|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 726
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 11:43 pm: | 
|
Time to add a little spice to these Stephenson threads....and cash.
Since their inception,we've seen some nice progress and a community of cooperation in investigating this character.
We said that the threads would take time to fill as the sole purpose is to destroy the myths surrounding Stephenson....myths and intentional oversights, in my opinion, for one reason or the other,that made a mess of serious research into the man.
From the elaborate design that one can "find" behind these murders...to his "evil nature" [ at 18,no less ]as Mr. Harris proposed years ago,we think there is too much baloney and hokum. Since 1994,the emphasis has been less on openly discussing these honest questions and more on hyping up the man to the point that few real Ripperologists care to discuss him,other than to dismiss him.
Anyway...moving right along here.
Time for a little challenge...and one that could make you a little happier...
I used to sponsor a competition that paid for a one-year subscription to Ripper Notes for the best article or story. I thought it was a good idea. There's a lot of decent talent out there and I am not averse to tossing out a dollar or two.
Here's my newest,bestest,coolest competition to date...
I will buy you, dear reader, a one year subscription to either Ripperologist...Ripper Notes...Ripperoo [ if Julie Rosenthal gets his butt in gear and starts cranking 'em out,they're an option too...],or Ripperana or The Whitechapel Society 1888 magazine if anyone can provide the proof for any of the following :
1. The alleged arrest record of Roslyn D'onston Stephenson,in the year 1888.
2. The alleged bolthole that RDS allegedly had in the autumn of 1888
3. The Anne Deary found by the amazing Chris Scott proven to not be the former wife of RDS...
4. One medical degree that Stephenson earned.
There could be four winners here. First come,first served...
Its been mentioned that these threads promote false information and are leading people "astray" from the "facts" regarding RDS. We say...go soak your collective heads !
Only here at Casebook does there exist an honest approach to the suspect Stephenson. I'm so sure of myself,that this contest does not have a time limit on it. In fact, I'm cocky about it....
So,for all the mythmakers and con artists out there...time to put up or shut up..I figure it this way: You get to be a "known" for your discovery and a free one year sub to some great reading material. If you can't prove it,don't feel bad...some people actually put such "facts" in their books without checking.
I'm good for the money too...those who know me,know that.
Bring it on.
...and that means everyone here at Casebook or anywhere else in cyberspace where they dare demonize D'onston for fun and profit.
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 3:15 am: |
|
The trouble with D'Onston is that many of the so-called 'facts' that support him being the Ripper were his own stories and he is known to have invented things in his articles as well as telling far fetched stories of magic. |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 998
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 7:35 am: |
|
LOL...well this is at least something new and interesting in the Ripperverse. Kudos to you How, for putting your money where your mouth is.
I am sure all four will be proved any minute now.
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 737
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:16 am: |
|
AIP and Al:
Yeah, the floodgates are bursting on this thread,ain't they?
I suppose the reason that no one has responded is that everyone has a sub to the magazines. Cool.
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 765
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
Hi Howard,
Actually (shame on me) I only have one subscription and I have to renew it.
It's a brilliant concept. I hope it works. But my G-d it reminds me of the Amazing Randi's one million dollar wages directed to Uri Geller or other mystics to prove various powers they have really exist - beyond the shadow of a doubt - with real proof. I'll only say this: there seems more likelihood that the research this offer should stimulate, no matter what the result, will be of real value (disproving a story being as important as proving it).
Jeff |
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 110
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 2:17 pm: |
|
Hi How,
I think Chris Scott was getting a copy of the marriage certificate for Anne Deary which should prove one way or the other whether she was D'Onston's wife.
The other three are likely to prove very difficult to prove, but good luck to anyone who tries!
David |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2126
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Hi How
The Deary certificate should be here in about 5 days time. I have also ordered the birth certificate of one of Julia Venturney's daughters which may finally give us her husbands name and nationality
Chris |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 405
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 8:04 pm: |
|
Howard,
So you're saying it's a 'myth' that D'Onston was arrested in 1888?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 738
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 8:18 pm: |
|
Tom:
Let me put it this way....Stephenson entered the London Hospital in late summer of 1888. He leaves on December 7th.
You do realize what this implies,don't you ?
Sometime,during the 134 day stay, he was arrested...with no record of the arrest on the books,for that matter...goes back into the Hospital...then checks out on Dec. 7th...not arousing anyone's suspicion...residing in a private room at the Hospital to boot. In Kim Farnell's book, somehow she was given the impression that "a" Robert Stephenson was arrested possibly not once,but twice. The first,in 1887, is irrelevant. The second arrest ostensibly happened on October 30,1888 for indecent assault...I can't figure out where that came from....Anyone ever see an entry for this person on that date for that offense ?
Yes,I do think its a myth,buddy. Stephenson being questioned,detained for police inquiry, and/or going on his own volition to the Police, is not being arrested.
Dave:
Good to see you too,pal..Chris has supplied the answer for your post right below your post. Say hello to little Harrison...
Chris:
Amigo,I hope you're doing well. Thanks for the update !
Jeff:...
The funny part is,is that I hope I am wrong !! I'm just tired of hearing how he was arrested and all that other booshwah...and you are correct that it really doesn't matter which way it turns out, guilty or not guilty....its all good stuff.
(Message edited by howard on July 26, 2005) |
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 111
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 3:09 pm: |
|
How,
Harrison ain't so little any more! I can't believe how quickly he's growing. Looking forward to seeing what the marriage certificate turns up - I see Nina has posted details of another interesting candidate on the Anne Deary thread. My money's still on the Ann Stephenson who was a cook in Islington on the 1901 census.
David |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 743
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Dave.....
Harrison will be posting soon...so be ready for that !
My little nephew Luke is almost one years old too....time flies for sure. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 408
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 9:39 pm: |
|
Howard,
Keep in mind that arrested now is not the same as arrested then. Stephenson very well could have been arrested and let go within hours. And you ASSUME he didn't arouse anyone's suspicion. That Pall Mall Gazette article from December fits D'Onston to such a degree it's difficult to imagine it's about anyone else. Stead was adamant that he'd been arrested, and as he was D'Onston's reference and employer, he would have certainly been interviewed by police - thus in a position to KNOW that D'Onston had been arrested. And who's to say he was arrested prior to leaving the hospital? I believe he was...once...then again after leaving. In any event, his arrest is not a "myth". It's based on his word and corroborated through another source. That doesn't make it cold hard fact, simply because we don't have a report of the arrest. But Whittington-Egan mentioned there were other reports on D'Onston in the files that went missing. So, the reports you're looking for would likely not be there. Yet, the very fact that they WERE there at some point suggests D'Onston was investigated beyond a cursory questioning. Taking all of this together, we're left with a strong likelihood that he was, at least once, arrested, raising this line of reasoning far beyond myth status. And I have no idea who Kim Farnell is, so can't comment on that, other than to say read the entry in A-Z on Stephenson.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Your recent posts conflict greatly with many posts you've made in the past, namely relating to your strong belief that D'Onston had a bolthole. This has been confusing me. I hope your reasoning in regards to the case and D'Onston's candidacy haven't been affected by your falling out with a certain D'Onston author? |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 477
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 10:20 pm: |
|
"Keep in mind that arrested now is not the same as arrested then."
That's interesting to hear, and something I did not know. What were the differences between current practice and then ? I have trouble picturing the judicial system processing people any faster than now, but I'd like to learn if I'm mistaken.
And while we're at it, were the police 'gentler' back then in questioning suspects ? Would interrogation have involved a bit of rough stuff if a suspect was uncooperative ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 409
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 - 11:08 pm: |
|
What I mean to say is that one could be arrested back then on a whim. The papers and files are full of it. Women arrested for prostitution just because they're on the street at a certain hour. Men taken to the station because they're carrying a bag and talking to a woman. Today, there needs to be a little more 'probable cause'. At least that's how it is in the states (where Howard and I both live) and I assume it's the same in England.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 127
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
Tom,
Of course it can be said that a police officer must have reasonable cause to arrest a person,but there is also the power to release from arrest on reasonable grounds,and by that same officer,in which case a person could be arrested and released before coming before a court.In such a case there might not be a record of arrest. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 745
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 5:44 am: |
|
Tom:
Giving the "bolthole" idea its day in the sun and changing one's mind isn't necessarily a bad thing. Its just a change in opinion. You've changed your mind,I'm sure, on things over the years,haven't you?
"In any event, his arrest is not a "myth". It's based on his word and corroborated through another source."---you from above.
Its unproven. Its been a consistent occurrence in studying RDS, that whenever he says one thing and that "act" or statement is shown to be false, we say..."Yeah...well he was a liar.".
But when he says something else,equally unsupportable or unable to be proven, some accept it as fact,or in this case,not a "myth". Why? Perhaps its because it makes him more "attractive". Same goes for the bolthole.
I haven't changed my mind on RDS,Tom. Not that it matters what I think,but thanks for asking me. Hope all is well for you...
and by the way...Kim Farnell is the author of Mystical Vampire, a book on Mabel Collins.
(Message edited by howard on July 28, 2005) |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 746
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 6:00 am: |
|
What I mean to say is that one could be arrested back then on a whim. The papers and files are full of it. Women arrested for prostitution just because they're on the street at a certain hour. Men taken to the station because they're carrying a bag and talking to a woman.---you from above.
That should make it easy for someone to find the file or police report that shows RDS was arrested.
I have to admit it,Tom,but I sort of resent the idea that the idea of any of these threads has to do with being spiteful. They aren't. The ideas were tossed out elsewhere by people afraid of asking the hard question,even though the questioner believes in the same suspect as the person doing the elimination of the question. You probably forgot that some of these threads were elsewhere first....the same place you were banned until I bailed you out.
Your pal,
How |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1802
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 6:14 am: |
|
Guys,
For Stephenson to be have been arrested the arresting officers, as Harry mentions, must have reasonable grounds. That is, they must arrest once they have valid reason to suspect an offence had taken place.
Would this be the case with Stephenson? I ask out of ignorance.
I suspect that he may have been cautioned, a different thing altogether.
Cheers
Monty
...and I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now your gonna die!!"
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 747
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Sorry for breaking one long post into three..
The article in the PMG dated December 30th, 1888, doesn't at all...at any time..mention arrest.
The blurb in the PMG states..."under observation".."the police made inquiries"...not arrest. Arrest means to be booked on a specific charge with the subsequent booking process[es].
There is another curious aspect to the blurb in the PMG. It mentions that the patient in question,..."had left without consent or knowledge of the hospital authorities.."
We know that RDS checked out on December 7th, 1888 from the Hospital. Its mentioned in books and its in articles, such as Tom Wescott's in the Nov. 2004 Ripperologist on page 15.
The article in the PMG mentions that the patient left "without consent". As Tom has stated in his article,RDS would not have had to ask for consent,as he was a self-administered, self-signed patient, to leave the London Hospital.
Yet one paragraph later, the impression is given in Tom's article, that RDS fled the Hospital.
Fled? He signed himself out. Fleeing means leaving without even signing out. Its also in one book that the man was "discharged" from the Hospital, indicating that at least someone knew that Stephenson left on his own volition after signing out,not just grabbing his hat and bolting from the Hospital out of some imminent fear of being nabbed for complicity in the WM or anything else.
One other thing...if we are told that there was a "Stephenson" that was allegedly arrested on October 30th,1888 for indecent assault...then where is the booking sheet? What is the first name of this Stephenson and the other related material? Where did that reference come from ? Where is the primary source for this claim?
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 410
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 6:56 pm: |
|
Howard,
You're breaking into semantics here. The question should be, "Was D'Onston ever looked at by contemporary police as a suspect?" The evidence suggests a likelihood that he was. And your last post about how easy it would be to find the files totally neglects what I'd written before, pointing out that earlier authors noted there had previously been files on D'Onston that went missing. So, I ask you, how do you suggest we go about finding these files that are, for all intents and purposes, missing? If you are suggesting D'Onston was never looked at by police, you are disregarding a lot of information, and presumably branding Stead a liar. I, too, would like to know to what extent D'Onston was investigated at the time and if he was, in fact, arrested, and how many times. It's not likely we will ever know. Not impossible, but not likely. We have to work with what we've got and what we've got suggests D'Onston was, to some unknown degree, a contemporary suspect.
As for your resenting the accusation that you started these threads out of spite, I never made such an accusation. I asked if some of your posts on these threads (an entirely different animal) weren't influenced by spite for a certain individual or set of individuals. I only post on here when I feel the facts are being misrepresented. Out of nowhere you started endorsing a ridiculous theory by Des McKenna that I thought had died long ago. You misrepresent the words of Melvin Harris, and now you're doing an about-face on issues you were very adamant about on the other board and on the Casebook not so long ago. You can't blame me for wondering what's going on, and given the timing of these posts following your leaving of the other message board, it shouldn't be a surprise that certain speculations will be made. In the end, I asked you a question and did not make an accusation. As for your "bailing me out", I appreciate that you put in good words for me, though I seem to remember me and the other individual involved coming to a mutual understanding without any third party intervention. But, again, support is always appreciate, and perhaps I can repay it someday. But if you're going to start and essentially moderate a series of threads devoted to a particular suspect, I feel there should be a certain amount of responsibility to make sure that speculation and fact are kept entirely seperate, for the simple fact that newbies will view you as an authority on the subject and will read your words accordingly. Some of what I've seen you post hasn't been what I'd call accurate, which is the only reason I've felt obliged to speak up from time to time. But, believe me, it's not in an attempt to upset you or start a fight, and I hope that's not how you've been taking it.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 748
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 8:28 pm: |
|
Tom:
"Was D'Onston ever looked at by contemporary police as a suspect?" The evidence suggests a likelihood that he was."
No one ever said he wasn't.
"earlier authors noted there had previously been files on D'Onston that went missing.."
Thats true. Nothing to indicate an arrest record taken,however.
"So, I ask you, how do you suggest we go about finding these files that are, for all intents and purposes, missing?"
Correct again,Tom. Its an assumption on the part of those who would state that he was arrested to declare he was based on Stead's statement. This, in my opinion, defies belief to believe Stead would associate with someone that he truly believed was arrested for the Ripper crimes. As to how we would go about finding them?If Ivor and Harris couldn't find them ...then we probably won't. That is a tragedy.
"We have to work with what we've got and what we've got suggests D'Onston was, to some unknown degree, a contemporary suspect."
Amen,homes...amen. Who is in doubt of this idea? Not me for damned sure. Thats the purpose of the threads...to make people consider him in that light..
"I only post on here when I feel the facts are being misrepresented."
By any and all means,do so. I want to staple you to these threads. If you see something that you wish to counter go right ahead..please ! I've said it before and I'll say it again,that I consider you at the top of the RDS researchers.
"Out of nowhere you started endorsing a ridiculous theory by Des McKenna that I thought had died long ago."
Not an endorsement at all,one way or the other. What it was,was a consideration regarding the possibility of "Two Donston's"...one being our boy and the other possibly another Robert Donston. Ridiculous? Hardly. Correct? Probably not. Nothing wrong with positing an idea and being wrong. At least not to me.
"You misrepresent the words of Melvin Harris, and now you're doing an about-face on issues you were very adamant about on the other board and on the Casebook not so long ago."
Do me a big favor. Show me where I misrepresented Harris right now. I posted what Mr. Harris wrote,not what I "think" he wrote. If you are referring to the glut of anti-Maybrick material at the end of True Face, thats my opinion,not a misrepresentation of what Mr. Harris said.If you are referring to the omission of the meat of the "Obeeysheyam" story...yeah,I think it was intentional. Other than that...show me where I didn't take the time to accurately post what Mr. Harris said. Harris did a lot of work on Stephensonian research and deserves the credit,as he has been given. He also deserves to be,sadly,posthumously taken to task for the inferences without facts..I'm sure he was a big enough man to handle being questioned. You know good and well that if another theorist wrote some of the deductions he made,and Harris was as interested in that suspect,as we are in RDS, he would have cut 'em a new ass.
About face? On what?
Arrests? I never said he was arrested.
Boltholes? I've changed my opinion that there was a bolthole and consider it more likely that RDS stashed the organs somewhere and then at a later date upon his release from the Hospital,around the time he went to his new place in St.Martins' Lane,did his thing. Thats just what I think. If there was a bolthole...beautiful. The magazine is on its way.If not, no big deal. Its not necessary that he had one to be considered the Ripper....at least not to me.
Medical Degrees? I never said one way or the other that I believed in him having one,two or umpteen. I know he had medical acumen. I know he had expertise with a knife. I know that he could have used one like a champ if he was going to. I think that he did ! Thats NOT a medical degree.
Killed his wife? I believed that he did,until Chris Scott uncovered the material that he found.That doesn't make him any less credible as a suspect to me if he killed her and thankfully he appears not to have.
" But if you're going to start and essentially moderate a series of threads devoted to a particular suspect, I feel there should be a certain amount of responsibility to make sure that speculation and fact are kept entirely seperate, for the simple fact that newbies will view you as an authority on the subject and will read your words accordingly.."
Thats correct Tom.
In the same vein of thinking, it is about time we that are serious started thinking and re-evaluating RDS openly and honestly. You have undoubtedly seen where I have mentioned this on more than a few occasions and I meant it.
Authority ? Not me,Tom. Not hardly..yet. In a friendly gesture,would you show me where I have been speculative about Stephenson? Don't mention the Stephenson and Son thread. Everyone makes a mistake....and at least I,as well as you,will admit to such when we do make mistakes. No harm done. Its a dead thread. I acknowledged the error on my part..
So that leaves us with what I was adamant about...Do I endorse the belief that the WM were done by RDS? He's at the top of my list.
Do I think that it is no accident that there is a 930 yard-950 yard distance between the murders? No..I think it is important...and not an accident. To me,it's great legwork on the part of its discoverer.
Do I believe that Stephenson was able to leave the Hospital to perform the crimes? Damned right I do.
Do I believe that Stephenson used a specific pattern or design in occult geometry? Quite likely... maybe a profaned cross.
You see,Tom...the problem all along with Stephenson research is not Stephenson,but the people who were here to discuss RDS. They lacked social skills to some extent and from the caustic almost retaliatory method of expression they possessed/possess,the RDS section was almost devoid of material. It is in considerable part,their fault that honest debate and discussion seldom took part,unless people made fun of RDS....his age...his weirdness..living with Collins,who had a lesbian galpal, which in itself,is irrelevant, but funny enough to someone dismissing Stephenson to mention...ad infinitum. Social skills haven't been in want on these threads,as you can see. There's a nice co-operative spirit present. I hope it stays. At least here,you don't get banned for opening your mouth. And for the record...I was the one who intervened with your banning and reinstatement. You can believe whom you want.
Lets take your usage of the word, "fled". Did you mean it to indicate that he split like a burglar who has been spied ? Or did you mean that he simply left ? I notice that you didn't clarify the usage,rather saying that I "broke into semantics..". Its not a big issue,Tom. When one sees the word "fled" and not "left", they might get the idea that he didn't check himself out,but left without checking out....Whats good for me is good for you too,buddy. Lets hold each other to the same standard of accuracy. Stephenson didn't flee anything. He went to St Martin's Lane and was in the flat within two days.
Look around at the threads here,when you have a chance....and by all means lets discuss whats in error with them. For real.
We're always cool Tom...this is all in fun. We'll dominate Baltimore...I guarantee it...Better we understand each other,than waste time arguing...
Take a look at the 1,575 word post written in my honor over at the old hangout,when you get a chance. I was moved to think that after two and a half months,that all they can think about is me.
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2138
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 5:54 am: |
|
I am now in a position to state that the Anne Deary who married Edward Carr in 1895 had no connection whatever with the Anne Deary who married Donston.
I have today received the marriage certificate for this couple and this makes it clear that we are talking about a different woman.
The details of the certificate read as follows:
District of Liverpool
When Married: 5 November 1895
Groom:
Edward Carr
Aged 51
Widower
Profession: Fireman
Reidence at time of marriage: 6 Creer Street, Liverpool
Father's name and surname: John Carr (deceased)
Profession of father: Labourer
Bride:
Anne Deary
Aged 49
Widow
Residence at time of marriage: 6 Creer Street, Liverpool.
Father's name and surname: George Morrison
Father's profession: Servant
At least this is one loose end cleared up.
I am researching a few more possible links on this subject and will post as soon as I know anything
Chris |
Tee@jtrforums
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Howard you had nothing to do with bailing Tom out when he was banned. He bailed himself out by being a MAN and contacting me personally and asking why he was banned. This in turn led to us chatting over a few things and then he was allowed back. And it was only then that the rules were even instated to the Forums. You should know that.
Just wanted to clear that up.
Tee. |
Ivor Edwards
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005 - 9:30 pm: |
|
Hi Tom,
I note the heading on this thread is Stephenson, Calling all Mythmakers. Most appropriate under the circumstances when one takes into account that several attempts at spawning myths have already appeared on these Stephenson threads. One being that Stephenson/Donston had a SON!!...who thought that one up ? Someone must be handing out the Xmas crackers early this year.Now we know of at least one myth maker who can be found on these boards.Of course your reasoning is as sound as ever Tom and you have hit all the nails on the head. But you really can't expect Mr Brown to come clean and tell the truth and confirm the speculations that you and many other people have about his motives.It would show him up in his true light if he were to admit that you and others were correct in your deductions.... now wouldn't it ? so he has no option but to deny it.
Who are these con men that Mr Brown Speaks of ?perhaps he would like to enlighten us and name them. As for your remark Tom about new posters thinking Mr Brown was an authority on D'Onston...be assured that there is no chance of that ever happening.When the mistakes concerning D'Onston on these threads was brought to Mr Browns attention on another site his reply was.." Go soak your collective heads". It would appear that Mr Brown cannot take any form of constructive criticism.Best wishes, Ivor. |
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Chris,
Thanks for going to the trouble and expense of checking up on the Anne Deary marriage certificate - I look forward to seeing what else you come up with.
Enjoy your prize!
David |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 769
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 8:26 pm: |
|
Christmas comes early....Gunga Dim and Professor Moriarty together...guess they ran out of people to ban today...but oh well...we now hold our nose and enter politics [Joe Goebbels,1933]
Tee; Several times things happened behind the scenes that you were unaware of [ believe it or not ] back then. If it makes you feel "good" to believe that you bailed Tom out, then believe what you desire. Present # 1....
Chris: Thanks for the information. I guess I owe that prize to you,if anyone should get it. It remains to be seen if Deary is one of the women discovered recently on the boards to guarantee she was alive after the dissolution of the marriage to RDS. Present # 2,on hold....
I mention mythmaker and look who pops in.
1. "One being that Stephenson/Donston had a SON!!...who thought that one up ?"
That statement has been acknowledged as incorrect. Its there on the last post of that thread. In Kim Farnell's book, a book in which she credits Mr. Harris and you as being sources for the information she obtained regarding Stephenson, she mentions the adoption of a child by a man from Hull,the same age as Stephenson. No one claimed that she came up with that from you...but,you never know....
There's no harm in bringing that to light. It has been put to rest. Is that okay,Vesica Fishy?
2. But you really can't expect Mr Brown to come clean and tell the truth and confirm the speculations that you and many other people have about his motives
Sure they can,you big blowhard. The motive to start these threads was explained to you a long time ago. I told you and Steve ,after Steve asked me to consider starting some Stephenson threads, that I would be glad to. You know that. Now the "many other people" know that...
For some reason or the other, you have taken it upon yourself to be the Guardian Angel of Stephenson...I got some A-B-C type information for you...
RDS doesn't need one... Just because Harris made you pay money for much your book,which I enjoy and read from once a week, you use jailhouse politickng and think you can bully someone like a portly Kray Brother based on the concept that you "bought it...its yours". Tough titties,little man..its not all yours.
The reason you are as upset with me is based on two or three things,which are sort of a joke among many of us..
1. You can't debate Stephenson as intelligently as you wished you could. Having people bring up an honest discussion on some of the unproven aspects regarding the man, troubles you....At the old site, I tried to start up some threads,based on our mutual suspect and you had Gunga Dim [ a.k.a. Tee ] throw them into the proverbial trash bin.
2. Having you in charge of a website,is like letting a pyromaniac run a fireworks stand. If you cannot control the thought processes of people,then out they go...some,because they argued with you as to the motive being that of an ssk and others for exposing you manipulative ways. If I had a dollar for everytime someone was perturbed with how you "managed" discussion on other issues relative to the WM, I'd be able to buy a ticket across the Atlantic and teach Tee how to write a complete sentence in English...Present to myself this time.
I don't deny anything or hide anything from anyone,Professor Moriarty. You can draw any inference you wish...like people do...
... in the inferences in your book that claim ALL of the four topics I mentioned[ and not just me...but other people interested in RDS...but were stymied from asking ] above are facts. Why bother discussing them? They only support the belief in Stephenson based on what YOU think is correct or right. No way,pardner...you don't call the shots. No one owns RDS. Stephenson may have been something else besides what you think he was.
Again,for the umpteenth time,and only because you like me to say this...I never claimed to be some authority on Stephenson. I just don't think you are qualified,psychologically, to be the determining party to what Stephenson was. Call it your controlling nature...your lack of tact...your crudity...your unusual [ I was going to say abnormal..] possessiveness toward Stephenson..
But enough of this badinage ! Life is short...enjoy these threads,old man. Jump in and debate with us over here...they don't ban you...unless you are a little timid about open debate,I'd stay where you were.
Or...
Go soak your head.
(Message edited by howard on August 03, 2005) |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 771
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 03, 2005 - 10:44 pm: |
|
Face it...things are so slow at www.ivoruberalles.net that you wanted to get a little free publicity for the site. Fair enough.
Let me back on your site as a garden variety poster....I'll cut you a new ass that Tee could stand in.
You should thank Stephen for allowing you to post [ for once ] under your real name. Usually,you desired Gunga or myself to post on your behalf.
Numerous times you made mention that www.ivorknowseverything.com was not a D'onston only site. Your actions speak otherwise.
In a greasy way,that brighter people eventually deduce as being greasy, [some take longer than others because this is supposed to be fun] ,you need attention as some sort of "outlaw" Ripperologist. It makes you stand out from the pack. Thats only because you can't take the heat when people here and at your own site try to debate data on Stephenson....so you assume this maverick personna..the guy who is too "hot" for other sites to handle..it was a conjob from day One. It was to your benefit [ and I now suspect a calculated move...] from the standpoint of not having to face criticism from more adroit people.
Lets talk about the old gang....
How many of those do you think I encouraged not to post there? 10? 5? Try none...dunce.
When I expressed some dissatisfaction in that chat room waaaaay back when, I didn't make any fun of anyone at the old hangout except you and Jeeves on the way you two expressed a belief in the possibility that Stephenson's Harry Potter stories may have been plausible. Igor knows that. You weren't there. I say here and now that if you believe that there is one iota of possibility that any of those African mumbo jumbo stories have any credence regarding the events that RDS mentions as occuring [ and remember...you and Junior defended the stories back then as possibly having merit ] then you are a hopeless case...
I admire the people that I dealt with on the old site. I helped make that site. 35 percent of the members that were there at one time were a direct result of my work,not yours....You're still a dicey deal to many people....and rightfully so.
If people are lax in posting there,perhaps it may be in part to the Neanderthalian posts you made about someone they could always count on to try to smooth things out when you went berserk....me.
If people avoid the site,that has nothing to do with me.
Before you go put your head in that bucket....take a minute..no..take a lifetime...and show me where any of the four items at the beginning of this thread can be proven the way that they have been portrayed,not only by you or by the late Mr. Harris. You have to pay for your free publicity,Brighton bound, so come up with an answer. I hope Dave or Chris find the right woman or Nina does....It will demonstrate conclusively that incorrect material was in the first edition of your book. Then....lets see if you correct that mistake. I say you won't.
Tom is his own man and really doesn't need to be mentioned in the same sentence as you.
Wescott has found out more on Stephenson by accident than you ever did on purpose...
...and he didn't have to pay for it.
|
Ally
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Ally
Post Number: 1003
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 3:47 pm: |
|
Well at the very least that should lay the whining to rest about being banned.
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 412
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 04, 2005 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Whoa-ho-ho! I am like SOOO staying far, far away from this one! I must admit it was fun, though, watching the ol' Howitzer drop a ball on these boards and show us his scrappy side for once. And it's been a while since I heard from my sista, Ally. I miss our long talks. Personally, I think having Ivor back on here to talk D'Onston would be a lot of fun. While I really don't want to be in the middle of any hatefests, I'll bet the debating would be interesting. Kinda like the old days of the Casebook. As for the ownership of D'Onston, I took care of that...he now belongs to me...Whenever you type the name be sure to put, in parenthesis, (copyright Tom Wescott 2005-infinity). That should clear up any confusion.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 2141
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Some other miscellaneous stuff I found:
Anne Deary's parents
1861:
The Green, Thorne, Yorkshire
Head: Charles Deary aged 56 born Norwich - Cordwainer
Wife: Frances Deary aged 49 born Tadcaster, Yorks.
1871:
Ellison Street, Thorne, Yorks
Head: Charles Deary aged 66 born Norwich - Cordwainer
Wife: Frances Deary aged 59 born Tadcaster
Death of Charles Deary:
June 1871 aged 66
Thorne Vol 9c Page 373
Possible 1881 sighting of mother:
Chapel lane, Thorne Yorks
Head: Fanny Deary aged 58 (?) born Tadcaster - In receipt of parish relief - Deaf
Death of Fanny Deary:
March 1886 aged 74
Caistor Vol 7a Page 447
Possible siblings of Anne:
1861:
23 Ouse Street, Goole, Yorkshire
Nancy Deary aged 20 born Thorne - general Servant.
In household of Thomas Bromley aged 67 - Wine Merchand and Agent
In that year Anne Deary was a servant to a household in the same street in Goole, that of Robert J Harrison, a joiner and cabinet maker.
She is listed as a general servant, aged 17 born in Thorne.
1871:
In this year, Anne Deary was a servant in the household of Richard Stephenson, Donston's brother, at Willow House, Church Street, Sculcoates.
She is listed as a domestic servant, aged 27 born Thorne.
Also at Sculcoates in that year, at 25 Albion Street, is listed the following:
Sarah Deary aged 24 born Thorne - Cook
She worked in the household of John Dix aged 42, Surgeon, MRCS and LSA
In March 1872, Sarah Deary married Isaac Bateman in Sculcoates.
By 1881, the Batemans were listed as follows:
Clarks Corrages, Marshland Road, Goole, Yorkshire
Head: Isaac bateman aged 35 born Thorne - Shipbuilder
Wife: Sarah Bateman aged 36 born Thorne
Children:
Annie aged 7 born Leeds
James W aged 5 born Leeds
Lewis C aged 3 born Old Goole
Jane aged 10 months born Old Goole
1891:
26 Millon Street, Hook, Yorkshire
Head: Isaac Bateman aged 45 born Thorne - Blacksmith
Wife: Sarah Bateman aged 46 born Thorne
Children:
James W aged 15 - Blacksmith
Lewis C aged 13 - Grocer's errand boy
Gertrude aged 8
1901:
32 Fifth Avenue, Goole, Yorks
Head: Isaac batman (sic) aged 55 born Thorne - Ship and general blacksmith
Wife: Sarah Batman aged 56 born Thorne
Daughter: Gertrude aged 18 born Goole
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 773
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Dear Chris....
Buddy,I moved all of these important items over to the Fate Of Anne Deary thread,here on the RDS forums...
Muchismas gracias por buscando y encontrarse los factos...luego amigo.
(Message edited by howard on August 05, 2005) |
Susan Birtles
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 05, 2005 - 3:17 pm: |
|
As a Solicior can I just clarify the position in English Law of being 'arrested'. To be placed under arrest merely means to be detained by the police. No formal 'booking' process would ensue unless the arrest subsequently leads to being charged - hence in the case of Stephenson no record would exist of being arrested, other than an officers log file, or an application for a warrant if one was necessary.
Now, as in Victorian times, there are are forms of arrest, with and without a warrant. This is a very complex area of English Law which was clarified by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which created a definition of an arestable offence - generally one which carries a term of imprisonment of more than five years. However, there are exceptions including 'obstructing a Police Officer', reasonable grounds for believing an offence has been committed (or about to be committed), to take finger prints and/or specimen etc.
Never under English Law could you simply be arrested 'on a whim' ie for no reason, not even if martial law has been declared, not now, not in Victorian times, indeed the process of arrest has changed little since then. The power of arrest was generally used to allow police time to interview someone suspected of committing a crime - but often on substantiating your identity you would be released immediately, hence why it was unusual for 'persons of good character' to be detained.
So, in summary, even if Stephenson was ever arrested, unless he was charged, there will be no supporting documentation. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 780
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 5:15 pm: |
|
Thanks for the post.Ms. Birtles.
I'll take this and change the stakes...
I now include that Stephenson was never detained either. He damned sure wasn't arrested [ except in maybe someone's dreams..] in regard to anything relative to the Whitechapel Murders in 1888.
Dream on....
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 782
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 7:54 pm: |
|
...ah...I was gonna let that post go,but I can't.
Ms.Birtles...
"To be placed under arrest merely means to be detained by the police. No formal 'booking' process would ensue unless the arrest subsequently leads to being charged..."
Yeah? Then probably half of England has an arrest record. I know a lot of people "detained" for things,but not arrested for whatever they were detained for.
"Never under English Law could you simply be arrested 'on a whim' ie, for no reason, not even if martial law has been declared, not now, not in Victorian times, indeed the process of arrest has changed little since then..."
We aren't talking about being detained,arrested, or questioned for anything other than complicity in and of the Whitechapel Murders. People can be detained for far lesser offenses than just being suspicious and would have been expected to be detained or arrested if they were suspicious during the Autumn of Terror. My client,Stephenson,did not commit any offense worthy of being detained. He was in the Hospital and according to a writer,only had to leave on 4 or 5 occasions. It suits his [ the writer's ] purpose to switch in midstream,to make Stephenson more eerie or whatever,by now adding the preposterous claim of in addition to the late evening sojourns into the bowels of the East End that he also found additional time to get arrested [ and he meant charged with a crime....none of that lame stuff that detained means arrested ] for anything,much less complicity in anything pertinent to the murders that Fall.
"So, in summary, even if Stephenson was ever arrested, unless he was charged, there will be no supporting documentation."
Arrest for a charge with a booking is what we are after here. The facts are clear that Stephenson was not to our knowledge.. The ONLY time Stephenson had any dealing with the police while in the London Hospital,was when he went to see Roots....and of course, his letter to the police.
This is definitely different from being arrested for a charge relative to the WM. The fact that there is no evidence for RDS being detained enables those who dream that he was continue to argue this silly point. They use the Blitz....the detainment equals arrest scenario...lost files....stolen files..ad nauseum., as excuses for the arrest of RDS to be missing. Missing,schmissing....it was never there ! To claim that RDS was arrested as some people do and the "documentation" is missing is bogus....and they know it.
On another thread,AIP stated that RDS was not arrested in the WM. I made the objective remark..."maybe he was...maybe he wasn't.". I don't believe for a nanosecond that he was, to be honest.....but there is always a remote possibility that he was...
...as remote as the chance that someone who had to skip out of a private ward in a hospital to kill 4...maybe 5...women would NOT be known to us now...and a record of such or documentation of such would have not been known by now. Making a "Hollywood script" out of Stephenson doesn't help create a stimulating forum for inquiries into the man.
I rest my case for the defense of Stephenson. My client was simply not that stupid or lucky.
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 415
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 8:45 pm: |
|
It's doubtful any documentation would ever be found proving D'Onston had been arrested or detained around the time of the murders. It's an almost certainty no documentation will surface proving he was NOT arrested or detained. So, this matter comes down to those two simple factors that are often the backbone of any suspect argument - your individual interpretation of the evidence and your gut feeling. I can't imagine there's anything more to be said on the matter of D'Onston's alleged arrest/detainment.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 783
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Tom
I agree with you that there are a certain amount of "gut" feelings [ by a weird coincidence,I just said that to Monty in an e-mail..] regarding issues regarding Stephenson.
My gut feeling is that he was not arrested or even detained. I believe that there could be a degree of gamesplaying on his part [ the chat over cold ones with Marsh ], an attempt to show how much smarter he was than the police [ the letter explaining the GSG's second word,but incorrectly..] and some other little bits and pieces,which belong on other threads. These are only ideas that can be easily dismissed and I would expect that some of them,if not all,have been by other Ripperologists. There's nothing wrong with that. No sweat. But when we talk arrest,we are talking about an actual act,not an idea. He is said to have been arrested, yet no proof exists. Therefore the overwhelming odds are that he wasn't.
"It's an almost certainty no documentation will surface proving he was NOT arrested or detained.."- you from above.
Maybe its a little mistake on your part here, but if he wasn't arrested or detained, there would be no documentation, period. There would be no need for the creation of a document, if an incident didn't occur.
Tom, my strong disbelief in RDS being detained or arrested would take a long time to write down and in the end,it would only be things we have all probably thought of. I'll just leave it at that until I get enough material ready and make a compilation of various Stephensonian data. Thats down the road....
If someone wants to believe that Stephenson was arrested based on what Stead stated..then thats their privelege. If they want to include it in books without objectively discussing the possibility that Stead was told this by RDS himself and from no other source and still insist that he was arrested....then thats their privelege too. RDS is interesting enough of a personality that being or not being arrested makes little difference in the scheme of things...
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 417
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 8:47 pm: |
|
Howard,
My sentiments exactly.
Yours truly,
Tom |
Susan Birtles
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Sorry Mr Brown but you are incorrct. You can not, and could not, be arrested for being 'suspicious. Of reasonably being suspected of commiting a crime, yes, being 'suspicious' no. And these are not the same at all. To be suspected of committing a crime requires at least some evidence, although, this does not have to be prima facie as would be required for indictment.
Frankly, as I said previously, it would be extremely unlikely for any proof that someone has been arrested unless this was an arrest by warrant, in which case they would be the warrant application In the case of murder, unless arrested in course of committing the act, a warrant would have been required.
I don't know where your idea comes from of half of England having been arrested. Maybe this was an attempt at sarcasm and/or wit...
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4773
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Hi Susan (Birtles)
Could you explain please the strange need that the legal system had to "prove an arrest" even when the man had been charged? I do not see the point of it.
Here's an example. Jan 3rd 1888
Robert |
Ivor Edwards
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 7:43 pm: |
|
Robert,
If I may be so bold as to answer your question. It is the form in the UK to arrest, caution and charge someone in that order. If a person comes to court and it turns out he/she has been charged but not arrested or cautioned then he/she will go free.Procedures must be followed...if not then the law is failing in it's duty.The police must show in a court of law that they arrested and cautioned the suspect prior to aresting him.I have known cases where suspects were not cautioned by police officers but in court they swore under oath that they were. Otherwise they would have been in trouble for not reading the cautions...and the suspects would have walked from the court. In the USA I understand people are read their rights.Apart from our terrorist laws if someone is arrested in the UK for an offence they must be charged within a certain time....if not then they must be released.Being arrested is not like being charged and Susan is quite correct in what she is stating about the law in the UK. I have posted on here about this matter as a guest but the popst in question has failed to appear yet. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4783
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
Ah, I see. OK, Ivor, thanks.
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
