|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Rudolph Giorani
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 9:13 pm: |       |
Have you ever heard of a suspect called Alonzo Maduro, an Argentinean doctor? The following I could piece together from various websources. A certain Mr. Ross is purported to have assisted in said Maduro's escape from London in (you guess) November 1888. Obviously this guy has packed the good doctor's suitcase, including a field surgery kit, a brimmed hat and black cape. That "information" is supposed to come from Ross' daughter.
The theory is said to have been published in 1956, rehashed by some film in 1960 and again warmed up by Jess Franco as "one of two plausible theories (the other being.... Knight!)" for his Jack the Ripper flick starring Kinski (a top suspect if I've ever seen any).
DOn't want to construct a new suspect. Just thought you might be interested and I don't know whether this is old news for all of you. It's rather esoteric, I think, and perhaps someone has further information about this anecdote.
|
James Todd Carlson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 5:46 pm: | |
The story was first told by Mr. Griffith S. Salway in a 1949 American edition publication of True Detective magazine. It was republished in the 80's in the British version of the magazine. Salway was 89 at the time -- Elizabeth Ross was his daughter, and apparently there was some misinformation spread by her regarding a death bed confession or some such nonsense. In fact, he and one of the magazine's editors wrote these memoirs of his, so possibly Mrs. Ross wasn't aware of the 1949 article her father wrote, which would explain why the later 1960 interview in the New York World Telegraph and Sun with Elizabeth Ross neglects to mention it (her father died in 1952). He brought his family to America in 1907 and can be found on the Ellis Island records. He's also mentioned in the obituary of his brother who died in California. Anyway, Griffith S. Salway settled in Brooklyn.
As for Alonzo Maduro, he wasn't a doctor, but he was from South America, probably Buenos Aires -- he was in England in 1888 making money with a concession for a railroad in Buenos Aires. Salway had just graduated from business school and was an administrative assistant to one of the more successful finance agents in London at the time. This period saw a lot of British-Argentina cooperation in business, and 1885-1890 in particular was an explosive period of railway growth in Argentina, there being a lot of freelance railroaders out to take advantage of the times. This was before the Panama Canal had been built, so businesses worldwide were attempting to raise interest in their favorite canal project -- most investors, however, seemed to be leaning toward a canal in Nicaragua, which already had a number of river canals and railroad interests that would ease problems expected once a canal dig was started. Panama and a portion of Mexico were also attracting a lot of interest. British interest in the area was very high, since control of such a canal would be worth billions. In fact, America nearly went to war with Britain over their Latin American interests. In the long run, though, we decided a treaty stipulating joint ownership and control of any canal built would work best. Argentina's interests included transport investments for all-points South America to wherever the canal would eventually be built, hence the interest in railroads.
Maduro acted very mysteriously and seemed to hate women -- the last time Salway saw him, he was extremely paranoid and wanted to go into hiding. He had Salway pay his hotel bills, pick up his bags and send them off to the departure docks. Salway says he found a fake bottom to the main trunk and beneath it were bloody knives and a dull, foul-stained apron supposedly worn during the Ripper's blood glut at Miller's Court. This convinced him Maduro was actualy the Ripper. In any event, he never saw him again, and didn't even know whether he had received his baggage or not.
Hope that helps.
|
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 103
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 22, 2003 - 5:23 am: | |
Hello Rudolph and James Todd,
Your information is very interesting, and adds usefully to our knowledge of the background of Griffith S Salway's story.
If you type "Maduro" into the " search" facility on the left hand side of these boards, you can turn up the information I discovered about Salway from an Australia publication, MASTER DETECTIVE dated September, 1953.
From the cartoons in that marvellous publication,
I would guess the original of the story had been lifted from an earlier American publication. Probably a New York magazine. Like your 1949 TRUE DETECTIVE.
Of course, Maduro would be of great interest to those Ripperologists who believe with author Leonard Matters, that Jack The Ripper was a doctor who fled to South America, and whose death was recorded in a Buenos Aires newspaper.
Who knows? Perhaps the Salway story was muddled up with the Matters story....
The only useful extras in the Australian magazine were the biographical details about Salway.(No mention of daughter Elizabeth Ross in that one).
I wonder if you both could mention any published sources you got your information from, as this could be important down the track a little?
Thanks again. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 23, 2003 - 10:11 pm: | |
Hi all,
Can't say anything about mysterious Maduro, but
I can add a corrective to some financial history
given by Mr. James Todd Carlson on August 15, 2003.
Re: The Panama Canal
Actually, it was being built in 1888, but construction would be dead in the water by 1889.
The canal being built in Panama that year (and for
most of the decade of the 1880s) was not the present day canal (built from 1904 - 1914 by the
U.S. government), but the attempted canal under
French construction. The project was led by Suez
Canal creator Ferdinand de Lesseps, and would end
in a major financial collapse and political scandal in the early 1890s, in which thousands of
French investors were hurt. De Lesseps and his
team tried to make a canal similar to that of Suez
Canal (without the series of locks that Goethals
would design in the U.S. Canal), and tackled cutting through the jungle. As a result the French crews died by the hundreds from Yellow
Fever and other illnesses. Millions of francs in
invested was lost by poor accounting, poor management (de Lesseps was more of a figure head
than a manager this time around), and plain theft.
The resulting scandal tarnished the French Third
Republic (still reeling from its narrow escape from the ambitions of General Boulanger and his
supporters), and (due to the involvement of some
financial figures in the case who were Jewish)
helped set the atmosphere for the Dreyfus Affair
(1894 - 1906). Among the figures hurt by Panama
were de Lesseps, Gustave Eiffel (who spent a few
months in prison for fraud), and Georges Clemenceau (who was briefly out of office - due
to being too close to one of the suspected
financiers).
Re: Argentine - English economic boom
This is true - Argentina seemed a guarranteed
financial bonanza in the 1880s, as the best run
and best organized of the Latin American states.
It's two rivals (Brazil and Chile) were having
serious internal problems. In 1888 Emperor Dom
Pedro II of Brazil ended slavery in that country,
and in one year he was forced from his throne, and
the monarchy replaced by a "republic" (read
"oligarchy"). In 1889 - 1891 President Balmaceda
of Chile attempted some government reforms for
the benefit of the lower classes. A military
coup in 1891 led to his suicide. Argentina, in
comparison, was quite quiet. It was a better risk
for investment.
All this was to the good, except for the way the
investment was handled. Argentina's expansion
was being managed by the private banking House
of Baring. Baring decided not to share in the
management by approaching the House of Rothschild
(a degree of rivalry and anti-Semitism was involved - I refer you to the book, THE ROTHSCHILDS by Frederick Morton). But in 1890,
Baring found that some of the bond issues it had
been floating were undersold to the public. It
tried to hold up the bonds issues itself...and
got overextended. This caused a panic which nearly wrecked the bank. In the end Baring was
saved by a consortium, led (ironically) by
Rothschilds. The aftershocks were immense. Besides the collapse of the Anglo-Argentine boom,
Barings fall affected certain American businesses.
The Union Pacific Railroad, which had been under
the management of Charles Francis Adams II after
being taken away from the control of Jay Gould
and his associates, was forced into receivership,
and fell back under Gould's contol. A sense of
uncertainty would be spread in the U.S., helping
to lead to the ferocious Panic of 1893.
Re: Anglo-American rivalries in Latin America
No problem accepting this, but the problem really
did not concern Panama anymore. The problems about the Anglo-American rivalry over the Canal
idea was ended in the 1850 Clayton - Bulwer treaty. In fact, the French were in a harder situation with the U.S. over the Canal issue in
the 1880s, although Franco-American friendship
remained good (the Statue of Liberty was given to
the U.S. in 1886). The major problems with
Britain were trading rivalries throughout Latin
America. The U.S. attempted (with some success
but more failure) to counteract British influence
in Latin America, with Secretary of State James
Blaine holding the first Pan American Conference
in 1889. But two years later the U.S. did confront Chile (and almost go to war) over the
deaths of two U.S. sailors at the hands of a mob
in Valpariso.
In 1895 the U.S. and Britain did almost go to war,
over a border problem. Britain claimed a large
chunk of Venezuela was part of British Guiana.
President Grover Cleveland, invoking the Monroe
Doctrine, supported Venezuela's claims to this
land. It was a rather unique situation, for the
Doctrine was rarely used in such an altruistic
manner by the U.S. (which had nothing to gain one
way or the other). In the end it was settled by
arbitration (Britain got most of the territory).
But it did improve the U.S. image in Latin America as we actually tried to help a fellow
hemispheric republic.
Actually, the 1895 incident was the final serious
confrontation between the U.S. and U.K. By 1900
both countries found a community of interests, because of anti-American feelings in Europe due to
the Spanish-American War, and anti-British feelings due to the Second Anglo-Boer War. Suddenly the two rivals found they had less reason to dislike each other than to dislike other
states (particularly the rising threat from
the German Empire). Long term problems over the
Alaskan - Yukon border, and over fishing rights in
the Bering Straits, were settled by arbitration
with Britain frequently siding with the U.S.
(to the disgust of the Canadians). If you wonder
when the Anglo-American alliance began it begins
about 1900.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
