|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 936
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 2:09 am: | 
|
In my experience, academic qualifications (I've never heard about a "certification" - I thought that was how they designated the insane!!) really mean nothing, outside the narrow groves of academe. Some of the least pragmatic, sensible and realistic people I have known had several degrees. So waving pieces of paper doesn't impress me. I have known several members of MENSA (the high IQ society) but would not have employed any of them.
To an extent, I think my comments are vindicated by statements such as:
I offer the A?R theory as the right answer...
How anyone could make such a statement in the current state of knowledge and in defiance of the lively debate now in progress - not to mention emerging research. It's akin to statements such as "The Titanic is unsinkable" and "the Diary is authentic".
“Being willing to consider different possible answers” ... is nothing other than the hundred-year bane of Ripperology:
This is the real reason for my responding to the post above. I have rarely read such foolishness in print. I speak from the position of someone who indeed considers different possible answers - I see no alternative at this stage of our knowledge. We may never find out the answer, because the vital evidence was never recorded or found, or has since been lost.
The great Duke of Wellington once observed that he beat Napoleon's Marshals because they made their plans like fine harness. Those plans looked lovely, but if they broke the whole thing was useless. The Duke made his plans of rope - they something went wrong he tied a knot and carried on. An over-elaborate plan (or theory) is just waiting to fall apart.
To seek to construct a single, all-encompassing theory explaining the JtR crimes, IMHO says more about the mind conceiving it than the purported explanation. But that is not my point.
For one thing, any academic surely appreciates that thinking on any subject changes over time. Each generation questions and revises the views of the previous generation. The causes and nature of the First World War (say) as perceived today are not those of the 1930s, the 50s or for that matter the 80s. The changing views and ideas reflect, of course, distance, experience and new research. Were academics to state that there was one theory and that was it, the intellectual/academic world would be moribund and sterile - effectively dead and embalmed. THAT is why such certainty as Mr Radka expresses (and I do not question his right to hold whatever view he choses) is neither academically, nor intellectually tenable if one has any knowledge of life as it is lived. It is the thinking of "ivory towers" not of the real world, and relects a closed, not an open mind, however "clever" the theory might be. and deadTo my mind
... one false book after another, each claiming empirical proof of an empirically different solution.
This shows a lamentable lack of knowledge about the deelopment of the Ripper case and "Ripperology". Since the mid-80s we have seen many books - Rumbelow, Begg, the A-Z, Sugden in large measure - which have focused on getting the facts right and looking at the case as a whole, rather than seeking to finger a single suspect. Some of those that have (Farson on Druitt, the more recent book on Tumblety), are the result of specific research and consider contemporary (1880/90s) suspects.
The sort of book Mr Radka ridicules were journalistic forays into the subject and in some cases reflected the conventions of their day. Matters, for instance, today might have been open in making his "Dr Stanley" a surmise - in the context of 1929 the Dr was dressed up as genuine. But the first half of the book still stands, in my view, as superb writing and has great value. But if I do value such period pieces, it is not for their depth, but above all for what they contributed to my interest when I was young, and because they were the foundation on which modern "Ripperology" is constructed. Without them would we have a subject? To dismiss them misses several points.
Such books, and the need for a "suspect" (see Sugden) are also the outcome of the desire of publishers (and maybe general readers) to have a conclusion.
Finally, it seems to me that all that separates
Mr Radka's theory from "one false book after another, each claiming empirical proof of an empirically different solution", is that Mr Radka believes and insists he is right.
Just as he ridicules them, we can question is assertions.
To my mind, to be considered to have an open mind is the highest praise. people with a single theory in their heads have been the bane of the world - look at the 1920s/30s if you want an example or two.
Phil |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 913
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
You wrote:
"Finally, it seems to me that all that separates Mr Radka's theory from 'one false book after another, each claiming empirical proof of an empirically different solution', is that Mr Radka believes and insists he is right."
There's a little bit more that separates them. Radka's ideas are even more bizarre and nonsensical than most (I love how he invents up meanings for tailors marks in his own head without any source for them and insists that's what Eddowes' facial mutilations meant, just for starters). Oh, and the obvious one: somebody somewhere thought those other books were at least good enough to print, unlike his ramblings.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 10:14 am: |
|
I'd take an interest in learning about any Ripper suspect who had an established record of perpetrating high risk crimes and maneuvers.
For GAIN.Tumblety took risks only when he had something to gain or he needed to escape, that does not fit with these crimes.
Beyond that, Tumblety seems to have been exceptional at getting found out. (even if he managed to escape actual prosecution)
In his later life his 'obbsession' seems to have have been with men rather than women and he is arrested more than once for 'gross indecency' which was,as we all know,was one of the euphenisms for homosexual activity.
He was 56 years of age at the time of his arrest in London(for gross indecency & not in connection with the Whitechapel murders)which fits with exactly none of the witnesses descriptions of men seen with the victims.
I agree with Phil here.In my opinion before you begin to accuse someone of these crimes they should at least fit with the few FACTS that we are aware of. No homosexual man has ever become a serial killer of women, thats a fact.
A fifty six year old homosexual man roaming the streets of Whitechapel butchering women is hard to swallow.
To my mind, to be considered to have an open mind is the highest praise. people with a single theory in their heads have been the bane of the world - look at the 1920s/30s if you want an example or two.
Amen to that Phil.
|
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 657
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Strangely I came across the murder of a woman in Brixton, South London in 1900. She was stabbed 27 times with a pair of tailors scissors
and the wounds were 'V' shaped
../4927/20413.html"#DEDDCE"> |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 947
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 2:16 am: |
|
Steve - but what about a BI-sexual man? Someone perhaps borne down by guilt at his "sinful" predelictions?
Phil |
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 22
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 9:30 pm: |
|
Mr. Hill wrote:
1. “In my experience, academic qualifications (I've never heard about a "certification" - I thought that was how they designated the insane!!) really mean nothing, outside the narrow groves of academe. Some of the least pragmatic, sensible and realistic people I have known had several degrees. So waving pieces of paper doesn't impress me. I have known several members of MENSA (the high IQ society) but would not have employed any of them.”
>>A) Mr. Hill, please step back and take a deep breath. Can you not now see that this is essentially a prejudiced position? If you spoke the same about blacks or women as you do of the educated, you’d hear about it. B) MENSA accepts people of relatively mediocre IQ, FYI. All one need do is score in the top 2% of the population to gain admittance.
2. “To an extent, I think my comments are vindicated by statements such as:” Mr. Radka wrote: “I offer the A?R theory as the right answer...”
>>A?R is the right answer because it alone reconciles all the case data, explains what is the evidence and what isn’t, and at least localizes the identity of the murderer to an associate of Aaron Kosminski, but not Aaron himself. It alone specifies why the murders were committed. It functions entirely within a critically appraisable sphere.
3. “How anyone could make such a statement in the current state of knowledge and in defiance of the lively debate now in progress - not to mention emerging research. It's akin to statements such as "The Titanic is unsinkable" and "the Diary is authentic".”
>>”The current state of knowledge” is an arbitrary idea, whereas A?R rigorously determines what evidence applies to the case, and what doesn’t. There is no “lively debate in progress” concerning this case, I beg to differ with you. With rare exceptions, what appears on this web site is nothing more than the pastimes of the disenchanted mediocre. Additionally, when you speak of the “emerging research” you unwisely pin your hopes on the possibility that case-solving information is out there and will appear, despite that nothing of the sort has emerged in 117 years. You have no evidence to support your claim. A?R attempts to reverse this sort of helpless hoping into critically appraisable rationality.
4. Mr. Radka wrote: “Being willing to consider different possible answers” ... is nothing other than the hundred-year bane of Ripperology:” Mr. Hill responded: “This is the real reason for my responding to the post above. I have rarely read such foolishness in print. I speak from the position of someone who indeed considers different possible answers - I see no alternative at this stage of our knowledge. We may never find out the answer, because the vital evidence was never recorded or found, or has since been lost.”
>>Spoken with true grit by a true, old-fashioned Brit. You interpret me strictly out of British empiricism, and that’s why you entirely misunderstand. And I mean ENTIRELY misunderstand. Empiricism is the cosmic destiny of the British people, for the better or worse for them. They made it themselves for themselves, and it is ingrained in their culture forever. A major tradition in the history of philosophy called hermeneutic got started basically because the British found it so ENTIRELY impossible to comprehend the rationalist doctrines of the European Enlightenment, based as they are on ideas more than experiences. Etienne Condillac wrote a great deal at the time, serving as a kind of interpreter for the British, translating rationalism into empiricism for them. And there remains today a major tradition of re-interpreting rationalist thought under British empiricism—I was fortunate to attend many lectures of one of its foremost contributors, Dr. Salim Kemal, before he died at a young age. He tirelessly provided interpretations of the writings of Kant in terms of British empiricism, painstakingly translating every little ideal piece into experience-talk. I’ve got a large notebook full of his examples. No one more than me understands that I’m asking the Brits to zig when they would want to zag in evaluating my theory. I’ve bitten off a big chunk indeed in trying to get them to comprehend what I’m talking about, and I need someone like Condillac or Kemal to develop propadeutics to help me communicate to them. Basically, Mr. Hill, I’m not saying anything like what you hear me saying. What you hear me saying inside your head is a product of your enculturation and education; it doesn’t come from me. If you want to make any kind of a start in my thought, you’ve got to get hold of this idea first. You need to be able to translate me into British somehow. I’m not saying that we don’t need to consider different possible answers TAKEN IN THE SIMPLE SENSE as you do. I’m standing on the western coast of France and speaking ironically, with my tongue in my cheek. I’m saying that what we mean by the phrase “considering different possible answers” has taken on a specific technical bend in the experience-talk of the Brits. What ”considering different possible answers” has come to mean nowadays is (1) Giving up on trying to determine the motivations of the murderer from the evidence, and (2) Unreflectively committing to a “sleuthing” attempt at a solution based on “the clues,” which are, in effect, seen as pieces of empirical information, and (3) Supplying quantities of the thereby desired empirical information in the form of “research” into whomever an author may fancy as the murderer. Can’t you see how critical intellectual rigor is lost in this process? But, you see, you can’t BECAUSE YOU’RE A BRIT. The British people are trained from Day One to conceive of the cosmos in terms of experiences. Therefore, if Patricia Cornwell, Ivor Edwards and etc. supply them with real, experienced evidence, jolly! Can you see what the solution to the case is up against? Can’t you see how you’ve polluted yourselves with hundreds of worthless books BY ASKING FOR THEM?
5. “The great Duke of Wellington once observed that he beat Napoleon's Marshals because they made their plans like fine harness. Those plans looked lovely, but if they broke the whole thing was useless. The Duke made his plans of rope - they something went wrong he tied a knot and carried on. An over-elaborate plan (or theory) is just waiting to fall apart.”
>>You, Mr. Hill, along with some others have made this general jibe at my work. But none of you thereupon can seem to come up with anything specific in what I say as being illogical or wrong. What you are saying, whether you are aware of it or not, is that you don’t understand the principle behind. You leave the body of my work untouched by your criticism.
6. “To seek to construct a single, all-encompassing theory explaining the JtR crimes, IMHO says more about the mind conceiving it than the purported explanation. But that is not my point.”
>>I think you are right. The solution to the case is more in the mind than in the great blob of data Ripperologists spend their time considering. If you don’t know what to look for in that blob, you’ll never find it.
7. “For one thing, any academic surely appreciates that thinking on any subject changes over time. Each generation questions and revises the views of the previous generation. The causes and nature of the First World War (say) as perceived today are not those of the 1930s, the 50s or for that matter the 80s. The changing views and ideas reflect, of course, distance, experience and new research. Were academics to state that there was one theory and that was it, the intellectual/academic world would be moribund and sterile - effectively dead and embalmed. THAT is why such certainty as Mr Radka expresses (and I do not question his right to hold whatever view he choses) is neither academically, nor intellectually tenable if one has any knowledge of life as it is lived.”
>>We’re not talking about an historical event that can be seen to have myriad causes through changing perspectives like the First World War. We’re talking about a single psychiatrically disturbed individual committing a series of very similar murders over a short time frame. Your comparison is obtuse.
8. “It is the thinking of "ivory towers" not of the real world, and relects a closed, not an open mind, however "clever" the theory might be. and deadTo my mind”
>>I’ll leave it to Mr. Norder to attempt to pronounce upon what “reality” is for everyone, as he repeatedly does. And what is inherently wrong with the true world, Mr. Hill? Aren’t you able to keep the duality between the real and true worlds in focus in your mind? I thought you were an educated man.
9. Mr. Radka wrote: “... one false book after another, each claiming empirical proof of an empirically different solution.” Mr. Hill responded: “This shows a lamentable lack of knowledge about the deelopment of the Ripper case and "Ripperology". Since the mid-80s we have seen many books - Rumbelow, Begg, the A-Z, Sugden in large measure - which have focused on getting the facts right and looking at the case as a whole, rather than seeking to finger a single suspect. Some of those that have (Farson on Druitt, the more recent book on Tumblety), are the result of specific research and consider contemporary (1880/90s) suspects.”
>>Rumbelow fingers Druitt, Sugden Klosowski. How do these two books “get the facts right” if each identifies a different perpetrator? Think about what you are saying, Mr. Hill. “Getting the facts right,” we have seen in 117 years of Ripperology, leads not to the solution, but always ultimately to the introduction of unrelated facts as if they were related. In this vein Cornwell, Greystoke, Edwards, Evans, etc. etc.
10. “The sort of book Mr Radka ridicules were journalistic forays into the subject and in some cases reflected the conventions of their day. Matters, for instance, today might have been open in making his "Dr Stanley" a surmise - in the context of 1929 the Dr was dressed up as genuine. But the first half of the book still stands, in my view, as superb writing and has great value.”
>>I’m not saying it doesn’t have value. It evidently did, at least at the time. But it also contributed to the long slow death spiral called Ripperology, in which “the facts” are increasingly presented in such unimaginative ways as to draw our attention away from the solution.
11. “But if I do value such period pieces, it is not for their depth, but above all for what they contributed to my interest when I was young, and because they were the foundation on which modern "Ripperology" is constructed. Without them would we have a subject? To dismiss them misses several points.”
>>Why wouldn’t we be better off playing bocce instead of being Ripperologists, if in order to be Ripperologists we have to accept such a foundation? How has our “foundation” helped to solve the case? I believe, Mr. Hill, that you could fairly talk in terms of period pieces being the foundation of Ripperology if and only if Ripperology were able to draw effective conclusions, or solve the case. THEN you could specify the way in which they had laid the groundwork. Otherwise, you shouldn’t talk.
12. “Such books, and the need for a "suspect" (see Sugden) are also the outcome of the desire of publishers (and maybe general readers) to have a conclusion.”
>>Now you advocate fiction. I thought we were talking about intellectual rigor.
13. “Finally, it seems to me that all that separates Mr Radka's theory from "one false book after another, each claiming empirical proof of an empirically different solution", is that Mr Radka believes and insists he is right. Just as he ridicules them, we can question is assertions. To my mind, to be considered to have an open mind is the highest praise. people with a single theory in their heads have been the bane of the world - look at the 1920s/30s if you want an example or two.”
>>I don’t appreciate your low-class, underhanded identification of me with communists and Nazis, Mr. Hill. It is the mark of a desperate, compulsive thinker trying to fudge his way out of a jam. That you make such an association is a good example of the inferiority of your intellect, and a better one for me to stop writing to you.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 2:27 am: |
|
Hi all,
To post that Tumblety could not have been the ripper because he was gay, is wrong. It is an argument that I have read over and over again. Homosexual men have killed women, and just because there has not been a documented case of a homosexual male serial killer killing women does not mean it has not, or can not happen. I would guess that the percentage of serial killers we have heard of would pale to the number that are out there.
How gay was Tumblety? Was he liberace gay, or was he just a man who was into self gratification at any cost?
It is a mistake to use modern day profiling on a case 116 years old. Society breads there own serial killers. The pressur on a homosexual man was different in 1888. Tumblety may not have been able to come to terms with his sexuality. The dates Tumblety was arrested and the dates of the ripper murders are interesting. Tumblety was arrested around major ripper events.
How many people saw the ripper? It is posible that no one saw the killer. Some people claimed the ripper was tall. Some said he was short. Some claimed Jack was over forty. Some claimed he was a younger man. Some said he was pale. Others claimed he had a dark complexion. Who do you believe. We do not even know if the woman that some of the witnesses saw were the victims. Most identified the victims by clothing.
People who are willing to believe some witnesses are not willing to believe the Colonel. Why? What makes one witness any better then another. The Colonel claimed that Tumblety told him that he had a wife. The Colonel claimed that Tumblety had a collection of organs, and twelve were female wombs.
I have never heard of a gay man becoming a serial killer who kills woman. However, we do not know the motive. We do know that Tumblety was set up to take the fall on an abortion charge by a female prostitute.
Tumblety was suspected of the murders. He is named by Littlechild as a likely suspect. We have no such documentation on Maybrick, Hutchinson, Barnett or many other suspects. There can be no doubt that dispite his sexuality, and dispite his height and age, Tumblety was a ripper suspect.
I feel like I am playing a game of clue, and all the other players are trying to prove that the killer was not Colonel Mustard, or any of the other charactors in the game, but in fact it was an unknown, who was hiding in the closet, and he used his bare hands.
Hi C.D.
Thanks for your responce. I do not usually drink in the morning, but I was out until five in the morning. I believe you have to wait eight hours until a person is considerd legally sober.
Your friend,Brad |
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 24
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 12:07 am: |
|
Mr. Hill wrote: "Finally, it seems to me that all that separates Mr Radka's theory from 'one false book after another, each claiming empirical proof of an empirically different solution', is that Mr Radka believes and insists he is right." Mr. Norder answered: “There's a little bit more that separates them. Radka's ideas are even more bizarre and nonsensical than most (I love how he invents up meanings for tailors marks in his own head without any source for them and insists that's what Eddowes' facial mutilations meant, just for starters).”
>>You poop your editorial pants, Mr. Norder. By what you write for your shall we say several readers, you reveal yourself as a man lacking the appropriate feelings to be editor. You do not fully realize the sense in which you are different from others, particularly your predecessor Mr. DiGrazia, because you do not differ from others, as you perceive them. You lack I would think almost completely the necessary ability to keep logical parts appropriately separate from whole, a partly gustatory capacity related to and not separable from taste, tasting, digestion, and emotional feelings. You do not have the ability to experience emotions appropriate to an editor at the right moments. This is why it seems to entirely beat you that the A?R argument stands as solidly without the explanation of the marks on Eddowes’ face as tailoring symbols, as it does with it. You mistakenly think this insignificant part is tantamount to the whole. You are very fortunate to have Mr. Vanderlinden; if you didn’t you’d be up to your neck in your own you-know-what by now.
2. “Oh, and the obvious one: somebody somewhere thought those other books were at least good enough to print, unlike his ramblings.”
>>Non-sequitor. The A?R Summary was published on this web site. Stephen Ryder at least considered it good enough to print. I haven’t submitted anything else for publication anywhere. You speak falsely, to give unknowing people the impression that I’m being repeatedly turned down for publication by publishers. You lie to your readers.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 953
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 10:40 am: |
|
Mr Radka - I think I'll just let your long post addressed to me speak for itself.
There is a good reason why intelligence is not treated in law or morals as the same as race or gender. How do you define intelligence?
And I think, as your posts show, it is YOU who do not understand, and you who have lost the plot.
Regards |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4090
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 1:17 pm: |
|
Hi Brad (how are you, friend?),
Just some pointers I would like to add here...
If the Colonel's story is correct, then Tumblety appears to have been bisexual, not purely homosexual, so I agree that the homosexual argument should be treated with caution here. One such example is Aileen Wournos, a female serial killer - and a bisexual - who as far as we know only killed men (although it is possible more victims exists that we don't know about).
So yes, we should be careful with all those narrow generalisations. However, one must also point out, that a homosexual killing someone of the oposite sex IS uncommon. But of course, that does not mean that it couldn't happen.
"People who are willing to believe some witnesses are not willing to believe the Colonel. Why? What makes one witness any better then another. The Colonel claimed that Tumblety told him that he had a wife. The Colonel claimed that Tumblety had a collection of organs, and twelve were female wombs."
The story about Tumblety owning a number of jars with female reproduction organs only derive from one second-hand source - the Colonel - and is impossible to corroborate. Therefore it shouldn't be taken at face value. There is no evidence whatsoever to support it, and since it is very common for people coming forward to get some spotlight in the papers in connection with famous crimes, I would say that we shouldn't treat the Colonel's story as a fact. Some people unfortunately have a tendency to treat this story as evidence, but it's not. It IS NOT PROVEN OR EVEN CONFIRMED that Tumblety owned such glass jars.
And even if he did - let's face it, that just gives him a streak of abnormality, but it doesn't prove that he was a serial killer.
"Tumblety was suspected of the murders. He is named by Littlechild as a likely suspect. We have no such documentation on Maybrick, Hutchinson, Barnett or many other suspects. There can be no doubt that dispite his sexuality, and dispite his height and age, Tumblety was a ripper suspect."
Actually it is not confirmed that he was arrested as a suspect for the Ripper murders. This is only an interpretation. We know that he had been under suspicion of several counts on gross indecency, and although it is quite probable that the police may have suspected him for the murders, it is not confirmed that he was actually arrested on that suspicion.
D'Onston, for example, was also a contemporary police suspect, but that doesn't make him more credible in my eyes.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1035
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 1:43 pm: |
|
"D'Onston, for example, was also a contemporary police suspect, but that doesn't make him more credible in my eyes..."
Glenn....where did this information emanate from?
I'm not arguing your opinion of him as a viable suspect...only questioning the statement that he was a contemporary suspect.
(Message edited by howard on October 02, 2005)
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4091
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Well at least he most certainly was investigated by the police because of the "probable association of Dr. Davies and Stephenson with the murders in Whitechapel", How, as George Marsh suggested to the police.
A report in the Pall Mall Gazette 31 December seems to indicate that he at least was investigated, since it very clearly describes a person whom fits the bill of Stephenson. I personally think he was a suspect for a very short while, although maybe not more seriously than other characters they were advised to check out more closely.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1036
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Glenn;
What may be more accurate regarding RDS and his percieved status [contemporary suspect] is the way he insinuated himself which may give the impression that the police were in search of him because of this act of self-incrimination or trickery. ...I'm aware of the two references you posted,for sure,but his being a "suspect" was wholly dependent on Marsh's disclosure to the police, a situation that he, RDS, created himself. We know RDS went to see Roots afterwards,on his own volition not at the request of police or during a search for Stephenson.
It also remains to be seen,from an objective viewpoint,if the mystery patient who left without notifying London Hospital was in fact,Stephenson.
Stephenson checked himself out and didn't head for the hills. Nothing, by his signing out, indicates leaving in a hurry. In fact the chart says the word "relieve"...something unusual for a patient who just gets up and goes unannounced as this other mystery patient is said to have done..
For someone who is alleged to have been this patient and suspected, he didn't "flee" that far,unless St Martins Lane is far.
Not to bicker,but I think that he was a modern suspect...beginning with Cremers...More likely than not,RDS was looked at as just another person who got involved with the WM just a little more than normal....by the police that is.
Besides,Glenn..the man went back to London Hospital just 7 months later with the same crew at the Hospital...and still during the hunt for the Ripper. Not very smart,eh?
Back to Tumblety ! My apologies...
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 928
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 5:06 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Well, yes, it is common for people to come forward after crimes to get their name in the spotlight, but with the Tumblety uterus jars stories it's even worse. The source was a journalist with a long, long history of making facts up out of thin air solely to sell the resulting too good to be true stories to newspapers. He wasn't really a colonel, that was part of another scam he was known to pull, an alias he used to support himself. He was an identified professional conman, a bigger liar than Tumblety himself, which is saying something.
It's astounding to me that anyone still thinks the story of the collection of uteruses and this supposed marriage have any credibility whatsoever.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4097
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 5:39 am: |
|
Indeed, Dan. I can only agree.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 3:06 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Thanks for your responce. I know this is getting old, but yes, you are correct my friend! I think out of all the suspects, Tumblety is a suspect who one day someone may be able to prove was or was not Jack. A lot of good research being done on Tumblety.
Your friend, Brad |
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 25
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 10:21 am: |
|
1. Mr. Hill wrote: “There is a good reason why intelligence is not treated in law or morals as the same as race or gender.”
>>We’re not talking about “intelligence” as you put it, or blackness or femaleness here; we’re talking about groups of people. The group of people whom are intelligent, the group of blacks, and the group of females. You express prejudice against the first group, and my position is that prejudice has the same status as prejudice against either of the others. Prejudice is prejudice.
2. “How do you define intelligence?”
>>You defined it yourself as the group of people who have academic degrees or are members of MENSA. I’m merely responding to you.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 954
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Tut, tut, Mr R!!! Don't confuse examples as definitions, please.
No one ever accused me of regarding MENSA members as intelligent simply for that reason.
I don't regard intelligence as referring to a group of people EVER. I have met highly qualified (on paper) academics who possessed little common sense: and people who possessed little "book-learning" but great wisdom. Intelligence is, to me a quality, discerned in individuals. Like respect, and maybe beauty intelligence is largely in the eye of the beholder.
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 9:37 am: |
|
First - This suspect was named by Littlechild in a PRIVATE letter.
Second, I believe that a statement was issued concerning this Doctor who was in London looking for uterus and that he was known to be a man of good character(does not really sound like Tumblety now does it)
I agree with the bi-sexual angle Phil but Tumblety was not being arrested for lewd acts with women now was he? plus he was hardly likely to admit to his friends his homosexual nature.
It seems clear to me that this mans motivations were gain, money.It also seems clear that he was barely capable of anything without getting caught or found out, add to that his swaggering around in the uniform of a Union officer and it almost seems like he WANTED to be caught,this does not really fit with the Whitechapel killer at all.
I do not think a man like Tumblety would have been able to keep it to himself, it seems to me like he courted noteriety, but only HE would ever have known he was Jack the Ripper, he wouldnt have been able to wear THAT like a uniform.
The other reason I discount Tumblety is that these murders just do not have a feel of 'grudge' or 'hate' about them. I think actually killing these women was incidental to the man, because of the speed with which he dispatched his victims he would have no time to 'enjoy' their death.I think he killed to mutilate - that was his motivation - not hate or rage.
Just an opinion, but Tumblety is not our man.
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 171
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
cb
I am a bit behind, however bear with me, I am making a comment on you post of Sept 28, with respect to Tumblety being gay.
Personally speaking my reason for dismissing him has nothing to do with being gay, but has everything to do with being demonstrative , far too obvious a character. Wearing outlandish garments, prancing through town on his decorated horse, garments blowing gaily in the wind and so on and so forth.
His fraudulent behavior, lies concerning his wealth and associates, He was quite the con artist to those who were gullible enough to befriend him etc.,
He stood out like a sore thumb, he didn't do anything that would not bring him notoriety. I just could not imagine him being able to commit these murders without receiving recognition of some kind.
He seemed to me to be somewhat of an egotist, whose ego would not have been fed by killing mere lowly prostitutes.
Your point was well taken, and I have always maintained that he enjoyed making his presence well known, and no doubt would have been hard not to remember had he been seen by wittnesses.
regards
Julie
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 127
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 3:25 pm: |
|
Julie,
I agree with you. He was a charlatan and nothing more.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Hi Julie,
Thanks for your responce! I will bear with you anytime. Although, I am a scotch man I would like to make some comments regarding your post.
Your argument is a common argument against Tumblety. However, we have no reason to believe that Tumblety would not have been smart enough to try and blend in the nights he killed. We are talking about murder, I doubt Tumblety would be walking around like a magnificent poof the night he committed murder. I read an interesting description of Tumblety. A friend who had not seen him in a while described him as looking like a street beggar, or someone who was down on there luck. He did not always prance around so shiny
Tumblety did gain recognition concerning the ripper murders. You can make the argument that Tumblety was the most infamous ripper suspect worldwide. His name appeared in papers all over the world in connection with the ripper murders. You really can not make the argument that Tumblety recieved no notoriety in connection with the murders. For what ever the reason he did not go unnoticed.
I think Tumblety was a serious ripper suspect. I feel they started suspectiing him as early as October. We know that the police asked for a sample of Tumblety's handwriting be sent from sanfrancisco. He did not go unnoticed by the police.
I am always careful when discussing motive. I do not know the motive. He could have hatted prostitutes. He had a reason too, but he probably chose prostitutes because the were easy targets. He may have been lashing out at a society that was lashing out at him. He was arrested twice the same week Kelly was murderd. He was arrested just hours after another ripper murder. The days leading up to, and shortly after ripper murders Tumblety seemed to be very active. Coincidence? Probably, but interesting.
The ripper was a sick man. A person does not kill in that fashion with out being sick. If Tumblety was the ripper, he would have been driven by mental ilness, and not ego. However, he may have gotten some sort of charge out of the notoriety his murders were gaining, but he still would have done everything in his power not to be caught.
Is Tumblety the best suspect yet? I would say no. I think Druitt is the best suspect yet. However, Tumblety has to be considerd. You can not take him out of the game based on some of the arguments I have read.
Your friend, Brad
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 173
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
CB
Hi Brad,
I have not taken Tumblety out of the running for a viable Jack suspect, However I do not favor him as such. I would take Druitt over Tumblety any day but again he is not my favourite suspect either.
Your points are well put and you present them with respect for others who do not necessarily share your point of view. I respect that.
Thanks for your courtesy.
My favourite? I have several, in order they are:
Cutbush, Kelly and Barnett.
my best
Julie
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 957
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 6:29 pm: |
|
Hi Brad,
Not to go back to the same old point mentioned earlier in the thread, but we do not know that the police suspected Tumblety in October.
The New York news reports mentioning the claim that London police contacted San Francisco police for his handwriting are contradicted by many and several far more detailed from reports from San Francisco that that's not what happened at all. Those far more detailed and reliable accounts showed that the San Francisco police had no contact with London police until November, after the wild New York press accounts claiming that Tumblety had fled from London under alleged suspicion for the murders had already been widely distributed, and that they were the ones who contacted London and not vice versa.
Furthermore, Anderson's reasons for agreeing to receive the handwriting samples are ambiguous, as he could have wanted it for reasons completely separate from the Ripper investigation (the old Fenian thing again) or simply to cover all bases -- even if he had not thought of Tumblety as a Ripper suspect at that point, the rumors sweeping the U.S. about him could prompt him to accept this unsolicited assistance just on the off chance that it panned out.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5173
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Hi all
Apologies if this has been mentioned already, but I wonder if someone could tell me if the following is "our" Francis Tumblety, or some other man?
Nottingham University Library, Department of Manuscripts and Special Collections: Papers of the Monckton-Arundell Family, Viscounts Galway of Serlby Hall, Nottinghamshire [Ga C 1 - Ga M 120]
The contents of this catalogue are the copyright of Nottingham University Library, Department of Manuscripts and Special Collections.
Rights in the Access to Archives database are the property of the Crown, © 2001-2005.
To find out more about the archives described below, contact Nottingham University Library, Department of Manuscripts and Special Collections
Papers of the Monckton-Arundell Family, Viscounts Galway of Serlby Hall, Nottinghamshire, early 13th Century - 1958
Catalogue Ref. Ga 9201-Ga21
Creator(s):
Monckton-Arundell family, Viscounts Galway of Serlby Hall, Nottinghamshire
Arundell, Monckton-, family, Viscounts Galway of Serlby Hall, Nottinghamshire
[Access Conditions]
The 20th Century material within the Galway Collection is currently closed. The remainder of the Collection is accessible to all registered readers.
Papers of the Monckton-Arundell Family, Viscounts Galway of Serlby Hall, Nottinghamshire, 1590-1930
[Access Conditions] Access to the 20th Century material is restricted
File box relating to Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry Cavalry (Colonel 7th Viscount Galway) serving with Imperial Yeomanry in South Africa 1900-1902. - ref. Ga C 11/1-11/309
FILE - Assorted papers including telegrams concerning America's interest in the war 1899 (Ga C 11/1 & 11/3); note written by Lord Galway in support of Field Marshal Lord Robert (Ga C 11/2); letter from Francis Tumblety in relation to the interest of the American people in the South African war, includes a newspaper clipping from the New York Herald (23 December 1899) entitled Noted Peers of England who want to go to War (Ga C 11/4); family tree type diagram from the Illustrated Mail, 30 December 1899 entitled The Greatest Army the Empire has ever put in the Field (Ga C 11/5); table showing the return of the numbers of army troops and horses that have embarked for South Africa from 1st January 1900 to 31 st December 1901 (Ga C 11/6); letters from the Prudential Assurance Company concerning the granting of new assurances to the volunteers from the Sherwood Rangers who are proceeding to South Africa as reinforcements (Ga C 11/7 & 11/9); letter from J. A. Smith concerning a cheque sent to Lord Galway in payment of premiums for Rangers (Ga C 11/8); programme for the Nottinghamshire Imperial Yeomanry and Volunteers Banquet at the Victoria Hall, Talbot Street, Nottingham on 25 January 1900 (Ga C 11/10); letter from H. A. Bealby concerning the inclusion of members from the Worksop Yeomanry for service in South Africa (Ga C 11/11); letter from W.H. Bell in relation to the selection of men to fight in South Africa, also includes a letter from his mother, Maria Bell (Ga C 11/12-11/13); letter of thanks for expression of sympathy sent by Lord and Lady Galway to friends whose sons had been killed in 1914-1918 war (Ga C 11/14) and letters and receipt concerning bills for saddlery for the Sherwood Rangers (Ga C 11/15-11/17) - ref. Ga C 11/1-11/17 - date: 1899-1916
Robert
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5300
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
Hi Stephen, Joe
The Tumblety letter and clipping came today.
NEW YORK HERALD, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1899.
NOTED PEERS OF ENGLAND WHO WANT TO GO TO WAR
Most notable among recent incidents in connection with the Transvaal war has been the outburst of patriotism among all ranks and classes in Great Britain. Not less enthusiastic than those who claim no blue blood in their veins, the peers of the realm have volunteered in large numbers for service at the front. Prominent among them is the Queen's own son, the Duke of Connaught, whose appeals for an assignment in South Africa, to which he has some right as a general in the regular army, have been negatived by his royal mother's opposition.
There follows nine drawings of : Lord Kenyon; Viscount Valentia; the Earl of Dudley; the Earl of Warwick; Viscount Galway; the Earl of Scarborough; Lord George R.C. Harris; the Earl of Lonsdale; and His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught.
The letter is a bit of a surprise, because Tumblety's attitude is pro-British.
412 Central Ave,
Hot Springs,
Arkansas,
Dec. 27th 1899.
Viscount Galway,
London. England.
I have taken the liberty of enclosing a portion of the New York Herald of Dec. 23rd. which I think indicates the intense interest the people of the United States take in the South African war.
In expressing the hope that the British may soon triumph, and in assuring your Grace of cordial good will in your new career, I voice the sentiment of the vast majority of people in this country, who are heart & soul with their kith and kin across the sea, in this war.
Respectfully
Francis Tumblety M.D.
I will try to send you both an image of the letter, if you wish, once I'm back online.
Robert |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 144
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
The New York Herald
Friday Dec 22, 1899
BRITISH PEERS OFFER TO FIGHT
Earls of Warwick, Dudley, and Lonsdale and Viscount Galway Among the Volunteers.
London. Thursday - The Duke of Marlborough, who is a yeomanry lieutenant in the Queen's Own Oxfordshire Hussars, who has volunteered for service in South Africa, offers to take with him and pay for the equipment of 150 men - not only fifteen as at first reported. The authorities have not yet decided whether to accept the offer.
The Earl of Warwick, The Earl of Dudley, the Earl of Lonsdale, and Viscount Galway are among the other members of the aristocracy who have volunteered for service in the campaign against the Boers.
The splendid patriotism of the volunteers continues to be evidenced on all sides. The newspapers note with satisfaction the effect this display of British spirit and evidence of the resources the Empire is able to command are having on Continental critics.
Thank you for posting the Saturday Dec 23, 1899 article, Robert. Tumblety's support for this pro-British news writing took me off guard. Perhaps it shouldn't have though. Oddly, this behavior wasn't unprecedented for him. Tumblety sold phony Military discharge papers to Union soldiers during the Civil War, yet he wrote in his 1872 autobiography on page 13 "...my feeling and sympathy has ever been with the Union and the Constitution...." What he does and what he writes doesn't usually mingle well.
I see that Tumblety's obituary was accurate when it told of how he would spend his winters in the warmer climates of the south during his elder years. It looked like he celebrated the turn-of-the-century in Arkansas. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5305
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Thanks for that, Joe. I'm just wondering : could Tumblety have got New York papers in Arkansas? If not, then he either moved to Arkansas around Christmas, or he was mailed the papers by a friend.
Robert |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 780
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
This gives me no pleasure, but it is a good example of how those with a zeal to debunk end up fabricating the truth.
Here's what Dan posted earlier this Summer:
“The press loved to cover him,[Tumblety] and were already well used to trying to link him to great scandals of the day.”--Dan Norder.
This was Dan's effort at debunking. The implication is clear: the New York Press merely "linked" Tumblety to WHitechapel---it was a press invention.
I challenged this post by Dan, and when I did, I was met with derision. When I challenged it a second time, I was ignored.
So let me ask a third time. Since the press was "well used to" linking Tumblety "to the great scandles" Dan should have no trouble with coming up with a few examples.
Let's see. Tumblety was genuinely taken into custody in May, 1865 for complicity in the Lincoln assassination. The records exist in the National archives.
In November, 1888, the press reported that Tumblety was arrested in connection with the Whitechapel Murders.
O.K. Dan, you're move. Give me one example of the press "trying to link" Tumblety to a "great scandle" between May, 1865 and November, 1888?
That's over 23 years of wriggling room.
Could it be that in your zeal to debunk, you've committed that very thing you're always barking about...a completely "unsupported" statement?
Or in your strange narrow field of vision, is it "o.k." for the "anti-theorists" like your good self, to fabricate whatever nonsense they please?
(Message edited by rjpalmer on December 15, 2005) |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 95
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Mr. Palmer wrote:
"O.K. Dan, you're move. Give me one example of the press "trying to link" Tumblety to a "great scandle" between May, 1865 and November, 1888?"
>>Doesn't this sound awfully familiar, folks? It seems much like a large number of requests my supporters and I made of Mr. Norder to back up his statements on the original A?R thread. Mr. Norder would claim to have absolutely debunked my views on psychopathy straight from the eminent psychiatrists of our time, but when I asked him to jot down a reference or two for example of what he meant, he'd claim he'd already done so elsewhere and thus didn't need to do so again. Get the picture about Dan, folks? No, still not yet? Just wait around awhile--you will. The house of cards hasn't fallen quite yet, but I hear the wind a howlin'.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1066
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 2:14 am: |
|
David,
You are so in denial it's insane. Or perhaps you are deliberately lying and hoping you might catch someone stupid enough to believe you.
For anyone new here who needs a refresher on the A?R thread, I posted information straight from the DSM (the official manual used by professionals to diagnose mental disorders and illness, written and endorsed by the APA), as well as direct quotes from Dr. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist, and quotes from several professional journals, all proving you wrong in some of your key claims in clear language that everyone reading the thread could see. Your response was to to make a series of more long posts so the info was pushed into archive threads and then claim it never happened. So then I reposted other information, and you again claimed it never happened. So then I provided direct links to the old posts showing it happen, and you once again claimed it never happened.
When are you going to learn that repeating the same lie over and over does not make it true? The A?R thread was locked because of your actions, please stop trying to restart it up in everything thread I post to. Even getting banned multiple times for several weeks doesn't seem to teach you to knock it off.
RJ,
"Great scandle" eh? Quotation marks typically denote a direct quote... please keep your spelling errors to yourself and not try to push them onto me.
And, again, for someone who tries to set yourself up as an expert on Tumblety it seems odd that you would miss (or, more likely, just ignore for the purposes of your argument) all the newspaper references... especially since he seems to have been the one who leaked the info so as to get more free publicity for himself.
How about the government bond forgery scams of 1880, as just one example out of many. And the funny thing is I know you know about it, because someone who was writing an article for Ripper Notes decided not to cover that aspect because they were trying to be polite to you and let you finish up your research on that for your book on Tumblety you keep working on. Of course the self-same book is exactly why you go on the offensive against Wolf Vanderlinden (who discovered evidence that already blows your theory apart), me (for publishing the articles), anyone who reads the magazine (overkill is never enough), not to mention modern profilers (because Tumblety doesn't fit any profile) and so forth and so on.
You have been doing nothing but a calculated campaign of personal attacks and misinformation solely to try to prop up your suspect. Normal people agree to disagree, try to post evidence to support their argument, and respect other experts in the field. You, like Radka, dispense with all that happy stuff, apparently shocked to your inner core that anyone (regardless of whether they are professional profilers, respected Ripper researchers, or even just people who want to read a good magazine) would dare to disagree with you.
Please stop trying to substitute mud slinging for rational arguments, and give up on the idea that starting flame wars across this message board will somehow help you.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 784
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
Dan - You're a strange one. First of all, you have no idea what my opinions are about Tumblety's connection to the case, because I've never revealed them to anyone. Second of all, the reason I slightly criticized your colleague Wolf Vanderlinden's article is because it contained inaccuracies and drew false conclusions based on partial information. But then, I've already noted the venom in which you slur anyone who challenges your conclusions, so I pulled my punch. I won't make the same error next time. Wolf first misquoted Dunham (leaving out two qualifying words) and then compounded his error by misinterpretting the subtle meaning of the statement, and then finished-off by throwing in a completely undocumented and uncited 'fact'...that was, in reality, untrue. Was Dunham a liar? Sure. Is it o.k. for historians to misquote liars to support their theories? No. I felt Vanderlinden was particularly fair game, considering his attacks on one of the better Ripper theorists a few years ago....for allegedly doing exactly what he himself was now doing...hacking up a quote to bolster his own theory. If Patricia Cornwell had pulled the same stunt, the next issue of Ripper Notes would have featured a centerfold of her crusified to a tree.
The 1880s Bond scandal does not even remotely fit the critieria of your statement!!! This was a minor and poorly reported legal squabble that Tumblety was genuinely involved in. Do I need to remind you of your unsupported statement for a fourth time??
"The press were already well used to trying to link him to the great scandals of the day."
--Dan Norder, August 24th, 2005.
The implication is obvious, Dan. Tumblety was already a scapegoat that the New York Press "tried to link" to major scandals. If you could actually prove this, it would indeed be a great feat of debunking! Unfortunately, your inability to either back-up your statement, and your reluctance to retract it speaks volumes. RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on December 16, 2005) |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 786
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Just as a bit of insight into Ripper psychology, it's interesting to note how eager Mr. Norder and some of his followers are to "challenge" this or that stament, or "blow out of the water" various theories.
Is this how Ripper Studies will end, not with a bang, but a snicker?
The pendulum has swung too far to the right. The field has been jaded by various bogus schemes, and now the debunking has become indiscriminate. A few cynics who have made no bones about the case being unsolveable (and I think both Mr. Souden and Mrs. Stock have made similar statements) are content to stand in the shallow end of the pool and give undergraduate 101 advice to those who are attempting to swim a few strokes.
I do wonder how long this sort of cynicism will carry the day. As for me, I root for the swimmers, whether they end up drowning or not. But go on, debunk and challenge and "blow out of the water," it leaves you precisely...where? |
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Norder wrote: “David, […] perhaps you are deliberately lying and hoping you might catch someone stupid enough to believe you”. A typical case of the pot calling the kettle black.
You assert that you “posted information straight from the DSM, […] as well as direct quotes from Dr. Hare's Psychopathy Checklist, and quotes from several professional journals, all proving you wrong in some of your key claims”. To refresh your memory Norder, you were completely unable to explain how either the DSM or Dr. Hare’s PCL-R functioned; therefore, you were completely unable to justify how your harebrained notion that diagnosing psychopathy using both instruments as shopping lists supported any of your arguments. Moreover, you were completely unable to support your contention that your three undergraduate credits in psychology gave you any better insight than Radka’s independent study of this psychological disorders. At least he has an academic background in researching complex issues; you, on the other hand, have no degree, and by your own admission, no research experience in psychology whatsoever.
You wrote: “So then I reposted other information, and you again claimed it never happened. So then I provided direct links to the old posts showing it happen, and you once again claimed it never happened.” This is just an out-and-out prevarication. You never reposted anything; neither information, nor links, and I took you to task repeatedly for your failure to do so. You responded with obfuscations and distortions, and you have the gall to accuse Radka of “repeating the same lie over and over” again. Norder, your appetite for intellectual dishonesty is without equal.
Your dispute with RJ clearly shows that you’re unable to carry your point unless you misrepresent him. RJ hasn’t tried to set himself up as an expert on Tumblety as you claim. What he has done, is research Tumblety and offer the readers information about his findings. Nowhere does he claim expertise on this topic, and you have nothing to support your contention that he ever did. You accuse him without reference, because your argument is a complete distortion of the truth. But you don’t stop here; you’re determined to make yourself look like a complete fool.
You wrote: “You have been doing nothing but a calculated campaign of personal attacks and misinformation”. You have engaged in nothing but personal attacks and intellectual dishonesty since you first began posting here. In fact, you’re famous across the Internet for your inability to understand simple concepts, and for distorting other people’s arguments to disguise your inadequacy.
You imply that you have some claim to superiority because of your longevity here, i.e., you continually chastise Radka for being periodically banned from the Casebook, but how many websites were you permanently banned from because you attacked other posters and even moderators? And now you’re whining because RJ and Radka are giving you a dose of your own medicine.
You scolded Jane Coram so harshly over a trifle that Mr. Anderson had to step in and put you in your place. You’ve started acrimonious arguments with Nina Thomas, John Ruffels, Caz, John Omlor, Andrew Spallek, Scott Nelson, David Radka, Richard Nunweek, Robert Linford, Leanne Perry, Monty, Glenn Anderson, Ivor Anderson, Tee, Helge Samuelsen, RJ Palmer et. al. The minute someone responds to you in kind, you start crying about personal attacks. How lame is that?
Take your own advice Norder, “stop trying to substitute mud slinging for rational arguments”; you’re not as subtle as you think you are at the former, nor are you as skilled as you wish you were at the latter.
Mephisto |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 97
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 10:06 pm: |
|
Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back. (Would've only said it once, but I needed five words.)
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
AAR
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
It's great to see old friends, isn't it David? |
AAV
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Excellent posts Mr. Palmer - and very valid. If these theorists can't find anything new - then all they have to do is debunk the work of others. Pity is, they don't get their facts right, as we see with Mr. Vanderlinden. |
W. VdLinden
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
I am not posting here to bolster Dan, he can more than take care of himself, but I do have to wonder what RJ Palmer is talking about.
Mr. Palmer, you make the claim that I “misquoted Dunham (leaving out two qualifying words) and then compounded his error by misinterpretting the subtle meaning of the statement, and then finished-off by throwing in a completely undocumented and uncited 'fact'...that was, in reality, untrue.”
Do you mind telling me exactly what you mean? What inaccuracies did my article contain, besides stating that Abberline was subordinate to Moore (I actually got that from the A-Z)? What false conclusions did I draw based on what partial information? What two words did I leave out and how did I misinterpret the “subtle meaning of the statement”? What completely undocumented and uncited fact did I throw in?
More to the point are you making the accusation that I did this, whatever it is you are suggesting, intentionally and in an attempt to mislead? Do you have any evidence that this serious charge is correct or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass because someone has dared to question Tumblety’s candidacy as the Ripper before your book is published?
Wolf. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Tumblety is a strange charactor. To me he is by far the most interesting ripper suspect. If he was not Jack the ripper, his life story would still be interesting. I have no respect for Tumblety. I imagine he was a rather creepy fellow.
There are alot of ripper suspects. There are alot of ripper theories. I have a hard time understanding how some of the suspects, and theories are actually believed by the persons who put them forward. I do not see were it is helpful to put forward a bogus suspect, and layout an impossible theory.
Tumblety should not be dismissed as a suspect. He is far better then some of the fabricated suspects that have been pawned off on us over the years. Maybe someday R.J or Malta or maybe someone else, will prove that Tumblety could not have been the ripper. His guilt may be more difficult to prove.
Your friend, Brad |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 473
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 11:27 pm: |
|
Wow, this thread is getting ugly. I must say I take issue with the suggestion (or outright accusation, as the case may be) that Wolf Vanderlinden would intentionally alter a quote to bolster an idea or theory. To level that kind of accusation on a writer/researcher is just plain rude and mean. Wolf's written many, many articles over the year and the result is that he has a fine reputation in the field. Even Martin Fido recently recognized Wolf's Chapman piece in the April Ripper Notes as being one of his (Martin's) favorite Ripper works in recent years. Given his achievements, why would he then intentionally falsify information, knowing he'd be called out? The idea is ridiculous. And on top of this, Dan Norder is named as an accomplice after the fact because he published the article. So now Ripper Notes is engaged in a conspiracy of disinformation. Beautiful.
R.J., you're generally a pretty stand-up guy, and God knows you're knowledgeable about this case. In fact, I'll be one of the first people to buy your book (I'm not a Tumblety supporter, but few people are as interesting to read about!). But engaging in character assasination of other writers because of a disagreement is overzealous and just plain ugly. Does Wolf occassionally make mistakes? Yes. Is he Canadian? Yes. But hey, nobody's perfect, and Wolf's integrity shouldn't be questioned just because you don't agree with his findings and opinions. Capiche?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1243
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 17, 2005 - 11:37 pm: |
|
Mr. Fido's comments on Mr. Vanderlinden's article can be found in the latest WS1888 magazine on page 14. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 475
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 2:19 pm: |
|
And in the latest Rip, Paul Begg remarked that Wolf is Ripper Notes' best asset. Pretty high praise for a man who bends facts at will!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Tom,
well I've met Wolf and he is a totally nice guy i must say. I'm certain from speaking to him he doesn't bend facts at will.
Now didn't this thread used to be about something to do with Tumbelety?
Jenni
ps Canada rules!!
"it's lovely weather for a sleigh ride together with you"
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1067
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Mephisto,
I never can quite tell if you are so completely caught up with your views that you unknowingly twist clear statements around to mean something else or if you just make outrageous lies hoping that you'll find some newbie here inexperienced enough to actually believe you.
You claim I was "completely unable to explain how either the DSM or Dr. Hare’s PCL-R functioned", but it was more that you were unwilling to accept the explanations when they were given to you because you'd have to admit that the conclusions you jumped to after browsing a website or two were wrong. You state that I only have "three undergraduate credits in psychology" when I actually explained more than once that it was three graduate-level credits (undergraduate psych credits were probably something like 50 or so... I forget, it was more than a decade ago). But then you have, what... no psych credits, or maybe an intro course? You claim I "have no degree" and by "your own admission, no research experience in psychology whatsoever", which is quite unrelated to whether I have far more knowledge on the topic than you or David (I mean, come on, how does research experience even come up when you never even took an abnormal psych or counseling class?), and false anyway (I only said I had no professional clinical psychology experience, as that would have required a lot more years of graduate school). You claim "You never reposted anything; neither information, nor links,", which is not only false but extremely and obviously so to everyone who bothered to read the thread and to anyone who goes to look at it now.
And then you just get downright nutty. You claim "you’re famous across the Internet for your inability to understand simple concepts, and for distorting other people’s arguments to disguise your inadequacy", which is so completely out there that it's not even funny. You ask, "how many websites were you permanently banned from because you attacked other posters and even moderators", insinuating of course that there is a long list of them, when in reality the answer is, well, none. (Ivor Edwards of course claims differently on his site, but that's Ivor for you, and Howard Brown and plenty of others can tell you the real story there....) You make a long list of names of people here that I supposedly "started acrimonious arguments with" (forgetting that everyone else here has been around and knows), yet of your 43 posts on these boards, probably 41 were nothing but carrying out Radka's campaign of harassment against anyone who ever contradicted him. I mean, seriously, the people who remember your limited number of posts here already know that you're the last person in the world to be making the kinds of accusations that you are.
And to RJ and anonymous poster "AAV"-
If you had any actual evidence to support your accusations, that would be one thing. But of course neither of you bother to present any, instead stooping to outrageous personal accusations against Wolf and, by extension for printing his articles, myself. If you'd like to have a rational discussion about Tumblety and the evidence, by all means go ahead, but leave the attempted character assassination out of it, because they certainly hurt your case more than they help. RJ and someone hiding behind an anonymous guest account attacking Wolf Vanderlinden's credibility in this field via unsupported insinuations is kind of like... well, Mephisto or Radka trying to attack mine. People can consider the source and the motivation behind it and see right through you, so what do you hope to accomplish?
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1068
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Oh, and by the way, RJ...
By your comments above you imply that you actually read Wolf's articles on Tumblety. As you are not a subscriber, I would hope that if I check the sales of single issues through Amazon that you would be on the list. Otherwise it would seem that you either acquired the articles in a less than legal way or have never read them at all.
I am always confused how the most vocal people trying to convince others that the magazine isn't good turn out to be people who aren't in my records as having actually ever received a copy.
Well, I guess "confused" is not really the word I mean...
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2975
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 6:04 pm: |
|
Dan
I'd be interested to know how one acquires a magazine on sale to the public in 'a less than legal way'?
I usually get mine out of the nearest rubbish bin. |
Mephisto
Sergeant
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 44
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 6:20 pm: |
|
Westcott wrote: “in the latest Rip, Paul Begg remarked that Wolf is Ripper Notes' best asset. Pretty high praise for a man who bends facts at will!”
Obviously, you’re implying that Begg is praising Vanderlinden, and that based on Begg’s excellent reputation, RJ Palmer’s claim that Vanderlinden made a number of errors in his article must be false. But, there are other interpretations that one can gather from your argument that put Vanderlinden and Ripper Notes in a different light altogether.
To begin with, let’s assume that Begg doesn’t hold Ripper Notes in as high esteem as you do. Next, let’s assume that like Palmer, Begg also noticed Vanderlinden’s errors. If Begg doesn’t hold Ripper Notes in high esteem, and he noticed Vanderlinden’s errors, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that what Begg is really saying here, is that the best Ripper Notes can do is publish an article riddled with errors, i.e., he equates the poor quality of the article, with the poor quality of Ripper Notes.
In this next scenario, let’s assume that Begg has a greater respect for Vanderlinden than he has for Ripper Notes’ copy editor. He’s noticed that the article contains a number of errors, but instead of pointing them out, he praises Vanderlinden as Ripper Notes’ “best asset”. From this one could infer that what Begg is really saying is that Ripper Notes’ “best asset” is not the copy editor, i.e., an author making a few mistakes is forgivable, but the editor who failed to catch those mistakes is unprofessional, lazy, inept; take your pick.
Your use of Paul Begg’s reputation to justify your claim fails because you don’t include enough information. For example, you neglected to tell us when Begg make the appraisal. Was it before the article was published? If so, than how do we know his opinion of Vanderlinden hasn’t changed since then? If Begg made his comments after the article was published, then it would not be unreasonable to believe that either one of my alternative scenarios is a better interpretation of his intended meaning than yours.
It’s no secret that you never miss an opportunity to laud Norder’s accomplishments or mention the approval rating of Ripper Notes. If you’re such a loyal Norder/Ripper Notes supporter, then perhaps you could tell us why we shouldn’t just dismiss your arguments out of hand?
In sum, you failed to negate Palmer’s argument, because you used Begg’s praise of Vanderlinden out of context. It’s not magic Westcott; anyone who does a close reading of your claim can see the holes in your logic; not to mention your bias.
Mephisto |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1247
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 7:06 pm: |
|
Dear Mr. Mephisto:
"For example, you neglected to tell us when Begg make the appraisal. Was it before the article was published? If so, than how do we know his opinion of Vanderlinden hasn’t changed since then?"---Mephisto, above
On page 54 of the latest Ripperologist,in the section devoted to reviews, Mr. Begg reviewed the October 2005 [ issue #24 ]issue and made the comment that Tom says he did. He mentioned that Mr. Vanderlinden is "unquestiongly the most valuable resource there [at R.N.]"...
Therefore,this praise probably is based with Mr. Vanderlinden's latest article in mind.
In your post above directed to Tom, you mentioned
"It’s no secret that you never miss an opportunity to laud Norder’s accomplishments or mention the approval rating of Ripper Notes."
You're probably unaware,but some folks do the exact opposite,despite not even subscribing to the magazine that Dan publishes. They critique the magazine,but don't get it. The shots are really shots against the person.
Have a good holiday season ! |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3340
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
This thread is for discussing Tumblety as a suspect. Take the personal jabs to email.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 476
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 9:51 pm: |
|
Stephen,
You're perfectly right in jumping in here, but UGH! you always do it after someone takes me on and before I can respond! Please allow me just a brief moment to state that I did, in fact, mention that it was in the "latest Ripperologist" that Begg made these comments, and also that my name is 'Wescott' and not 'Westcott', so when Mepissedoff states that "anyone who does a close reading of your claim can see the holes in your logic", he may be right, but it's clear he undertook no 'close reading'. I also find it curious that because I'm vocal on my support of Ripper Notes that this somehow translates to support of Norder himself. I think he does a good job with the magazine and is a fair person, but remember that I was ardently supporting this magazine before Norder had even picked up his first Ripper book. I was also, I believe, the very first person on these boards to point out errors in Wolf's Tumblety piece, so biased I am not. What I am is, perhaps, more well-read on the Ripper than yourself, therefore I'm familiar with ALL of Vanderlinden's work and not just the occassional article. I'm also familiar with every review Ripperologist has ever written on Wolf's work and, although I don't wish to speak for anyone, believe I can fairly say that Paul Begg and his associates consider Wolf Vanderlinden an important contributor to the case. They certainly wouldn't accuse him of pulling an R. Michael Gordon! In order for this thread to be about Tumblety, the posters need to argue and debate the evidence, not each other. And yes, this certainly goes for Dan Norder, too. I have a feeling that if he and the Radical Radkas could manage to avoid each other on the boards, then the intervention of a third party would be unnecessary.
Anyway, back to Tumblety now.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
