Archive through January 17, 2000

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through January 17, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy: Primary sources: Archive through January 17, 2000

Author: steve Friday, 14 January 2000 - 09:52 am
What isallthis talk about primary sources about.I thought the killings were by a madman or a Doctor.
Author: Hob Binton Friday, 14 January 2000 - 12:01 pm
Good Grief! This is a place for experts like me, it takes me back to my old service days when I was an expert in jungle warfare in Borneo. It was there that I acquired my expertise in human nature, weapons and methods of killing, not to say a good knowledge of human anatomy. The local prostitutes ensured that I became an expert in that area too, able to recognise one a mile off and upwind of her. Good grief, after all those years in the hardest school of all, life, I returned to my native hills where I was able to bluff my way into the legal system. My expertise in bulls--t enabled me to do this. With my great sagacity and knowledge of the foibles of mankind, the workings of the criminal mind and psychological disorders ensured my success at this. All this knowledge, expertise and desire to let others know how I good I was led me to write my first book. It was a raving success and caused a rethink by all the so-called experts in the Ripper field. Of course my intimate knowledge of Victorian life and the weather of 1888 led me to the real killer, someone that no-one else had ever thought of. Good grief, the fact that I did not have one iota of evidence against him, nor had the police nor anyone else, did not deter me from proving without doubt that I was right. My book contained many controversial revelations and despite the fact that it was pointed out to me on these boards that I could not write to save my life it was an overnight success and best-seller. The highly original title ensured that anyone remotely interested in the Ripper would instantly recognise that here was a book by an expert. Primary source research is very expensive but hey, what the Hell (and good grief), there are plenty of other books to crib from. So there we are, if you are not an expert, good grief, don't worry, you can soon make yourself one just like I did. In fact I can't think of one area that I'm not an expert in. And if you have plenty to say for yourself, just like me, then people will just have to take notice of you. Good grief! All the best, Hob
Author: Thomas Ind Friday, 14 January 2000 - 06:53 pm
Out of thread but relavent to the title. I posts on the hysterectomy/Ind thread I have talked about hospital case notes. At Barts hospital, there are admission books beautifully transcribed fo all admissions in 1888 and before. I have seen them. They also keep the records from other associated hospitals that are now closed such as the Mother's and Shoreditch. Ten years ago, when interested in something concerning Penfold & Lindeman (the Ozzy wimemakers who trained at Barts in the James Paget + JTR era) I wanted to look at some case notes. I was presented with beautifully written notes from the registrar of that day (in those days the registrar just wrote the notes)and was amazed concerning how wonderfully kept all this informatin had been kept. I know from reading Sugden that people have read the admission books from the RLH. Has anyone looked to see if there are any medical notes? In particular, the Ada Wilsons & Emma Smiths of this world who were admitted. I know we don't think that they are JTR victims but information may be gained from them.
Author: Bob Hinton Saturday, 15 January 2000 - 07:50 am
Dear Tom, How would non medical researchers get permission to search for this sort of information in the medical notes? Bob Hinton
Author: Bob Hinton Saturday, 15 January 2000 - 08:18 am
Dear Hob What a fascinating life you have led. I eagerly await further postings. I don't know if you have noticed but your name is very much like mine, it is really, if you just change some of the letters around. What an amazing coincidence! all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Hob Saturday, 15 January 2000 - 08:24 am
Yes, and I'm a hairy midget.
Author: Thomas Ind Saturday, 15 January 2000 - 08:32 am
Bob No one asked me if I was a doctor when I looked at Barts. If they exist at the RLH then I can't imagine them being protected. The problem I have is that I am currently so busy during the day that I have no time to go down and look during normal working hours. After this post I will write to the archivist at the RLH and ask him/her.
Author: Christopher-Michael Saturday, 15 January 2000 - 09:28 am
Steve - "Primary sources" are such things as post-mortem reports, police reports, proceedings of coroner's inquests and such - documents written about the murders and the investigations by those directly concerned with them. These are opposed to "secondary sources," which are such things as books about the murders. Your comment "I thought the killings were by a mad man or a Doctor" illustrate this. While both possibilities were given consideration by the authorities in 1888 (and, of course, it is almost certain that JTR was not entirely 'sane" in the lay sense of the word), those two points are usually seized upon by novellists and movie writers as a convenient explanation for the Ripper's motive or reason for escaping. What they think the Ripper did is based on what books about the Ripper tell them, and not what the original documents have to say. Jack the Ripper could have been a madman. He might have been a doctor. But in our discussions (and here, concerning the Goulston Street writing), it is important to know what the people involved in the investigation at the time had to say, not merely what a writer 100 years later interprets for you. That would be like arguing that Columbus never sailed to Hispaniola; not because you'd read his logs and found it out for yourself, but because a book on Columbus told you so. Dr Ind - excellent suggestion! I will need to e-mail you further about this. Hob - Good Grief! Your exploits would put Commander McBragg to shame - tell us more, sir! CMD
Author: kemp Saturday, 15 January 2000 - 07:09 pm
Dear Hob, Good grief old sport !! Your sagacity into plagiarism is totally omniscient.How is it that one has only written one book? I would have thought that your omnipotence was ubiquitous and not capricious as you implied! Slain leat agus.. Kemp. Dear Bob, Certainly didn't mean to imply that I was "spiking " your guns as regards your book. What is the title by the way? Should I add it to my collection? Dear All, Here is the first in a series of replies to some of the above responses. The credibility of investigating officers is very much open to debate. I have listed the disasterous contribution of Warren already(just going to have to agree to disagree on that one Bobs and Chris-M). Abberline's involvement in Clev/St. has illustrated his culpability in at least one cover up. It also highlights the point that the establishment of the day could bring pressure to bear when their members wee under scrutiny or risk. The Assist.Chief. Comm. Anderson is a figure I would now like to comment upon.He was either a liar and/or guilty of withholding the truth about JTR.This maverick was accused intermittently of publishing official documents without prior consent.Later in 1910 in "The lighter Side of My Official Life" Anderson wrote "..undiscovered murders are rare in London, and the JTR crimes are not in that category..When the individual whom we suspected was caged in an asylum ,the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer at once identified him.." If this was true then it therefore follows that there was indeed some kind of cover up. If this is fantasy by Anderson then we have another irregular officer involved in this case. Another question I am afraid. Is it a coincidence that Anderson took up his position on the day of Nichols'murder? Also he left for the Swiss air on the very same day Chapman died !! Warren also resigned on the very same day that Kelly died! Now I ask you folks , are you not just the slightest bit suspicious of these coincidences? My interpretation ( yes that word again)is that these accumulative "strange happenings" do seem a little repetitive. Dear Steve, An expert on these boards? No way. Please feel free to join in the discussion. There is certainly no monopoly on the truth here. I do suggest that you have a good look around the pages in this casebook for an excellent overview of the case. Slain leat to all. kemp.
Author: Bob Hinton Sunday, 16 January 2000 - 09:46 am
Dear Kemp, I'm afraid your above posting shows that you are still not au fait with the situation. You again accuse Warren of making a 'disasterous contribution' based it seems on nothing more than your own personal view, despite the evidence to the contrary, and frame your accusation as if it is now established fact. You compound your error by saying 'Warren resigned on the very day that Kelly died.....my interpretaion (yes that word again) is that these accumlative "strange happenings" do seem a little repetitive.' Yes they do and so does your absolute refusal to base your assumptions on anything concrete. Warren resigned on the 8th November not the 9th, the day before Kelly was murdered, or are you now going to say that she was murdered on the 8th, to fit in with the resignation, but that the matter was kept quiet until the 9th so that her death could coincide with the Lord Mayors Show, because the Lord Mayor was a Freemason................ If you like to add my book to your collection please feel free to do so, however I would suggest that you should start with non biased books such as Sugden The Complete History of Jack the Ripper or Beggs 'The Uncensored Facts' all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Kemp Sunday, 16 January 2000 - 11:40 am
Dear Bob, Sorry I got the date out by one day !The basic premise is still sound though.As regards not basing my views on anything concrete;I simply do not understand the logic of that statement given the above references to inquiries and officials etc. Even you are now saying that the continuous "strange happenings" do seem repetitive. How do you explain them ,Bob? Are you seriously suggesting that all the above coincidences are simply that,coincidences? I think you are on a sticky "wicket" there Bob. I'd love to have a look at your book on Warren. Could you put up the title. Regards, Kemp.
Author: kemp Sunday, 16 January 2000 - 11:43 am
Dear Bob, Just a quick thought as I was proof reading the letters above. Are you suggesting that your book is biased? I am refering to the remarks made in your letter of Jan 16th. Slain.. Kemp.
Author: ChrisGeorge Sunday, 16 January 2000 - 01:00 pm
Hi Kemp: Bob Hinton's book is "From Hell: the Jack the Ripper Mystery" (Old Bakehouse Publications, The Old Bakehouse, Church Street, Abertillery, Gwent, Wales NP3 1EA, Wales. ISBN 1-874538-96-4, paperback, �7.50). You will find a review of it on the Casebook Productions website at http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/rn/bookreview.htm Chris George
Author: Christopher-Michael Sunday, 16 January 2000 - 02:57 pm
Kemp - I don't mean to sound patronising, but again, I cannot help but repeat that you don't seem to understand the events and personalities you deem suspicious. To discuss Sir Robert Anderson and his statements would take more time than I am able to devote here at the moment. I will, however, address two items that give you concern: 1. "Is it a coincidence that Anderson took up his position on the day of Nichols' murder? Also he left for Swiss air on the very same day Chapman died!!" With regard to the first point, are you somehow suggesting that on 31 August, Polly Nichols was already targeted for murder (why?) and that Anderson was thus put in place to supervise - what? Evidence, please, not feelings. Anderson "left for Swiss air" at the express command of his doctor, Gilbart Smith, who prescribed it for "overwork;" specifically, the attempts to minimise the fallout from a scandal and smear campaign addressed at Irish MP Charles Parnell. A full account of this affair and Anderson's culpability in it can be found in Martin Fido's "The Crimes, Detection and Death of JTR. His holiday had nothing to do with the Whitechapel Murders; in any event, no-one knew that the Ripper even existed at this point, unless you wish to throw out the same bugaboo about "coincidences." Anderson got his post at the suggestion of Warren. James Monro (Asst Commissioner) wanted Melville Macnaghten at his side as Assistant Chief Constable. Warren originally agreed to this, but when he learned Macnaghten had once been beaten by natives in an uprising in Begal, he decided Macnaghten lacked the authority to be a senior policeman. Monro insisted Macnaghten get the job, and Warren threatened either he or Monro must resign. Finally, Warren suggested Anderson (who, because of the Parnell scandal was only too happy to get out of the Home Office), and it was done. 2. Sir Charles Warren's resignation. As was pointed out to you, Warren resigned on 8 November, the day before MJK died. He resigned because he had been called on the carpet by the Home Secretary's office for publishing a long article in "Murray's Magazine" defending the Metropolitan Police against the attacks made in the press. Warren was told that he was not at liberty to publish such things without consulting higher authority; he replied that had he known he would not be allowed to answer attacks on his force without clearance, he would not have accepted the post of Commissioner. He offered his resignation, and it was accepted. Again, nothing to do with the murders! It is concerned only tangentially, in regards to the failure of the police to catch the Ripper and certainly is not part of a cover-up or coincidence. CMD
Author: kemp Sunday, 16 January 2000 - 06:25 pm
Dear CMD, Just a quick one. How can it not be a cover up and also not a coincidence?If Warren's resignation was nothing to do with the JTR then it was a coincidence !!Unless of course there is another word for one event which happens simultaneously with another event but is not connected? :-) Anyway thanks again for the detailed reply. I shall answer in more depth asap. Regards, Kemp. Dear Chris G, Thanks for the name of Bob's book. I shall read it MOST CAREFULLY. ;-) Slain.. Kemp.
Author: Kemp Sunday, 16 January 2000 - 06:33 pm
Daer All, Just read C's review of Bob's book. Good stuff(review and the book).I really am in with the experts !!!!Help.... Kemp.
Author: alex chisholm Sunday, 16 January 2000 - 11:55 pm
Evening All Kemp, as I understand it a coincidence is "a chance occurrence of events remarkable either for being simultaneous or for appearing to be connected." (CED) As has been pointed out, Warren�s resignation was not simultaneous with Kelly�s murder and, in view of the available evidence, his resignation does not appear to be connected in any way with this crime. Therefore, given that in the absence of any overly subjective presentation of events this chance occurrence is in no way remarkable, I believe Christopher-Michael is perfectly correct to regard Warren�s resignation as neither cover-up nor coincidence. Best Wishes alex
Author: Bob_C Monday, 17 January 2000 - 04:44 am
Hi all, On what Warren's resignation goes, it �s true that he resigned on the day before Kelly's death, but he remained in, and preformed, his office until a successor was appointed. That means that for all intents and purposes, Warren remained where he was for the weeks after Kelly's murder and was as involved in the proceedings as if he hadn't resigned. Best regards, Bob
Author: Bob Hinton Monday, 17 January 2000 - 07:52 am
Dear Kemp, What seems a little repetitive is your insistance that there are strange hapenings, without bothering to back it up with anything more substantial than your own personal beliefs. Yes of course my book is biased, I am putting forward a suspect as the possible murderer, obviously I am going to be in favour of the person I have chosen as being 'the one'. You are achieving precious little by continuing in this way, you're not even giving your own thoughts enough time to consolidate into any sort of reasonable theory. For example you made certain statements above concerning vital evidence being missed at the inquest, and the refusal to reopen the inquest. As I pointed out having made those two statements and expecting us to accept them as fact, you must have been basing them on something. I asked you 'What new evidence' and 'Who refused to reopen' believing you to have the required information close to hand. You still haven't answered. Later you refer to 'a dark alley' when discussing the Goulston St Graffiti, I asked you what dark alley you are talking about. Again no answer. But your latest beggars belief. You blithely state 'Warren resigned on the very day day Kelly was murdered! Now I ask you folks aren't you just a little bit suspicious about these 'coincidences' After it was pointed out to you that you had once again got your basic facts wrong and in fact the resignation took place the day before Kelly was murdered, you come back and say 'The basic premise is still sound though!' I thought the basic premise was that these two occurences happened on the same day! How can you build any sort of theory on foundations of pure sand? I say again, if your studies permit, get yourself a basic library on the subject and start reading. good luck Bob Hinton
Author: kemp Monday, 17 January 2000 - 07:45 pm
Dear All, A lot of points to get through so here goes.I must initially clarify a perceived misconception by some contributors on this part of the site. I am not specifically claiming that JTR was a la Sickert; RATHER THAT SOME OF THE ACTIONS AROUND THESE MURDERS ARE OPEN TO VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS.I believe that the credibility of various police officers is open to question.For example, nobody here has yet addressed my comments about Abberline and C/ST.He and others distorted the course of justice to protect Somerset etc. Why mention this? Simply that it establishes his willingness to co-operate in a cover up when members of the establishment are involved. The apologists for Warren have rightly corrected me on the "dark alley" of Goulston St. I apologise again ! However it is disingenuous to accuse me of criticising a man who destroyed valuable evidence;especially when his admirers want me to accept that it was impossible to wipe away 1 word.If this still caused fears of a riot then why not leave only 2 or 3 words? Afterall Warren was a man who "..knew his patch.."(BOB C)Surely such a man as Warren was capable of thinking on his feet ! Here is what Warren wrote on Nov 6th,1988: " ..The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once. A discussion took place whether the writing could be left covered up or otherwise or whether any portion of it could be left for an hour until it could be photographed; but after taking into consideration the excited state of the population in London generally at the time, the strong feeling which had been excited against the Jews, and the fact that in a short time there would be a large concourse of the people in the streets, and having before me the Report that if it was left there the house was likely to be wrecked (in which from my own observation I entirely concurred) I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate.." Please note that Warren refers to the covering being in danger of being torn off. Why so? Did he not have men to protect it? What would the local population have to see if only 3 words were remaining?He mentions a photograph and then refers to the excited state of the local pop. Again, why would this stop him from taking a photo of 3 words? Bob, my confusion and error about the dates of Warren's resignation is of course my responsibility.However I did take advice and refer to Begg et al " The Jack The Ripper A To Z":quote,Page301 "..When his resignation (Warren's MY BRACKETS) was accepted and announced on 9 Nov.." Naturally, being a Historian I should have cross referenced this with for example S.Knight's Jack the Ripper:The Final Solution:quotePage 235"..The day before Kelly died,Warren resigned.." ;-) Anyway Bob, my basic premise is that AFTER DESTROYING possible( I did say possible)hand written evidence from JTR this hands on cop resigned at/on/around the time of the last of the canonical victims. It seems a coincidence/possible irregularity to me; that is all I am stating Bob. NB. Dear Alex, That was a nice definition of coincidence you made in your letter of Jan 16th.Do you concur Chris-M ? I know that time is a factor here Chris-M but my comments about the credibility of Anderson stand.He was either a liar about JTR being caught or he lied to the public by not telling them he was caught!!! Bob H, as regards the questions about evidence being missed and reopening the inquest I shall respectfully ask you to review my comments in the archive sections of "Primary Sources".If you are still in "beggars belief,anticipation" or unconvinced then I shall take up your earlier kind offer to e-mail you to clarify matters. :-) On the subject of inquiries Chris-M made an earlier point that short ones were not at all uncommon in the late 19th cent. In support of this Chris mentioned Martha Tabram (Aug 9/23) and Cath Eddowes (4/11). The point I am making Chris is that the brief Kelly inquiry missed out on the evidence of Hutch.Although he made his statement after the inquiry, the undue haste to close meant it was missed? I can not PROVE that somehow Mac.. knew of Hutch but if there was more than one killer then it was useful that the inquiry was so short so as to miss this witness.If the kelly inquiry had a double date like your examples above then Hutch. probably would have been called.I don't want to speak for other people but I do recall Jon agreeing that Hutch would have been an important witness "..if known about"(letter jan 7th). Jon, I am not suggesting that you are in accord with my cover up theory. I also feel I am still correct in stating that THERE WAS a little consternation in the press about the brevity of the kelly inquiry. I do hope I have managed to clarify some of the more salient points.Many thanks for taking the time to reply. Slain leat agus.. Kemp. Ps. Bob H, As I stated earlier I shall elaborate on other confusions as regards the kelly inquiry if you wish.