a stickler on hoaxes that it is something of surprise to find this. Well spotted though, on your part.
It could be a misreading by Harris (I can see how that might have happened) but equally it might be a deliberate obfuscation. The latter is, IMHO, more likely because, as you say, he did not quote that article in full when he had others.
Phil
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 375
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 9:45 am: |
|
Phil....
Thanks for your reply...
One thing that escapes me if this voodoo story WAS true...is how RDS escaped the rest of those restless Ubangis ! He made some bad ju-ju for these folks by whacking their lone medicine man..er...woman.
I don't know what Mr. Harris was thinking....but this is,as you say, unusual for a hoax-buster of the caliber of Mr. Harris to have not seen through this.
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 477
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
I'm at work now Howard. I'll get out my copies of Harris' books at home tonight, and read what he says in context.
Phil |
Tee@jtrforums
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
In all fairness to Harris and others I`d have to say that it does mention that with a Talisman (an Object that is commonly used within the occult) he caused her elimination and was her means to ... "not only of her death but of her absolute annihilation". So he is saying that he did indeed kill her with Black Magic that was concentrated within the Talisman given to him by Bulwer Lytton.
How people want to read into this is up to them to decide.
Tee |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 479
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Tee - Donston does NOT state that HE was responsible for her death, as my post above indicates. He says the TALISMAN was "eventually" responsible.
All he claims is that he was able to resist her spells.
I politely suggest you read it again.
Phil |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 665
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Hi Phil and Howard,
Harris is well known for debunking other people's claims but seems to have had a huge blind spot for any idea he himself came up with.
For example, he claims that the Ripper murder locations were so specifically placed that they could not have occurred by chance, but makes several huge errors in his reasoning. What's most troubling about that isn't that he made some mathematical mistakes but that the entire style of his argument is the same exact sort of thing skeptics regularly debunk as severely flawed logic. In fact, the very same claims he makes to support his theory that the sites were chosen beforehand are used to try to show that psychic powers exist or that evolution is so statistically improbable that it can't be real.
I find it highly unlikely that Harris could have been involved in the skeptic community to the extent that he was without knowing that these arguments are routinely debunked and why. I can only imagine that his ego got in the way so that the idea that he should use some critical thought on his own theories never occurred to him.
Ditto for some of the other bizarre things he came up with, like this supposed killing of a witch doctor.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 486
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
The interesting thing was, that when Harris first wrote about Donston (long before the internet and sites like this) it was the first I had ever heard mention of the suspect.
Seeing the moustachioed face and reading about his character, I immediately concluded that Harris' book was an elaborate hoax!!
It took a LONG time to convince me he was a real suspect. But there's no chance, is there, that Harris was pulling the wool over our eyes and smirking as he pulled off exactly the sort of thing he loved to debunk??
Phil |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 488
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Sorry double post. Move on please, nothing to see here.
(Message edited by Phil on May 09, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 495
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 4:55 am: |
|
I re-read the relevant part of the book yesterday.
In my judgement, Harris may have misunderstood the thrust of what Donston wrote, but I don't think so. The point - that Donston was capable of killing (a woman) and then boasting about it publicly - is so central to his argument that I think the obfuscation is deliberate.
The fact that the article's wording (which IMHO is quite explicit and clear - pace Tee) is not given in full, underlines this.
Naughty, naughty Mr Harris!!!
Phil |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 376
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 5:38 am: |
|
Not only deliberate, but the article has encouraged some to feel that the other events, such as the miraculous changing from toad to snake really occurred, which as schoolchildren and mentally challenged children know,can't happen.
This is why the many of the facts relevant to RDS should be re-evaluated for a clearer picture of the suspect. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1733
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 5:45 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
What I don't understand is how Melvin thought he would get away with this kind of thing, if indeed he knew when he was doing it.
It's all bound to come out in the end, with so many researchers following in his footsteps, digging away at all the available documentation, or investigating independently.
Melvin once insisted here on the boards that a certain book was lodged with a certain solicitor 'LONG BEFORE' [his own emphasis] something else happened, back in mid-1994, and he had to be challenged repeatedly to clarify what he meant and what evidence he had.
After some painstaking independent enquiries, it turned out that the book had not been lodged with the solicitor at all! And the book's whereabouts before December 1994 were never established by Melvin, and still haven't been.
It was all very frustrating, especially at a time when Melvin was regarded as virtually infallible, and anyone who questioned his word, even by producing the necessary evidence to disprove it, was considered a heretic and a scumbag.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 10, 2005) |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 931
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 6:11 am: |
|
Really Caz,
You are hardly in a position to throw stones for wording things in a book to support the conclusion you want, now are you? I mean pot, kettle, etc.
And second, I don't think Melvin has ever been considered infallible, virtually or otherwise and if someone achieved scumbag status, they achieved it in their own right, not for daring to question Harris.
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 958
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 7:23 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
After some painstaking independent enquiries, it turned out that the book had not been lodged with the solicitor at all!
Just out of interest, have these enquiries been reported anywhere?
Chris Phillips
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 351
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 9:51 pm: |
|
I still don't see where Melvin, intentionally or otherwise, distorted what D'Onston wrote.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 612
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 12:17 am: |
|
Howie, my friend, I'm afraid I'm with Tom Wescott here. The whole brunt of Melvin's case against D'Onston was his suspect's tendency to 'confess' to disgusting crimes in subtle, bizarre, or 'off-hand' ways. His letter to the police, for instance, with it's strange way of 'revealing' his inside knowledge of the Kelly crime. The Pall Mall Gazette piece on the Graffito, that might be seen as intentionally self-incriminating. Casually admitted helping his partner kill a Chinese gold miner, in a way that can't quite be known whether he was joking or not. The above piece is really more of the same. If you look at Melvin's comment on the article, he's saying that D'Onston had the audacity to admit murder in print. Of course D'onston doesn't say "I killed Melinda X on January 14, 1876 in a hut three miles east of Gambobozombique with a machete and buried her under such and such a bush"--that's hardly the point. Melvin is claiming D'Onsonton drops the hint in a way that's easy to miss or misinterpret--just like the rest of his odd tales. It's an interpretation. It's also a very tricky argument--many readers aren't going to be convinced, just as many aren't convinced that there is anything sinister in that very bizarre letter R D'O wrote to the police. You might find Harris's argument unconvincing, but it's going way too far to suggest that it's dishonest. Harris gives his sources right there on the page, so anyone has the ability to check on him (as you did).
Actually this highlights what many would perceive to be the weakness of the case against Stephenson. We largely only have Stephenson's own word that he was a 'bad ass'. Even if Harris is correct in stating that D'Onston was alluding to murder in the article above, I think most readers would want the Donstonites to flesh out the factual basis behind some of these tales. Not an easy thing to do after 115+ years. Clearly, Melvin was interested in telling an entertaining tale. I think he succeeded.
None of this, of course, has any bearing on his investigation into the Maybrick Diary. RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1738
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 4:41 am: |
|
Hi Ally,
Once again, I challenge you to tell the boards what documentary evidence we omitted from our book that would have supported the conclusion you want. A conclusion was never reached, because the evidence doesn't yet allow for one. And we told the story through other people's testimony, letting their words and actions do all the work.
Hi Chris,
Ripper Diary, published in 2003.
Hi RJ,
Not an easy thing to do after 115+ years.
No, but just like Stephenson, we largely only have Mike Barrett's own word that he was involved in the diary's creation. And I for one expect those who claim he was involved to flesh out the factual basis behind all his tales. And we're talking less than 15 years in his case, so it should be a piece of cake by comparison.
Love,
Caz
X
PS By the way, RJ, have you asked Keith yet, if Mike described the physical scrapbook to Doreen before March 26 1992, since you believe he didn't acqire it until after that date? Please let me know if not, and I'll do it for you.
(Message edited by caz on May 11, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 508
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 6:03 am: |
|
Tom and RJ:
I understand your points, but the fact is that the article specifically does NOT state that Donston killed the woman. The grammar IMHO simply will not bear that interpretation. Look at what it says:
"I possessed a talisman... which not only enabled me to defy all her spells..
This is specific that it refers to Donston, and what he did.
...but which was eventually the means, not only of her death, but of her absolute annihilation... "
The which can refer only to the talisman and implies that it was used by someone else to do what it did.
Harris's not quoting the precise wording in his book, as he could have done, is at least misleading (given his less than accurate interpretation of the words) and must be deliberate.
I can see that the reading you wish to see put on this passage is possible, IF you know of and accept that Donston habitually wrote obliquely. But this is not a meaning that comes directly from the prose.
I have no wish to denigrate Harris, whom I did not know on here, but who's books I have much enjoyed (though they did not persuade me).
I have no fish to fry here.
Phil |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 933
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 6:17 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
And once again, nice attempt at a dodge. You will notice that my statement was that
Caz worded things to support the conclusion that she wanted, and she is challenging me to prove stuff she omitted, not just stuff but documented evidence which would of course narrow the topic considerably. But that's okay, it is easy to do.
You omitted that the B's accepted money, how much money, in a paragraph that was designed to show the Barretts motive was not money. Omission and shading to show the conclusion you want.
You omitted the actual reason/cause Harris went mental on someone in "typical Harris style" which left the impression Harris was just a nut, and when this was brought up to Caz, her reply?
Oh gee...I guess we shall just have to include that in the next edition.
Yeah right. But again, this thread is not about the Diary. It's about you going "naughty" to Harris for supposedly shading something in his book.
So I'd have to say, no Caz, you don't get to wag your finger at other authors who shade things to support their conclusions. Especially when they are honest enough to admit they have those conclusions and aren't trying to play as if they are neutral.
Phil,
If D'onston possessed a talisman that killed a woman, how else did it kill her if he was not involved? Did it go on walkabout at night without his knowledge and beat the woman to death with itself?
(Message edited by ally on May 11, 2005)
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 968
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 6:22 am: |
|
Phil
Harris's not quoting the precise wording in his book, as he could have done, is at least misleading (given his less than accurate interpretation of the words) and must be deliberate.
What did Harris actually say about this incident in his book?
Chris Phillips
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 509
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 9:24 am: |
|
I'll quote the wording tonight, when I am at home.
Ally. If I write:
I typed this response on a PC I once owned, the same PC that was later used to write a best selling novel.
The seond phrase is a comment on the PC, NOT on me. Another person might later have acquired the PC to write a novel. It MIGHT also imply that I wrote the novel, but this would not be an automatic assumption.
Now I have said that it may be that Donston always wrote obliquely. But you would need that piece of information, to link the two (grammatically unlinked statements).
The direct answer to your question is that Donston could have passed the talisman to another person, who the killed the woman.
Phil |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 671
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:09 am: |
|
Ally, Phil,
Both of you are also missing the very important and more likely explanation to what Stephenson claimed here: that no human killed the witch doctor, that some magical result caused it without Stephenson's direct control.
Look at the passage. He is arguing for the actual existence of magic. It's quite common in those beliefs and folktales for some sort of magical protective device to shield someone from attack and then cause harm to the witch. It looks to me like he is talking about some natural reversal of the bad magic energies that would have happened if the witch tried to cast spells on anyone who possessed the talisman. (Note also that the term "the talisman" could refer to any copy of the same talisman worn by anyone.)
It's pretty much the equivalent of someone trying to protect themselves from gunfire by strapping a sheet of metal underneath a shirt and then an attempted killer being hit by a ricocheting bullet. The man with the makeshift bulletproof vest cannot be said in any real way to have killed the person who tried to shoot him.
Speaking from strictly an occult/folklore view, there's absolutely nothing in the story to suggest that Stephenson killed anyone. Assuming he up and physically killed the witch doctor himself is to bring an outside perspective to the story, one that denies the existence of magic. As Stephenson was directly arguing that magic was real, the story should most likely be interpreted with that particular philosophy in mind. The rules of magic in occult traditions and folk belief are fairly well established, and it seems clear to me that that's what he's referring to here.
Now, I'd normally find it difficult to believe that someone who studied the paranormal would be confused by this phrase, but then the fact that some people here read it differently shows that it could simply be a misunderstanding and not a deliberate attempt to lie. Someone like Harris who was basically known as a professional skeptic should not have made these kinds of unsupported leaps in logic, but then it's always more difficult to spot one's own errors versus someone else's.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 971
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:25 am: |
|
Dan
Both of you are also missing the very important and more likely explanation to what Stephenson claimed here: that no human killed the witch doctor, that some magical result caused it without Stephenson's direct control.
Doesn't the use of the word means, in Stephenson's "which was eventually the means, not only of her death, but of her absolute annihilation", imply that someone used the talisman to annihilate her, not that the talisman did it by itself?
My dictionary defines "means" as:
"that by which anything is done or a result attained"
Chris Phillips
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 513
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
That was my reading too, Chris.
Phil |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2375
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
I just thought it meant the talisman brought about her death. Magically or otherwise
Jenni |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 672
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
Chris, Phil,
I think you are getting caught up analysing the precise meaning of an individual word and missing the clear context of the phrase. Most people don't write with the assumption that someone 100 years later is going to dissect every single word separately.
Talismans work in specific ways in these beliefs. In some instances they require active use that would imply outside control, but much (if not most) of the time they are said to work passively.
If someone set up a witch bottle with some human attributes (maybe a face or heart of cloth) and some blood and urine, put it inside the chimney, with the intention that witches traveling in an animal/spirit form trying to enter the house will get confused and attack it instead of the people inside the home, and then get wounded by the iron pins or nails that are also inside, you could say that the home owner killed the witch, or the witch bottle did it, or whatever. The witch bottle would still be the "means" for the witches wounds even if their was no direct attack, would it not?
But then all of this is kind of off the topic, as Harris talks like Stephenson physically killed the person, which from context is clearly not the case.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 973
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
Jenni
I just thought it meant the talisman brought about her death. Magically or otherwise
But if she just tripped over the thing and broke her neck, wouldn't it have been more natural to say that it was the cause of her death? Mind you, I do think "absolute annihilation" implies more than just a natural death.
Another example. If somebody said that Lee Harvey Oswald was the means of Kennedy's death, wouldn't that imply a belief that he was the tool of a conspiracy?
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 974
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
Dan
I think you are getting caught up analysing the precise meaning of an individual word and missing the clear context of the phrase. Most people don't write with the assumption that someone 100 years later is going to dissect every single word separately.
But isn't the question whether Harris misrepresented what the text said? Even in your witch bottle example, you conclude that "you could say that the home owner killed the witch".
But then all of this is kind of off the topic, as Harris talks like Stephenson physically killed the person, which from context is clearly not the case.
Well, I'll look forward to seeing exactly what Harris did say about this!
Chris Phillips
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 673
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Someone who believes that magic is actually real (or who was going along with that assumption to try to give an example) could say that.
Harris did not believe in magic.
I'll try to get the Harris quote later. I don't recall where it was in the book offhand, and the index is not all that great from what I remember.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 975
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 11:40 am: |
|
Dan
Someone who believes that magic is actually real (or who was going along with that assumption to try to give an example) could say that.
Harris did not believe in magic.
But whether Harris believed in magic is a different issue from the one you raised - whether Stephenson implied she was killed by someone using the talisman, or whether she was killed by the talisman by itself.
Chris Phillips
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 514
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
I now have in front of me "The True Face of Jack the Ripper" by Melvyn Harris (UK h/b ed 1994).
On page 126, he refers to a "second article" which ran on the front page of "Pall Mall" on 15 February 1889.
One edited paragraph is printed verbatim (the opening is missing).
Harris then writes:
"Later in this article he describes the amazing powers of a malevolent woman witch-doctor in the Cameroons, who imprisoned him. then he claims that he eliminated her: that he was the means '...not only of her death but of her absolute annihilation.'
"How he killed the woman is not clear. yet the manner of her death is of small account...."
I'll leave this post at that, purely factual.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 515
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
To comment on the quotation I have just posted, the point at issue for me, is that Harris says categorically that it was "he" (ie Donston) who was the means of the woman's death. the article makes it clear that it was the Talisman that was the means.
Since the wording in the original is open to interpretation, and is deliberately NOT quoted in full (it must be deliberate since a paragraph IS quoted at some length) this is in my mind a deliberate obfuscation by the author.
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 976
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Phil
Thank you for posting that extract.
I agree the way in which the pronoun "he" is followed by an extract which refers to "the talisman" in the original is slightly misleading.
On the other hand, like others, I think the most natural way of reading it is that Stephenson was claiming to have used the talisman to kill the woman somehow. And doesn't Harris make it clear enough he is reporting a claim by Stephenson?
Chris Phillips
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 516
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 1:35 pm: |
|
My point is simply that had Harris been honest and open, he would have printed the paragraph he referred to in full. I think he was leading his reader to an interpretation which was not inevitable from the prose.
End of my views.
What Harris was trying to do in terms of argument is neither here nor there to me. Others may differ. But when an author manipulates quotes as is the case here, however minor the breach, it is a breach of trust IMHO, and the start of a slippery slope.
Phil |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 934
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Phil,
Your analogy of the computer is, forgive me, a ludicrous one and not at all apt. Here would be a better analogy: "Now at the time Bobby attacked me, I just so happened to have this here knife with which I was able to defend myself, and later, wouldn't you know, that knife happened to end up killing Bobby. Huh, how ‘bout that?" Now, did I directly state that I had killed Bobby? No. But knives don't kill people, people kill people. So yes, it is an oblique confession to having murdered Bobby.
I may well have read exactly what Harris read into the statement if I was already pre-determined in my belief that Donnie-boy was a killer. If you think someone is a killer, you find ‘clues’ in the most random of statements and actions, look at any high profile criminal case for proof of this. As for the slippery slope argument, I am sure a stickler for logic and reason such as yourself realizes that it is a completely invalid form of argument.
|
AAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 10:15 am: |
|
How did the diary get into this thread??? |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 519
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Ally, no one can ever argue against you, you are always so right. And don't you make sure everyone knows it.
Phil
PS You may not recognise grammar, but can you recognise irony?  |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 935
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Well, Phil, how interesting that you feel inadequate, incapable, impotent. I am terribly sorry that you feel that way. I notice you didn't have problems arguing against Chris, Dan, RJ, etc... Maybe you just prefer drawing swords with men?
Ally
PS I recognize irony, but I have a more difficult time with the double-entendre.
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 378
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Tom...
I wasn't implying that it was a distortion,as if Mr. Harris simply recanted the story from memory,and as if he had no copy to include in True Face. I fully understand that it could have been an honest omission. But in truth,it is suspicious,at least to me, because it looks so much like the African Magic story in its content which has elements of impossible feats [ the man and the disappearing wounds....the rain from outta the blue..] occurring.
Its the only story he didn't include in its entirety in True Face. Maybe,as Roger has stated, it was used by Mr. Harris to demonstrate RDS's capacity for discussing his crimes.
The unlucky Chinaman wasn't killed by him. This guy was wang chunged by RDS's sidekick. The other events like the Kelly-being-sodomized story....The GSG interpretation...and the letter to the Police are true stories.
The mentioning by RDS of an act of self defense,no less,not murder or a violent assault which resulted in death, in Africa to 1889 England wouldn't be seen as it would today.
If an Englishman happened to kill a witchdoctor and in self defense,it would be a entertaining story in and of its time....even with a hocus-pocus medallion.
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 379
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 7:34 pm: |
|
Ally:
You said above:
"So yes, it is an oblique confession to having murdered Bobby."
No ma'am, it ain't. It would be self defense.
To state that Stephenson enjoyed dropping hints of having killed people in his articles...the side-to-side motion he made on his throat in from of Cremers regarding Deary...are legitimate. No question about it [ to me..]
But if we look a little further on page 127, we see Mr.Harris clearly stating..
"How he killed the woman is not clear. Yet the manner of her death is of small import..."
and then he says....
" What is of importance is his cold blooded recording of the deed and the fact that he revelled in it.."
There's nothing that indicates a cold blooded recording in the article at all to me at least. Its written almost as if in "drone mode".
As to the "revelling"..Thats in the eye of the beholder I suppose.
Stead was in the business of selling papers. This story would have been a good "Indiana Roslyn and The Lost Tribe Of The Spider God" for people in 1889. English people,by and large,wouldn't be upset or ready to call the N.A.A.C.P. at the sight of this piece.
And again...it really serves no purpose for anyone to hype up any suspect with their own interpretations without allowing others the total article.
We may be forgetting that this book,published in 1994, was before the number of researchers out there now and all the sites devoted to each suspect,aspect, etc. and that it was easier to get away with stating things as if fact as the accessibility to data was far less than what we all have now. This article is a prime example of material which was in a limited number of hands.
The reason why I brought this up in the first place is that back in early April, I was going over the book while babysitting the neighborhood basta...kids. There was "something" about the way the balance of the article was being "explained" that didn't smell Halal for consumption. Thats why I started to re-think things.
Any discussion about this unusual man/suspect is Kosher for this here kid... |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 547
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 8:24 pm: |
|
Howard,
One thing that escapes me if this voodoo story WAS true...
Uh huh, that would seem to be an important consideration that no one seems much interested in. If you choose to believe in both Stephenson and the occult I suppose it is important to parse those sentences like a constitutional lawyer preparing to argue before the Supreme Court. But if you don't, well then doesn't make a whole lot of difference does it?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 522
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 1:43 am: |
|
Ally, just to say that I will not respond to your post out of respect for Stephen's recent message to us all. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 353
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 2:31 am: |
|
Making this really simple, take D'Onston's quote, now substitute 'gun' for 'talisman'. Read that way, it would be taken by any mind possessing a modicum of logic that he was not only confessing, but bragging, of this woman's murder. Is it likely this woman even existed? About as likely as it is that his dead girlfriend's ghost hung out with him on a bridge.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. The reason Melvin didn't print the whole African Magic piece is probably because it was very long, and his book wasn't. He spent only 20 pages detailing the murders, and obviously wanted a very short, brisk, to the point read. I don't think it was with any intention to manipulate. At least not in this case. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 525
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 4:58 am: |
|
Thomas, - he could have quoted the sentence verbatim but did not.
Making this really simple, take D'Onston's quote, now substitute 'gun' for 'talisman'. Read that way, it would be taken by any mind possessing a modicum of logic that he was not only confessing, but bragging, of this woman's murder.
That is NOT what the words say. Grammar has RULES.
Look at the sentence again:
"I possessed a talisman... which not only enabled me to defy all her spells but which was eventually the means, not only of her death, but of her absolute annihilation... "
If I summarise the "Lord of the Rings" in a similar way:
"The Dark Lord Sauron once possessed a Ring of Power which he used for many years and which was eventually destroyed at Mount Doom when he was overthrown."
This is factual, but it would be quite wrong to read it that Sauron himself destroyed the Ring. The "which" refers, as in Donston's piece to the Ring (Talisman) not to Sauron/Donston.
You may be absolutely right to infer that Donston MEANT us to imply his responsibility. But that IS NOT what he wrote.
If I knew nothing of Donston's tendency to write obliquely (as I did not when I first contributed to thsi thread), I would read it that the talisman had power which allowed Donston to do a certain thing, and that same power (IN OTHER HANDS) eventually led to the death of the witch-doctor.
This is getting silly. Time to stop,
Phil
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 381
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 6:06 am: |
|
Don
What I was really saying when I said "if the voodoo story was true.." was in jest. Of course RDS went to the Cameroons,but all the people's faces turning into animals...all that stuff....is from a writer's imagination..
....Ain't it? I'd be worried if there was a real Lost Tribe of Mojo out there with this ability.
I for one still think RDS has enough on his plate to be a highly regarded suspect without the Mojo people.
Umgawa Supe !!! |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 382
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 6:10 am: |
|
Tom....I beg to differ brother....D'onston at no time is bragging about whacking this woman in an act of self defense with his 19th Century talisman...
Register for the RipCon or die.
How |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
The comparison made by Mr. Hill is not really relevant. First the 'Lord of the Rings' excerpt uses the phrase "once possessed a Ring of Power" which clearly indicates that he possessed it no longer. However, the D'Onston phrase "I possessed a talisman" clearly indicates current possession at the time it was used.
D'Onston clearly indicates that he was responsible, as the talisman's possessor, for the annihilation of the woman.
What is also clear is that D'Onston was a fantasist whose writings on these subjects bear little relation to reality but owe much to his powers of invention and fantastic story telling. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
