|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
second abberline
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 3:36 pm: | 
|
I read an article, titled: A Theory on Francis Tumblety. Over the long months I have spent reading these forums, I must note, this is my first post actually. I am no longer a lingering shadow, but I have come to agree with the author of this article, to the point that I MUST share my viewpoint:
TABRAM-->TUMBLETY
NICHOLS-->TUMBLETY
CHAPMAN-->TUMBLETY
STRIDE-->KOSMINSKI
EDDOWES-->TUMBLETY
KELLY-->TUMBLETY & KOSMINSKI
I believe that they ran into each other on the night of September 30th 1888. They formed a friendship out of their deeds, which they shared stories/information. and later, before Tumblety would flee from London, they teamed up and killed Kelly together. Why do I think they did the last murder together? Because the mutilations seem to have been done in a short amount of time, considering how advanced and sickening they were. Wouldn't it make perfect sense to say that it took two people to tear her up like that? Alternated between each other to keep watch for a few minutes during different intervales, and sooner or later, they would be done, and they would leave. To get further information on the quasi-facts of Aaron killing Stride, and Tumblety as a suspect, refer back to the article I mentioned the title of earlier.
Tell me what you think, friends.
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 161
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
second abberline
HI
I realize you have chosen a favourite suspect, as most of us have done, however if I were laying out the murders, they would read as follows:
Annie Millwood Thomas Cutbush
(possibly more before but I will start at Annie)
Martha Tabram Thomas Cutbush
(I am on two minds re Martha, either Jack or the soldier)
Polly Nichols Thomas Cutbush
Annie Chapman Thomas Cutbush
Elizabeth Stride Michael Kidney
Catherine Eddowes Thomas Cutbush
Mary Jane Kelly either Joseph Barnett
Thomas Cutbush
or George Hutchinson
When I refer to or name Thomas Cutbush, I am including his uncle Charles as either involved or at least had knowledge of who Jack the Ripper really was, thus the Police COVER-UP.
In my humble opinion Thomas had an advantage in that he was privy to information concerning the police, their routes, and steps that were being taken to capture him, etc,etc,etc.
regards
Julie
|
second abberline
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
We must also note that Mary Kelly was seen with two different men that night. At least the second man seen fits the description of Aaron, and the first man is questionable. However, there is nothing at all to rule out that Tumblety wasn't the first man: He was tall, but you must remember that people can hide their height to some extent by the clothes they wear, plus the given fact that the witness wasn't standing all that close to the man to begin with.
Suspicious? YES. I think it backs up my theory rather well. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 925
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 4:46 am: |
|
Hi 2nd Abberline,
So, how do you propose that Tumblety and Kosminski met and discussed having killed previously, so that they could bond and then ultimately decide to tag team poor Mary? It's not like there were Serial Killers Anonymous meetings back then... though with the number of alleged Rippers running around I bet they could have formed one.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
second abberline
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 10:57 pm: |
|
It wouldn't have been too hard to visit each other: Aaron was homeless and wandering around, and Tumblety had a place to stay. He could have perhaps easily brought him into his home where they discussed things. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
I expect they met when Aaron was bending down to pick up a crust from the gutter and the dirty doc took advantage from behind.
Aaron cried out "Oh murder" and the seeds were sown...
Diddles was watching them from the fence. Was it folie a deux or a menage a trois?
Love,
Caz
X |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 130
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
Huh?
"He was tall, but you must remember that people can hide their height to some extent by the clothes they wear"
I saw Inspector Clouseau do that once in his Hunchback disguise kit. I think I read about that in a Dashiell Hammett book or something too. In reality? Don't think so.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 27
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 10:32 am: |
|
Caz
I have to say that you gave me a good laugh but I see it as a more innocent encounter. We know that Aaron was young at this point. Maybe the good doctor was just trying to get him to buy some of his acne medication.
c.d. |
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 362
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 4:18 am: |
|
Hi all,
Wow. Tumblety and Kosminski. Talk about "The Odd Couple" !!
Aaron Kosminski was a 23-year-old nobody who ate from the gutter. Francis Tumblety was a 56-year-old who was fairly well known about at the time, and liked making himself out to be more important than he was.
Aside from the fact that there's absolutely nothing to suggest that they'd even heard of each other, if they had, to say that they tag-teamed on Mary Kelly requires an even bigger stretch of the imagination.
It's been generally accepted for a long time that Jack worked alone, and I think that's correct.
I think it's safe to say that Kosminski and Tumblety didn't kill Mary Kelly. (Not together, anyway!)
Regards,
Adam.
"...Since then the idea has taken full possession of me, and everything fits in and dovetails so well that I cannot help feeling that this (George Chapman) is the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago..."
- Inspector Frederick Abberline, March 1903 interview, Pall Mall Gazette .
Hmmm.....
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 133
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 10:27 am: |
|
Adam
"Aaron Kosminski was a 23-year-old nobody who ate from the gutter."
So, a nobody couldn't have been the Ripper?
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 473
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Adam, I rarely agree (at least totally) with you but this time you are 100% correct that Tumbelty and Kosminski didn't kill Mary Kelly -or anyone else- together.
Julie--I like the way you think, girl!
Mags
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 172
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Maria Giordano,
Thanks for the vote of confidence Maria. I would like to add my comments re Tumblety and Kosminski.
First I do think that Jack worked alone on the actually killings, however he may have had a lookout. (MAY HAVE ONLY) This I also feel would depend on which suspect one has chosen.
Next, I doubt very much that Tumblety and Kosminski did the bump and grind together. I would have thought that Tumblety would have been more selective with respect to his partners. Francis tended to rub elbows or whatever he chose to rub, with the more elite of society, and tried to pass himself off as one of their own. No doubt, and as we have read, there were gentlemen clubs that were inclined to cater to the upper crust, be they gay or otherwise. Tumblety would, in my humble opinion, be more inclined to partake of the upper crust flesh rather than an obvious mental case who did not look after himself sanitarily and ate out of the gutters.
regards
Julie
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 962
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Tumblety would, in my humble opinion, be more inclined to partake of the upper crust flesh rather than an obvious mental case who did not look after himself sanitarily and ate out of the gutters.
Is that the case given the nature of the youths Tumblety was charged with having had sex with??
I have no idea whether Tumblety and Kosminski met, or what they might have discussed if they did. But there is not a shred of evidence, wishful thinking and imagination apart, to support this farrago.
As someone pointed out to me once - are we sure Kosminski was eating crusts and drinking from gutters in 1888?
Phil |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 479
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 5:01 pm: |
|
The second abberline speaks of Tumblety possibly disguising his height.
What a great image!
Reminds me of the late Ronnie Barker's comment on seeing ballet dancers prancing around on their toes:
"Why don't they get taller dancers!".
What is the reverse of standing on tippy-toe?
As regards the very interesting Tumblety/Kozminski
theory, what was the original German for "Cloud-Cuckoo-Land"? |
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 363
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 8:52 pm: |
|
Hi again all!
Baron,
Where on earth did you get the idea from that I think a nobody couldn't have been Jack?
If I'm not completely mistaken, this thread is a discussion on the possibility of Aaron Kosminski and Francis Tumblety teaming up, and killing Mary Kelly together. Not whether the Ripper was a nobody or not.
I was simply trying to point out how different Kosminski and Tumblety are from one another.
By the way, just for the record, incase you didn't know - my own favourite suspect is George Chapman, and he wasn't exactly the most well known of people in 1888 either, was he? ;)
Maria,
"Adam, I rarely agree (at least totally) with you but this time you are 100% correct that Tumbelty and Kosminski didn't kill Mary Kelly -or anyone else- together."
Thanks Mags!
Well, I think most of us agree that there's no link between Kosminski and Tumblety, atleast not a murderous one - next strange theory, please! 
Regards,
Adam.
"...Since then the idea has taken full possession of me, and everything fits in and dovetails so well that I cannot help feeling that this (George Chapman) is the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago..."
- Inspector Frederick Abberline, March 1903 interview, Pall Mall Gazette .
Hmmm.....
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Phil...
You're correct...I used to think this too:
"As someone pointed out to me once - are we sure Kosminski was eating crusts and drinking from gutters in 1888?
In fact,there is no proof to say what he was doing in 1888. The assumption,and quite possibly correct,is that he was in 1890 what he was in 1888. Thats because I think we have a tendency to consider A.K. as always having been a curbside diner,just as we usually assume a blind person was always a blind person.
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 548
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 9:47 pm: |
|
"But there is not a shred of evidence, wishful thinking and imagination apart, to support this farrago."
Not clear if you are calling the Kosminski/Tumblety tag team a farrago, or the notion that Kosminski wasn't Tumblety's kind of boy toy ? Which is it ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 942
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 9:49 pm: |
|
Hi How,
On the other hand, one doesn't just develop a full blown case of a major mental illness overnight. Considering the relatively quick time frame here (at least as far as the progress of symptoms goes), while we can't know the full extent of his problems in 1888, they almost certainly were already there.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 963
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 3:03 am: |
|
The issue here, Robert, is whether Mr T and Mr K in some way shared in the murders.
As my previous post made clear, I don't rule out Mr T enjoying a "bit of rough". But that is a million miles away from making Aaron his sexual partner - we know nothing about Mr K's inclinations.
So while the word farrago applied in my first post to them both being involved in the murders together; it could equally apply to the second (given the lack of any evidence whatsoever) as well.
Phil |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1046
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 9:00 am: |
|
Dan:
I wouldn't doubt for a second that Aaron's mental illness was there for many years. You're right...no argument there. It did not pop up overnight. Unlike today with psychotropic medicines and treatment, poor Aaron had nothing at his disposal to abate his decline.
But during that period of time in 1888, is it certain or even possible to be sure that Aaron was out and about eating out of gutters ? Could he not have been attended to with more care during that period of time ? By his sister perhaps..
Because if he had been eating out of gutters and whatnot in '88,it occurred to me that there would be a good chance of him not living until 1890..a little more than a year and a half from his admission to Mile End Workhouse. I recognize that Jacob Cohen is responsible for the opinion that he was eating out of gutters...but how often did that occur ? Cohen may have seen him do it once or had been told he ate out of gutters. In that case,one time is equal to three times a day if you look at it on paper.
How long would anyone last if they lived according to the description Cohen offered,which makes one tend to think Aaron did this all the time or at least,very frequently ?
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 476
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 11:44 am: |
|
If Aaron was a schizophrenic-and it sounds that way to me- then the illness was probably creeping up on him since his mid-teens. It usually emerges full blown by the mid 20's.He would have started out as a "weird" guy with some unusual habits or interests and gradually decompensated.
As Howie rightly points out, he had no medication, and the family and other social infrastructure wasn't there to understand and diagnose the illness in its first stages.
Many schizophrenics self medicate with alcohol and other drugs.
Mags
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5136
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
If in 1888-91 Aaron was already refusing to accept food which had been given to him, preferring to gather it from the gutters, then one would expect that this food-refusal would become even more pronounced as his illness took him over completely during his years at Colney Hatch and Leavesden. Yet (as far as I know) there are no records of his having to be force-fed, and he survived until 1919.
Robert |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 948
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 6:41 pm: |
|
The actual gutter eating makes a good example of the nature of his mental dysfunction, but I think that in and of itself isn;t really the main issue.
The argument seems to go:
Would prostitutes knowingly consort with a man so obviously out of his mind that he was dirty and eating food from the gutter? Oh, but he may not have actually been eating food of the gutter...
OK, but, still, the question remains, would prostitutes knowingly consort with a man with a severe mental disorder of the sort he had to have already been displaying dramatic symptoms of at that point based upon the timing (barring some massive head trauma that caused the dysfunctional or something of that nature we don't know about but likely would have if it had happened) regardless of whether gutter eating was going on at that point or even at all?
While we can't know the exact state of Kosminski's mental condition, knowing what we know about the disorder in question strongly weighs against the idea that he would have been significantly different at the time of the murders.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1050
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 7:25 pm: |
|
No argument there Dan...A pair of women who are or were involved with Ripperology mentioned to me that of ALL the suspects, Kosminski is the least likely to have been able to get laid by any of the women,regardless of the road kill he was said to have been gulping down...even for money.
I obviously ain't a woman,but if I was, he wouldn't get far with me either...
Kosminski didn't work,hence no pence,therefore no doss money,even if the women would stoop that far...
My argument was whether he was at that point of eating out of gutters during the Fall of 88. Thats all,my man.
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 135
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 7:48 pm: |
|
Dan,
What do we know about his disorder? He was guided by unseen voices or some such thing, and he ate from the gutter because other food was somehow unclean. He had a great hatred of women according to McNaghten. None of this means that it was apparent to everyone in 1888 that he was insane. We don't know how he dressed in 1888 or what he ate in 1888. We don't even know how much he hated women that year. Clinical Paranoia can progress rapidly, if this is what AK had. He did not have to be displaying any obvious, more bizarre symptoms that would make him stand apart from many of the low-life customers these women had. In 1891, he was bad enough to be locked up, but that may be a great departure from his status in 1888.
In my mind, he's the best known suspect we have. Some contemporaries have said as much, and they were a lot closer to the situation than we. If we knew more about his issues, perhaps we could dismiss him, but nothing I've read up to now has diminished his likelihood.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 8:07 pm: |
|
Baron Von Zipper:
Again,when we hear that Kosminski ate out of gutters,it flies in the face of reason that he could have survived for long,if we assume thats where he got his daily bread. Impossible.
He could not have survived on that regimen. He would have been dead before even making the Mile End Workhouse.
Who cares what the contemporary authorities said? None of them ever sat down and wrote anything other than anecdotal pieces or marginalia..screw 'em.
....besides, they disagreed anyway.
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 136
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 9:31 pm: |
|
Howard,
What's your argument? I agree that he wasn't making a steady diet out of rat droppings and fishheads that he found in the gutter for several years. I don't think he was that far gone in 1888.
As far as contemporaries, we don't know that they only recorded marginalia. They were there and we were not. That gives them an advantage I'm guessing.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 29
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
second abberline wrote:
"I believe that they ran into each other on the night of September 30th 1888. They formed a friendship out of their deeds, which they shared stories/information. and later, before Tumblety would flee from London, they teamed up and killed Kelly together. Why do I think they did the last murder together? Because the mutilations seem to have been done in a short amount of time, considering how advanced and sickening they were. Wouldn't it make perfect sense to say that it took two people to tear her up like that? Alternated between each other to keep watch for a few minutes during different intervales, and sooner or later, they would be done, and they would leave. To get further information on the quasi-facts of Aaron killing Stride, and Tumblety as a suspect, refer back to the article I mentioned the title of earlier."
>>For what possible reason have several people responded to this dreck? Can't you see there is no evidence whatever to support one word of it? What does this type of discussion get you folks, really? Haven't you got something better to do than waste your time?
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 140
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
DR,
You joined in, didn't you? For my part, I was responding to the idea that Kosminski wasn't a viable suspect. I think this partnership is nonsense as well, just like royal conspiracies, Maybrick, and Tumblety, but then, isn't most of this nonsense?
Cheers,
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Charles Valentine
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
|
Two people can keep a secret if the other one is dead - an old saying, and I cannot accept two people - neither of them proved to be a killer - would 'meet up' at the scene of a murder, like something out of a Monty Python sketch, and decide to team up for the bloodfest in Millers Court. Even if they did come together by some amazing circumstance, each runs the risk of the other betraying their secret. Jack was one man, one clever, cunning man, who even baffled us when he left a written clue on a tenement wall. We're not in his league. |
BelindafromHenamns
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Nice one Dan, 'serial killers anonymous.' Seriously it tries the patience sometimes! |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2178
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
Hi All,
I'm always a bit worried about poor Kosminski.
Great to have a barking mad suspect, where one can point to his gutter eating habits as a sure sign that he may also have convinced himself that street prostitutes had to have their unclean innards whipped out.
But then he isn't allowed to be so mad in 1888 that even the most raddled old tart would give him a wide berth.
So his obvious madness is supposed to be evidence that he could have been Jack, but if he was Jack, he couldn't have been obviously mad at the right time - if you see what I mean.
(On the other hand, Tumblety appears to me to have been as mad as a box of frogs all the time.  )
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1509
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
So his obvious madness is supposed to be evidence that he could have been Jack
Supposed by whom?
Can you give me an example of someone who says this?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
Oh that's fine, Chris.
I'm happy to withdraw the remark if you are querying whether anyone has ever used Kosminski's mental condition to argue that he could have been Jack. Perhaps it was an outrageous assumption on my part.
But I would be curious to know if this means you think all those who favour Kosminski as Jack do so purely on Sir Robert Anderson's say-so, and don't let the man's insanity (Kosminski's, that is) colour their views in any way. And do we know that Sir Robert himself didn't let a certain asylum admission influence his own conclusion about the ripper's identity?
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1522
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 17, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
You said "his obvious madness". I assumed that's what you meant.
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2194
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
Well, isn't it obvious to everyone that he was mad? Do you seriously think he was admitted to an asylum for another reason?
Perhaps you would like to support such an idea, or give up on this pathetic latching on to any and every word I type that you think you can find something wrong with.
It's undignified and makes you look a little obsessed.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1525
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 7:41 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Sorry to see your period of refraining from insults has definitely come to an end. Apparently now I'm "pathetic" and "obsessed" for disagreeing with you. (On this criterion there must be an awful lot of pathetic, obsessed people about - to say nothing of cheats, frauds and other delightful names you've called me in the past.)
Are you really now completely incapable of discussing the issues? Are personal attacks your only stock in trade?
And it's topped off with another one of your accidentally-on purpose "misunderstandings". You really thought I was questioning whether Aaron Kosminski was mad? Astonishing.
What I am disagreeing with is your assertion that he was suspected - and was Anderson's prime suspect and one of Macnaghten's top 3 - because he was "obviously mad". In much the same way, you have tried to suggest in that past that Druitt was suspected because he committed suicide.
It really is nonsense. Of course there were far more specific reasons, or we would never have heard of either of them!
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on October 18, 2005) |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 959
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Actually, what's sad is how you run around insulting people and then try to blame them for snapping at you in return.
To the point of your post, your claim that:
"Of course there were far more specific reasons, or we would never have heard of either of them! "
is simply nothing but an assumption on your part, a blanket assertion that they had to have more to go on when we don't know that at all. The individuals involved could have been making the exact same sort of jumps to unsupported conclusions as you do.
Anderson, for example, long stated that the killer had to be insane and had to be Jewish, and it wasn't until many years later that he states that he had a specific one in mind, one that could just be conveniently insane and Jewish that fit the timetable in the roughest of ways, with the rest of it being cooked up to justify his conclusion.
You need to stop pretending that your opinions are automatically more valid than other people's, and it would be nice if you would stop your obvious harassment of certain specific posters who embarassed you in the past by pointing out your mistakes. I would agree with Caz here that you just look foolish, petty and quite ignorant.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1532
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Dan
Do you really think that writing "Supposed by whom? Can you give me an example of someone who says this?" amounts to "insulting people"? More work needed on that dictionary, I think, Mr Editor!
Anyway, rather than indulging in yet another bout of name-calling - which seems to be your favourite substitute for actually arguing the facts - perhaps you could return to that thread about the time of Chapman's death and answer some of the pertinent questions you've been avoiding? Or perhaps you don't find it as much fun taking on more than one person at a time.
Anyway, please note that the same rules against abusive posting apply to you (and Caroline Morris) as to everyone else.
Thank you!
Chris Phillips
|
Alan Hunt
Police Constable
Username: Mews
Post Number: 7
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Chris Phillips
i must agree with Caz and Dan Norder. I stopped viewing these boards for a while because it just decended into personal abuse from posters. Now i'm back and i see it hasnt changed with people like you turning any point of view opposite to your beliefs into a personal attack on yourself and justification to abuse the sender!
Everyone has there own ideas on who or why and the boards are a medium for those ideas to be aired and discussed, not a basis for slanging matches. In fact you are obsessive if you have to resort to personal abuse just because someone doubts your theories which is what they are, and i never saw the word "pathetic! mentioned until you did!
of course Kosminski was obviously mad, unless you think that eating disgarded food from the gutter and abusing women in the street was normal for the 1880's |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1533
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Alan
people like you turning any point of view opposite to your beliefs into a personal attack on yourself and justification to abuse the sender
Can you please quote what you see as a "personal attack" or "abuse" of others by me?
You can see that in this message Caroline Morris calls me "pathetic" and "obsessed":
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=145641#POST145641
and in this one Dan Norder calls me "foolish, petty and quite ignorant":
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=145696#POST145696
But there again, you call me "obsessive" yourself, while complaining about my alleged abusiveness. Par for the course, I suppose ...
Chris Phillips
PS Oh, and from your final comment you obviously haven't even troubled to read what I posted. Oh dear.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2199
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 5:34 am: |
|
And you, Chris, may have read what I did post, but you have now changed tack and are criticising me for something I never posted and never meant.
What I am disagreeing with is your assertion that he was suspected - and was Anderson's prime suspect and one of Macnaghten's top 3 - because he was "obviously mad".
I didn't say that was the only reason - I said:
So his obvious madness is supposed to be evidence that he could have been Jack...
Evidence - I said nothing about it being the sole evidence, the only reason, whatever you are trying to pin on me. I even mentioned Sir Robert Anderson's assertions, which cover more than just the insane Jew angle, and include his testimony (whatever value we put on it) about the whole identification business.
If you think his obvious (as in 'known') madness contributed significantly to his status as a suspect, we are in agreement. That's all I was saying. If not, then tell us why.
But you can hardly maintain that my words were ambiguous, and that I was implying that those who favour Kosminski as Jack do so only because he was known to be mad and nothing else.
But no doubt you'll try. Once you've got hold of my skirt with your teeth, you just can't let go, even when everyone is looking at you making a public prat of yourself.
Carry on. My skirt is very resilient.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on October 19, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1535
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 6:00 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Well, of course you wrote more than the bit you quoted above.
In particular, you wrote:
Great to have a barking mad suspect, where one can point to his gutter eating habits as a sure sign that he may also have convinced himself that street prostitutes had to have their unclean innards whipped out.
And we've been through this before many times, so I can only assume you're well aware how misleading it is. There is no evidence at all that he was "barking mad" or "obviously mad" at the time of the murders. That comes from February 1891, more than two years later.
I'll ask again - has anyone suggested, as you claimed, that Kosminski being (later) "barking mad" or "obviously mad" is a point in favour of his being the murderer?
Chris Phillips
PS Even now you just can't give up on the personal insults, adding "prat" to the list of charming epithets. You're definitely not in one of your "butter wouldn't melt in my mouth" phases at the moment ...
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 160
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 10:49 am: |
|
Chris,
I posted some info on barbers on the Reconsidering Kosminski thread. I've been in contact with a British sociologist as well as a barber/historian.
I don't know what it tells us. It may just create more possibilities.
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1536
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
Mike
Thanks. I did see that. I thought the detail about "flying barbers" was interesting.
Chris Phillips
|
Darren Stent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 2:00 am: |
|
I think a more likely couple is Laural and Hardy.They had the motive and the moxy to pull this off.
The Stentman |
Steve Swift
Police Constable
Username: Swift
Post Number: 2
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
For Kosminski read:
'We did not have the vaguest conception under god who the killer really was but if I write that then my credability goes down the pan'
I mean seriously - come on! They 'knew' who the Whitechapel murderer was but lucky for all concerned he just 'stopped' killing until they could put him in an asylum!!
Thats almost pythonesque |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2205
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
There is no evidence at all that he was "barking mad" or "obviously mad" at the time of the murders. That comes from February 1891, more than two years later.
And if you read my original post again, you will see that this was precisely my point.
The hell with it, I'll copy it for you here to complete the perfect mad and pointless circle we've been going round in because you can't leave my skirts alone:
But then he isn't allowed to be so mad in 1888 that even the most raddled old tart would give him a wide berth.
So his obvious madness is supposed to be evidence that he could have been Jack, but if he was Jack, he couldn't have been obviously mad at the right time - if you see what I mean.
You evidently didn't see what I meant.
But that's ok - why change the habit of a lifetime?
But I'm not explaining it again for you. If you are seriously arguing that Kosminski's later madness hasn't been used as a point in favour of him being a homicidal maniac in 1888, there really isn't anything I can do for you.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1543
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
Well, all I can do is ask you again (for the third time now), as you're the one who made the assertion that "his obvious madness is supposed to be evidence that he could have been Jack":
has anyone suggested, as you claimed, that Kosminski being (later) "barking mad" or "obviously mad" is a point in favour of his being the murderer?
But, as always, I suppose it's far too much to hope for that you'll answer a straightforward question. Why break the habit of a lifetime, to coin a phrase ...
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
If you go back to the beginning of all this (God it's worse than the strait/straight saga and twice as boring) you will notice that I wrote:
I'm happy to withdraw the remark if you are querying whether anyone has ever used Kosminski's mental condition to argue that he could have been Jack. Perhaps it was an outrageous assumption on my part.
Then I asked you a question, relating to why else Kosminski is favoured as a suspect, if it has nothing at all to do with the mental condition that later exhibited itself and got him committed to the asylum.
And nope, I don't think you even attempted to address that one for me, so intent were you on tugging away at my original words, like a demented little terrier puppy.
I hereby withdraw my remark as being totally and utterly off the wall, and I leave you to imagine that no one has ever, would ever, dare to suggest that Kosminski's known madness contributed in any way, shape or form to the suspicions about him.
Now down boy.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on October 21, 2005) |
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 17
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
I must have taken the drug that you missed Chris because I understand Caroline perfectly ;)
What the good lady is pointing towards is that no evidence,or reason, is presented, OTHER than the fact that Kosminski was a lunatic.
Good old Robert Anderson would have us believe..
Sir Robert So,this is the man then?
Witness Oh yes sir,that is without doubt the killer.
Sir Robert Very good,we can lock him up and put him on trial now then.
WitnessErmm wont that mean he'll hang?
Sir RobertYes Indeedy!
WitnessBugger that for a lark I'm off!
Sir RobertOh,very well old chap - you both have a nice day now.
Monty Python at it's BEST.
Even better, this 'sexual lunatic of the most virulent type' just stops killing,AFTER the only man who could send him to the gallows has refused to identify him in court!
Someone wrote in another thread that Laurel & Hardy were the killers - I find that more believable than Andersons suspect.
'A good plan violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan executed next week' - George S. Patton
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1548
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Steve Swift
What the good lady is pointing towards is that no evidence,or reason, is presented, OTHER than the fact that Kosminski was a lunatic.
Well, she denied that very emphatically only about a few posts ago (though it seems much longer, for some reason).
If you don't find Kosminski a convincing suspect, fair enough. I'm not sure I've ever seen a particularly convincing suspect.
But obviously those who suspected him had more specific reasons than that he was a lunatic. Otherwise they would have suspected the whole population of Colney Hatch...
Chris Phillips
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I relise that Second Abberline is just being tounge and cheek when he started this thread. However, Tumblety is likely to have had an accomplise. Kosminski, I doubt it. A more obvious choice would be Druitt.
I feel like a foolish man in his thirties still looking for that pervect wave. Tumblety and Druitt stand out. However, looking for that piece of evidence that will connect them may prove just as imposible as catching that perfect wave. It may not exist. A connection between the two men may be just a foolish invention of my over active imagination.
If macnaughten did connect the ripper with some plot against Balfour, or he connected the ripper with a person or people they thought might be involved with a plot against Bafour, he must have been connecting Druitt with such a person or, people. We know that Macnoughten considerd Druitt his main suspect. That is the connection we are looking for. Anyone who may have been involved with such a plot, and could have known Druitt.
I have read argumnets on another thread that Macnoughten may have been refering to Tumblety when connecting the ripper to Balfour. I do not agree. Unless Macnoughten considerd Tumblety more of a suspect then he let on. I believe that Tumblety was an irish sympathiser, and may have been a fenian, or involved with fenian like groups. Connecting Tumblety with people who may have been interested in harming Balfour would not be a stretch. Could Macnoughten have connected Druitt with Tumblety? Connecting Druitt with a man he thought was involved in such activities. Littlechild claims that they had a file on Tumblety. What could have been in the file. Tumblety's lude acts. I doubt they would have a file on him for just that. Tumblety was noticed for other reasons. Tumblety may have been a victim of his reputation, or they may have had genuine concerns. The police may have thought Tumblety was involved in such political activities.
I think a key question would be, did Littlechild and Macnoughten share information? Was Littlechild informed of the private information that Macnoughten claimed to recieve? If Littlechild was informed of the information then the information could not have been conclusive, or Tumblety and Druitt knew eachother. Littlechild never would have named Tumblety as a likely suspect had he known for a fact that Druitt was the ripper, unless Tumblety was involved with Druitt. Did Macnoughten know of Tumblety. I think we can safely say yes. Macnoughten never would have named Druitt as a suspect had there been conclusive evidence against Tumblety.
I know the obvious answer, there was no conclusive evidence against either man, and the two detectives just chose different suspects to suport. That is the smart answer. However, I can see a scenario were Littlechild out of respect for Macnoughten would leave Druits name out any private discussion concerning the ripper murders. Macnoughten did go out of his way to burn the evidence to the protect the family. Macnoughten may have left Tumblety's name out of any ripper discusions out of respect for Littlechild and Monroe, because Tumblety was still at large. I can see a scenario were Macnoughten would burn the evidence against Druitt because the evidence implicated Tumblety. A man who got away.
I am not claiming this is the answer, but I do think that it is possible.
Your friend, Brad
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
