|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 477
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 9:56 pm: | 
|
Ugh, I just noticed that I addressed the whole post to Stephen, even though everything after the first sentence (and half of the second) was intended for Mephisto. Sorry for any confusion.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 98
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Please be aware I’m ready to respond to malicious posts made against me on this thread recently. I’ve completed composition of my response, but will observe a thirty-day moratorium before posting it here.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Spiro
Sergeant
Username: Auspirograph
Post Number: 48
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Who cares David et al,
Have a gripe, send a letter to the editors page. I really would prefer, as Stephen has stated, to discuss the relatively recent suspect Tumbelty, as I'm sure others would also.
Please resist the infantile urge to plaster the entire site with senseless provocations and then come all in helplessly defensive of your warm seated philosophies on anything but the examination of this particular case of cold blooded murder.
Is Tumbelty in your views a viable suspect or not? Does Littlechild have a point? We still need to determine whether or not Tumbelty's London arrests directly implicated him in the Whitechapel murders?
I for one have yet to see anything convincing in that direction although his movements and involvements appear to be telling us something relevant on the period in question.
Warmest regards
Spiro
(Message edited by auspirograph on December 19, 2005) |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 255
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Tom Wescott
Hi Tom
I agree 100% with your statement that the thread is getting ugly, if not already gone beyond ugly.
The mud slinging and accusations are totally unnessary.Disagree with another's opinions and or writing is expected amongst researchers, experts, writers of the same topic but assaults on one's person is in my opinion a cowardly way to address a question or situation that the accuser or assaulter is unable to or incapable of answering by facts themselves.
Name calling belongs in politics. I thoroughly enjoy this board and come here to enhance my own knowledge, to hear other's opinions and to voice my own, however I detest the mud slinging, true or not. Generally when I start reading a post I am optimistic that there may be one new tidbit to ponder, if I come across rude and or sarcastic attacks on other posters I delete the post immediately.
I will probably get attacked for this post, maybe even by Mr.R., so be it.
My response would be of course Bite Me.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 256
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Mephisto
You obviously get a charge out of mud slinging, name calling and obviously childish behavior.
I respect Norder, Vanderlinden, Begg, Fido, Evans, etc, etc, etc.
Your opinions on Ripper Notes, Wolf etc, does nothing to enhance the thread you are using.
Who died and made you the expert of all experts?
Please stop using what should be useful threads for those of us who give a dam, as an arena for useless name calling. Get with the program.
There are those of us who care who Jack was, but not care that there are those who wish to throw mud like a bunch of kids.
Become a politican if this is your forte.
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 257
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Stephen P Ryder
I couldn't agree with you more. Enough is enough.
Merry Xmas
Julie
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 788
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 7:41 pm: |
|
Feasting With the Panthers
I do find some of the responses here quite remarkable. A man can write a dozen articles or more critiquing the way this or that theorist 'bends the evidence' in support of a pet theory, another man came make the same accusations on a public forum on a daily basis, but if one dares to turn the tables one is suddenly either a satanist or a blackguard. Apparently my perception is true. It is o.k. in the world of Ripper Studies to sling and slash away at the theorists, but the "objective" historians don't need to live up to the same standards.
I also find it interesting that Messrs. Norder and Vanderlinden claim to know (?) what I am writing since I have never spoken or written to either of these two gentlemen in my life. We inhabit a strange space, we Ripper people. I find it even more startling that they proport to have already "blown" my theory out of the water, before they even know what this alleged theory is, or on what-- if anything-- it is based. Perhaps we "Ripper" theorists should worry about something more substantial? I've read that large parts of Siberia are starting to melt..
In the meantime, until we all drown...
Let me apologize in advance because much of the following is going to be minutia. Let me also apologize to Mr. Vanderlinden by taking this public in a moment of anger after reading Dan Norder's many unsupported claims and slurs. That said, once in a fight, one must take off the gloves. Yes, Mr. Vanderlinden has a fine knowledge of the case. At the same time, he has been (and continues to be) by no means opposed to tearing into the minutia of what he likes to call "the suspect driven" theorists. In one particularly memorable assault, a well-respected theorist was challenged on the way he edited some witness descriptions in a published article, the implication being that the man in question did this in order to strengthen his pet theory. This sort of accusation has become commonplace, and Mr. Norder in particularly, endulges in it at length. The unwritten attitude is that theorists are hoaxers and conmen (Cornwellian, I think is now an accepted adjective) and we must debunk them at all costs.
Now, don't get me wrong. This is fine and dandy if that is the route that Messrs. Norder and Vanderlinden wish to go. All is fair in Love and Ripper Studies. But Vanderlinden must realize that what is "good for the goose is good for the gander" and the same rules of minutia can and will be applied to what I call the "anti-suspect" driven theorists. Quite simply, this is justified and fair. Please keep that in mind while reading the following, and don't forget the final paragraph which will explain the whole point of this rather sorry exercise.
In setting out to make a "case" against a suspect after 117 odd years, one might wish to also keep in mind that murderers don't usually leave paper trails. It is easier (and safer!) to set oneself up as a jail-house defense attorney than to put on the perriwig of the prosecution. To do the latter is to expose oneself immeditately to the catcalls and hoots of the rabble. Such is the nature of the field, but one shouldn't blame the prosecution if they decide to respond in kind.
The issue at hand is the first part of Mr. Vanderlinden's recent two-part article on Tumblety.
Vanderlinden is particularly interested in the claims of one Charles A. Dunham, a man who allegedly knew Tumblety in Washington DC in 1861-62, and made some controversial statements about him in 1888.
By way of introduction, let me remind Mr. Vanderlinden that I mentioned Mr. Cummin's new biography of Charles Dunham on these boards some five months before his article ever appeared in Ripper Notes. The only point being that I was (and am) well aware of Dunham's reputation as a liar and a scoundrel. As I stated in my earlier post, even liars need to be quoted accurately, and history is a slow and painful process, and it must be dished up carefully.
What I believe happened is this, but Mr. Vanderlinden can correct me if I am wrong. I think Mr. V has never been very keen on Tumblety as a suspect, and, if my memory serves me correctly, he once even compared him to a Groucho Marx duck-walk. That is fine-- not a problem. There are legitimate as well as illegitimate reasons for doubting any given suspect, including Tumblety. Yet, it appears to me that when Vanderlinden finally realized who Charles Dunham was, he smelled blood. Dunham was the shadiest of all characters possible, and now he could "debunk" both Tumblety and the uteri story once and for all.
All's fair in Love and Ripper Studies.
Vanderlinden set about doing this in five ways, under the title of "Cracks in the Case Against Tumblety."
To begin with, he made the odd decision to quote Michael F. Kauffman, a man who mentions Tumblety in passing in a fairly recent study of John Wilkes Booth. Odd, I say, because Kauffman has shown no evidence of having ever done any original research on either Tumblety or the Whitechapel Murders, and though I respect his work and having nothing against him per se, why he should be considered an authority on the matter at hand is beyond me. Yet, Vanderlinden quotes Kauffman:
"Press coverage of his [Tumblety's] case brought to light some chilling details, such as Tumblety's violent hatred for women and his gruesome collection of wombs he kept in jars. Unfortunately, those stories could all be traced to one Charles A. Dunham, the convicted perjurer who once went by the name of Sandford Conover." (Kauffman, quoted by Vanderlinden, Ripper Notes, #23, p. 47)
It never ceases to amaze me that a man (or woman) can study the Whitechapel Murder case for 3 years, 8 years, 15 years, or 35 years, and still quickly accept the opinions of a non-specialist. (Robert Ressler, for instance---but I digress).
By what stretch of the imagination is Kauffman's claim true? The press had mentioned Tumblety's arrest and odd proclivities 2 weeks before Dunham clouded the issue. Claims about Tumblety's dislike for women came from a number of credible sources, including Littlechild and even Tumblety's own companion, Martin McGarry. This part of Kauffman's claim doesn't even remotely stand up to scrutiny and it was ill-advised to quote it.
Vanderlinden, meanwhile, refers to Kauffman's revelation as "startling." (p. 47)
Next, on somewhat surer ground, Mr. Vanderlinden is now ready to attack the uteri story.
He has four points of attack.
The first point is to invite doubt as to whether Dunham was even in Washington at the same time as Tumblety (1861-62) and particularly, whether the two men were both in the city directly after the Battle of Bull Run.
Vanderlinden writes:
"[Dunham's] story does not fit the facts as we know them. Government records prove that Dunham was indeed in Washington on the 27th of July, shortly after the Battle of Bull Run, but there is no evidence that Tumblety was in the city before November or December of that year."
This is reasoned a little too closely for its own good. But it is aslo an interesting example of how the skeptical mind works. Predisposed to doubt, Mr. Vanderlinden uses the new revelations about Dunham in an attempt to "debunk" the theory. Another theorist, predisposed to belief, could easily have used exactly the same data to show that there appeared to be a kernel of truth to Dunham's movements during this era.
In fact, Dunham was all over the place in 1860-63. He was in New York, Canada, Washington D.C., Virginia, and the deep south. He is often operating under assumed names and even his biographer Carmen Cumming has great difficulty following his obscure movements. Tumblety, needless to say, was a wide traveller as well.
In reality, Dunham's own biographer writes:
"Dunham is known to have visited the capital at least three times in 1861 -- in July, August, and November. (Devil's Game, Carmen Cumming, p. 29) Cumming further states that the year Spring 1862-Spring 1863 was the "most hidden" of Dunham's career. He doesn't know where the hell he was!
Dunham does indeed say that he met Tumblety shortly after the Battle of Bull Run..
but that is hardly the point!
Dunham is writing (or only speaking) in 1888 -- some TWENTY SEVEN YEARS after-the-fact. The only relevant point is if the two men knew each other and were in Washington at the same time. If in the year 2028 I were to write about my wine-tasting weekend with Jane Doe shortly after 9-11 is it really relevant if the event actually took place 2 months later instead of 1? A farce about Tumblety was shown in Washington at the first week of December, 1861.
Regardless, like I say, this has been reasoned too closely for its own good, because, in fact the two men obvious knew each other and were both in and out of Washington at the right era. Dunham mentions Tumblety's obscure and brief suit with Canterbury Music Hall and although he turns it into a c*ck and bull story, any rational person would realize that he couldn't have possiby known about it in 1888 unless he knew a good deal about Tumblety' s time in Washington. Further, the point is even more moot, because as Joe Chetcuti has already pointed out, Tumblety mentions Dunham (Sandford Conover) by name in his 1872 pamphlet. 16 years before the 1888 story. The two men knew each other.
The next line of assault is to question the description of Tumblety's Washington lodgings, as depicted by Dunham. Vanderlinden's motive here is to show that Dunham describes it inaccurately and this demonstrates that the incident didn't take place. Here is where I think the linguistic gymnastics took place.
Vanderlinden writes:
"The colonel describes Tumblety's residence as being in "H Street. There were rooms on a floor, the rear one being his office, with a bedroom or two a story higher."
This is very interestingly edited. The 1 1/2 word sentence "H Street" followed by a period was somewhat odd.
This made me go back and look at the original sentence. What Dunham actually wrote was:
He had very cosy and tastefully furnished quarters in, I BELIEVE, H Street. There were room, etc."
Now I admit, this is minutia. But this is precisely the sort of minutia that Vanderlinden and other critics bring up in their critiques of Cornwell, etc. By a strange method of editing, the whole front half of the sentence was hacked off, and significantly, two words inconvenient to the thesis were left out. Dunham, in fact, qualified his statement, as anyone would have done who travelled widely, and was recalling events 27 years in the past. "I believe in it was in H Street but I could be wrong." Without the qualification, it was easier to stress that Dunham was making up the event out of the whole cloth. It supported the thesis.
Nit-picking? Maybe, maybe not. If the words were unimportant, why leave them out? Yet, even Mr. Vanderlinden immediately admits to the importance of Dunham's statement:
'Dunham claims that Tumblety's office and living quarters were together in one house on H Street. This point is important because Dunham had to show that Tumblety could take his guests into his office from his sitting rooms in order to show them his alleged collection of uteri in glass jars."
Now the trump card is played by Mr. V.:
"In reality, Tumblety was actually living at the Willard Hotel at 1401 Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street, very near the Whitehouse, and had his office at Pennsylvania and 7th Street. The whole story of Tumblety's anatomical collection must now be looked upon as a fantasy." (Ripper Notes #23, p. 47)
Hmm. Mr. Vanderlinden states unequicocally that Tumblety was living at the Willard Hotel. Tumblety's office therefore, was not even in the same street, let alone building as his lodgings, but several blocks away. This "proves" Dunham was lying about the dinner party, and ergo the uteri collection. Case dismissed.
Actually, no. Where did Mr. Vanderlinden get this information?
Unfortunately, he doesn't say.
It is an entirely unsourced "fact."
Or is it a fact?
Since my head is currently in an inconvenient location, perhaps Mr. Vanderlinden would kindly do some checking for me. I notice that the citation was left out of the article. Why? Could it be that it wasn't as pristine as it proports to be? I will await further elucidation.
In the meantime, Mr. Vanderlinden can reflect on the following contemporary statement referring to Tumblety's civil suit against the Canterbury Music Hall.
"The Doctor [Tumblety] asked a postponement until Tuesday, at 2 o'clock, in consequence of the absense of important witnesses.
The Doctor stated that he had already been injured in his business, one of his patients (a lady) having ordered him to leave her house, and that he had been treated with disrespect at his BOARDING HOUSE, all in consequence of the appearance of his name in the burlesque." Washington Evening Star, 10 March, 1862 (my emphasis)
At his boarding-house.
Living at a boarding-house in March 1862, at the SAME TIME as the suit in Canterbury Music Hall...an incident that Charles A. Dunham mentions.
So, obviously, Vanderlinden's claim is highly suspect. Having researched the matter at the Library of Congress in DC, I can state that a map of the district shows that the location of Tumblety's office on 7th Street and Penn. was made up of three story hotels, shops, boarding-houses, etc., mainly with the mercentile shops on the ground floor; ergo, the office was very likely to be much like that described by Dunham, so this plank in Vanderlinden's "Cracks against Tumbleyt' can be shown to be itself cracked.
The fifth and final weapon Vanderlinden uses to disarm Colonel Dunham is this:
"And the same must be said for the tale of Tumblety's marriage to a prostitute. (ie. that it is a 'fantasy') The fact that no record of such a marriage has ever been found is suspicious. Even more damaging, however, is the fact that no other mention (outside Dunham's claims) of Tumblety ever having had a wife has been found in any of the many dozens of newspaper articles that follow almost all of Tumblety's varied career." (p. 48)
Actually, this is not true, either.
Vanderlinden is forgetting that Mrs. McNamara, Tumblety's Manhattan landlady, stated that he used to absent himself at night from his lodgings in order to "pray for his dead wife."
Oddly, Mr. V also seems to be forgetting that Tumblety's own final papers in St. Louis listed him as a "widower." (Evans & Gainey, p. 245)
Whether or not Tumblety was married is irrelevant. To only point is whether or not Dunham may have heard such a statement from his lips. It will be interesting to hear an explanation of how Dunham in 1888 could be so fortuitous to forsee Tumblety mentioning a long-lost wife in 1903.
Thus, while I don't dispute Dunham was one of the shadiest characters in American history, I do disupte that Vanderlinden has demonstrated on the strength of the historical evidence that Dunham didn't in fact know Tumblety, didn't know of specific events of 1861-62, nor that Dunham was the only source for information about Tumblety's alleged marriage. Did the uteri collection exist? Not proven either way.
All this said, I do not doubt that Mr. Vanderlinden is a fine and proven researcher with many strengths and a fine knowledge of the literature. My beef, however, is with a certain attitude, expressed in many of the posts above, that it is somehow desirable to tear to shreds whatever theorist falls with their field of vision. Slow down. Why is this? If it is "o.k." for Vandelinden to de-bunk Cornwell & friends, is it somehow not o.k. for him to be de-bunked?? Do we live on Mr. Olympus? The case is 117 years old. The most sane of all Ripper historians, Stuart Evans, rightly pointed out some long time ago that the interest in the case is largely "escapism." It is entirely reasonable to believe that the case is unsolveable. That said, I think we ought to cultivate a more generous attitude towards the few cranks (myself included) who wish to "give it a go." I could just as easily think of the opposition as a bunch of jail-house lawyers. The great historians of the case have already reached a critical mass. The lunatics can't take over the asylum.
I do wish that Mr. Vanderlinden would start using his very real talents to try and find who killed 11 ladies 1888-1891 than to debunk those who are crazy enough to hope that it is possible.
Finally, has Mr. Norder come up with those examples, yet?
RP |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 104
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 19, 2005 - 10:19 pm: |
|
Julie,
You do not know what is good for you.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 481
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:08 am: |
|
Radka,
If I may say, that reads rather threatening. I think it would be all too cool if you made a conscious attempt not to make people feel uncomfortable.
RJ,
That was an awesome post. Seriously. I would love to see that edited (just all the 'anti-Wolf' stuff) and fleshed out into an article. It would make a great point/counterpoint piece in Ripper Notes. You clearly know your suspect, so I'm more than ever looking forward to your book. It's just a damn shame that you and Wolf can't disagree as colleagues. Maybe that'll change. But I hope you consider my suggestion of submitting your rebuttal to Ripper Notes for publication. Professional debating of a subject like that is not only healthy for the writers, but beneficial for the readers.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Who are all these people Dan has accused of falsifying info? Other than Tony Williams and Cornwell, of course. They're rather obvious offenders, as is R. Michael Gordon. But I assume you're referring to other writers?
P.S.S. And by the way, that's 'Stewart' Evans - with a big fat 'P' in the middle. Minutia, my friend, minutia.  |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1071
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 1:15 am: |
|
RJ,
I commend you for finally trying to back up your accusations with actual arguments, albeit it was a lot of false claims thrown in on either side about how people who debunk others allegedly don't want to be debunked and can dish it up and can't take it and all that. What I object to you and others doing is making accusations without any support and trying to state things as fact without the necessary evidence. People can certainly float theories all they want, as long as they are presented as theories instead of facts. You seem to purposefully try to frame the debate so that anyone who dares to investigate claims is presented as tearing down good work, when in many cases the work is not good and deserves to be tore down, and in others it's simply a matter of showing another side to the debate. *All* theories need to have the negatives and positives exposed... Most of the time the positives have already been shown by the person who originally presented the theory, so it's only natural that someone (especially a supporter of the theory) reading a look at both sides is going to notice the negatives more.
The details of your objections are certainly arguments one could make (and I would have to leave others on the specifics), but then you must realize that your earlier reference was worded far more harshly than what you actually presented when you finally decided to do so.
I note also that you made a long list of other claims and accusations without any sort of backing details on either side of your actual argument.
To your last point, it looks like you are playing the same game Radka and Mephisto like to do: make a challenge, disregard the answer when it doesn't suit your opinion, deny that the response ever happened, and then repeat the same challenge to try to give people a false impression. If you refuse to accept an answer, that's your issue, not mine.
And of course I am still curious how you got these articles in the first place, as you did not clarify that part. If someone copied them and sent them to you for free, it would be nice if you actually bought the issues in question. I have been pretty generous in choosing high profile articles to be posted online for Casebook readers to peruse free of charge as samples each issue, and don't have a problem with authors forwarding articles on to those who request them or readers sharing small sections. It's unclear what exactly happened in this case, but I know you are not a subscriber, that those fairly lengthy articles were not released online and that you never requested copies from Wolf.
But, overall, I encourage you to make more posts like that and a lot less (preferably none) of the base character assassination you have been doing recently. Actually debating the topics in particulars is much better than vague insinuations and insults.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Spiro
Sergeant
Username: Auspirograph
Post Number: 49
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
Dear Mr Palmer,
Thank you for your post and for generously sharing some of your important findings on Tumblety. May I say that it went a long way in clarifying this aspect of Tumblety's colourful career for me.
Regards
Spiro
(Message edited by auspirograph on December 20, 2005) |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 105
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Mr. Wescott wrote:
“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!”
>>Please provide us the context of this orphaned remark. Certainly I cannot speak for anyone but myself, however I suspect that Mr. Begg’s praise of Mr. Vanderlinden as the best may have been to leave readers to draw the unstated conclusion that Mr. Norder, Editor and Publisher, is not the best. In other words, Mr. Begg may have been sending the message that Mr. Norder’s tenure as Editor is a problematic or questionable one.
This would not seem to be the first time Mr. Begg has similarly dealt with ‘Ripper Notes’ on two levels. In his article “On The Matter of Milk” published in the October, 2004 edition, page 34, he begins writing an article ostensibly relevant to serious study of the case, concerning Mrs. Maxwell and her role in the Kelly investigation, and then abruptly veers off obliquely, discussing matters not at all relevant to the case, such as the view taken of milk in the Middle Ages. I believe this strategy may amount to an implied rubbishing of the journal in which the article is published. On the one hand he begins making a contribution to Ripperology in ‘Ripper Notes,’ but he then suddenly terminates serious Ripperlogical discussion as if realizing it were completely irrelevant there.
Or at least that’s how it seems to me. My opinion.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3352
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 1:11 pm: |
|
Hi David,
what are you on about? What do you think you are saying to Julie that she doesnt know what is good for her.
I find your comment deeply disturbing and as Tom says very threatening in nature.
Maybe you think that you can threaten women and they will meekly run away and never question you again? - but this is the 21st century - so please do explain yourself.
Kindly withdraw your remark if it was not intended to have this affect.
If I were Julie i would complain
Jenni
"it's lovely weather for a sleigh ride together with you"
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1072
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Hi David,
You mean the article Paul Begg submitted to Ripper Notes well more than six months before Christopher-Michael DiGrazia announced he was stepping down as editor, thus prompting my offer to keep the publication going, was specifically written to be poor (and potentially damage his credibility with anyone not as smart as you and thus unable to catch onto his sneaky plan) in a calculated effort to let readers know that he didn't like me as an editor...?
Wow, that's truly devious of him... He figured out I was going to be the editor before the thought had even crossed my mind, and he was already at work sabotaging my efforts.
And here all along I just thought his article was a nice informative bit of East End history, much like the articles he was running in his own mag at the same time... But he must have purposefully printed those just to throw me off the scent! Wow, he's been playing me for the fool for years!
Thank goodness you were here to set the record straight.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 485
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 2:00 pm: |
|
David,
Regarding the first part of your post (since Dan already responded to the second), I think you're probably 100% correct in that the compliment to Wolf was also intended as a back-handed insult to Dan, but that doesn't negate the fact that Begg highly respects the work Wolf has done, and this is evident in the various reviews they've done of Wolf's work.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 919
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Peace on earth, good will to men. It is that time of year. God wants us to love one another. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 487
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 3:43 pm: |
|
I agree, Diana. Though most people on this board don't believe in God. They think they're too smart for such things. In any event, I love Ebenezer Radka, at least until the holidays are over. What's your address, David? I'm on my way over with some nutmeg and a big, fat mistletoe. Brush your teeth.
Yours Yuly and truly,
Tom Wescott |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 106
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 9:31 pm: |
|
Julie wrote,
1. “The mud slinging and accusations are totally unnessary.Disagree with another's opinions and or writing is expected amongst researchers, experts, writers of the same topic but assaults on one's person is in my opinion a cowardly way to address a question or situation that the accuser or assaulter is unable to or incapable of answering by facts themselves.”
>>As I’ve said before, “the facts” have damned Ripperology for now 118 years. Nowadays we have an insufferable surfeit of books offering an insufferable surfeit of true empirical facts that have little or nothing to do with the case. Because of this situation, solving the case depends on values, ethics and ideas as well as facts. This is why there are arguments here—different people approach ethical matters differently; some people are more capable of ethics than others as well. This is what Ripperology now is and must be, and if you don’t realize this you’re well out of it, in my opinion. So don’t blame me if you’re unhappy.
2. “Name calling belongs in politics. I thoroughly enjoy this board and come here to enhance my own knowledge, to hear other's opinions and to voice my own, however I detest the mud slinging, true or not. Generally when I start reading a post I am optimistic that there may be one new tidbit to ponder, if I come across rude and or sarcastic attacks on other posters I delete the post immediately.”
>>You are not going to “enhance your own knowledge” until you learn what’s good for you, and learn how to think for yourself. This field is full of snakes in the grass masquerading as scientists. The anaconda is often seen wearing a white lab coat.
3. “Mephisto, You obviously get a charge out of mud slinging, name calling and obviously childish behavior.”
>>Mephisto is a very highly educated individual, Julie. He is far from childish. You don’t know whereof you speak.
4. “I respect Norder, Vanderlinden, Begg, Fido, Evans, etc, etc, etc.”
>>I respect Vanderlinden, Begg and Fido, too. For my opinion of the other two, see my response to item #1.
5. “Your opinions on Ripper Notes, Wolf etc, does nothing to enhance the thread you are using. Who died and made you the expert of all experts?”
>>You just don’t know what’s good, or who’s good, Julie. You have years of seasoning in life ahead of you.
6. “Please stop using what should be useful threads for those of us who give a dam, as an arena for useless name calling. Get with the program.”
>>If you get with Mr. Norder’s program, you will BE programmed with an ideology that will turn you into a shrunken, shriveled up raisin of what you can be. You have to learn how to be discriminating in this field. If you just don’t have the ability to make comparisons, you are headed for a place that you won’t be able to tell is the wrong place for you to be.
7. “There are those of us who care who Jack was, but not care that there are those who wish to throw mud like a bunch of kids. Become a politican if this is your forte.”
>>You have gaps in perspective and maturity, Julie. But that’s all right, we all did. Hang around here for a while and you’ll learn, but only if you ever had the right stuff to start with.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 107
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 9:35 pm: |
|
Mr Wescott wrote: "I love Ebenezer Radka, at least until the holidays are over. What's your address, David? I'm on my way over with some nutmeg and a big, fat mistletoe. Brush your teeth."
>>No comment from me is required.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3353
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 6:31 am: |
|
David,
perhaps you didn't hear me the first time?
Anyway -
Jenni
"it's lovely weather for a sleigh ride together with you"
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2078
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:44 am: |
|
And we wonder why the real McCoys dont play here.
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3363
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:49 am: |
|
Monty,
I don't understand what David Radka is on about in his last post to Julie.
Does this mean that you do?
Jenni
"I won’t die, of deception"
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2080
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:58 am: |
|
Jenn,
David is inferring that by backing up Dan, a sworn nemisis of Mr Radka, Juile does not know what is good for her. Again suggesting that Mr Norder is a fake in both his credentials and knowledge (Mr Radkas view, not Montys).
Tom, another sworn emey of Mr Radka has weighed in on Dans side whilst Diana has asked everyone to 'call down, call down, we have all had a pint' and Monty is merely stating his own belief that it is no wonder that the major knowledge in this case Begg, Evans etc refuse to take part on these boards.
Confused?
You will be....in the next episode of Soap !
Cheers,
Monty
Ask yer Mum bout Soap.
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3365
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
Monty,
what does my mum have to do with it?
Do you think Radka is being threatening?
because i do
Jenni
ps Yes Monty I am confused. I've been confused a long time and i doubt i will be enlightened, next question!
"I won’t die, of deception"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 676
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 11:52 am: |
|
"Do you think Radka is being threatening? "
I know you asked Monty, Jenni, but FWIW I think he doesn't intend to be threatening; it's a poor choice of phrasing. I think he means it in the sense of not knowing how best to further one's understanding of the case. It's convoluted at best, but I doubt Radka means harm.
And back to Tumblety...
Anyone else here think that Tumblety's American accent would have been noted by someone, somewhere in Whitechapel ? Or do folks contend that Dr. T in his role as the Ripper spoke only to his victims ?
I would strongly suggest that Jack spoke to more whores than the C5, because I doubt every whore he spoke to went off with him.
So....we know the coppers were questioning everyone, asking if they saw anyone peculiar...Don't ya think someone would have mentioned an American running around soliciting ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 909
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
You may be right about David, but it would seem anyone just one-third as bright as David thinks himself to be would be able to have phrased his post so there would be no question of a threat . . . unless, of course, David wanted it to be a bit ambiguous so he could hide behind "it was just poorly constructed not a threat" when called out on it.
Which is it, David? Was your initial post to Julie a clumsily constructed and worded message from a self-acknowledged prose master or was it a threat?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 132
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
A good point but I think that Tumblety was such a consumate con man that he would have been able to affect an English accent for the short time needed to consummate the transaction.
c.d. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3368
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Well it appeared threatening to me - which is why i originally asked him to withdraw it or explain himself what he meant, both of which he ignored. Which leads me to draw my own conclusions.
"I won’t die, of deception"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 677
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
I think this was Radka's effort to clarify, but I will allow him to dig himself out of his own hole.
"5. “Your opinions on Ripper Notes, Wolf etc, does nothing to enhance the thread you are using. Who died and made you the expert of all experts?”
>>You just don’t know what’s good, or who’s good, Julie. You have years of seasoning in life ahead of you. "
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 488
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Monty,
I'm not "sworn enemies" of anyone, and that includes David Radka. I don't care for the way he treats people on here, but to say I'm his "sworn enemy" is a bit harsh. Most of us on this board are misfits in one way or another. That goes for me, you, David, etc. Yeah, some of us get more chicks than others, but we're still misfits. David's probably totally different in person, but on here he's kinda scary sometimes and he makes people mad. That's what I don't like. Anyway, I just got an e-mail from Dave with his address, so I gotta run and get a jug of nutmeg. Wish me luck!
David,
Mephisto is not highly intelligent. YOU'RE intelligent. He's not. I'm sure you know that. He also knows very little about this case. He couldn't even properly analyze my short post above, though he set out to do exactly that. His place on these boards seems to be to keep your butt warm with his face. And I mean that in the nicest, most 'season-of-giving' kind of way. You need some supporters with a little credibility.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 910
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
c.d.
It is really the validity of Sir Robert's more general point that needs consideration: if the five suggested victims were not the only prostitutes JtR chatted up during the Terror, is it not likely someone with all the "out of the norm" characteristics of Tumblety would have been noted?
As for his accent,it would have been one thing to fool Americans with an English accent and another to fool native-born speakers. Brits howl at "English" accents on American TV, the efforts of British actors to do "American" accents is equally risible and I howl when both Yanks and Sassenachs try a Scots burr.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 133
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Donald,
Your point is well taken. I have always wondered if the prostitutes talked among themselves and "compared notes", if you will. I also have to wonder how eager they would have been to come forward with information seeing as how they were engaged in an illegal activity.
c.d. |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 258
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
David Radka
Are you threatening me David?
Believe me you are the last person on these boards who I would allow to intimidate me. I did not like your attitude and rudeness on the previous board and I don't like them on these boards. I ignor you whenever and wherever possible.
So as I said before David, bite me.
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 259
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Jennifer Pegg
Thank you Jennifer. It sure comes across as a threat. Who does he think he is?
I do hope Stephen Ryder sees all the posts, or someone connected with Casebook.
This should not be allowed or accepted by anyone.
thanks
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 260
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 2:57 pm: |
|
David Radka
This is the last post I intend to address of yours. I don't like your " I am greater than thou attitude."
I didn't just start the mystery of Jack the Ripper, I have been researching for some time.
I believe that it doesn't matter how well versed we think we are, there is always something else to learn.
I resent your " know what is good for you" B.S.
I do not take sides, I simply want to engross all there is to engross with respect to Jack. That I have done over the years.
My respect is not in the small group listed but many more persons having achieved or will achieve recognition, as well as those who contribute in some way to Jack's identity.
I can achieve this without rude comments directed at those who are doing same.
I don't give a fiddler's (blank) about these people in a personal way. I do care what they have to contribute, but not who they write for eg, Ripper Notes, Ripperologist,etc, etc,
I am mature enough and intelligent enough to be able to debate or converse without using slurs to get my point across.
You David cannot. Do not address a post to me again, I will not waste my precious time, intellilect, nor experience on you.
Back Off.You are a Ripperoligist want to be, but unable to be.
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 261
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:06 pm: |
|
Monty
I don't know how you come up with this rationality for David's post.
He sent me a threatening post, telling me I do not know what is good for me.
That sounds pretty clear.
I would hope that you do not share the same sentiments.
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 262
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Sir Robert
Surely you do not also back up Radka's threat, by saying he does not mean it to come out this way.
You must not have been on the other board and obviously you do not know very much about David's intentional threatening ways.
I am disappointed.
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 263
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:25 pm: |
|
Jennifer Pegg
Hi again Jennifer
David worded his line "know what is good for you" as a threat. He worded it as a threat and he meant it as a threat.
I have sent many posts on this board as well as the last board and I never do so in a way to defame others.
It disappoints me to no end to read posts from Monty and Sir Robert backing up David as if he did not mean what he said. When did David ever make a statement that he did not mean.
I guess that they are supposing that I am taking Dan Norder's side and Wolf Vanderlinden's side therefore it is ok to send me such a message.
I do not take anyone's side. I just stepped in when I felt the name calling was totally unnessary, and it was
Julie
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 914
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Julie,
I wonder if there is some sort of sexual dichotomy here: females definitely seeing a threat, males trying to find rationalizations. I have no doubts I am male, but I did find David's remarks to you disturbing in the first instance and patronizing in his clarifications.
Anyway, my challenge still stands David: are you simply an inept writer or did you threaten Julie?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 489
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Don,
I would say David is a very ept writer. He can offend more people in one sentence than you or I could in 3 paragraphs!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Dan Norder does my laundry. |
Maria Giordano
Chief Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 533
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Tom, that's only because nobody could last long enough to get through 3 paragraphs.
Dan Norder walks my dog.
Mags
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 490
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 6:57 pm: |
|
Mags,
I registered on this site a whole year before you, and yet you outrank me. I'm starting to feel like Abberline here!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Dan Norder grates my cheese. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 678
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 8:36 pm: |
|
Julie - It's up to Radka to clarify and apologize. All I said is that his later statement IMHO indicates that he did not intend to threaten. That's ultimately a matter for Mr. Ryder to adjudicate.
Anyone up for a discussion of Tumblety ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 916
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 9:36 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
Go back to posts today at 12:54 and 1:58 and C.D. and I actually had a short colloquy about Tumblety and your idea about him drawing attention. Got kind of lost in everything else, but any additional thoughts by you on the subject would be welcome.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 679
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Thanks, Don - I did miss that.
Tumblety, IMHO, would be a great suspect if not for his physical description and ethnic background. That's something I've had a hard time working around, because in my heart of hearts I'd love for someone like D'Onston or Dr. T to have been the Ripper - a real larger than life eccentric serial killer.
But the other day something popped into my head, and that was this thought: Jack obviously swiftly and silently dispatched his victims...and to do that, they had to go off with him in the first place....but how many would be willing to do that?
So it boils down to this: is it reasonable to assume that Jack had a 100% successful pick up rate ? I.E. did he solicit 5 whores to produce the C5 ? (Plus or minus Tabram, etc.) I know these women were desperate, but after the terror was in full bloom, is it not fair to suspect that he may have solicited more whores than actually went with him ?
And if so, with the police questioning everyone, and a reward out, and the whole grapevine chittering away, isn't it reasonable to think ONE whore might have mentioned an odd looking American accented gent who asked her for say, 'the time of day' or some other euphemism ?
My opinion: I think this bolsters the notion that Jack looked like he belonged in Whitechapel. Doesn't mean he looked like a laborer or a low life, he could have looked like a gent trolling for action. But he didn't stand out the way Tumblety would have.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 135
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 10:36 pm: |
|
Hi Sir Robert,
Your point is a good one. Certainly after Tumblety fled to America a police sketch (or a photo if they could have obtained one) could have/would have been shown to a number of prostitutes to confirm the very point that you made.
c.d. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 491
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 11:36 pm: |
|
Sir Robert and all,
It's quite possible, even likely, that the Ripper was turned down by some women. But you must remember that these women were out on the streets for a purpose, so unless Jack were an obvious threat, they'd be compelled to go with him and take their chances. Like anything else bad in life, we all think 'it'll never happen to me'.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 586
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 11:50 pm: |
|
Hi,
I'm confused.
Has someone been offended by David Radka again?
Why does he continue to do that? (If he did.)
Love,
Lyn x
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 587
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 11:53 pm: |
|
Wait. Which thread am I on?
Sorry,
Love,
Lyn x
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
Maria Giordano
Chief Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 534
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 9:48 am: |
|
Tom, keep going, babe, 500 is the magic number. Til then, I like my tea with sugar and lemon.
It's hard to imagine someone as down and out as,say, Annie Chapman turning away anyone with the price of a go. Still, we know from Shawcross that someotimes he didn't kill the women he picked up, especially if they talked nicely to him and told him something personal about themselves.
Mags
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
