|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 6:17 pm: |       |
G'day Marie,
Here's another link on 'Spring Heeled Jack':
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/articlejack.shtml
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 224
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 6:51 am: | |
CHAPTER 13 - THE TWINS OF TERROR
Wolf, where's our proof that TC was 'dangerously psychotic' in 1888? He knocked out 4 guards to make good his escape from Lambeth Infirmary in 1891. Then he attacked two women with his recently bought knife, unfortunately fatelly wounding one.
Macnaughten wrote: 'The cuts in the girls dresses made by Colicott were quite different to the cuts made by Cutbush...who was no doubt influenced by a wild desire of morbid imitation.'
'His father died when he was quite young.' Maybe he needed attention, 'fame'.
He found employment in the East End of London: 'during which time he bore a good character'.
Then in about 1888: 'He apparently contracted syphilis and since that time led an idle and useless life. His brain seems to have become affected...' His syphilis was probably imaginary as he and his mum where probably looking for an excuse for his behavior.
He spent the day perving at medical books and making rough, indecent sketches, cutting pictures from fashion plates. He was probably reading and being inspired by press reports of his hero's work. He'd probably read about Annie Chapman, so he drew at least one sketch of a disembowelled woman.
I agree with you that Mary Kelly's inquest was concluded too soon. The witness testimony that was held-back was probably the testimony that threw doubts on her established time-of-death.
In this chapter Wolf compares what little is known about Thomas Cutbush to what is known about Richard Chase, hense the title: 'The Twins Of Terror'. He states that their problems began when they were: 'exactly the same age', therefore their actions must have been identicle.
Richard Chase was evil!!! He brutally murdered a woman in a crime that was a 'carbon copy of the Jack the Ripper murders', after reading articles and books about vicious killings. So part of being an 'acute paranoid schizophrenic' is mimicing the behaviour of someone 'in the spotlight', someone 'mightier', someone 'scarier, bigger'.
If TC wasn't locked up after he mimicked those reported crimes of 'jobbing' girls, he might have turned into 'The Vampire of Kennington'.
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 7:39 am: | |
G'day Wolf,
Well Wolf, to quote Marie...are you gonna write a new book or not?
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 123
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 9:33 am: | |
Hi all,
Rob, Paul Begg is one of my favourite authors, so I'd love to read the article.
Leanne, that article you linked to was a really interesting read.
Thank ye both kindly for the info! Of course, the kid in me is jumping up and down going: *blue and white flames, how cool!*
(actually, I've already started a sketch. I only hope I can do the flames some justice). |
AP Wolf
Detective Sergeant
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 145
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 2:20 pm: | |
Leanne
I believe Thomas' behaviour during 1888 was so closely linked to Richard Chase's behaviour in the lead up to his crimes that they are indeed the true twins of terror. The incident where Thomas threw an old gent down some stairs for making a comment about Thomas staring into a mirror is I feel very telling.
Again I believe further evidence will soon come to light concerning both Thomas' and his uncle Charles' behaviour and fondness of the knife during the exact period of the Ripper crimes.
We must simply wait and see.
As I think I said to your already, the Colicott issue needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency, and quite honestly I am surprised at the dearth of information about this other young man available to us.
I have no plans to write a further factual book on the case, however I am slowly putting together a fictional and frictional account of the life and many deaths of Thomas and Charles Cutbush which shall of course be called 'Bad Rabbit'.
But I just might go and lay on a beach somewhere near Cairns instead.
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 227
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 4:53 pm: | |
G'day Marie,
About the blue and white flames:
The story I wrote says: 'The technique of the circus fire-eating acts, was well known in 1837 too.'
LEANNE |
Marie Finlay
Detective Sergeant
Username: Marie
Post Number: 130
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 24, 2003 - 5:53 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Wow, yeah I'd figured it was maybe a fire-eating trick. It must've looked very impressive, quite scary.
AP, I'll look forward to reading you fiction book. I enjoy your writing style greatly.
Lying on the beach does sound nice..... |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 231
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 7:39 pm: | |
CHAPTER 14 - BAD RABBITS
Wolf: This chapter is REVOLTING! and it was probably designed that way! - to anger readers.
It's about known twentieth century monsters like Carl Panzram, David Berkowitz, Richard Ramirez etc, who killed with a supposed 'mission from God'. You link them smuggly to Thomas Cutbush, using his uncles obsession against Catholics as proof that religion played a vital role in TC's youth.
You may be right mate, Thomas Cutbush seemed to be heading in that direction when he was locked up, but that's a week reason to assume that he was already at that stage three years before. How did the police catch him in 1891? Was he too grown-up to fly over fences? It's hard to believe that the police couldn't come anywhere near catching him during the 'Autumn of Terror', and how come the 'force' wasn't interested in 'protecting the reputation of a senior officer or the force he served' in 1891?
I think you could write a great FICTION story of this! I can see a movie being born too!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 233
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 4:28 am: | |
CHAPTER 15 - HOUSE OF CARDS
Oh dear, dear, dear, in this chapter Wolf suggests that the 'Royal Pardon' to any accomplice of Jack's was aimed directly at Exacutive Superintendent Charles Cutbush, who had knowledge of his nephew's actions.
The book 'The Ultimate JtR Companion' by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner, contains the official Police and Home Office records on the murders. I can see the first mention of a 'pardon' came just after 'Rewards' were being debated. This was just after the 'Double-Event', in early October.
The idea of a 'Reward/Pardon' seems to have originated in the minds of the 'Vigilance Committee' headed by George Lusk, who saw it as an untried method.
On the 7th of October, Mr Lusk wrote a letter that said: 'the only means left untried for the detection of the murderer has been the offer of a Government reward, with the offer of a free pardon to any person not the real assasin'.
Then there's a reply from the Secretary Of State: 'There is no reason to suspect an accomplice, quite the reverse. I therefore see no good in offering a pardon.'
The decision to finally go ahead with a free pardon was made by the Home Office on the 10th of November, following the butcher of Mary Jane Kelly. They soon had no hessitation in extending the offer to cover the earlier murders.
I think I'll write an article about this offer of a pardon for a future issue of 'Ripperoo'.
What you write about this 'Police Seaside Home' business Wolf mate, sounds quite interesting. I'll read up on it!
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 234
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 4:33 am: | |
G'day Stephen,
Before I bought the book: 'The Ultimate JtR' Companion', these official records weren't available to the public, and everyone was jumping down my throat saying: "That's false, the official records say this...." Where have all those people gone?
LEANNE |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 5:41 am: | |
Leanne
Firstly regarding Thomas.
I feel it vital to know exactly where he was from November 1888 till February 1891 before we can be judgemental about his behaviour during this time period.
His fence flying antics were recorded from his early childhood until his arrest in 1891, so again if we knew where he was in the missing two and a half years we could perhaps make a better judgement.
Smug!
Hah!
No Leanne, I have never tried to convince anyone that Thomas was Jack, but have merely outlined his known behaviour at the times of the crimes - and after - and suggested that this could be tracked to the coincidental events that were taking place.
I think the press in 1891 were probably unaware of the connection between Thomas and his uncle Charles of Scotland Yard, which is exactly why I think Thomas' trial was speed tracked through the court and no real verdict given.
Perhaps 'Her Majesty's Pleasure' was 'Her Majesty's Gracious Pardon'?
Think on it.
Anways methinks you have cooked your own goose with the subject of the Pardon, for nowhere in the book you reference is mention ever made of the pardon being extended to cover the earlier crimes associated with Jack. In fact the Home Secretary in his parliamentary reply is at pains to stress this fact.
Yes, Mishter Lusk may well have linked the granting of such a pardon to a reward - just as you and many others do - but the officials whose task it was to issue and grant such pardon went to great lengths to emphasise that there was something so radically different in the murder of Kelly that such a pardon would be granted to cover these exceptional circumstances in this one crime only and that such pardon would apply to an accomplice only.
In other words these police and home office officials did know something that set apart the murder of Kelly from all the other murders, and that centred around an accomplice.
You - like many others - are assuming that the pardon was offered in the hope of this accomplice coming forward and giving information which would lead to the subsequent arrest of the killer, in much the manner of a reward.
I feel this is blinkered feeling and a gross misunderstanding of exactly what the pardon inherently expresses, which is the right to ease somebody out of a situation without any fuss or bother in which they would normally face prosecution in an open court in the full light of the media.
It was and is a cop-out.
For a cop.
|
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 237
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 10:43 am: | |
G'day Wolf,
Who's doin' the goose cookin' here, me or you? What do you mean 'no where in the book you reference...'? Have you read it all?
On page 349, there is a file, which appears to be minutes that read: 'Mr HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is prepared, in the case of the Whitechapel murders, other than that of the woman Kelly, to offer a free pardon to any person not being the actual perpetrator of the crimes?
The SECRETARY of STATE (Mr. MATHEWS) (Birmingham, E.): I should be quite prepared to offer a pardon in the earlier Whitechapel murders if the information before me had suggested that such an offer would assist in the detection of the murderer...'
You know what was so radically different in Mary Kelly's case? The killer had moved off the streets to inside the victims home!
You know what was so different about offering a pardon to an accomplice instead of a reward of money for information? It would stop money-hungry people like Mathew Packer from waisting their time and inventing stories!
LEANNE |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 158
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 11:45 am: | |
Leanne
I am a vegetarian so rarely cook geese but have been commonly known to roast me own chesnuts.
However on this occasion I do not believe I have done so.
For Mr Mathews' reply makes it quite clear that there were no circumstances attached to the other murders concerning an 'accomplice'... which is the rub. The police must have known - or at least had viable information - that such an accomplice had been involved in the murder of Kelly.
The pardon was patently not concerned with the location of the crime - though I must agree with you on the relevance of that fact.
The pardon was not designed to increase the flow of information but rather cut it off before it could do harm.
I have still seen no evidence as yet to justify the statement that a single witness involved in this case perjured themselves for financial gain. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 240
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 6:08 am: | |
G'day Wolf,
Well I'm glad their intentions are clear to you, because I'm having trouble reading the recipe!
Those minutes that I quoted above, go on to say: '.....-tection of the murderer....In the case of Kelly there were certain circumstances which were wanting in the earlier cases, and which made it more probable that there were other persons who, at any rate after the crime, had assisted the murderer.' I wonder what these circumstances were. Could they concern the sghtings of Mary after her estimated time-of-death? The testimonies that didn't reach the inquest?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 6:24 am: | |
G'day Wolf,
Let's go back to October and see why the offer of a pardon was at the time rejected:
On page 253 of 'The Ultimate JtR companion', there is a note from Godfrey Lushington to Henry Mathews dated 10 October, concerning Mr Lusks's suggestion of a pardon: '....for in a crime of this atrocious character it is desirable that if possible no person, even an accessory after the fact should receive a pardon....Nor will the offer of a pardon restore confidence in the police. It will be accepted as an admission of their failure to detect the crime....In my opinion it would be better for the S of S not to offer a pardon.' What made them change their minds after the murder of Mary Kelly? Did they believe there may have been an 'accessory after the fact'?
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 242
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 6:39 am: | |
G'day Wolf,
Now I'll look at their fears of offering a reward for information, to show you how they were concerned about waisting time with money-hungry people:
On page 267 of the above mentioned book, is a letter from Sir Charles Warren dated 6 October, to Henry Mathews. This letter tells of a case in 1884 called 'The German Explosion Case', which resulted in a 'conspiracy in order to obtain a reward.....the practice of offering rewards was discontinued some years ago because experience showed that in their general effect such offers produce more harm than good.'
When Mathew Packer was first interviewed by the police, he stated that he did not see any suspicious persons about. Then once the description of the person seen by P.C. Smith was published in a newspaper, he changed his mind. The police decided that 'any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence.'
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 245
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 7:56 am: | |
G'day Wolf,
I've done so much research tonight that I'll read again tomorrow. I've just found more info on these files, and the murder of Kelly in the book: 'The Complete History of Jack the Ripper' by Philip Sugden - page 323 and marked the place with a bookmark!
GOODNIGHT!
LEANNE |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 28, 2003 - 1:52 pm: | |
Leanne
your sterling efforts are much appreciated, and I am glad that there are people on these boards - like yourself - who relentlessly question and pursue a subject to its ultimate conclusion.
I go along with you to some degree, but regarding witness statements, I think you will find that it is not uncommon for a witness to a serious crime to radically alter their first statement to the police after a night of reflection and contemplation, and it can be the publication or airing of material that actually causes said witness to radically alter their statements... to wit the success of such programmes as 'Crime Watch' here in the UK, which depends to a large degree on airing footage of crimes which then 'prompts' previous witnessess into remembering more detail.
Believe me, this is not unusual circumstance.
I think it wrong to make a connection between the offering of a reward and the issue of a pardon. Two very different beasts indeed and I think it slightly unfair to link them together.
'Her Majesty's Most Gracious Pardon' was so unique and unusual that somewhere in the sewers of information in which we drown is a life raft, piloted by Jack.
Respect. |
Leanne Perry
Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 249
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 5:15 pm: | |
G'day Wolf,
Thanks for the compliment!
I am not arguing that Mathew Packer was lying. No one will ever know. I'm just pointing out what the police were worried about at the time. (i.e. people waisting their time by inventing stories to claim the reward money!) Look at how todays researchers get all mixed up, because of the false idea that grapes were found in Stride's hand!
The offer of a REWARD from the government was always rejected. The reward money eventually came from donations from news publishers etc.
The offer of a PARDON was made by the government in November, because there was no money to be gained from it. No one would want to damage their reputation by inventing stories. On the other hand, if Jack did have an accomplice, he probably would have been tempted to give himself up and get away with it.
No accomplice ever did come forward, so that adds weight to the argument that he never had one....but maybe the accomplice was just as guilty as him!
LEANNE |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 171
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 1:29 pm: | |
Leanne
the compliment was well deserved.
You say that no accomplice ever came forward, but as I think I have already suggested we would not really know that. The simple fact of the matter is that we do not know how a Royal Pardon works, as we have no other cases to fall back on.
By its very nature the pardon would be of a secretive nature, with the accomplice perhaps receiving the same privilige and accords of someone in our modern society under the WPS.
Believe me - and I do know - an individual protected under the WPS disappears from the very face and fabric of society, all their public records are destroyed and they are well nigh impossible to track down.
Such a set of circumstance may well have applied to a Royal Pardon.
We simply would never hear of it. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 86
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 12:57 am: | |
Hello all,
Since I've ordered the Casebook CD-Rom, I've had the chance to read A.P.'s book without having to be online (I'm an internet neanderthal - i.e., still using dial-up!). I was familiar with some of the theories and themes of the book, but was happily surprised to find it updated (she warns us against American authors with big pocketbooks, and probably rightly so - and I'M an American, so I can say that!). I see that much discussion of the book has already taken place on this thread, and it would appear that A.P. was made to defend her work endlessly, for no other reason but that she happens to post on this Casebook.
I just thought I'd drop my two cents. First of all, I very much enjoyed the prose. When reading it you'll notice that you just breeze through it and it seems that the writing came from the author with no effort. When it SEEMS like that, the opposite is usually true, so kudos to A.P. for producing a very readable JTR book! One quibble I have is that the book is heavily padded with references to other criminals and crimes; some of these are very enjoyable and engrossing, but towards the end of the book they simply become frustrating.
What about the theory? I'd like to lie and say it was amateurish balderdash...but I can't. I will admit that some of the points made in favor of Cutbush hit home and made me stop and think. Certainly made me want to read further. Do I think Cutbush was the Ripper? No, I don't. Do I think A.P. has made some very interesting and worthwhile observations that have taken an under-considered suspect and risen up the ranks to 'legitimate'? Yes. However, the 'Seaside Home' theory as presented in the book is simply ridiculous, since it ignores the fact that both the witness and suspect involved were Jewish, whereas Cutbush and uncle Cutbush were not. And what of the Swanson Marginalia? These are very significant points in the book and, in the end, almost destroy the theory that the rest of the book was working to build up. I was also miffed that, while Stride is given plenty of discussion, Eddowes is completely ignored. And Michael Kidney was Stride's killer? Then why didn't Schwartz point this out? As you'll see, there are some serious flaws in reasoning found in this book. But still, it's worth a read, and you'll probably find yourself saying to yourself a time or two, "Man, I never thought of that!", and how often do you get that from a Ripper book these days? Besides, you sure can't beat the price! 
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1124
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 1:40 pm: | |
Thanks Tom, for your interest and helpful and valid comments about the ‘Myth’. It is strange feeling to see the book in review so many years later; sort of like one of the victims came back from the dead thing.
Your comments about my style and the way one is able to float through the book in an easy-breezy fashion brush my ego nicely, thank you very much; and I suppose if I was to do it all again now I would cut out a whole swath of references to other crimes and criminals, but I’m afraid in the early 90’s that was very much the fashion, and I had my arm badly twisted - when not broken - by the publishers in such matters. Such matters are very much out of the control of the author, like the cover etc., for I specifically asked not to have any reference to blood on the cover but oh no they had to throw a few drops over the canvas to give it the usual boring and tedious hint of forbidden pornography.
Regarding the ‘Seaside Home’ I’m afraid we must disagree, for I have always seen this entire episode as largely based on a disinformation campaign by the men in charge of Scotland Yard engaged in a damage limitation exercise… therefore I do not pay much attention to the reference to ‘Jews’, feeling instinctively that it is there simply because of the age, in much the same way that a police report today might rejoice in implicating a terrorist group. And that view is taken into consideration with the fact that many senior police officers were keen to avoid any form of racial or religious grouping in regard to the crimes. Although the modern Met might do all it can to present a fair and unbiased view in its dealing with minority populations in England today, one does know that the force is plagued with wide-spread and systematic prejudice against such minorities, and I don’t see it being any different in the Late Victorian Period.
A whipping boy was required at that time… and some smoke and mirrors.
My view of the Stride crime hasn’t changed a bit in ten years and I still don’t rate her as a victim of JtR at all. However I must say that I was well and truly shot out of the water regarding Kidney’s involvement in the crime when I first appeared on this site, so I better keep my head below the parapet now.
I enjoyed your review immensely, and do wish that others on this site would contribute more often to such topics which I do feel advance this site so much more than the endless bickering that goes on elsewhere.
I personally rate the entire Cutbush family as the most dynamic and interesting thing that has happened to the JtR saga in the last fifty years but that doesn’t mean to say that I am convinced that any member of that family was Jack.
I am waiting for Robert and Chris to tell me that.
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 92
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 5:13 pm: | |
A.P.,
Thanks for the reply. However, I'm a bit confused. You compare the Cutbush/Seaside Home theory with a modern tendency to assume terrorist involvement in a crime. Do you mean to say that if a white Englishman were arrested for murder today, it would be assumed he's a Muslim terrorist? I can't imagine you mean that, so I dont' understand the connection. Why would Anderson say Cutbush was a Polish Jew? Why would Swanson write private marginalia to the same effect, and name Kosminski as the suspect, if in fact Cutbush were the man? Why, in fact, would Anderson allude to the event so often and so publicly, if it were such a hush-hush matter? Is there any evidence that suggests neither the witness or suspect at the Seaside Home were Jewish? If so, please share.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1125
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Tom
With the best will in the world that is not what I was trying to say.
Let me highlight a recent case involving the modern Met force where a young black man was beaten and then knifed to death by a group of five young white men at a bus stop.
The case as it has evolved has shown a police force desperately trying to show that the crime had a racial motivation and that the five young white men were actively involved in racist political organizations with a ‘down on blacks’.
But as the evidence has been revealed it has shown that it is the Met itself which has purely racist attitudes to crimes involving young black men, and this particular young black man died because white officers refused to respond to the critical situation simply because it involved a young black man in an area of London predominantly populated by young black men.
The man died while officers stood around.
Think carefully about the circumstances, victims and areas of Jack’s crimes?
And then minus about 150 years.
Whether we like it or not, there will always be specialized segments of the population that will be considered as ‘undesirables’ or ‘unfortunates’ by the men that police society… we call them ‘victims’.
I’m still not sure what the police call them.
Probably ‘undesirables’.
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 95
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 9:25 pm: | |
A.P.,
I wasn't asking for liberal propaganda,I can watch TV if I want that. I was asking how you could conclude that the witness and suspect at the Seaside Home were not Jewish and, for that matter, how the suspect wasn't Kosminski, even though Swanson's PRIVATE marginalia in his PRIVATE copy of Anderson's memoirs states quite plainly that it was. You've avoided this question.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
No, the question hasn't been avoided...
What's been avoided is a sort of Radka situation where minor nits picking at the scabby hide of some old sacred cow become the altar piece at which we worship.
I have no interest or even desire to find myself in endless discussion concening fractional pieces of an exploded jigsaw that can never be put together again... instead I quite happily paint a new picture, and that without an ounce of shame.
Ignoring my valid points and labelling them 'liberal propaganda' is very Radka and does you no favours.
It plainly defeats and defies me to explain to you how a wandering maniacal Jew from the East-End of London would end up at a seaside home in Brighton for the tired and insane officers of the Metropolitan Police Force, but hey if that is your bible then please do keep hitting yourself over the head with it. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 99
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 10:08 pm: | |
A.P.,
You do Radka too much justice by using his name as an expletive. I only understood a portion of what you wrote, as I began getting a headache about three metaphors into your diatribe. When you say, "fractional pieces of an exploded jigsaw puzzle that can never be put together again", are you referring to your theory? Does that mean you no longer believe it yourself? As for your points, I've lived in areas such as you talk about, and could even be said to live in one now (my neighborhood has a lot of Spanish immigrants, and I often hear it called 'Little Mexico', though they're all working-class and I, personally, wouldn't call my current neighborhood a ghetto), and for that reason I don't care to discuss what I know firsthand with academics who've only read about the poverty line and have, in most cases, never come close to straddling it themselves. Am I painting with a broad brush? Probably so. And do I have the slightest clue of what I'm talking about in your case? No, because you hide your identity, and even go so far as to blatantly lie about your sex in your own book. So, broad brushes it is. But getting past your own issues of 'white guilt' and back to the matter at hand - the Whitechapel murders - I understand your point about how it's strange that some non-descript, insane immigrant, and a witness from a similar class, would be carted hundreds of miles to what essentially amounts as a getaway. That IS strange. But more strange than that is the suggestion that no Jews were present at the Seaside Home, despite the varied documention - both public and private - that states otherwise. Just for the record, I do not believe Kosminski was the Ripper. Nor do I believe any Polish Jew was the Ripper. But without even the slightest shred of documentation, even a HINT somewhere that it wasn't a Jew identified at the Seaside Home, then how is it possible to believe it was Cutbush identified by his uncle. And, for that matter, why would they have to take both of them to the Seaside Home for an identification? Why not just snap a photo of Cutbush and show it to the uncle in his home and say 'is this your nephew', or ask the uncle to provide a photo of his nephew so THEY could identify him? So, you see, your theory is as strange as the two Jews at the Seaside Home theory.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 405
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 12:03 am: | |
"the suggestion that no Jews were present at the Seaside Home, despite the varied documention - both public and private - that states otherwise."
Tread carefully. There is only one source for the 'event' at Hove.
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 8:41 pm: | |
Dear AP Wolf,
Your paragraph of the "wandering maniacal Jew" and the 'identification' at the Seaside Home for Police Officers at Hove, suggests to me that this story does not sit easy with you...and others!
I must concede, it is a strange story of which its provence has yet to be demonstrated.
There are grounds for this 'marginalia' to be another elaborate hoax. I would be interested in your thoughts in this matter.
Rosey :-)
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 9:40 am: | |
Sorry folks
I didn’t even know I had a theory about the Seaside Home; I might have speculated at some point that as it was a home for the recuperation and convalescence of policemen so it might be useful and somehow logical to think that anyone staying at the home might well have been a policeman… or the close relative of a policeman. And I certainly never claimed that the persons referred to in any report or marginalia were members of the barmy Cutbush clan. I think my intention has always been for people to consider that as a possibility, merely that.
Sorry Tom, you are still missing my point.
What I was trying to suggest to you had nothing to do with racial or religious matters… I was hoping you would grasp hold of the relevant fact that the murdered women were prostitutes working in the area of London with the highest density of prostitutes; and that exactly the same area of London also had the largest Jewish population; and that the police attitudes were shaped by these facts. Meaning although the crimes may have been horrific, they were not remarkable… in that area and population.
The point being that a ‘containment’ policy was being used by the government at that time to ensure that all the ’scum’ and ’unfortunates’ of London were contained within a certain area where they could be more easily controlled by the authorities; and that their somewhat nefarious activities would only reflect and effect on their own neighbourhood and not the capital of London itself.
For those reasons I see absolutely nothing remarkable in a police report - official or otherwise - that obscurely links a Jew to the killing of prostitutes in the Whitechapel area… there were an awful lot of Jews and prostitutes in that area of London, so it would only be sensible to explore that link.
However to the central point of your nit-picking: the Jew at the Seaside Home.
I couldn’t give a tuppeny hoot who was at the Seaside Home, for all I care it could have been a mandrill.
I believe the whole thing is disinformation.
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 103
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 4:34 pm: | |
R.J.,
What A.P. suggests in her book is that Anderson, et al, never had a Jewish suspect, and that they knew all along Cutbush was the Ripper. This means that when Anderson and Swanson refer to a Jewish suspect, they're actually referring to Cutbush, which is odd since he wasn't Jewish. Now, in her current posts, she says she doesn't care. I appreciate that her view could have changed since the book was written in 1993. But since she revised it and put it on the Casebook 2 years ago? If she doesn't hold these strange beliefs any longer, they should be removed from the book because, as it's now available for free, it must be one of the most read Ripper books out there now, and will be shaping people's thinking.
AP,
You write: "although the crimes may have been horrific, they were not remarkable… in that area and population." That's interesting, because the police of the time stated differently. But then again, they lied about the jews, so who's to say?
I see we agree that a Jew was not responsible for the Whitechapel murders. And I see you waver in your conviction that the police fabricated their 'Polish Jew in an asylum' theory. That's a start. But I'm a little shocked that you would accuse someone who's merely challenging your theories of 'nitpicking'. Your tone didn't get sour until I asked you to chill on the liberal propaganda. You're clearly a feminist (hey, nobody's perfect, I understand), but I just wanted to talk Ripper with you. Geez.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
Tom,
I don't know where you get this idea that my book is free?
Having just been outbid for over £70 for a single copy on E-Bay I can't agree with that point of view.
I never waver Tom, I might shimmer and disappear from view every so often but that is probably due to an imbalace of brandy in my body.
I'm sticking to my viewpoint that the crimes of JtR were not 'remarkable' in that Late Victorian Period, and I do believe you are confusing 'unusual' with my choice of word.
You are picking nits with an oversized wrench.
Plainly I used the reference to the seaside home in my work to point towards some form of running madness in the Metropolitan Police Force at the time.
I imagine the Jews were happily chewing Hagel-Bagels at the time and had never heard of Jack. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 108
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 10:01 pm: | |
A.P.,
Please come back down to earth, as the air where you're at is clearly too thin. Your book is availble FOR FREE...right here on this site...where Ripper aficianados go. The fact that your book sells for over $200 at abe.com (and before you get too lofty about this, the Parlours' book goes for $373, for some ungodly reason), or for 70lbs. (my American ass doesn't have a pound key on my keyboard) on eBay, doesn't negate the fact that it's publicly available for FREE in a revised edition.
As for my nitpicking, you wrote at length about the Seaside Home in your book, then bashed me bringing it up, then you backtrack and write, "I didn’t even know I had a theory about the Seaside Home". When I suggest you're wavering in your conviction in this theory, which you can't even remember, you write,"I never waver Tom". So, please reread your own book, which you wrote and recently updated, then answer me simply this...Do you think that Cutbush and his uncle or some other witness were taken to the Seaside Home for identification, but that no Jews were taken there for this same purpose?
Also, since you singled out American Ripper authors in your book as being crappy (Abrahamsen was German, by the way), which I'm not inclined to disagree with (other than Cornwell and White and Spiering, who else was American? and I'm referring to book authors only), what's your take on the fact that every Ripper book out there by an (openly) female author is either under-researched, over-romanticized, or both?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 629
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 8:08 am: | |
No, A.P's book is not available for free. A book is pages, bound between two covers. What is available for free is the text of her book.
 |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 1:57 pm: | |
Cripes, Tom, you got a bee in your bonnet or what? If you read 'Myth' correctly you will soon find that the author I have a particular disregard for lives in a potting shed in Cornwall and wears a deerstalker cap when at conference.
When I wrote my review of Abrahamsen's Jack effort I honestly thought he came from Mars.
Thank you for putting me right.
I do believe that female authors are under-researched - most men still can't accept that such creatures bleed - but definitely not over-romanticized... the modern girl needs all the love she can get.
The idea of Charles Henry Cutbush at the Seaside Home sits very well with me, but that doesn't mean to say that I think that is some kind of truth. Just a nice idea.
The Wandering Jew theory?
Nah, don't buy it. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 8:06 pm: | |
Anyway...
Whicheverway...
I propose that the "Swanson marginalia" is an elaborate hoax which originated in the statement by Robert Anderson in his book published 1910. At a subsequent period, about 80 years later, after enquiries concerning Anderson's Jewish suspect by a number of researchers, this "marginalia" surfaced in an unknown manner with an unknown provenance.
The essential 'facts' of this "marginalia" are of such a contradictory nature that even the Andersonian school confesses bafflement when push comes to shove.
The central premise of the "marginalia" is that a Jewish inmate of an asylum is taken miles outside the jurisdiction of the Met Police, City Police, and the asylum authorities, to be placed on an identity parade...an IDENTITY PARADE with all the attendent witnesses, police officers, and the legal advice and permissions necessary for the prosecution of the said suspect (who is either X,Y,X) if identified.
Otherwise, we are led to believe this identity parade was nothing of the sort. Just a visitor from the asylum on a day out - where the witness (who is either X,Y,Z) only needs to wink, scratch his chin, etc., for the identification to be confirmed. This would not only be contrary to the rules of identification it would invalidate the witness's crediblity in a court of law.
I propose that the solution to the contradictory nature of the "Swanson marginalia" lies rather in some person OTHER than Swanson seemingly jotting down an 'aide-memoire to himself' in the margin of a book/page central to the Andersonion suspect.
Scott Hannaford's dissertation provides nine questions for any resolution of this matter...and as for the mention of the "Seaside Home", it is mentioned in AP Moore-Anderson's memoir, 1947, the handwriting style of Swanson in the PRO, the Anderson book available in a second-hand book shop, and collated together and 'presented' about the mid 1980's as a definitive explanation to those researchers seeking Anderson's "Jewish suspect".
But, on second thoughts, it could only attempt to sketch a possible scenario of an identification with the resultant internal contradictions.
All the same, I tip my cap to the hoaxer. Pretty sharp character...whoever.
Rosey :-) |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page