|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 638
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 1:06 pm: |       |
Hi Phil,
Okay, but here we can dispense with the Stride murder since Goultson Street is all about the route from Mitre Square and the Eddowes murder. If you're interested, see Wolf's argument in the Sugden thread. I think it's a pretty good one.
Cheers,
Dave |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 221
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 1:11 pm: | |
Yes, this is an open forum but any forum must share some common ground for debate or chaos results.
If we can't agree on what constitutes fantasy-or silliness- then we'll be open to a lot of both and that just dilutes the level of discourse for people who seriously want to discuss this case.
I've only been on this board a few months but like many of you have been interested in the case for most of my life and I must agree with Phil. A certain amount of self education is just good manners when joining a forum like this. I don't mean that newbies can't be newbies, it's just that with the tremendous amount of information about the case one needs to have some grounding before piping up.
That said, no one is forced to reply to a post and if ennui ensues, someone else will be there to take up the slack.
It would be great if everyone on the planet came into situations with an open mind but that's obviously never going to happen. Still, the whole point of learning is to perhaps see in a different way and how can that happen if one refuses to consider anything outside the limits one has set up coming into the debate? How can that technique get you anywhere? It can't and the only thing it's good for is to blindly reinforce old ideas. What's the point of that?
Mags |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2531
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 1:19 pm: | |
Phil,
Thank you for putting back this thread into some kind of state of reason.
"The problem is - I can only speak for myself, and not having been on the forum for long (indeed less time than you, Adam) I cannot speak from knowledge of past debates - but for me it is not only discussions here, but thinking over 30 years, that is involved. A lot of that has involved reading the books and seeking to understand the arguments on either side, then weighing them up.
[...]
I will always debate with someone who has ideas, but I simply don't have time to act as a teacher to those who can educate themselves by exploring the factual material on this site and reading the literature that is readily available in bookshops or libraries."
I couldn't agree more. Spot on.
Still, I belongs to those who falls into the trap everytime simply because I enjoy a discussion for the sake of the discussion itself (yes, I have too much time on my hands...), but what you expressed is what I've been trying to tell Adam earlier as well.
"Secondly you conveniently downplay the main argument AGAINST Chapman - that his known MO was totally different to the Ripper's. IMHO it's not enough simply to say "he might have changed". Some form of evidence that he DID change would be required. I have seen none."
Ouch, Phil. Haven't you learnt? Don't you know that this opinion -- this psychology crap -- is not relevant here?
Chapman could have killed his wives with a baseball bat or a Smith&Wesson and you could say that it doesent fit the Ripper's MO,
and still people would say:
"Hey, you can't know that! You've suffered from an overdose of profiling nonsense. You are making generalizations! You think you are superior."
Oh, believe me, will you get answers to that one...
"'I see you got JtR at last!' Spoken to a former colleague, could well not be meant seriously.
[...]
We know nothing of whether Abberline retained ontacts at Scotland Yard or in the HO after his retirement. we do not know whether he was bitter or mellow. And we do not know if he had followed the Chapman/Klosowski trial in any detail.
What did he base his view on - a reading of the trial reports? I don't think that that would be particularly reliable.
So I think we must be very cautious about what Abberline said in 1903. Remarks in 1888 when he was on the case are something else entirely."
I agree again. There could be millions of explanations. Fact remains that Abberline never confirmed his suspicions in his own writing and never really revealed who Jack the Ripper was, besides in this interview. Probably because he, like the others, in reality had no clue.
I'd say his 1903 statement about Chapman is worth practically zero, since he never repeated it and we don't know the reasons for and the circumstances surrounding his statement.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1497
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 2:45 pm: | |
Mags,
excellent post! I agree with what you say.
Very true.
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2536
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
Jenni,
That new signature quote at the bottom of your posts... it's Spice Girls, isn't it? 
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1499
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 3:16 pm: | |
Glenn,
maybe, maybe, maybe
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 639
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 3:28 pm: | |
R.J. Palmer, Chris George, etc:
You'll appreciate this if you're not already aware of it. Profiler and member of the law enforcement community Pat Brown has some interesting things to say about serial killer myths (particularly about signature and m.o). I will have to pick this book up.
Dave
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 378
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
Adam,
Sorry that you feel the boards have been inhospitable, but you must admit that you did arrive with a rush and roar, ready to discourse on nearly every topic on every thread. As a consequence there was greater opportunity to embark upon well-trod ground.
Each of us has our own approach and mine was quite cautious. I had been interested in JtR for more years than I care to say and had, in more or less splendid isolation, read most of the literature. Then I stumbled upon Casebook. First, just to add to my own knowledge I read all the dissertations (great stuff) and then began to monitor the message boards. After a couple weeks I registered and continued to follow old and new threads.
Having an aversion, at least at first, to playing the fool in public I waited until I had something worthwhile to say and which had not been mentioned previously and I posted. The reception was quite good, with an interesting exception (considering this thread's participants) -- one Stan Russo thought my post's subject matter was "ridiculous." I've since learned that he has his own peculiar notions of what is worthy to discuss and that is usually one or another of his books. So be it.
While my point seems to have been lost in a torrent of words the past few days,I still want to go back to something you wrote about Klosowski: Klosowski was 23-24 at the times of the murders, the average age for the witnesses was around 30-35. However, even in the photos of Klosowski, he looks older than his age, so that much is excusable.
There are, I think, some things that must be addressed here.
1) "around 30-35" is not an average, but that is more than just being niggling on my part because it bears on the next point.
2) Just which witnesses did you use to arrive at this "average"? Without saying, the average or range is meaningless. Some of the witnesses sightings are clearly spurious and no witness is a dead certainty to have seen JtR. Even the one witness some of the police seem to have felt did see JtR is not known to us so we don't know what his/her description was.
3) Finally, of all the vagaries surrounding witness statements, the most glaring must be the estimates of age. Except at the margins (very young or very old) such estimates are quite subjective and unless a witness is close enough to observe teeth, hands, hair color and the other indicators of age his guess is not worth much. Further, most of the JtR sightings were at a distance, in poor light and often from the side or back.
That those sighted were not callow youths nor elderly males is about all that can be safely garnered from them in terms of age estimates.
Don. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1501
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
BTW Abberline wasnt Jack!
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1502
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 4:02 pm: | |
Don,
my lord that is scary!
Anyway, i have to admit to having found the casebook quite early on. not quite sure how early but i am pretty sure i was registered here in my first year. my post copunt was not particularly higjh and i i am sure i asked a lot of stupid qwuestions. i'd like to think i could be forgiven for that.
of course fairly soon i had certain interests at that stage Robert lees. and stillis, naturally. i knew relativley little owned relativley few books and had read relativley little of the main casebook. now its been four years and I would also like to think i have matured a tad, and so i would like to think i knew a lot more. But thats didn't stop me asking stupid questions and being realtively confined to a few threads where i don't feel toatally out of depth until quite recedntly.
i have noticed that since about june (after my last set of exams) i have posted a lot more on all these boards. particularly in unspeakable places this is what caused by status in terms of post ranks to increase to ass. com
phew i ranted on then blah blah!
Jenni
ps wow freaky!
(Message edited by jdpegg on December 28, 2004)
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 640
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:19 pm: | |
Here comes a rant:
Hi Adam,
You know what? There are very, very few experts posting on the boards and a lot of wannabe's. I'm a wannabe. Here's a tip: you'll recognize the experts, as I have, by their gentlemanly, patient conduct. You'll recognize them by the content of their posts, not by their resumes. When someone starts spouting resumes or the time they have spent reading, you know you're in for a fat load of bullshit. Experts won't ridicule you for not being well-read. They will quietly make a point and back it up with reference--if the reference is new to you, that's an indication you've got some reading to do. If an expert speculates, they will tell you so. They will not try to impress you with their "resume".
When I first starting posting a couple of years back, my first question was, "Why don't they just test the Lusk Kidney for DNA?" I was really fortunate that two bona-fide experts, Chris George and Jack Traisson, who are quietly and tremendously well-read, took me in hand and patiently explained things to me. There was no sighing, no "oh, why don't you go read a book?" "Your question is a nuisance!" Just patience and a little hospitality.
Last summer, I was surprised and delighted to hear from Paul Begg in regards to a post I had made (on Diary-related issues). Of course, I promptly took the opportunity to disagree with just about everything he'd emailed me about. Paul took it all in good stride, never told me that I was ill-educated, never told me, "Well, I've written a shitload of books, you know. What have you done?" He even acknowledged me in an editorial, which he didn't have to do. Of course, I still disagree with Paul, but I have also learned from him. Mr. Begg never quoted his resume to me, by the way.
So here's my unsolicited advice: read where your interest takes you, both here on Casebook (there's a lot) and in print publications, pick up the Casebook CD archive if you haven't for posts by real experts like The Viper (Adrian Phyper), Stewart Evans, Martin Fido, Paul Begg, Alex Chisholm, Dave Yost, Christopher-Michael DiGrazia, Wolf Vanderlinden, Chris George, of course Stephen Ryder (who posts so seldom it's easy to forget what contributions he has made). And there many other researchers who quietly go about their work without a lot of fanfare.
On top of that, here's a partial list of some of my favorite posters (my opinion). I think these people are making or have made some good contributions towards understanding not only the crimes, but the times: Monty Burns, Alan Sharp, R.J. Palmer, John Omlor, Chris Phillips, Chris Scott (put an exclamation point here), Tom Wescott (good stuff, but watch for his testosterone moods), A.P. Wolf (sober), Robert Linford, Dan Norder (just don't express doubt on M.J.K's status), Malta Joe, John Savage, Bob Hinton, Jon Smyth, John Hacker. There's more.
Go where your interest takes you, and if you encounter some of these people I've mentioned, give them a good hearing. Of course, you needn't agree with them but be open because you can learn from them. I have. Of course, you'll make up your own list over time.
And Glenn, I like you and think you've made some good points at times. But you really owe Adam an apology--go back and read the pompous manner in which you've addressed him. Really, I like you, but you are ripe for a spanking, sir. You too, Don Souden. "Clothing styles change" and "newspapers misreported facts" are hardly new ground or well-thought out opinions. They're standard regurgitations. By the way, that fellow John's post about the farthing myth was not drivel; I thought he made a very shrewd connection between parts of Dr. Phillips's inquest testimony. I don't think it's fair or accurate to put the farthing myth all up on newspapers when it was repeated by Inspector Reid and Major Henry Smith. The idea that farthings were arranged by Chapman was a 20th century invention with roots in the 19th century. See Sugden's chapter on Chapman myths. I know I'm posting in the wrong thread, but I don't care.
I know, I know. I shouldn't throw stones. I am under-read and often wrong. But we should welcome new blood who come in good faith, as Phil (rightly) has been welcomed. Welcome by the way, Phil. Welcome, Adam. Welcome John (farthing myth), wherever you are (I lost the thread).
All in good will. Still love ya, Glenn and Don.
Dave |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2539
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
What Pat Brown is saying is really nothing new or particulary ground-breaking.
His so called "myths" (he delivers ten myths concerning serial killers) are to a large degree rather silly -- like "Serial killers are strangers who leap out at you in the night" etc. Most of his points are rather evident already to most of us.
As far as the myths concerning MO and signature, he is actually not wrong or in opposition against others in the field. He says the usual stuff, like a MO can change, from gun shot to knife stabbing to strangling etc. (changes that are all within the same category of killers and within possibilities -- really nothing new, we all know that).
Where I find he's approach is quite wrong is in his passage about signature, when he questions the whole concept. He then throws up a couple of examples of serial killers who clearly lacks signature (he's absolutely right, that not all serial killers have a signature), but then he doesen't bother to mention those who HAS, because they certainly exists! And Jack the Ripper was indeed one of them.
As far as I am concerned, he sounds rather frustrated and grumpy and his book stinks of bitterness and one can only speculate why.
Unfortunately -- although some parts are interesting -- he doesen't reveal anything new whatsoever that hasn't already been written before by people in the law enforcement.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 641
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:38 pm: | |
She, Glenn. Pat Brown is a she. And you are entitled to your opinion that she is silly. However, there is clearly debate among profilers on signature, m.o., and even what the definition of a serial killer is.
Dave |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2541
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:47 pm: | |
Sorry, Dave. I meant "she", of course. Naturally.
I am in a hurry at the moment, unfortunately.
I had just hoped for that Pat Brown had something new to say, but it's true that there are an ongoing debate among people in the field, but on the other hand this debate has raged on since that department was opened by FBI anyway, and it will continue to rage.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 6:50 pm: | |
Hi Phil et al.
Phil, you wrote: "There are many reasons why Abberline might have expressed the view he did in 1903. . .
"'I see you got JtR at last!' Spoken to a former colleague, could well not be meant seriously.
"Abberline might equally well have been out of touch, or (if he was in touch) wished to counter some of the private views he heard from Whitehall - MM's, Swanson's or Anderson's.
"We know nothing of whether Abberline retained ontacts at Scotland Yard or in the HO after his retirement. we do not know whether he was bitter or mellow. And we do not know if he had followed the Chapman/Klosowski trial in any detail.
"What did he base his view on - a reading of the trial reports? I don't think that that would be particularly reliable."
Phil, the Pall Mall Gazette interview with Abberline, actually a two part article that ran in the issues of 24 March and 31 March 1903, was much more than him simply saying, "I see you got JtR at last!"
In the first part of the article, Abberline is quoted as saying that Polish-born barber George Chapman (Severin Klosowski), then under sentence of death for the poisoning of his common law wives, could have been the Ripper. Or at least he felt strongly that circumstances in the sentenced man’s background might lead one to believe the killers were one and the same, i.e., that he was in the East End of London during the Ripper crimes and that he had anatomical knowledge from training as a surgeon in Russia before coming to Britain.
Abberline is quoted as saying that the evil displayed in the poisoning murders could coincide with the callous nature of the Ripper crimes. He informed the reporter that having read about the Chapman case, he was inclined to write to Sir Melville Macnaghten, the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, "to say how strongly I was impressed with the opinion that 'Chapman' was also the author of the Whitechapel murders."
Abberline also made the point that he remained in close contact with Scotland Yard. We can take this for whatever it means. I somehow doubt that a retired detective who had in the meanwhile worked as a private detective for Pinkerton would be allowed the closest confidences of the Yard's still serving officers, but I may be wrong.
It should also be noted here by the way that the parts in Donald McCormick's book in which he talks about Abberline interviewing Chapman in 1888, and talks about Chapman in relation to Pedachenko, appear to be a complete fabrication. These parts of McCormick have been viewed as less than credible by authorities in the field for some time, and yet R. Michael Gordon picked them up in his books as if the tales had truth.
Most probably the ex-Yard man knew nothing about Chapman until the barber's arrest for poisoning his common-law wives, at which time he may have started to formulate the idea that this resident of the East End could also have been the Ripper.
Phil, I do agree with your statement that, ". . . I think we must be very cautious about what Abberline said in 1903. Remarks in 1888 when he was on the case are something else entirely."
As I say, I don't necessarily think Abberline's views of 1903 should be dismissed out of hand, since unless the reporter fabricated what the Inspector said, which I somehow doubt, he actually did say these things in 1903. Moreover, in that the interview did appear in two issues a week apart, if he was misquoted in the first installment he could have contacted the reporter to clarify things for the running of the second part a week later but he evidently did not.
Chris Scott, thank you for your clarification that you were saying that Abberline perhaps made these statements about Chapman being the Ripper to stop press attention on himself. That is a credible thought, I suppose, although with his knowledge of press practices and the on-going public interest in the Ripper I am sure he would know that even naming Chapman as his man for the Ripper crimes would not lessen interest in himself or the case.
Best regards
Chris George
(Message edited by ChrisG on December 28, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 380
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 7:18 pm: | |
Dave,
I have no idea what your problem is, but if posts have to break new ground or be well thought out there would not be many posts on the boards -- and some of those few would be mine.
As it is, John's post sat there for eight days and I thought it would good to encourage a new visitor with an answer. I certainly didn't call it drivel -- the first two lines were a joke, you know. I said his idea was a possibility, which it is, and then because he may well be new (or as Basil Fawlty would put it "newish") to the case I threw in a standard caveat about not taking newspapers reports too seriously.
As for my answer about a cricket cap . . . well it may have been trite but it was also factual.
Anything else bothering you?
Don.
(Message edited by supe on December 28, 2004) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2542
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:10 pm: | |
Dave,
I've always loved you, you know that, so don't worry. Thank you for being frank.
I don't think suggesting to Adam that he reads up a bit is worth any particular spanking, though (if that's what you mean).
It was actually just a friendly suggestion, nothing more. If one believes that Jack the Ripper is unique as a killer, then one do needs to read up a bit, because both in literature and on websites one can easily see that this is not the case.
I certainly didn't mean it to come out like he should be as well read "as me" or any crap like that, because that would be the greatest contradiction of all times. I am not well read on this subject as a whole, although I have specialized on certain areas.
I am mainly a historian and regarding modern cases and modern cases I have obtained a rather superficial knowledge. It's not by any means satisfactory but in my view enough to some extent.
But I hardly consider myself an expert.
Only when it comes to historical contexts, which is my special field. But I am not an expert regarding modern crimes or modern American (for example) serial killers. But I think I know enough in order to have an opinion.
Yes, I agree, one should be welcoming to newbies, but that doesen't mean one has to agree with them or treating them differently than anybody else. That is not my nature.
Although I feel Adam already has made great progresses and has displayed a more open approach, I think he himself already from the start set the tone when he advertised that he is stubborn and that his opinions can't be changed whatever arguments or facts are being produced. If you as a new-comer arrives with such intentions, then one deserves what's coming to you. A new-comer should have a humble approach just as we others are obliged to meet him or her with respect.
I certainly haven't treated him differently from anybody else.
If you refer to what I said regarding that he can't expect me to involve myself in discussions containing the same arguments that has already been twisted back and forth a millions of times, I think my claims here are reasonable, and I think Phil have explained this point rather well. None of us here have any obligation to tutor anyone or feed them with information if we don't feel like it. There are ways to find the information you need. If you are interested in a certain suspect, then you go to his thread and check out the discussions there and soon you'll learn what has been debated and what needs to be filled in or which questions you want answers to.
The same goes for other subjects.
It is unreasonable and quite egoistic to expect that those who have been here for two years should open their arms and be ready and willing to spit out the same arguments over and over again, no matter how tedious it gets. If anyone feel like doing this anyway, fine by me, but I think I owe the right to choose when I want to do that or not.
As for breaking new grounds, I think it is very hard to do that in this case whoever you are, and I don't think it's more likely that a new-comer can supply this, unless he or she is very well read up on the Ripper. I certainly wasn't when I started out here; I did all kinds of mistake a new-comer can do, and practically everything I shouldn't do -- I threw myself into the discussions after I had read one book and seen one documentary, and thought I knew everything and that everything was crystal clear, and I thought everything I posted were new startling revelations never heard of before. I must have been a pest.
I did one thing right, however: I read the Boards quite extensively before I started posting -- thank God.
The reasons for me sometimes giving Adam a hard time is because I recognise myself all too much in him and I see him make the same mistakes I did. And that is not a good thing.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1339
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:37 pm: | |
Hi David,
Isn"t it a bit insensitive and pompous to be giving advice to new posters on the posters you like including "ratings" as though somehow there are league tables to do with how people post?
Isnt it also rather lacking in the very courtesy you claim to admire
not to have included a single female poster?
and no-I am not bothered about this on a personal level-couldnt care less actually and I mean that seriously-but it is galling to see you discount us all in such an "unchivalrous" way.
Regards
Natalie |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1251
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:49 pm: | |
Hi Natalie
To piggyback on David's post, let me mention that Caroline Morris, Karoline Leach (when she used to post here), Leanne Perry, yourself, and other lady posters have made worthwhile contributions to these boards. I did want to recognize the help I have personally received from authorities in the field such as Paul Begg, Keith Skinner, Stewart Evans, and the late Adrian M. Phypers aka Viper, who have provided much information, and in the cases of Viper and Stewart, reams of copies of newspaper articles and other documents which have been a great aid in my research.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1341
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:27 pm: | |
Chris,
Many thanks for your response.Ofcourse certain posters such as yourself and those you quote have made vastly more significant contributions to this site than others and it would be unfair not to acknowledge that.Chris Scott alone has provided me with such a wealth of research that it would be hard to quantify!
But each of us tries to contribute as best we can! Thats my point and included in those are a growing number of women posters.
Where is Ally by the way with her rapier wit
with its sting in the tail?
I so miss her brilliant posts!
Natalie |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 642
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:30 pm: | |
Don and Glenn,
"Anything else bothering you?"
No, my rant is over. I appreciate your responses.
I didn't say that all posts have to be ground-breaking or even well-thought out. I'm saying give the new people a break.
Don, I missed that John had sat there for eight days waiting for a reply in that other thread. Sorry. I'm only saying that Adam has a right to post like all of us do, and it doesn't matter if he's on well-trod ground or not. It doesn't even matter if he's stubborn. All that matters is that he's got a genuine interest, right? I'm not saying you have to agree with him. If you don't want to repeat yourself or think he hasn't read enough, cut him a break and make some reading recommendations.
Natalie,
OK, I accept the backlash and regret hurting anybody's feelings. First, I'm entitled to admire the people I mentioned, and entitled to say so. If you're not among the people I listed, that doesn't mean I think you're an idiot. Obviously, there are different interests and different discussions which some people frequent and others don't. I'm only listing people I particularly admire and think Adam might appreciate. Again, I'm entitled to express my opinion. They're people who have progressed my own understanding, directly and indirectly. Most of them did so in a very kind way. I'm not saying if you're not on that list, you're not worth a bother. Look, here's what I wrote". . .Bob Hinton, Jon Smyth, John Hacker. There's more." Whether you're a man or a woman is irrelevant and I don't know why this would even be an issue, Natalie. But for what it's worth, Natalie, I think you have also said some interesting things, which made me look at issues from a new angle. One I remember particularly well, it was a discussion over the Liz Stride article in Rip, remember? You thought that writing about the personal lives of the victims was almost as intrusive as what the Ripper had done. I don't think I told you, and I'm still not sure if I agree, but I thought it was an interesting approach indeed which would never have occurred to me and made me do some thinking about what an historian does, what an historian's obligation is (which I wish to become someday). Trust me, I wouldn't say that about you if I didn't mean it. Sorry I didn't mention you and sorry that you think I'm pompous and insensitive. I never advised Adam to discount you or anyone.
I'm sure everybody has their own people they particularly appreciate, and I'm sure I'm on very few lists. Certainly I'm not on yours and that's okay.
Chris,
Let me echo Caz (despite disagreement), but especially Keith Skinner, who once kindly sent me some material he didn't have to. Jeffrey Bloomfield. Christian Jaud. Timsta. Ivor Edwards. Tim Mosley. Ally, who moderated the boards for I don't know how long. I could go on. Howard Brown. The woman who has the Ripper film site (it's been a while since she's posted but I forgot her name, sorry). Nina Thomas has been making some shrewd observations regarding Kate Eddowes, my favorite topic. Karoline Leach was before my time, but I'll check the archives. Glenn & Don I do respect, despite giving them a hard time--Glenn in particular, because he makes himself understood in a foreign language which I would be unable to do. There are yet more, but I'll stop. I said Alex Chisholm before, but he bears repeating. He has been extremely gracious to me. As a researcher, in my opinion he's as solid as Sugden, Evans, Begg, Fido, Rumbelow, all those fellows.
When you see how long my list is, perhaps it will give you an idea of how much I've received here, and how glad I am people chose to encourage me when I first arrived.
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on December 28, 2004)
(Message edited by oberlin on December 28, 2004) |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1342
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 9:48 pm: | |
Thanks David for a very sweet reply!
No harm done.In fact I often read your posts and find them thoughtful and interesting!
All the Best
Natalie |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 643
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 10:00 pm: | |
Thank you, Natalie. Honestly, that was a thought-provoking discussion on Liz Stride. Thanks for that. Jennifer Pegg wrote what I think is a good article on Lees (it's on another website). One of the things I like best about all of the people I've named, is that one time or another, they have allowed me to be wrong.
Stewart Evans, if he's reading, thank you for your very considerate replies to what I'm sure to you are irrelevant inquiries. For him, everything's well-trod ground! Stewart seems to understand that my inquiries aren't irrelevant to me and that in my eyes, the ground is new. He and Paul Begg have always been true gentlemen towards me. Wish you'd come back, Stewart and Paul. Martin Fido, too, although I've never had the pleasure of direct contact with him.
Dave |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 381
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 10:25 pm: | |
Dave,
Yeah, my rant (such as it was) is over as well. I am sorry if it seemed I was harsh toward Adam as it was not my intention. We all go over the same ground from time to time, even as I did with the newspapers. But I actually did research newspapers recently for an article so I am probably still bubbling inside my brain about them.
Perhaps we have all learned a few things about how we appear on the boards and that means something positive has come out of our "rants."
Take care.
Don.
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 644
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 10:48 pm: | |
Thanks, Don. I came down a bit heavy on you and Glenn, sorry. Of course you're not a trite contributor. I'll keep an eye out for your article (note to self, get a subscription to Ripper Notes). I learned something as well from your post to John because it made me hit some of the papers as well, archived posts from Viper, and Philip Sugden. I had read, but it hadn't registered, that Inspector Reid had also mentioned farthings on Chapman (during the Mackenzie inquest , Times 19 July 1889). So, to tie back in with Abberline, I guess even the memories of inspectors can become clouded.
Cheers,
Dave |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 645
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 11:16 pm: | |
I had to post about one more person I admire, otherwise I won't be able to sleep--Neal Stubbings, whose work figured and will continue to figure in much research. Neal has also been kind and approachable when I've had questions. I'll shut up now.
Dave |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 513
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 12:24 am: | |
It might be worth recalling the story about Abberline chasing down & questioning Lucy Baderski --it true, it would be a pretty strong indication that the old boy was serious about his suspect. Cheers, RP |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 2:50 am: | |
Hi RJ
The story of Abberline chasing down and questioning Lucy Baderski features in McCormick's elaborate story about there being a Chapman/Pedachenko "double" and he appears to have used a statement made by Hargrave Adam in the introduction to The Trial of George Chapman that Abberline questioned her and was told that the man was out between 3:00 and 4:00 am on the mornings of the murders. However, where is the proof that this interview took place, and was Baderski even with Klosowski in the autumn of 1888? She supposedly married him on August Bank Holiday, 1889. It seems probable that he was with another woman a year earlier or else alone, because her brother Stanislaus Baderski testified at Klosowski's trial that his sister was only with him "for four or five weeks" before they married. If Lucy Baderski was interviewed by Abberline or some other policeman did she perhaps only say that he was in the habit of staying out late, but didn't specify that this occurred on the nights of the murders?
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1506
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 5:12 am: | |
Dave,
Guys,
think about it....This is the best thread ever!! It's so far of the point now, it's amazing!! How did we manage to get this far off the point? I love it!
I have to say I think we all like Adam, he fits right in and maybe it is the case that he hasn't been broken gently in, but he can take it I am sure! I would take it as a sign of respect, it's almost like we forget he is new really,no? Go Adam!
I think this thread is getting way too serious, lighten up people, remember we're all friends here, and "friendship never ends" (yes Glenn, Spice Girls again!)I mean usually I save this lets not kill each other type talk for diary threads (but as its you lot), but please guys come on now lets not kill each other!!!!!
And Dave put away your spade - they are totally over it!! All is forgiven!!
Jenni
ps you all have good memories! How can you remember this stuff about what you first said? I can barely remember what I said yesterday most of the time?!!!!!
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2547
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 6:13 am: | |
Dave,
Indeed. I miss all those people. When I started out here, Stewart Evans -- the true gentleman of Ripperology and the one I probably respect the most (because of his knowledge, kindness and his vast experience); -- had already left, but Fido was still here, although he mainly at that time contributed with occasional posts regarding David Cohen.
Paul Begg I have never talked to and he probably left long before I entered here, but I am sure he is a pleasant guy as well. It's really amazing that I've so far never read anything of his stuff.
I have just recently ordered three Ripper-related books (about time, it's been way too long since I read anything new):
Stewart Evan's Letters From Hell,;
the Whitechapel map booklet;
and -- (finally!) the updated version of Begg's book, now called Jack the Ripper: The Facts.
I sure look forward to it, one of them arrived today but I don't know which one; have to pick it up at the post office first.
I do respect Paul Begg as one of the most important authorities on the case and it'll be a blast to finally read something he's done.
But as you say, we do miss Stewart and the others here (when I finally found these Boards, I seem to have missed out on all the good stuff), but I suppose they by leaving illustrated my earlier point rather well, namely that they thought they had better things to do than discussing the same tedious arguments hundred times all over again (and Fido got occupied with his teaching in USA). After all, if you have studied the case for 20--30 years, there really can't be that much left to say.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 29, 2004)
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 89
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 6:41 am: | |
Hello all,
Well, this is going to be a frighteningly long post. Actually, I'll split it into 2, to make it a little more readable. It seems I have landed myself in the middle of a whirlpool!
Glenn, you wrote:
"Where on Earth have you been? This thread has raged on without you.
See what you started?"
Sorry Glenn, there's just not enough hours in the day to sleep and respond to all the posts on here - I got 64 e-mails when I checked this morning, all from this site! So it's rather fun trying to keep up with it all.
"Interesting. So -- if we go on to discuss victims like Tabram, Millwood etc. -- you actually believe that there WERE other mutilating killers besides the Ripper at this time? So, what are your reasons for excluding the possibility that the one who killed Tabram and Millwood was another one as well?"
Not Millwood, Glenn, I don't think Millwood was a victim. But Tabram, yes.
I do believe that the Ripper was not the only mutilating killer in the area at the time. Even in 1888, the killings of Tabram, Nichols and Chapman were put together into 1 case. Of all the non-canonical victims, Tabram is perhaps the most debated. Alongside Tabram, I also believe Ada Wilson was an earlier attempt by the Ripper, and he may have been tied up in the Emma Smith attack.
But, I believe Tabram was in particular. The fact that at the time, the 3 cases mentioned above were linked together seems to partially signify that it was believed she was a victim of the same killer as well.
The trouble also is that there was a lot of media coverage of the killings, and many misconceptions about the other killings like Millwood, "Fairy Fay", etc, began in the pages of the newspaper.
To me, Tabram seems like a lead-up to mutilations. She was stabbed 39 times, but not really cut. Then Polly was cut. I've said before that I don't believe the Ripper just came from nowhere and started killing/mutilating, he must have had a past history, and I believe that was it - Martha Tabram.
"That being said, the same things were said regarding Tumblety and the American doctor. At least he was a contemporary suspect, mentioned in the documents, Chapman was not. Does this mean that Neil changed his mind forty years after the murders and suddenly came to the conclusion that Chapman was the killer, influenced by Abberline's diffuse and contradictory statements in 1903 (where he also said that the police was not really much closer to a solution than in 1888)?"
I don't believe Neil was influenced by Abberline in any way. For one thing, Neil wrote those memoirs 29 years after Abberline's statement, in 1932. Why would he wait so long to agree with him, for one thing, and how might he remember this statement by Abberline?
The argument cannot be made that Neil received this from private correspondence with Abberline around the time he wrote his memoirs, because Abberline died in 1929, 3 years earlier.
And even if Abberline suspected Chapman in 1888, without proof, he could not have said or done anything, unless it was to Godley, who coincidentally also believed it was Chapman later on. Nothing could be done simply on "gut feeling" by Abberline, if you know what I mean.
"So, in other words, just because Chapman was mean enough to murder his wives, he must also have been the Ripper. That is a totally unsatisfactory deduction, and it's certainly not a reasoning a police officer today would apply. I think he's really talking a lot of crap here. Might sound arrogant on my part, but I don't care. He can't even be sure of that the Ripper was "diabolical cunning", what ever that really means. Here he are clearly stating things that are his personal opinions, not based on either knowledge or facts."
Today, no, but more than 70 years ago, quite probably. Whether they are his opinions or not, it is still valuable to know that he did suspect Chapman. Abberline didn't offer proof either, just speculation and an opinion. But the simple fact that these 3 top detectives even suspected Chapman was the Ripper is quite interesting on it's own, I think. If Abberline stated "Scotland Yard really is no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago" He's hardly about to do a complete turn around and launch into a discussion on how and why Chapman is the Ripper, is he?
"You can't rely totally on the ideas of a police officer who worked 116 years ago, when criminal science nearly didn't exist. It would be natural for them to do a lot of mistakes, and they did. I have investigated and studied enough old cases in order to get a picture of how poorly these things were done and seen in the context of the knowledge of the time, it is perfectly understandable."
Every officer made mistakes, that fact is well established. Whether they were Sergeants or Police Commissioners, they all made mistakes. What does that matter?
"Your assessement about the pause period doesen't help at all to explain it. I still haven't come across any serial killer of the Ripper's kind who just stops and turn into somehting completely different. It just makes no sense. I know it does to you, because you really want Chapman to be the Ripper, so I guess that is clouding your judgemenent, so you don't bother about those things. But I do."
But he doesn't just "stop and turn into somehting completely different" - there was a period of 7 or 8 years where nothing happened. As I've said before, a pause period could indicate changing of his mind. Whether there is no other case of it or not, I don't think that is relevant. Since he was one of the first of his kind, what's to say that he wasn't the first? If it happened in 1980, for example, I wouldn't hold that view, but since it was in the Victorian period, I think that changes it. But I know you don't. I still stand by a previous statement - Jack the Ripper, in his own right, is unique.
Name me one other murderer who has had so many books, movies, websites, enthusiasts, magazines and TV shows than Jack the Ripper? None. Not one.
And why? Because he IS unique. Because he was the first of his kind. And he represents a famous unsolved mystery. If he was like any other killer, then he wouldn't be near as famous, or infamous as he is.
"Yes, I can. Because that is the only way we might have a clue about how sexual serial killers work. It doesen't matter if it's 1888 or yesterday; there is no reason whatsoever why a sexual serial killer wouldn't act the same way as he does today, although the historical context is different. It's not clear-cut, though, and it IS generalisations, but sometmies generalisations has to be made uless we want to accept all kinds of lunacy theories.
Your dismissal of these aspects is just too easy."
'Lunacy theories' ?? I don't see how much more loony they can get. Randolph Churchill, Queen Victoria, Inspector Abberline and Lewis Carroll are already suspects - why not some more?
"But I always refer to threads to read, I never leave a newbie without information where to look. And in your case I referred to the Klosowski and Cream threads.
The reason for me getting so involved here this time, is because so many have commented on it. Don't expect this to happen every time"
I don't and I won't, but I think discussions like this prove to be very interesting all round - and not just for newbies either, for everyone.
CJ Morley, you wrote:
"While I would not consider myself "new" to ripperology, (I have been studying the ripper case for over 25 years, and have wrote two books on the subject)the debates posted on the message board do tend, rather quickly, to descend into personal attacks and "bitchy jibes" upon one another, almost like a school playground. Sides are quickly taken, people who don't agree with your opinions are often dismissed, the arrogance of some people on these boards, is at times, quite astonishing. The point of the original thread is quickly forgotten, and the debate descends to the level of the gutter."
You are right. We all experience this as newbies to the site, as I also learned.
But in the last couple of days, I've noticed that most members have actually become easier to talk to and provide more of an interesting discussion.
Perhaps it is the view of some of the older members that newbies, who are naturally not used to the site, will be easy targets to blow over along with any theories they bring along, I really don't know. But I think, and I've learnt this, that if you stand fast on your views and opinions, and continue to argue your point, then eventually the attacks relent into more interesting discussion. I have discovered this in the last couple of days.
Phil, you wrote:
"I am certainly not going to go over such old ground in detail Adam, for those who do not have open minds. What's the point? But a discussion on the detail, or on an issue, does not require that approach anyway. one focuses on what matters."
The point being that others can learn, can feel more welcomed and not be left out, as I felt like in particularly my first 10 days or so here. Admittedly, that view has changed in the last week or so though, especially in the last 2-3 days.
"But if Kidney killed Stride that would be a completely unfounded assumption. So any conclusion drawn from it is built on dodgy foundations."
I don't like to state things with certainty anymore, because I copped it when I did before, and try to keep more of an open mind, but that is one thing that *in my own mind* I can state with absolute certainty - Michael Kidney DID NOT kill Elizabeth Stride, and she was a Jack the Ripper victim, and should remain amongst the canonical victims, as she does now.
"What did he base his view on - a reading of the trial reports? I don't think that that would be particularly reliable.
So I think we must be very cautious about what Abberline said in 1903. Remarks in 1888 when he was on the case are something else entirely."
So if you think Abberline's 1903 statement is somewhat dangerous to believe in full, should we also disbelieve John George Littlechild's letter of 1913 that names Tumblety as a prime suspect? That was, after all, written 10 years later -is his letter more trustworthy than Abberline's statement, in your opinion?
"Take the material you cite on Klosowski/Chapman - what is there to debate. It's all circumstantial and not well deployed. As a barber he must have had sharp instruments!! Scissors and (cut-throat) razors I assume - NOT surgical knives. And I never read that the doctors in 1888 claimed that JtR's victims were disembowelled with hairdressing scissors or a razor."
No need to be sarcastic, Phil.
My point was that at a hairdresser he would be used to using sharp instruments, would get frequent practice of it, and whether scissors, razors, clippers or not, it could have provided him with practice of moving with a knife.
"Secondly you conveniently downplay the main argument AGAINST Chapman - that his known MO was totally different to the Ripper's. IMHO it's not enough simply to say "he might have changed". Some form of evidence that he DID change would be required. I have seen none."
What evidence do you want? More to the point, what evidence do you expect? For about 6 years after the murders of 1888, the history of Chapman is basically a blank. He almost disappeared, or so it seems. If there is precious little documentation in the first place, how can incriminating evidence be drawn from it?
"Third, you weakened your own case substantially in early posts when you recounted your method of thinking - to go 100% for a candidate whether true or not. That is never going to fit comfortably with those of us who take (I hesitate to use the word, because I am not trying to be offensive) sophisticated - multifaceted might be a more appropriate choice of word - approaches. Your approach is (again MHO)simplistic and dangerous, since you grasp at straws to find support for your case and then are amazed when others shrug it off as irrelevant."
It's quite interesting to note, though, that people like Glenn who are capable of shrugging off most of my arguments, have never named a definite suspect themselves. They have no problem with picking on my candidacy of Chapman, yet they don't offer up a suspect of their own to equally be picked back at. A little curious, yes?
I don't grasp at straws, and I'm certainly not amazed anyway. I've got used to it. And I've already offered a solid profile of the case against Chapman, containing all of the things we might expect of Jack the Ripper. Funnily enough, they align almost perfectly with Chapman.
"I seek out what you have written and read with interest. But you have also an obligtion to be more flexible in your views and to extend your knowledge. THEN the debate can really open up."
I continue to study it all to broaden my knowledge, don't worry Phil. And thanks for your comments and advice.
More to follow...
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 90
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 7:06 am: | |
Hi all,
The second half of my post.
Glenn, you wrote:
"I agree again. There could be millions of explanations. Fact remains that Abberline never confirmed his suspicions in his own writing and never really revealed who Jack the Ripper was, besides in this interview. Probably because he, like the others, in reality had no clue.
I'd say his 1903 statement about Chapman is worth practically zero, since he never repeated it and we don't know the reasons for and the circumstances surrounding his statement."
Well what's he going to write about? A 5 page book saying that he suspects Chapman because of such and such? Really, be realistic. If we are to follow your theory, he said it just so the newsmen would leave him alone. Perhaps he did just want his peace? But how would suspecting Chapman help preserve his peace? It wouldn't!
Many high ranking officers never did write their memoirs, not just Abberline, and I think we already have what we need from him.
Donald, you wrote:
"Sorry that you feel the boards have been inhospitable, but you must admit that you did arrive with a rush and roar, ready to discourse on nearly every topic on every thread. As a consequence there was greater opportunity to embark upon well-trod ground."
Yes, I know. I did kind of get straight into the mix, and I copped it, but in a way I'm happy I did. Better to get in on it all straight away than shy away from it.
"2) Just which witnesses did you use to arrive at this "average"? Without saying, the average or range is meaningless. Some of the witnesses sightings are clearly spurious and no witness is a dead certainty to have seen JtR. Even the one witness some of the police seem to have felt did see JtR is not known to us so we don't know what his/her description was."
Israel Schwartz, Joseph Lawende and George Hutchinson, perhaps the most important 3 witnesses out of all of them, all described the Ripper as being in this age frame. That does aid us greatly, and despite the negativity towards it, I think the witnesses have helped us a lot.
"3) Finally, of all the vagaries surrounding witness statements, the most glaring must be the estimates of age. Except at the margins (very young or very old) such estimates are quite subjective and unless a witness is close enough to observe teeth, hands, hair color and the other indicators of age his guess is not worth much. Further, most of the JtR sightings were at a distance, in poor light and often from the side or back."
That's correct, and that is what damaged Elizabeth Long's testimony so much, the fact that she only saw the man from back on. Unfortunately that was too often the case.
However, it is quite interesting to note that the 3 witnesses mentioned above were all rather consistent in the age estimation. Nobody described a man over 50, nobody described a man under 25. It's all consistent around the 30-35 margin.
David, you wrote:
"When I first starting posting a couple of years back, my first question was, "Why don't they just test the Lusk Kidney for DNA?" I was really fortunate that two bona-fide experts, Chris George and Jack Traisson, who are quietly and tremendously well-read, took me in hand and patiently explained things to me. There was no sighing, no "oh, why don't you go read a book?" "Your question is a nuisance!" Just patience and a little hospitality."
I agree with you, David. Even I, as a newbie, admit that much of what I have said, when I've thought about it later on, has bordered on the ludicrous. We are fortunate to have such members as you mention amongst us. I don't know Jack Traisson, but I have discussed things with Chris George several times, and I have always appreciated his friendly, helpful and gentlemanly manner, especially as a newcomer.
"Go where your interest takes you, and if you encounter some of these people I've mentioned, give them a good hearing. Of course, you needn't agree with them but be open because you can learn from them. I have. Of course, you'll make up your own list over time."
Thanks for the advice. I've already become acquainted with my thoughts on quite a few of the members now, and the majority are positive. Of course, there are a couple not quite so wonderful - *cough* Glenn *cough* - but I still have a respect for everyone, none the less.
"But you really owe Adam an apology--go back and read the pompous manner in which you've addressed him. Really, I like you, but you are ripe for a spanking, sir."
Please don't worry about such things. The way in which I have addressed Glenn and others myself has not always been extremely friendly. I don't mind the debating anyway. I wouldn't expect Glenn to swallow his pride just like that!
Glenn, you wrote:
"Although I feel Adam already has made great progresses and has displayed a more open approach, I think he himself already from the start set the tone when he advertised that he is stubborn and that his opinions can't be changed whatever arguments or facts are being produced. If you as a new-comer arrives with such intentions, then one deserves what's coming to you"
I acknowledge that I shouldn't really have started the way that I did, but I am glad that you can see that I have made progress, and I hope to continue doing so. But, as I said, I'm glad that I did jump straight into the action - it will help in the long run.
Jen, you wrote:
"I have to say I think we all like Adam, he fits right in and maybe it is the case that he hasn't been broken gently in, but he can take it I am sure! I would take it as a sign of respect, it's almost like we forget he is new really,no? Go Adam!"
Gee, thanks Jen!
If everyone thinks that way about me, then that is extremely pleasing!
When I think about it, overall, I feel I did make the right decision to just throw myself straight into the discussions. Hey, I've always got a wad of messages back to me to sift through! Better than being ignored!
Well guys, there's my rant for the day. Now going to go snoozing before I have to come back and exhaust myself replying again.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2550
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 7:14 am: | |
Adam,
"I got 64 e-mails when I checked this morning, all from this site!"
What??? 64?
What... do you have the alternative where you get nofified about new answers to your posts enabled? I've never used that. My inbox would hit the roof in no time.
"Not Millwood, Glenn, I don't think Millwood was a victim. But Tabram, yes."
That is strange, since many believe that Millwood and Tabram could have fallen victim to the same killer. Actually, the similarities between those two are stronger than between them and the canonical Ripper victims.
But I agree with you that there with most certainty were more mutilating killers than one around in Whitechapel at the time.
We probably don't agree on the specific victims, though, but that is another discussion (which I ufortunately have been debated since Kingdom Come as well..., look at the Millwood, Tabram and MJK threads)
"But he doesn't just "stop and turn into somehting completely different" - there was a period of 7 or 8 years where nothing happened. As I've said before, a pause period could indicate changing of his mind."
I personally don't think such a dramatic change of personal needs in connection with murder is credible. It doesne't matter how long "cooling off" period (to use profiling language) you take in consideration. And in the light of that, 7 or 8 years isn't really that long.
"Name me one other murderer who has had so many books, movies, websites, enthusiasts, magazines and TV shows than Jack the Ripper? None. Not one.
And why? Because he IS unique. Because he was the first of his kind. And he represents a famous unsolved mystery. If he was like any other killer, then he wouldn't be near as famous, or infamous as he is."
Oh no no no NO, Adam!
When I am speaking about unique, I don't mean infamous, that is something else.
The Ripper's "popularity" have many roots, the foggy Victorian environment, the fact that the murders are unsolved and he was never identified etc.
That has nothing to do with it!!!!
What I mean is, that the Ripper is not unique in his way of killing and mutilating! Compared to many other cases, his deeds actually stands flat in comparison in many respects, and his number of victims (regardless of how many we accept as canonical) wasn't that large compared to others.
"What evidence do you want? More to the point, what evidence do you expect? For about 6 years after the murders of 1888, the history of Chapman is basically a blank. He almost disappeared, or so it seems. If there is precious little documentation in the first place, how can incriminating evidence be drawn from it?"
Well, the fact that there is no existing evidence or accounts of his whereabouts at that time, is no evidence in itself either.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2551
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 7:33 am: | |
Hi Adam,
"Well what's he going to write about? A 5 page book saying that he suspects Chapman because of such and such? Really, be realistic. If we are to follow your theory, he said it just so the newsmen would leave him alone. Perhaps he did just want his peace? But how would suspecting Chapman help preserve his peace? It wouldn't!"
As I said on another thread right before I answered this one, Chapman had actuality when Abberine said this and he and his crimes were the news of the day -- the other suspects were not. Why not choose Chapman?
Besides, I do think it's possible that Abberline at that specific time believed Chapman could have been the killer, but maybe not to stronger extent than beyond mentioning it in one news-paper interview.
There would be no reason for him to also say, that Scotland Yard wasn't more sure of the Ripper's identity than 1888, if he stuck with his belief in Chapman.
When it all comes down to it, I don't think Abberline had a clue about the Ripper's identity, and neither had any of the other officials, although they blurted out personal theories because of personal prestige against each other.
"It's quite interesting to note, though, that people like Glenn who are capable of shrugging off most of my arguments, have never named a definite suspect themselves. They have no problem with picking on my candidacy of Chapman, yet they don't offer up a suspect of their own to equally be picked back at. A little curious, yes?"
Well, that should tell you something.
Not to put down all those who make legitimate reserach and puts a lot of work in it, but to NOT have a pet suspect is actually a sign of sanity.
You will soon realise this, the more you learn and discuss about the case, the the more facts we learn, the less we realise that we really know. To put forward a suspect in a 116 year old case is a hopeless amibiton, unless we have good solid evidence (and that can seldom be achieved in a case that old).
The only good thing that comes out of suspect-hunting, is the thorough research being made during the process, which helps us understand the historical and social context.
Why should I deliver a suspect, when I have absolutely no clue who he was? Besides, finding a suspect and prove his guilt is not what interests me with this case.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1507
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 12:02 pm: | |
Hi Adam,
see we aren't that bad after all!
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 688
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 2:11 pm: | |
Hi Adam et al
Wow, this thread grew a bit quick didn't it!
Flattered to be included on David's list. BTW, David isn't a wannabe, he's the real deal. (Okay, sickly sentimental backslapping club bit over).
Just to say that somewhere on these boards is the first post I ever made. It was a really horrendously stupid question about Polly Nichols. I cringe frequently to think that it is still there somewhere for everyone to read. Andy Parlour gave me a very nice reply (another to add to David's list) but I'm sure he was really thinking "what a complete and total dork!" Stick with us, you'll find we are a good bunch!
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 515
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 4:27 pm: | |
Chris George--Hi. Yes, absolutely. The Lucy Baderski story is somewhat problematic, but I don't think we really have any firm historical reasons for doubting Hargrave Adam. As you suggest, Adam might well have been a little loose with his statement, but so I see no reason why Abberline couldn't have questioned Baderski about Klosowski's general habits during his time in the East End. That's possibly all he meant. Granting that these things are a little subjective, it seems to me that Abberline was serious about his suspect. Cheers. |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 404
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 5:47 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
“The reasons for me sometimes giving Adam a hard time is because I recognise myself all too much in him and I see him make the same mistakes I did.”
I recognise yourself in him as well. 
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage"
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2566
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 6:04 pm: | |
You're on the wrong thread with that one, Frank!!!
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 457
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 3:27 am: | |
Hi Dave,
I'm honored to see my name on your list. I thought I'd let you know that I'm starting to mellow out on my insistence that MJK had to have been a Ripper victim. I still think it's extremely likely, but while trying to write an article for the January issue of Ripper Notes I stumbled across something that would be a pretty strong point in favor of the copycat theory. I'm now going to try to bounce it off of Wolf and see what we can make out of it, but I doubt I'll get it done soon enough to get it into the January issue. But then the issue is already pretty full at this point anyway...
Oh, and thanks for the link to the Pat Brown article. I think she clearly understands serial killers as they exist in the real world and not just in a set of overgeneralized assumptions based upon outdated information.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 96
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 7:07 am: | |
Hi all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"What??? 64?
What... do you have the alternative where you get nofified about new answers to your posts enabled? I've never used that. My inbox would hit the roof in no time."
Yeah, 64 e-mails. Got 59 more today. But yes, I do have the option enabled to have any responses to my posts sent to my e-mail. It does clutter it a bit, but I don't mind because it gives me a chance to think about what my reply should involve before I actually reply. Much better.
"That is strange, since many believe that Millwood and Tabram could have fallen victim to the same killer. Actually, the similarities between those two are stronger than between them and the canonical Ripper victims.
But I agree with you that there with most certainty were more mutilating killers than one around in Whitechapel at the time.
We probably don't agree on the specific victims, though, but that is another discussion (which I ufortunately have been debated since Kingdom Come as well..., look at the Millwood, Tabram and MJK threads)"
That's true, but then there are similarities between several victims as not seen in other ones as well, even amongst the 'canonical' 5. In any case, Millwood seems to be somewhat on the outer compared to Tabram. The similarities, yes, but Tabram does seem somewhat more acceptable to me.
I also agree that their certainly was other mutilating killers around at the time, perhaps several. And it's this unfortunately that causes a lot of debate over various victims. BTW, don't forget our little (well, not so little) discussion about Liz Stride as a victim earlier!
"I personally don't think such a dramatic change of personal needs in connection with murder is credible. It doesne't matter how long "cooling off" period (to use profiling language) you take in consideration. And in the light of that, 7 or 8 years isn't really that long."
There was a discussion on another thread about how long of a time 10 minutes seems, so 7 or 8 years is mammoth compared to that. It seems this is one of the least documented periods in Chapman's life as well, we know little of what he was up to from about 1890 - 1894/5.
It's also interesting to note the change of Chapman's occupation as compared to the murders. He changed from hairdresser to publican. Therefore, he changed from using sharp tools to administering a form of drug. His wives died from poisonous drugs. Think about it, his change in jobs almost could signify a change in the way he may have worked as a killer. What do you think?
"What I mean is, that the Ripper is not unique in his way of killing and mutilating! Compared to many other cases, his deeds actually stands flat in comparison in many respects, and his number of victims (regardless of how many we accept as canonical) wasn't that large compared to others."
That's very true. His deeds are fairly minor compared to some killers. Yet he is almost certainly the most famous. And, as you say, there are many contributing factors. Personally, I don't think it's the murders themselves that attract interest in him, but the unsolved mystery surrounding him. He's almost like a phantom - there 1 minute, gone the next.
"Well, the fact that there is no existing evidence or accounts of his whereabouts at that time, is no evidence in itself either."
No, but it certainly doesn't help the case for him NOT being the Ripper, either. If some evidence came to light that, for example, he was in Paris when Annie Chapman was killed, then that knocks him out as a potential suspect. But we do know so much that he was in the area during the entire time of the murders, was single, possessed the skills and tools, and was a known murderer later on. Not to mention Abberline/Godley/Neil suspecting him as well. But that's for the other thread.
"Why not choose Chapman?
Besides, I do think it's possible that Abberline at that specific time believed Chapman could have been the killer, but maybe not to stronger extent than beyond mentioning it in one news-paper interview."
Well one news paper interview is enough. He mentioned no other suspect. Infact, he says he never believed anything about the Ripper being dead, etc, which certainly knocks out a hell of a lot of suspects - Druitt, Bury, Cream, Deeming, Maybrick, Fogelma, Carroll, Cohen, etc - The list goes on. That is of course relying on him being right, though.
He does make an interesting case for Chapman, and perhaps is one of the best people to say about someone he suspects.
I wonder, though, on a different topic, if Godley and Neil had any correspondence by 1932, and that helped Neil write his autobiography and subsequent suspicion of Chapman as the Ripper too? What do you think?
"When it all comes down to it, I don't think Abberline had a clue about the Ripper's identity, and neither had any of the other officials, although they blurted out personal theories because of personal prestige against each other."
Well that's your opinion, and you can have it, that's your choice. But the question has to be asked - if Abberline can't be trusted as a voice of truth, who can? Anyone?
In reality, anyone can find any reason for knocking out the beliefs of someone who suspects someone other than their own suspect inclinations. If you, for example, suspected W.H. Bury, and Abberline agreed with it, then you would have no problem. But then I would. It's simply how things happen - and I am fortunate enough to have Abberline/Neil/Godley support the same suspect I do. I think that's good enough.
"You will soon realise this, the more you learn and discuss about the case, the the more facts we learn, the less we realise that we really know. To put forward a suspect in a 116 year old case is a hopeless amibiton, unless we have good solid evidence (and that can seldom be achieved in a case that old)."
Actually, I think it makes it more interesting for every new suspect that is brought forward. It's not a good idea to have the attitude of M.J. Trow, for example, and stop introducing suspects altogether. Eventually, if that happened, we would run out of things to discuss. New suspects ensure new discussions - and an interesting read. Even though I am fairly set on my opinions, I think new suspects are good.
"Why should I deliver a suspect, when I have absolutely no clue who he was? Besides, finding a suspect and prove his guilt is not what interests me with this case."
Well I hardly think it's fair for my suspect to be battered when you have no idea yourself. So you have no inclinations at all towards any suspect? I've seen you talk about W.H. Bury in a couple of threads, do you lean towards him at all? You must have thoughts towards 1 suspect or another!
Alan, you wrote:
"Flattered to be included on David's list. BTW, David isn't a wannabe, he's the real deal. (Okay, sickly sentimental backslapping club bit over)."
Lucky, Lucky, Lucky, is all I can say! I'm still a definite wannabe, and probably will be for many years to come - though I wouldn't mind climbing up the list at some point.
"Andy Parlour gave me a very nice reply (another to add to David's list) but I'm sure he was really thinking "what a complete and total dork!" Stick with us, you'll find we are a good bunch!"
I already have begun to!
Jen and Alan, I know, when I first walked in I felt like I was the park ranger who just walked in to the grizzly bear zone with a tub full of meat - attack! bite! damage!
But since then I've realised with just a little perseverance you can get a long way. Even Glenn and I haven't exchanged insulting words to each other for a record amount of time now!
Glenn, keep playing nice! ; - )
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2574
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 9:38 am: | |
Hi Adam,
"That's true, but then there are similarities between several victims as not seen in other ones as well, even amongst the 'canonical' 5. In any case, Millwood seems to be somewhat on the outer compared to Tabram. The similarities, yes, but Tabram does seem somewhat more acceptable to me.
I also agree that their certainly was other mutilating killers around at the time, perhaps several. And it's this unfortunately that causes a lot of debate over various victims. BTW, don't forget our little (well, not so little) discussion about Liz Stride as a victim earlier!"
Well yes, we seem to agree on that latter part. I am glad you seem to share that thought, since some prefer to think that the Ripper was responsible for all crimes in 1887-1890 in the area. I am glad to hear you say this.
It's possible that Millwood and Tabram wasn't at all killed by the same murderer, though, but there are some indications that makes me wonder, like the fact that both of them were stabbed, for example -- not ripped up.
However, I have previously been rather reluctant to include Chapman (no strangluation, the murder rather seem to be performed in rage and frenzie rather than methodical handling with the knife, too short time frame between Chapman and Nichols in order to suddenly invent a signature that he then uses for several murders etc. etc.), but now I am not so sure. I am even at this point inclined to consider Ada Wilson, but once again, we can't know this -- it's only speculation.
I'd say there is a 50--50 chance, at least, that Millwood and Chapman were killed by the same assailant.
"It's also interesting to note the change of Chapman's occupation as compared to the murders. He changed from hairdresser to publican. Therefore, he changed from using sharp tools to administering a form of drug. His wives died from poisonous drugs. Think about it, his change in jobs almost could signify a change in the way he may have worked as a killer. What do you think?"
Well, that is interesting, actually, I must admit. Not that it proves anything -- and neither does his absence from public records during the period -- but I can acknowledge that that is an interesting observation.
Could be a coincidence, though, and I still say the whole thing with Chapman is a rather unlikely scenario anyway. But I prefer not to stress this point. I want to read and see what Paul Begg says anything about him (if he does) too first before I jump to conclusions here either way.
"That's very true. His deeds are fairly minor compared to some killers. Yet he is almost certainly the most famous. And, as you say, there are many contributing factors. Personally, I don't think it's the murders themselves that attract interest in him, but the unsolved mystery surrounding him. He's almost like a phantom - there 1 minute, gone the next."
I absolutely agree, Adam. I believe it's those things, together with the Victorian foggy alleyways and gas lights and the fact that he was unidentified, that has made him special. He acted at the right time and at the right place.
"In reality, anyone can find any reason for knocking out the beliefs of someone who suspects someone other than their own suspect inclinations. If you, for example, suspected W.H. Bury, and Abberline agreed with it, then you would have no problem. But then I would. It's simply how things happen - and I am fortunate enough to have Abberline/Neil/Godley support the same suspect I do. I think that's good enough."
Well, one could STILL wonder about Abberline's statements that they had no more clue about his identity in 1903 than in 1888. I believe he there he actually gave the correct statement. The reasons for hi mentioning Chapman could be several; as I said his interest could have been awoken in connection with Chapman's capture and execution (which was the story of the day). I think he would have continued to stress this point in interviews and in his autobiography if his interest in Chapman had survived, but that's just me.
I think it's quite possible, though, that there exists personal writing or letters between the officials that still havent been discovered, like between Abberline and Neil or Neil and Godley. After all, the Swanson marginalia came to light by pure accident more or less after quite many years, so who knows what the time brings?
"Actually, I think it makes it more interesting for every new suspect that is brought forward. It's not a good idea to have the attitude of M.J. Trow, for example, and stop introducing suspects altogether. Eventually, if that happened, we would run out of things to discuss. New suspects ensure new discussions - and an interesting read."
As I said, for me the interesting and rewarding things with producing suspects is what we learn about the context during the process of research. The suspects themselves I find rather uninteresting.
"So you have no inclinations at all towards any suspect? I've seen you talk about W.H. Bury in a couple of threads, do you lean towards him at all? You must have thoughts towards 1 suspect or another!"
I am a historian, not a detective. Like many other crime historians I prefer to study the historical context. I am absolutely not interested in solving the case and I am not interested in those who do. If it weren't for the memory of the victims and to put things right for them, I would actually prefer that it would never be solved. We need our mysteries.
Although I don't have any interest in proposing a suspect myself, I do think it's necessary to study the critically suspects that people suggests. And some of them I find more inviting than others, Bury is one of them and it has nothing to do with Abberline but by other circumstances, although there are some problems with his candidacy as well. All I can establish from my own analysing is that the killer was a local man, probably rather grey and common in his appearance and possibly (without any shred of proof) a paranoid schizofrenic and not a psychopath, but I would never mention one certain name I'd call my pet suspect.
I am really not that satisfied with any of the suspects that has been proposed, and those that I find promising, we know practically nothing about. But that just shows how impossible it is to nail down a suspect in such an old case. Criminal cases have a short life span and in this case no existing witnesses or any other person is alive today, and the information is incomplete and scattered. (I can already hear Stan Russo sharpening his knives in the background...).
"Glenn, keep playing nice! ; - )
I will, Adam, I will. I'l do my best.
I think you have already changed quite a bit from how you started as well. Makes discussions way more interesting.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 650
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 10:12 am: | |
Hi Dan,
Mellowing out, eh? All I can say is that I'd like to see the information what made that happen. You will have to tell Rich Dewar I also understand Alex Chisholm wrote a good piece questioning her candidacy a few years ago, but I haven't read it yet. Myself, I lean towards including her but I try to keep open mind. Congratulations on the work you and Wolf are doing with Ripper Notes. I do believe I'm going to have to break down and subscribe.
Dave
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 516
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 10:38 am: | |
"I do think it's possible that Abberline at that specific time believed Chapman could have been the killer, but maybe not to stronger extent than beyond mentioning it in one news-paper interview."
This is a bit loose, Glenn. Abberline made his opinions known in an article in the Pall Mall Gazette; he responded in a second article ( a week later) to critics of the theory. So it wasn't merely a 'one off' statement.
"I think he would have continued to stress this point in interviews and in his autobiography if his interest in Chapman had survived, but that's just me. "
Abberline never wrote an autobiography. As for his 'interest in Chapman surviving' , H.L. Adam wrote: "Abberline never wavered in his firm conviction that Chapman and Jack the Ripper were one in the same." (1930). We don't know on what this statement is based, but Phil Sugden argues that this can probably be traced to George Godley, who knew Abberline.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2578
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
Hi Dave,
"Mellowing out, eh? All I can say is that I'd like to see the information what made that happen."
I am actually quite curious myself, since I and one or two others have been stressing this point on the Boards in recent times, to much annoyance for Dan and others.
Although let me clarify that I am not at all sure; I'd say I give her 50-50 chance of being a copy-cat. So it'll be really interesting to see what Dan has come up with. Regardless where it leads.
"I also understand Alex Chisholm wrote a good piece questioning her candidacy a few years ago, but I haven't read it yet."
Well, you should. I first thought it was a load of crap, though, since I was so set in my beliefs regarding her candidacy. I have since then totally reconsidered, though, and sincerely apologised to Chisholm for this, and I believe his piece belong to the most innovative and ground-breaking things that's ever been written regarding the Ripper murders during the last twenty years.
But it's a painful and frustrating read if it doesen't correspond with what you want to hear and if you believe that the Ripper was responsible for nearly all the crimes in the area. It really requires a completely open mind. I just reread it a couple of months ago and I still think it's brilliant. I think the piece is called "Done to Death" and was once published as an article in a Ripper magazine (can't remember which one).
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 651
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 11:46 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Thanks, Glenn. I think you're right: "Done to Death". Must be a good one, since people still bring it up now and then. Maybe it's time to republish it?
It's great when people challenge their own views, particularly if they've been passionate on a subject (passion's not bad, of course). I have a student mentality, so I place a lot of importance on what I read and hear and I ask questions; that's how I form my own opinions (I'm trying to shift over to doing my own research and am seriously considering returning to school and getting my master's in history so I can learn proper research methods and hopefully stretch my brain some). But for now I'm a student, so when I see someone like Dan saying what he just said, I make a little mental note that there's a person to listen to, because if he's willing to be open to an idea he's passionately opposed in the past, I know he's not going to twist the facts on me just to get me to where he wants me (as a reader) to go.
Cheers,
Dave |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2580
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
That is probably true, Dave.
Good luck with your plans regarding getting that masters in history; I wish you the best and I am sure you have problems with pulling that off. The hardest thing is usually to find a subject suitable and interesting enough for writing a thesis, and to find a relevant problem context to put it in. Once you've done that, half the work is done.
I personally settled for a bachelor's degree in my main history subject, but that has to do with how things work here in Sweden. If you're not dealing with natural science over here, you're a waste of space anyway, according to the authorities. That should tell you something about the academic climate here in good old Sweden.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 10:28 am: | |
Hi Joe,
If you are still reading this thread I would have to guess that Abberline was not Jack the ripper. However thinking outside the box sometimes can proove usefull. This thredad has led to an interesting discussion about Chapman. Some idiot started a thread about the possibility that Tumblety could have known Druitt and that thread produced some interesting information.
Hi Adam and Glenn,
Abberline thought that Chapman could have been the ripper. He believed if you could kill three of your wives then you could have been the ripper. I assume we are talking about the interview he gave to the Pall Mall Gazzett in 1903. He also thought that the ripper could have been harvesting the organs and he suggested that the ripper may have been taking the organs on the behalve of a second party. Abberline is suggesting that Chapman could have been the ripper and that he was commiteing the murders for the purpose of obtaining the organs for a second party who probably was paying him money. The motive for the murders would determine the method he used. To obtain the organes he would have to cut up the bodies. Too murder his wives he probably would use a less obvious method such as poison. The change of MO would not be a reason to dismiss Chapman. I do not believe this theory but it seems to be the one Abberline was suggesting.
Abbeline did not claim that Chpman was the ripper but he did suggest the possibility. I do not believe he would suggest the idea just to gain some peace. He was actually considering the possibility. If Abberline had not wanted to comment on the matter he would have said no comment.
Your friend,CB |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 6:04 pm: | |
Thank you David, for your kind words.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 8:33 am: | |
Adam
I respect your resilience and "charm", if nothing else.
Two things, briefly:
a) the difference between Abberlines '03 comments and Littlechild's letter '13 - is that we know the context of the latter. In evaluating evidence, as a historian, context is all.
b)on suggesting candidates - i suggest you read the thread on changing our minds. Most of us have, in the past, had a suspect we favoured, but experience has taught us that in JtR studies, that is a dangerous thing. As I have said to you several times, the only sensible approach is to treat the case like a jigsaw, or a mosaic, to which you have lost the picture. You remain open minded. If you feel sustaining one candidate, puts you at a disadvantage here - no one asked you to take the approach you do.
Phil |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
