|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 889
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:54 pm: | 
|
E Tu,Simon...E Tu?
"and Donston ( who didn't even know where the graffiti was written ! ).
He also lived in Paris,knew French,and still flubbed the gender-usage of Jews up....but don't squash him yet,old bean !
In defense of A.P., it may be worth contemplating that Ted Bundy went from serial killer...escaping...then killing those girls at a Florida University [ FSU ? ] like a spree killer. Of course,stabbing women in the backside is far different than what JTR did..I know that....but there was a difference with the Florida murders,if only in the style of murder.
Just a thought... |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2379
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:56 pm: |
|
With due respect Simon,That I believe is what we are SUPPOSED to think is all Thomas Cutbush got up to.If so then its astonishing his punishment for it was a life sentence in Broadmoor particularly since another fellow named Collicot
was given a conditional discharge and fine for the same offence involving not just two[as in the case of Cutbush]but six young women.
Most interseting of all is that Thomas Cutbush was hauled in and sectioned and placed in a lunatic Asylum just days after Frances Coles was found murdered, and three days after Police dropped all charges against a man friend of Frances Coles ,Sadler.Sadler was released on March 2nd 1891 and Cutbush was detained indefinitely from March 5th 1891.
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2380
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
ps Thomas Cutbush had a history of violence and threatening behaviour to a fellow employee who he left for dead and for violent threats and defamatory letter writing to his doctors
Nats |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2450
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 6:56 pm: |
|
Thanks Natalie
the best evidence for Thomas Cutbush being Jack the Ripper is when three fat-cat Ripposaurs sat down about ten years ago and said:
'Thomas Cutbush... he need not detain us, he was not Jack the Ripper.'
You see, when fools start massing, you got to get a gun out.
Chat to Robert about letters. He has got some very provoking stuff there. |
Rodney Gillis
Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 48
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 9:31 pm: |
|
Great thread. I would seriously like to know if there is anyone who thinks they could rule out Hutchinson and why. Mind you, I'm not asking why he is not your leading suspect, I'm asking if he should be ruled out. It seems as if only Abberline ruled him out, which come to think of it is an important consideration.
Rod |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 773
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 1:56 am: |
|
There is nothing to link Hutchinson with any of the other murders, so far as I know; and the police at the time clearly did not think he was there man.
On "Eddy" and Stowell, it is depressing (frankly) to find the old tired arguments trotted out without thought. I honestly don't know why there is such a desire to cling to this tattered myth.
If Gull was supposed to be in the East End to certify the Prince, he clearly failed - PAV was free to get himself embroiled in the Cleveland St affair later. Unthinkable if there was the slightest suspicion that he was "Jack".
The whole Stowell "thing" relies on the man's words. Of course, he can be called "distinguished" - in professional terms he was - but he was old and there are any number of reasons for his writing a paper that has found no evidential support since. Why should we treat his claims to evidence any more seriously than Frank Spiering's (who's references to Gull's papers in a US library were investigated and found to be false)?
Natalie, if you rely on the Lees material as back-up, its like asking a bankrupt to finance a bankrupt. This is poor stuff.
The dismissal of the "Eddy" conspiracy malarky relates to the fact that all the so-called firm evidence (produced mainly by Knight had been shown to be fraudulent. There is no basis for the royal marriage to Annie, for a child, or for her religion as an embarrassment. Hence the whole basis of a conspiracy (which never existed anyway) collapses.
It is undermined conclusively by the way the potentially far more damaging Cleveland St scandal was treated only a short time later (and PAV's name was DEFINITELY mentioned in connection with that.
Incidentally, there has always been a suspicion that Eddy was bi-sexual, so one might - I don't - dismiss him on the same grounds as Tumblety (also probably bi-sexual) was above. His inclinations were against him. But I find that a deeply flawed argument on several levels.
Gull's involvement does not in any way prove the Prince was associated with the murders, and there is no PROOF that Gull was where Stowell put him. As for Gull, I surely don't need to set out all the arguments against him - his age and health being but two.
Face it folks, there is no evidence for a royal conspiracy. So dismiss it.
But them I wouldn't be surprised if someone now suggests I am a "mole" in casebook, acting for the Queen!!! There'd actually be more grounds for that than for the conspiracy. AND THERE ARE NONE.
Phil
Edited for spelling
(Message edited by Phil on August 31, 2005) |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2382
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 3:47 am: |
|
Good point about the Cleveland Street scandal,Phil.
However the eminent Dr Stowell doesnt appear to be saying it was Dr Gull or indeed Prince Eddy but rather someone "very high up" who had Dr Gull as their doctor-one of his wealthy clients who he refers to as "S".
AP-must get onto Robert over the letters .Thanks AP.
Natalie |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 869
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 4:08 am: |
|
Hi Natalie,
Reading through Stowell's essay makes it quite clear through the various stray bits of biographical information that his "S" was meant to be Price Eddy. There's even the "Collars and Cuffs" nickname.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2383
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 4:25 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
Well-maybe he genuinely thought it was Prince Eddy-he does say "IF my deductions are correct".
The interesting bit for me is the assertion that Dr Gull had been called out over it all.What IS possible and what may even have started this rumour off,is that the prince along with other members of his set may have found all this too exciting to resist and made such sorties into Whitechapel out of curiosity from time to time when some of the murders happened.If JK Stephen was amongst them his family might have requested Dr Gull went to "collect" him/put him under restraint whatever.JK Stephens also ended his days in a lunatic asylum and was close enough to Prince Eddy to have got up to something like this
with him!
Natalie |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 161
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 6:27 am: |
|
There is nothing to link anyone with any of the murders,as it stands.Hutchinson,unlike many other persons,voluntarily went to a police station,and was only subject to witness examination.
There is no record of him being submitted to questioning of any other crime,except that of Kelly.Whether he furnished an alibi for the other murders is unknown,so he cannot be said to have been cleared.
All other persons who were arrested,were also released without charge,an indication that Aberline held them all to be innocent of the Whitechapel killings.
Untill someone can be placed,by name,at any murder site,and shown by evidence to have commited that killing,there will be no genuine suspect,so let posters be free to express any idea they wish,and name whosoever takes their fancy. |
Puzzled
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Two Beggs in your list Phil? I've heard of Paul Begg but who is the other one? Maybe it's a Freudian slip? |
Thomas Neagle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 7:07 am: |
|
I believe Prince Eddy was taken away for treatment after he killed Mary Kelly. In 1889 he may or may not have been involved in the Cleveland Street Affair. As far as i know, there is not any report in any London newspaper that says that Prince Eddy was involved in the Cleveland Stret Affair. It was only said that there were other higher placed individuals involved. This may not have involved Prince Eddy. In some public records in London now, there is a reference to PAV being involved in the Cleveland Stret Affair. This may have been put in there falsely as an attempt to make it appear less likely that Prince Eddy commited the Jack the Ripper murders. It may or may not. It does'nt matter. Even if he was involved in the Cleveland Street Affair, he still could have been Jack the Ripper.
Even if he was involved in the Cleveland Street Affair, it was covered up in the London newspapers of the time and not mentioned.Even if it was mentioned in the London papers (and it wasn't), it would have been harder to keep his name out of the newspapers by the simple fact that other people would have known of his visits to the Cleveland Street house. In the Jack the Ripper case, it would have been a lot easier to cover it up and keep his name out of the newspapers because he murdered the women alone (possibly along with J.K. Stephen, but i don't believe so. I believe he murdered the women alone.) Since a lot of other people didn't know he was Jack the Ripper, as opposed to some if not a lot of people who would have known that he visited the Cleveland Street house (if he had), it would have been a lot easier for the powers that be to cover-up the fact that he was Jack the Ripper, than it would have been for the powers that be to cover-up that he visited the Cleveland Street house (if he did).
After a certain amount of time in treatment, it was important for the powers that be to have Prince Eddy out and about, and not have any questions about his situation. Later in 1889, he may or may not have been involved in the Cleveland Street Affair. At the end of 1889, he was taken out of the country and taken to India where he stayed until May of 1990. This was done so that it would appear that Prince Eddy was out and about, but really he was very sick (homicidally sick), but he was being kept out of the way and contolled for everyone's sake. In fact there is a record of Queen Victoria wanting Prince Eddy to go to Europe, and there is a record of the Prince of Wales ( Prince Eddy's father)telleng someone high up, maybe a minister, that the Queen could not be told of the reason why Prince Eddy could not be allowed to go to European cities ( instead he was taken to the boondocks or outback of India). I believe the Prince of Wales said that Prince Eddy was in danger( either by traveling to European countries or in general). That last point I made might be wrong, but i believe that I read that the Prince of Wales did say that ( that Prince Eddy was in danger if he traveled to European countries or in general).
When Prince Eddy got back to England later in 1990, he was kept under wraps and any public duty or speach was short and perfunctionary. There is a picture of him in 1991 where u can see how dissipated and emaciated he was at that time. He was very skinny appears to have lost a good amount of weight. He was kept under wraps for the rest of 1990 and through 1991, contiually being treated. I believe he, got away from his contollers, and in a weakened state, he murdered Alice McKenzie in July 1889, and Frances Coles in Febuary 1991. Taken back to England from India later in 1990, he was mostly successfuly kept under wraps (except for murder of Frances Coles in Febuary 1991)through the rest of 1990 and through 1991. He died in January 1992. J.K. Stephen died in early Febuary 1992. In Febuary 1992, the Jack the Ripper case was closed.
I believe Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper. I believe that most of the evidence or information in and around the case strongly point to him. But there is doubt. I might be wrong, but I don't believe I'm wrong.
I believe there is a lot of evidence of a cover-up, a cover-up of an important person. With the eye witness accounts, especially of George Hutchinson ( a dark, jewish looking man with a small turned up muoustache) and PC Smith ( aound 28 with a small dark moustache0, and Elizabeth Long (a dark, foreign looking man)
I believe these eye witness accounts strongly indicate Prince Eddy, but if not, the other important individuals who may have given grounds for a cover-up by the powers that be ( and who basically fit those three description, but in my opinion Prince Eddy fits those three descriptions a lot more), in order of probability of being Jack the Ripper, in my opinion, are Randolph Churchill and J.K. Stephen.
Like I said, it is possible that Jack the Ripper was either Randolph Churchill or J.K. Stephen, but I believe Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper. I believe most of the evidence and information, in and around the case, point strongly to Prince Eddy being Jack the Ripper.
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 776
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 1:34 pm: |
|
Puzzled - I "begg" your pardon.
Harry Mann - for heaven;'s sake let's have some discernment!! You may be happy to be classified as part of the lunatic fringe - I'm not.
Thomas Neagle - where to begin!!
I believe Prince Eddy was taken away for treatment after he killed Mary Kelly.
I couldn't care less what you BELIEVE - that's up to you. Where is your evidence? On what do you base your conclusion?
In 1889 he may or may not have been involved in the Cleveland Street Affair. As far as i know, there is not any report in any London newspaper that says that Prince Eddy was involved in the Cleveland Stret Affair.
As you say, the initials PAV (which can only refer to "Eddy") are all over the case files as I recall. It is highly unlikely that they were put there as a cover-up. For heaven's sake!! Why would putting his initials there (not made public for decades) to cover something else up? Use some common sense please! there is also no evidence for such an action, which to be done must have been known by many people.
Even if he was involved in the Cleveland Street Affair, he still could have been Jack the Ripper.
Says you. But the latter scandal was more likely to rock the throne that that in 1888 (assuming "Eddy" was blackmailed which has been shown to be false). there is no evidence to connect him personally with the murders except in the fevered imaginations of those who have not read deeply enough about the whitechapel Murders.
Even if he was involved in the Cleveland Street Affair, it was covered up in the London newspapers of the time and not mentioned.
What was? The scandal or the prince's association with it?
Lord Euston was allowed to escape arrest to avoid bringing the Prince's name into the case.
In the Jack the Ripper case, it would have been a lot easier to cover it up and keep his name out of the newspapers because he murdered the women alone (possibly along with J.K. Stephen,
This is jibberish!! Stephen was never associated with the case until Michael harrison plucked his name from the air to give his book a response to Stowell's article. Please point to ANY reference to Stephen's association with the case before that by anyone!!
... I believe [Eddy] murdered the women alone.
Proof please or any evidence.
After a certain amount of time in treatment, it was important for the powers that be to have Prince Eddy out and about, and not have any questions about his situation.
References please to his absence from public life at any time between 1888 and his death. can you show that he is absent - I think you'll find the written and photographic record show him as being out and about the whole time.
...he was taken out of the country and taken to India where he stayed until May of 1990.
I think you mean 1890, but we'll let that pass!! So he was out and about. It was an official tour, again as I recall. he had public engagements.
In fact... there is a record of the Prince of Wales ( Prince Eddy's father)telleng someone high up, maybe a minister, that the Queen could not be told of the reason why Prince Eddy could not be allowed to go to European cities
I agree - but not because he was a homicidal maniac!!
His father went on a tour of India, so later did his brother as king - were they too homicidal maniacs?
When Prince Eddy got back to England later in 1990... -
I really don't think he lived to be over 120 years old, but if you insist!!
..he was kept under wraps and any public duty or speach was short and perfunctionary.
The lad was deaf and educationally slow, maybe what we would call autistic in some way. He did not perform well in public . But he NEVER had even as a child. Read a biography of him, his brother or father.
There is a picture of him in 1991 where u can see how dissipated and emaciated he was at that time.
Again 1891 I think you mean. tell me how do you separate dissipated from educationally sub-normal/dim?
He was very skinny appears to have lost a good amount of weight.
He was always skinny. Check other pictures at any period. Look at the effigy on his monument at Windsor.
He was kept under wraps for the rest of 1990 and through 1991, contiually being treated.
Utter balderdash. Evidence please.
I believe he, got away from his contollers, and in a weakened state, he murdered Alice McKenzie in July 1889, and Frances Coles in Febuary 1991.
Proof please or even circumstantial evidence. Do you think it remotely likely that the family would have allowed Eddy to become engaged to May of Teck (the future Queen Mary) if they knew or even remotely suspected he was a homicidal maniac?
He died in January 1992. J.K. Stephen died in early Febuary 1992. In Febuary 1992, the Jack the Ripper case was closed.
This is all Harrison - and he admitted the theory had no substance.
I believe Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper. I believe that most of the evidence or information in and around the case strongly point to him.
Cite me five evidential facts that point to Eddy in the whole case.
But there is doubt. I might be wrong, but I don't believe I'm wrong.
What does that mean?
I believe there is a lot of evidence of a cover-up, a cover-up of an important person.
Evidence and detail please.
With the eye witness accounts, especially of George Hutchinson ( a dark, jewish looking man with a small turned up muoustache) and PC Smith ( aound 28 with a small dark moustache0, and Elizabeth Long (a dark, foreign looking man)
Half of victorian men looked like that and wore moustaches. I could use that evidence to prove Doc holliday or Wyatt earp was the killer - after all their presence in the US was all a cover-up!! Anyway "Eddy" - notoriously dress sensitive - would never ever have worn spats at that hour.
...the other important individuals who may have given grounds for a cover-up by the powers that be ( and who basically fit those three description,
I don't understand that sentence, but what individuals?
... in order of probability of being Jack the Ripper, in my opinion, are Randolph Churchill and J.K. Stephen.
Well at least we know where you got your facts from - Fairclough. Based on the unsubstantiated "Abberline" diaries, that do not even get the so-called writer's names right!!
I can honestly say this is most senseless and silly post I have read since I got involved in this site late last year.
Please come back at me Thomas if you want to challenge me, but please refer to evidence, or books to back up your statements. I'll try not to laugh to hard.
Phil |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1448
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Hi Thomas,
All I can say is it is no wonder the poor prince looked dissipated/emaciated in 1991 he would have been extremely old by then.
Seriously are you seriously suggesting that queen Victoria's grandson or Winston churchills father or the eminent Jk stephen was involved in the murder of a handful of prostitutes in 1998, whoops 1888?.
Richard. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 297
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Yes, Jack is now 132 and confined in an insane asylum outside of London.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2896
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Think I Know him theres a man who swears he's 132 and a half living in a local shall we say 'close house' near me
Suzi |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 299
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Don't let your guard down Suzi! We don't want you to become victim six.
Stan |
Rodney Gillis
Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 49
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 10:39 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
You replied to my post that the police clearly did not believe Hutchinson to be their man. That's fair enough and it is a strong point. What troubles me is the first part of your statement about Hutchinson not being linked to the other murders. Couldn't we say that of all the other suspects?
Here is my problem, (and I'm not tryig to turn this into a Hutchinson thread) Hutchinson does have a link with Kelly. Kelly was the last of the murders (most believe). Investigators usually look to acquaintences of the victim first; However, we only have Hutchinson's testimony itself to link him with Kelly He could have lied and not known Kelly at all. Hutchinson is very troubling.
Rod |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 779
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 1:29 am: |
|
He's never troubled me, Rodney.
I view him as one of those names plucked at in desperation by people bored with other aspects of the case who must obsess about something new. If evidence emerges, I'll look at it.
phil |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 162
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 5:18 am: |
|
Phil,
Might help if you identify whatI wrote that upset you,then perhaps I can reply. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1832
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 6:38 am: |
|
Phil,
As the last person to admit to seeing Kelly alive, Hutchinson is a valid suspect.
Does this make him Jack...or even Kellys murderer?
Hell no. However, it doesnt exonerate him completely from Kellys crime.
His name is plucked from logic, not desperation.
Cheers,
Monty
...and I said: "My name is 'Sue!' How do you do!
Now you're gonna die!!"
|
Ian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Phil. You haven't quite grasped the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE (other than tons of rather dodgy circumstancal evidence) to support any theory, certainly no CONCRETE evidence.
If anybody had any REAL evidence the case would be solved.
Person A's belief is theerfore just as relevant as person B's surely??? |
Thomas Neagle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Regarding my post above, instead of 1990,1991 and 1992, I meant 1890,1891 and 1892, of course. Sorry for those mistakes. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 785
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
We didn't realise, T-N. Thanks for pointing that out.
Harry the point at issue in your post (for me) was:
Untill someone can be placed,by name,at any murder site,and shown by evidence to have commited that killing,there will be no genuine suspect,so let posters be free to express any idea they wish,and name whosoever takes their fancy.
Phil |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2902
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Hello everyone,
Its like reading Stan Russo's Rip article. Wasn't that his point. That just because someone's theory is rubbish is doesn't mean their suspect is rubbish?
Unless of course the person (i.e Dukey) has an alibi.
Of course they could all have alibi's clearly I mean one we know about.
Now that's a difficult thing to achieve, we don't tend to think we'll be accused of terrible murders long after we're dead, now do we?
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 786
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Ian - I have just posted THIS, about my approach to evidence in the JtR context, in another thread:
"Evidence" as I use the word here relates to supporting statements by at least some reference to substantial books on the Ripper killings; to the use of contemporary quotes (from Inquests, statements etc; use of police and HO files); the use of newspaper reports - anything to back up the contention being made.
I think if you look back you'll see clearly that what I challenge are UNSUPPORTED statements, "beliefs", odd "theories" that do not relate to anything that can be discussed bar the view of the poster - which is basically unarguable. Discussion must be based on logical deduction from what we know - not on the illogical, crude and unfounded advancement of fantasies.
Phil |
Ian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 1:49 pm: |
|
OK Phil. I see your point but at the same time you must surely concede that however many statements you read none of it means a thing. There is as much chance of Jact The Ripper being a name no-one's ever heard of as there is of him being someone mentioned in any statement. Therefore very few "suspects" can be unquestionably dismissed, however frustrating that may be and undoubtedly is. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 788
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
My motto is the fable, I think told by Rumbelow, of the Day of Judgement, when the Ripper steps forward and gives his name and all the Ripperologists say, "WHO??!!"
I don't EVER cease to question.
But I don't believe that that is inconsistent with asking high standards of myself and others, and challenging where the basis of a proposition is weak, long-discredited or simply an unsupported assertion.
A schoolteacher would never accept such logic, neither would any self-respecting university. A book based on such an approach (pace ms Cornwell) would be laughed out of court.
Why should we accept EVER lower standards than that on Casebook? And if we accept that each poster has a right to state his view - OK. But whyt mist we let that go unchallenged?
If you (and those others who criticise my position in this and other threads) are prepared to accept such unsubstantiated posts without comment are a prepared to accept a site and to be part of a site with standards in the gutter: Sobeit. But be known by your fruits and the company you keep.
I will go on fighting (if necessary) for high standards and of a Casebook that I can continue to be proud of.
Unbowed and unpersuaded, I stand;
Phil
Edited to remove double signature.
(Message edited by Phil on September 01, 2005) |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2392
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
As long as your not standing on the burning deck Phil!
Well you know the saying "Ifyou can"t stand the heat get out of the Kitchen!  .... |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 792
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
I know I'm on safe ground.
Phil |
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 164
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 5:00 am: |
|
Phil,
My post,with the content you describe,was not addressed to you.It was an open post.
I stand by my statement that there is no evidence which supports any person by name as being responsible for the Ripper killings.If you,Phil,feel there is then post that evidence,and I will reply,but don't suggest a person belongs to the lunatic fringe,if you find their post not to your liking.
Is it an impossibility that five persons could have gathered at a certain location and two of them gone through a marriage ceremony?No it isn't,and because most find it highly unlikely,there are still those who believe it possible,and those posters should not be treated with scorn and ridicule. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2093
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 6:31 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
If you...are prepared to accept such unsubstantiated posts without comment are a prepared to accept a site and to be part of a site with standards in the gutter: Sobeit.
Could you rephrase in plain modern English please?
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 795
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
Harry - if that is the level of discernment you apply to this case, that's fine. But I won't descend to it. I'll continue to urge higher standards and more rigorous scrutiny of arguments and evidence.
Please feel free to ignore my posts if they irritate or annoy you. people disagreeing with me doesn't bother me at all.
But why should not illogic and false reasoning NOT be treated with the contempt it deserves?
Caz - as you make your bed, so lie in it. If you want low standards and encourage them, that's what you;ll get. Sorry, I had you down as literate. Clearly I was wrong.
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1340
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 2:58 pm: |
|
Phil
I must say I'm surprised too.
Can this really be the same Caroline Morris who has demonstrated such intimacy with the works of Samuel Pepys? (Not to mention her special study of 18th-century regional dialect!)
Chris Phillips
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 166
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 4:54 am: |
|
Phil,
It is the manner in which you debate,which is lessening the chances of progress being made.First time posters,and those with alternate ideas to yourself ,are ridiculed by you,and not encouraged to participate beyond a first post.
Your comments on Hutchinson,for instance,show you really have no grasp of the importance that person played,or the way his testimony affected the case.
Your posts do not irritate or annoy me,they cause me mirth.Descend to my level,indeed.You need a hot air balloon to rise to it. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 803
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 6:29 am: |
|
Because you think Hutchinson was important does not mean I have to.
Certainly a lot of hot air is involved in your posts, Harry. (Sorry, I didn't mean that, but you did leave yourself open to it!!)
I have never trusted Hutchinson's description of "Mr Astrakhan", (spats at night never!!), and I see nothing yet to mark him as the murderer of Kelly or anyone else. As in all things, I remain over to persuasion.
As for first time posters, I see nothing in my posts to put them off, if they are interested in the case.
Sorry to disagree with you, yet again.
Phil |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2913
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 6:34 am: |
|
Hey,
look, look - over there,
whats that
I don't know but I'm sure getting bored this !
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 244
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 8:15 am: |
|
Jenny , I think the problem at the moment is that no new evidence for a Ripper suspect has turned up for several years ( unless you count the tenuous link to the Welsh Doctor of ' Uncle Jack ' ). We could do with some more evidence , a new clue , anything really that could point us in the right direction.
Because there are no impossible suspects , just unlikely ones , and all suspects remain viable - even just a teeny weeny bit - because we have no firm evidence to convict anyone or put anyone in the frame.
Even the Graffiti , the one clue that Jack himself might have left for his pursuers , doesn't seem to have any creedence any more. We simply have no clues , no evidence and only lots of theories - this truly is a mysterious crime.
Ask 12 Ripperologists who Jack was , and you'd probably get at least 10 different answers ! Thats how wide open this case still is. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 452
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 9:48 am: |
|
True, Simon but still there have to be some standards for evaluating theories and evidence.
We don't have to re-invent the wheel here in setting those standards--they've existed for thousands of years.
If I seriously put forward a theory that John Merrick,the Elephant Man, was the Ripper then you have a right to laugh me out of court and call me crazed. My suspect theory is ridiculous.
If we can't agree on that then there's no reason to debate because debate itself has to have some boundries of possibility.
Otherwise it was the flying monkeys of Oz that did it.
Mags
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 806
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 10:33 am: |
|
Maria - I don't know whether you agree with my line or not. But why could I not have said what I wanted to, as succinctly and clearly as you have? Thank you.
You have written what I have been trying to say without success. I hope someone might understand now!!
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2099
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
Then perhaps you could translate Phil's words for me, since he has branded me illiterate.
If you...are prepared to accept such unsubstantiated posts without comment are a prepared to accept a site and to be part of a site with standards in the gutter...
What's that in plain English?
And 'sobeit' is the archaic version of 'so be it'.
That's why I asked for plain modern English.
But if Phil feels at home using a word like that in 2005, methinks  it would not be impossible for someone to adopt the language of Pepys at a much later date.
(And there is a dialect expert at the University of Leeds who sees no reason why the words 'inkling' and 'inclination' should not interchange as well as interconnect - so put that in your pompous know-all pipe and smoke it.)
Phil has the right to criticise low standards, but he has to realise that his own will come under greater scrutiny as a result. If he doesn't like it, he'll have to write more carefully himself, won't he?
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 808
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Caz - we had a lengthy discussion on Casebook a few months ago, as I recall, about standards of English on the site. Again, words like elitist got bandied about a lot, which rather missed the point.
I'm not sure I see inkling and inclination as being the same (ie synonyms)- "I have an inkling" means one begins to understand (at least that's how I would define it. "I have an inclination" - means one has a tendency towards. But I can well appreciate that a philologist (Tolkien was at Leeds for a time, and his later literary group was called the "Inklings" - curious) might perceive things in a more complex way that I.
Caz - I see nothing problematic in loving the English language and seeking to use it in a complex way. I'm certainly not going to start to dumb down posts on here.
In any case, the standards I seek to improve relate to backing up posts with argument, references and "evidence"; not in this case to higher standards of grammar or use of words. So why Caz, unless you or others were being spiteful, should anyone criticise my English? Are you losing on one front and now seek wider charges to level against me?
Phil |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2914
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
PLEASE, PLEASE
please spare me - spare me talk about the meaning of the word inkling!!! Don't drag this Maybrick nonsense up over here in the real 'normal' world!!
Thanks.
Some people can be eliminated, I think good old Merrick is one. Surely it can be shown he was physically incapable?
I don't think all suspects do remain viable, some are definately more viable than others. I don't think say, and I'm using this as an example and trying to avoid a more obvious one, say, Lewis Carroll, did it. But I'd be struggling to prove he didnt even if I could prove the theory as to why he would have is rubbish.
For exactly the same reason no one can prove 100% who did do it.
Even Patricia Cornwell, and so well, there we are.
But some things are impossible.
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 901
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Dear Simon...
While personally agreeing with you that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with proposing PAV as being part of the WM [ thats part of whats written by the Site Owner on the first page,not by a rank and file poster ],I have to add this on to what you posted above:
"Even the Graffiti , the one clue that Jack himself might have left for his pursuers , doesn't seem to have any creedence any more..."
Sugden and Begg think it does.
P.S. Simon...Its actually worse than 12 Ripperologists and 10 theories. It would be 13 theories.
(Message edited by howard on September 03, 2005) |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 455
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 1:49 pm: |
|
That would be 14 theories, Howie, you're forgetting the monkeys! 
My frustration with the GSG and forgive me if this really should be on another thread, is that since nobody can come up with a reasonable idea of what the hell it MEANS, putting a lot of time into it doesn't seem to get us anything but another reason to use mind altering chemicals.
Way to go, GSG!
Mags
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
Yes - for heaven's sake spare us a repetition of that nonsense!
And "pompous know-all"? Tut tut! That could almost be considered an insult in some quarters.
Just as well most of us aren't so insecure that we run to Stephen Ryder to complain about such things ...
Chris Phillips
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 905
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Maria...
Yo Roast Beef ! I think you mean MSG, not GSG....enough of that MSG will make you rammy..
But you are correct about the GSG. If anyone,even some cheese steak lover like me,writes an article or does tests with chalk and can't see that the GSG is just a "debatable issue" and not a guarantee....then they should hit that opium pipe. Using the GSG in the Case as part of an agenda or theory is fine...
...but it ain't fact. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2921
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 4:07 pm: |
|
RIGHT! this is getting out of hand!!!
There are FACTS as we all know and they are lets face it FEW!
We all enjoy reasoning(!) and discussing ....BUT this bickering is getting us nowhere (Ok its fun at times ) BUT people are getting hurt ,and well just hacked off by this ,so come on chaps! ....
*Insecurity isn't a common trait Phil amongst SERIOUS boarders!
Suzi
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 813
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Who has been hurt?
Where does insecurity come into this?
Phil |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2916
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 03, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Who cares? lets get back to the point,
please!!!!!
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
