|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jason Scott Mullins
Detective Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 99
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 1:13 pm: | 
|
Hello Again Chris -
Bragging rights, probably. There's always the outside possibility that he was the ripper and he drew attention to himself so as to be 'closer' to the investigation. Highly unlikely though. Very risky as well. Not that our man Jack didn't like taking risks. I would say that if he _was_ the ripper, he did it to brag. Again though, that's going on the assumption that he _was_ the ripper. More than likely, it's a false story and he did it for attention/other/misc.
I wasn't there, so I can't be certain. I would have to concede that his story could be true, yet we can not prove it today. I inclined to say this because I'm not certain what steps have been taken to validate his story. I would think it a safe presumption that, if records were kept of such an event (and they should be) that they might have been lost to us over time. This is a safe presumption because recently (well, in the last few years) things have had a way of being returned that were not even known to exist to us arm chair types. On the other paw, it could have been, and probably was, a big lie.
So it's possible his story is true, yet we wouldn't be able to validate it with the files and information available to us today. I'm just not so sure how plausible it is. Personally, it seems a little.. flimsy to me. Especially since I read that it changed 3 times.
I'd think that it all hangs on motive. Was he motivated to brag (thus meaning in a round about way that he was the ripper) or was he motivated to save his own hide and draw a parallel to a 'made up' incident in London.. as if to say "Hey look, this happened once before. Sorry I look like the ripper, but it's not me" Perhaps he was just motivated by fear and he spat out whatever came to his mind. He was, of course, going through a translator wasn't he? Wolf or Mike will have to step in at this point and answer the rest as I am ill equipped 
crix0r
P.S. Trying to see things from all angles sometimes hurts ones head and results in very circular arguments, which aren't very productive. If this is what I have done, I apologize. Twas not my intent. Tis just how I solve problems :P |
Chris Michetti
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Hi Crix,
Indeed, he may have mentioned it to indicate to the police that "hey, I've been caught before but it isnt me, so leave me alone!". Now having read Wolf's New York Affair parts 1 and 2 I see that La Bruckman was in New Jersey when he was arrested. How far away is that from the East River Hotel? And if La Bruckman is indeed brown haired then I must wonder about all of this. The man covered in blood at 2AM who wanted to wash up in the Glenmore hotel is likely the man. Who he was is up to us to find out I guess. |
Mike Conlon
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 4:46 pm: |
|
I have only this reply to Mr. Vanderlinden's petulant ad hominems. As some may recall, I have, in Mr. Vanderlinden's words, "popped up" only once before now, when Mr. Vanderlinden precipitately accused me of inventing something in an article. People may recall that I proved him dead wrong and he was compelled to make something which he felt passed for an apology.
It seems Mr. Vanderlinden would prefer people not to answer his distortions and misrepresentations.
Anyone who has seen some of his splenetic posts in the past, indeed, anyone who has seen his current posts to myself and Dan Norder has sufficient means to draw his own conclusions concerning Mr. Vanderlinden's calm 'objectivity'.
Speaking of which....
Mr.Vanderlinden knows as well as I do that press reports throughout the Brown investigation make reference to the wide and eclectic range of suspects being hauled in - swarthy Greeks and Italians, blond Swedes and Germans - an entire range of types. Yet Mr. Vanderlinden would have you all believe that only blond suspects were being arrested. Now, why do you suppose this is?
The fact that Inspector Byrnes failed to give out specific information to the press about suspects being sought is hardly surprising. Anyone familiar with the investigation knows that Byrnes played it 'close to the vest', giving out minimal info. on the course of the investigation. How does this negate the fact that police confimed that Frenchy #2 had been the main focus of the initial investigation and that Frenchy#2 was confirmed to be LaBruckman by the police?
As for the Glenmore incident, the real significance is that, after a suspicious man came to the hotel, investigators wanted to determine if LaBruckman was a client of the hotel. It was confirmed that he sometimes was. Why would this be an issue if LaBruckman were not a focus of investigation? During this incident, it was also confirmed that LaBruckman had been arrested in London for the Whitechapel killings. The article speaks of "attaches" determining this. I take this to mean officials and police. Does Mr. Vanderlinden really wish to contend that this means hotel staff, engaged in their own private parallel investigation of LaBruckman? Mr. Vanderlinden can't be serious.
Mr. Vanderlinden is correct, however, when he points to additional discrepencies in LaBruckman's account of his London arrest on suspicion of being the Whitechapel killer. On one occassion he did claim to be detained for about two weeks, on another, for about a month. Big deal. LaBruckman also claimed that he underwent a trial in which he was acqitted. Anyone who read the 'old' casebook or who has read my articles already knows i have addressed this. Of course no such trial took place. It would have been world wide news. I have always maintained that it is completely reasonable to presume that LaBruckman either mistook or exagerated his arrest, lengthy detention and acquittal with Government compensation for a trial. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. Somehow, I have the distinct feeling, it won't to Mr. Vanderlinden.Readers will have to decide for themselves. What may, perhaps, help them in reaching a decision, is knowing all the facts - knowing that the report of LaBruckman's London arrest was NOT FABRICATED by LaBruckman, as Mr. Vanderlindens' words would lead one to believe, but was first divulged by a confidential informant who supplied a good deal of information about LaBruckman, some of which was gleaned from fellow sailors. Now, Mr. Vanderlinden has "no bias or pre-conceived notion". Funny that he fails to point out the above fact. LaBruckman, far from seeking attention as the Whitechapel killer, was voluble in his denials and quick to state that he was "acqitted".It seems Mr. Vanderlinden would prefer that you not know this.
Just as it is clear that he would prefer that readers not knowthat his much mentioned blond suspect is a chimera. Strange that a man who so loudly professes his objectivity and lack of any agenda never bothers to mention this rather significant bit of information: that the blond 'Kniclo' suspect mentioned by Miniter never existed - that Miniter, on the stand and under oath, swore that the whole description was invented and she didn't really know how the man looked. What she remembered was that the man seen with brown was Ali's 'cousin', later confirmed to be LaBruckman (you can read the details of all this in my article, "The Carrie Brown Murder Case:New Revelations", in the dissertations section).
Please notice what Mr.Vanderlinden has done. He has omitted ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL INFORMATION in his attempt to shore-up the importance of the blond suspect so as to eliminate LaBruckman. But Mr. Vanderlinden has "no bias or pre-conceived notions".
Now, observe his next move. When confronted with this insuperable stumbling block, he decides to engage in a little creative speculation. Obviously, he contends, the police coerced her into retracting her description. Well, Mr.Vanderlinden, there is not a jot of evidence to support this. Additionally, it was NOT the police or proecution who elicited this information, but the DEFENSE.
Please note that Mr. Vanderlinden has a tendency to withhold KEY INFORMATION and, when confronted with that information, engages in all manner of speculation to save his thesis. But I forgot, he doesn't have a thesis or agenda.
No doubt, Mr. Vanderlinden will have some prolix and snide retort to all this. My final word is that readers need to be aware and catious of Mr. Vanderlinden's propensity for leaving out key bits of information and failure to present a balanced picture, despite his protestations to the contrary.
I am done with this. Mr. Vanderlinden will no doubt have much more to say.
-Mike Conlon |
Chris Michetti
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 11:54 am: |
|
Well, regardless of everything I have read, now I am curious as to whether La Bruckman was indeed in New Jersey at the time of the murder or if he was in the vicinity of the East River Hotel. This is basically what the entire story hinges on. Do we know La Bruckman was with Brown earlier in the evening? Was it really him? If so I'd find it really hard to believe that he wasn't the killer.
Chris |
Jason Scott Mullins
Detective Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 100
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 12:21 pm: |
|
Well, I'd find it easy to believe he wasn't the killer because as far as I know, we haven't proved that killed anyone
Buuuuut, what I want to know is if in fact he did have something to do with the brown murder at all.
Very intriguing indeed...
Mike and Wolf: You guys seem a wealth of information. Tis a shame you can't work together and clear this whole La Bruckman thing up! I'd say with a bit of luck and a little bit of time, the two of you could get a very clear picture on the events that took place. Thanks go to both of you for the information provided so far, and for the information that you will provide.
crix0r |
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Chris M.,
You asked...
Now having read Wolf's New York Affair parts 1 and 2 I see that La Bruckman was in New Jersey when he was arrested. How far away is that from the East River Hotel?
'We arrested Frenchy No.2... we found that he spent the night of the murder four and a half miles from the East River Hotel... The people he was living with satisfied us that he was not away for that period during the night and we simply turned Frenchy No.2 loose.' Chief Inspector Thomas Byrnes (Casebook dissertations, Ripper in America)
I think we can assume that the ferries were still running to Jersey City in the 9:30-11:00 PM time frame. So if La Bruckman left Carrie Brown around 9:30 PM, he had plenty of time to make it back to his rooming house before midnight. It would be interesting to know the names and occupations of the "people he was living with" who supplied La Bruckman with his alibi. Is it just an amazing coincidence that a JTR suspect (arrested?) is seen in a saloon in downtown NYC with an old, drunken prostitute a few hours before she is mutilated and murdered with a knife?
Take care,
Kevin
|
Chris Michetti
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Kevin,
That's what I'm talking about... would he have been able to get back to the hotel in time to meet her and kill her? I feel that him being with her earlier in the day and then her dying that night, in a Ripper-like fashion, and him being a previous ripper suspect, to be too much of a coincidence.
Chris |
Wolf Vanderlinden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 63
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Mr Conlon.
For one who does not "intend to be drawn into an argument" who sure have a lot to say. Most of it misleading I am afraid.
"Anyone who has seen some of his splenetic posts in the past, indeed, anyone who has seen his current posts to myself and Dan Norder has sufficient means to draw his own conclusions concerning Mr. Vanderlinden's calm 'objectivity'."
You appear on these boards in high dudgeon stating that I have made "misrepresentations," have made statements that are "totally wrong and misleading" and caution readers to be aware of other "possible misrepresentations" in my work. Dan Norder then appears and offers a thinly veiled attack on my objectivity. If my posts have been "splenetic" I have just cause.
But I see that you feel that you and Mr. Norder are the aggrieved party here. This seems to be your usual tack. Anyone who offers a different view from your own, and, gasp, anyone who finds your conclusions regarding Arbie La Bruckman to be unconvincing, you must immediately attack them, their character and their work. If they fight back they are to blame.
"Mr.Vanderlinden knows as well as I do that press reports throughout the Brown investigation make reference to the wide and eclectic range of suspects being hauled in - swarthy Greeks and Italians, blond Swedes and Germans - an entire range of types. Yet Mr. Vanderlinden would have you all believe that only blond suspects were being arrested."
I am puzzled, but not surprised, by your lack of knowledge surrounding the police investigation into the Brown murder. Is it possible, Mr. Conlon, that you have not read my articles in Ripper Notes? Or is this an attempt to hoodwink those readers who have not? Let me enlighten you.
On the first day of the investigation, that would be Friday 24 April 1891, the police heard that Carrie Brown had left Mammie Harrington's flop house, where Brown usually slept, with a man known only as "Frenchy." This "Frenchy" was described as being tall and swarthy with black hair. Because of this the police arrested three Italians and a "Greek." The "Greek" turned out to be the man that they were looking for, Ameer Ben Ali. After Ben Ali was cleared that same night by Mary Miniter the police did not arrest any other "swarthy Greeks and Italians." If you have any evidence that they did please post it, (I won't hold my breath). And yes you're right there was an "entire range" of suspects arrested running the gamut from blond Germans all the way to blond Swedes.
This is an apparent attempt by you at "misrepresenting," to use your word, the type of suspect that was being arrested. I recall that you used the same little trick last time you and I discussed this. Playing to the crowd Mr. Conlon? Because this observation of yours didn't fool me last time why would it the second time around? Oh of course, because this tends to discredit your point that "How does this negate the fact that police confimed that Frenchy #2 had been the main focus of the initial investigation and that Frenchy#2 was confirmed to be LaBruckman by the police? " Words versus deeds Mr. Conlon. The deeds of the NYPD negate the words of the reporters.
After the 25 April press conference, where Chief Inspector Byrnes named "Frenchy No. 2" as the murderer, then quickly back peddled away from this claim finally denying that he ever said this only a day and a half later, (oops, I guess that was an important bit of KEY INFORMATION that you didn't want anyone to know about, sorry), the press, who were out of the investigative loop, kept on saying that the murderer was "Frenchy No. 2," who we know was a stocky, black haired brown mustached Frenchman born in Morocco, they didn't know that the police had changed their focus. This is understandable as "Anyone familiar with the investigation knows that Byrnes played it 'close to the vest', giving out minimal info. on the course of the investigation." your own words.
But deeds, Mr. Conlon. The police focussed on arresting blond haired, thin nosed German types. As was reported "there have been dozens of light complexioned men with long noses and blond mustaches placed under arrest in this and other cities." The general description of the killer was of a blond haired, thin nosed German and on at least one occasion when the police arrested a man who did not fit this description the reporters felt the need to comment on the fact.
One question, one that I know that you won't even acknowledge let alone answer, If the NYPD were looking for "Frenchy No. 2," once again described as a stocky, black haired brown mustached man, at the time of the press conference they thought he was an Algerian Arab like his "cousin," then why did, the very next day, Chief Inspector Byrnes personally arrest the second engineer of the steamship Philadelphia, a man described as a blond haired German, in connection with the Brown murder?
You bring up the Glenmore Hotel but not surprisingly fail to answer any of the questions that I put to you about it. An attempt at deflection? "During this incident, it was also confirmed that LaBruckman had been arrested in London for the Whitechapel killings. The article speaks of "attaches" determining this. I take this to mean officials and police. Does Mr. Vanderlinden really wish to contend that this means hotel staff, engaged in their own private parallel investigation of LaBruckman? Mr. Vanderlinden can't be serious." Don't be so fatuous Mr. Conlon. It should be emphasized that Mr. Conlon is only guessing at this. It is only his suspect opinion. If I am wrong then please provide the proof that the "attaches" mentioned actually were the police and not those attached to the hotel who had heard from some source La Bruckman's fabricated tale.
"Mr. Vanderlinden is correct, however, when he points to additional discrepencies in LaBruckman's account of his London arrest on suspicion of being the Whitechapel killer. On one occassion he did claim to be detained for about two weeks, on another, for about a month. Big deal. LaBruckman also claimed that he underwent a trial in which he was acqitted.... I have always maintained that it is completely reasonable to presume that LaBruckman either mistook or exagerated his arrest, lengthy detention and acquittal with Government compensation for a trial. It seems perfectly reasonable to me."
And yet in your last post you stated "The ONLY inconsistency in his story concerns the amount of compensation he received from the British Government after his release from jail," your emphasis. "Big deal" Mr. Carter? Is not the fact that La Bruckman changed his story several times over a very short time period "ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL INFORMATION" that the readers of these boards should know about in order to judge the believability of your theory?
Isn't the very fact that he first made no mention of any trial then claimed to have been tried and acquitted and then shortly after changes his story and the trial disappears again "KEY INFORMATION"? As is apparent this was information that you knew and yet you decided to leave it out of your original post. In fact didn't you attempt to hide the fact by claiming that the compensation was the "ONLY" inconsistency? And you have the gall to claim that I have a "propensity for leaving out key bits of information and failure to present a balanced picture"
"What may, perhaps, help them in reaching a decision, is knowing all the facts - knowing that the report of LaBruckman's London arrest was NOT FABRICATED by LaBruckman, as Mr. Vanderlindens' words would lead one to believe, but was first divulged by a confidential informant who supplied a good deal of information about LaBruckman, some of which was gleaned from fellow sailors."
Mr. Conlon. What was the name of this "confidential informant"? What relation did he have to Arbie La Bruckman? More importantly, where did he get his information from? Was it from newspaper reports? Did he attend La Bruckman's fabricated "trial"? Did he read police reports? Did La Bruckman himself tell him his tall tale while they sat around some saloon? Because that's not evidence of anything other than that La Bruckman told his fairytales to others. Here's the important thing Mr. Conlon unless you can tell us exactly where this "confidential informant" got is information then it is highly suspect and only extreme caution should be used when attempting to use it as evidence in any theory.
"Strange that a man who so loudly professes his objectivity and lack of any agenda never bothers to mention this rather significant bit of information: that the blond 'Kniclo' suspect mentioned by Miniter never existed - that Miniter, on the stand and under oath, swore that the whole description was invented and she didn't really know how the man looked...."
Perhaps you should actually read what I have posted before you sit down at your foam flecked keyboard. I wrote in my very last post to you "Mary Miniter claimed that she lied and that she didn't remember what the man, "C. Kniclo," looked like after she had been in police custody for several weeks and after the police had decided to frame an innocent man...." I also went to some length to pointed out that the night clerk of the Glenmore Hotel corroborated, (perhaps you should look that word up), Miniter's description of the blond haired German and explained why the police needed Miniter to change her story. Is there some other language that you would like me to write in?
But I forgot. You obviously didn't read my last post as you have failed to respond to most of the questions that I asked you. The people on these boards are not idiots Mr. Conlon. Anyone who reads back on the previous posts will see that where I have attempted to respond to all the questions that you have asked me you have deflected or ignored or disregarded almost every question that I have asked you. You have displayed a desperate need to attack me and to try and undermine my credibility all in order to try and protect your precious theory. If the evidence that supports your view is so flimsy that you feel the need to engage in character assassination in order to try and bolster it then I am afraid that you have a lot more grief coming your way. As time goes on other researchers will also look at you work and also probably point out its flaws. Will you then frantically attack everybody who dares go against your view? You probably will.
Wolf. |
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 12:09 am: |
|
Mike & Wolf, many thanks for the mini-dissertions 
I think I know of a way to verify whether La Bruckman was in London on the key dates of the Ripper murders. If someone has a couple of days, they could go to Washington D.C. and go through, I believe, the U.S. Custom's agency papers for the port of NYC. I know for a fact that in-bound ships had to supply a passenger and crew listing. I am unsure about out-bound shipping. I am fairly certain that if U.S. Custom's did not take crew listing on the out-bound from NYC, the English equivalent did upon a ship's arrival in an English port.
I will try to slip over to the Natl Archives respository here in KC either tomorrow or Monday as they do have an index of NYC passenger lists. I do not know whether the crew lists would be included in that index or not but it is worth a try.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Chris Michetti
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 9:41 am: |
|
"Frenchy No. 2," who we know was a stocky, black haired brown mustached Frenchman born in Morocco
Is there somewhere that we can see an official statement concerning La Bruckman's description? Does he match this and if so where is that stated? God, I wish Miniter wasn't a drunk =/
Billy,
That would be excellent if you could find anything involving crew lists for those boats. Good luck!!
Chris |
Chris Michetti
Police Constable
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2004 - 11:31 pm: |
|
Wolf,
I was reading Sudgen's book yesterday and noticed that there was something written about the Pinchin St. torso which seemed to say something about a possible suspect carrying a small parcel. La Bruckman said he was arrested on suspicion of the Whitechapel murders and was carrying a parcel at the time of his arrest. Do you have any information at all about this? Just curious! Thanks.
Chris Michetti 
|
Chris Michetti
Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Well, what about the possibility of someone else that was on those cattle boats? Another sailor? Wolf don't leave me hanging forever
Chris
|
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 314
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Just bumping to keep this thread alive..
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end."
|
Joe Dawson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 07, 2006 - 6:41 am: |
|
Is anyone still pursuing this theory? I'm especially interested in those customs lists or any other information to try to pin down his movements.
I doubt the parcel is significant as if La Bruckman was the torso murderer, Brown's murder would be highly careless and out of pattern for him. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page