Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 03:33 pm |        |
Leanne,
Jack the ripper did not go into that stable in Bucks row and get out from the back. Where the hell did you pick that one up from. And you dont pay attention. I know Jack never hit his victims over the head I have placed my views on these boards often enough as to how he attacked his victims.And if I remember you were one of Ed Carters followers who was going to write up his story about the stable at Bucks Row for some mag down under.He had you all at it by stating the stable in question was not even in Bucks Row!!!!There is no evidence to show that Jack used those stables.Jack did not need to use those stables as an escape route.What the hell are you thinking of? I am not interested in Spratling that has nothing to do with anything.And dont place faith in drawings of the murder scenes of the period either because they are not that precise. |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 04:15 pm | |
One further thought to add to my previous post. I would be interested to know how investigating officers were supposed to distinguish between mud that got on the victims' skirts before they were laid down and mud that got on afterwards.
And although it has been argued, with much heat and violence, that the murderer could have attacked from behind, it has not been shown that this method would be more effective than an attack on a kneeling or crouching victim. Nor has it been shown that this could have been accomplished without the telltale signs of struggle which were lacking in all cases.
AAA88 |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 05:26 pm | |
Rick-
Since you speak of a "choker hold", a "hand across their face" and "hands round their neck" I'm not sure which method of strangulation you are proposing. Whichever it is it seems to compel you to believe that these women would not have fought hard for their lives. I, on the other hand, believe just the opposite; that given the opportunity they would have fought like wildcats to save themselves once they realized their lives were in danger. Even if, as you suggest, their struggling was of the panicked, flailing, ineffective sort. Which leads me to observe that a struggle, regardless of whether or not it is effective, is still a struggle. And there were no signs of a struggle.
Mr. Edwards-
This is the last time that I will be bothered to respond to your moronic drivel, as I prefer to maintain an even and respectful tone with everyone, including those who disagree with me. However that is impossible to do when one is confronted with ignorance and boorishness. So, for the record...
and goodbye.
AAA88 |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 05:30 pm | |
| I would like to propose another thought that I have had vis-a-vis gates/doors. Jack hates prostitutes and what they do. So he is not the prostitutes' customer, he is hiding behind that gate. When a prostitute comes with her customer he waits till its over, and she is paid and the customer is gone. Then he flies out of the gate, attacks the victim and the rest is history. As soon as he is done he retreats back through the gate and escapes. In the case of Chapman he would have been lurking in the passage. I think I will label this the cuckoo clock scenario. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 05:57 pm | |
G'day,
IVOR: How do you know what Jack did and didn't do that night?....where you there???
I was merely suggesting what a possible route could have been and I am choosing the quickest route out of there, as the most possible.
When I said that he never hit his victims over the head, I was referring to someone elses question that was recently posted - (if Jack attacked his victims from behind, why didn't he just hit them over the head with a club?)
No I was never one of Ed Carter's followers! I type up the different views of many individuals for 'Ripperoo'. Even ones that I don't agree with, and offer them to readers. That story was about Jacks possible use of chloroform on his victims, nothing to do with any stable.
LEANNE |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 07:04 pm | |
| Leanne,Some of the comments being made about that stable are stupid to say the least.I did not have to be there.And I might add what a stupid and childish remark for you to make. Common sense dictates that he had no cause to leave Bucks Row via that stable and how do you know that there was a back entrance to that stable?You have ignored statements which cast doubt that the stable was left unlocked.There is no record that he was disturbed that night so he had no reason to try and leave by that stable.Your theory about the stable has got nothing going for it.Someone could say that he left the scene by hot air ballon which is above the level of your idea.The record I read was that the stable door was locked when it was checked by the police.After being on the site and doing my own investigation of events that night I see no valid reason to suppose that the killer left Bucks Row via that stable. All writers and reseachers on the subject that I know have not even given such an idea any merit.If you wish to believe in your idea then that is down to you but very few will.As for the debate on chloroform I do remember it.Certain people ( you included ) were ignoring the known facts and twisting the truth to suit themselves.Even certain medical evidence was being ignored.There was no evidence to support the claim that any victim was chloroformed but this did not stop the unfounded claims that they were. So much crap is being written and voiced that the subject is fast becoming something of a farce.I have no experience in accounting or many other professions so I would never dream of going onto such a web site for various professions making out that I was an expert.But the ammount of people who know little or nothing about crime or this case get onto these boards and spout off at the mouth and come out with utter rubbish believing that they have all the answers when in fact they know sod all about crime in general or the case of JTR.Some people buy one or two crap books on the subject then get on the boards and hey presto they are ripper experts.Many have never bothered to visit the sites, the general area, or visit the many achives.Many have never done true research but that does not stop them from spitting forth untruths and utter rubbish. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 07:17 pm | |
| Jesse,I see the truth hurts you.As for ignorance you certainly have more than your share of it.This is apparent in your comments to dear old Graz. You should listen to him you may learn something of value.I had to laugh at the word Jesse.If someone is referred to as a "Jesse" here then it means that they are a big girls blouse!!! I thought you would see the funny side of that. It is obvious that you are a newbaby on the subject so as your first book buy The Ultimate JTR Sourcebook. That is a first must for any learner like yourself. |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 06:37 am | |
Unfortunately, the official inquest testimony on Polly Nichols' death has not survived. We are therefore forced to look among the newspaper reports for clues about the gate’s status. A quick examination of what we have online here revealed six separate articles covering the matter, but only three different versions – such was the way in which the papers used the same news agency reports, or simply copied from one another. These reports are as follows:-
From The Times of 3rd September, He walked across and found the deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. He noticed that the gateway, which was about 9ft. or 10ft. in height and led to some stables, was closed.
From the Daily Telegraph of the same date, The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables.
And from the East London Observer of 8th September, The figure was lying alongside a gateway, of which the gate, nine or ten feet high, was locked. It led to some stables belonging to a Mr. Brown.
All accounts relate to the same piece of testimony, from PC John Neil. As can be seen, the reporting is remarkably similar in all three cases, except for the ELO’s detail that the gate was not just closed, but locked. So it’s take your pick time, boys and girls. The ELO’s account of the Nichols inquest was extremely detailed, since in early September the murders were still largely a local news story, and I’m inclined to go with their statement that the gate was indeed locked.
One of the tasks of the beat officer on night duty was to check doors and windows periodically to ensure that they were properly secured. It's hard to imagine that the police here were so neglectful as to ignore the stable gates. Neil, for one, had ample opportunity to check this while he was awaiting help.
The hinging of the gates was questioned in an earlier poste. There appears to be no record of this, but the likelihood is that the gates opened inwards towards the stable, not outwards. Had it been the latter, the open gates would have obstructed the pavement and possibly protruded into the roadway. It would have made the job of manoeuvring any horse harnessed to a vehicle in and out of those gates substantially more difficult.
There is no likelihood of the murderer escaping through the stable yard. For a start, contemporary maps and plans suggest that there was no exit from it. If the murderer was disturbed by Charles Cross at Buck’s Row, as many believe (I’m not totally convinced by that idea, but it is a possibility), then his best route was to zip round the Board School and either out through Wood's Buildings, or diagonally across Buck’s Row and through Court Street. Both led into Whitechapel Road, where it was possible for him to blend in with other pedestrians, of which there would have been quite a number at that time.
Regards, V. |
Author: ASEGERDAL
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 09:07 am | |
To Jesse and others posting about the method of killing: Why is there all this talk about strangulation of the Ripper victims and all the ins and outs of strangulation, together with even more talk in the Casebook about sexual positions, sex from behind and all the rest of it. The Ripper needed to silently kill his victims as quickly as possible and the problem with strangulation followed by a knife slitting the throat all takes too long. Dammit, the Ripper had a KNIFE. Just take his victim to a chosen spot and then kill her fast, which he could do with his knife. No need to mess around with having the woman kneel down or do anything else. Just get behind her while still standing and and slit the throat--all possible within a spit second. Jesse Flowers says, and I quote, "It is extremely difficult (if not virtually impossible) to subdue someone quickly, quietly and without a struggle while they are standing upright, while it is a simple matter to subdue a person while who is kneeling or crouching." I disagree. What is quicker than the blade of a knife slashing across the throat and instantly severing the carotid artery. Struggle and screams do not even come into picture, and Jack could risk neither. I agree that to first strangle and then use the knife would produce less blood, but so what? After all, there was enough blood for it to be washed off the cobblestones afterwards.
With best regards, Alastair Segerdal |
Author: ASEGERDAL
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 10:29 am | |
Further to my posting about the Ripper not wasting his time with various sex positions etc., I forgot to mention all the postings I've read about the victims fighting back, grabbing testicles and all the rest of it. Fighting back in a struggle? No way, because the one thing a woman, even a weak woman, would do if her life was threatened would be to scream her head off. Yet there is no record of anyone hearing a scream from any of the victims, other than a single cry of "Murder!" in Miller's Court at or around the time of Kelly's murder. So much for struggling and fighting back.
Cheers, Alastair Segerdal |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 12:10 pm | |
Hello Jesse, I'm sorry if I misled you on the strangulation theory. I did mean strangulation from the front with both hands,-- though I want to stress, this is not my theory!!I don't believe strangulation comes into it, or choker armholds come to that,-- I believe they were stifled into unconciousness by an attack from behind and a hand across their nose and mouth. Now Jesse, I have to ask you, what do you mean by no signs of a struggle?. There could have been a heck of a struggle in Bucks Row, all he had to do was keep it silent,--- no one heard anything or looked out.
Same with Hanbury St, there may have been a little sign of a struggle there. Mitre Sq, how could you tell whether there had been a struggle there or not?, it was all flag stones, cobbles and brickwork, there didn't have to be any blood to give sign of a struggle, there didn't need to be any blood until they were in situ!
You are right Jesse, I don't believe these poor women would have been any trouble to subdue!. As I said, one was alcoholic and "drunk". Chapman was seriously ill with a disease of brain and lungs. Eddowes was quite ill with kidney disease,
besides which her stomach was completely empty and she was very likely suffering from a hangover.
Add to that, being taken completely unawares, not one of them was fit to cope, in my view, as you Yanks say, "no sweat".
Now Kelly was different, young and pretty fit ,I would guess, -- but-- either she woke up right after he entered,- and called out, Oh, murder, before he took a dive onto the bed, or she woke as he began his attack on her, whichever, she would have been hampered by bedclothes.
I await your comments Jesse.
Rick |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 04:00 pm | |
Hello Rick-
Thanks for the clarification.
It's not me saying there were no signs of struggle; three different doctors testified to as much at the various inquests. In addition, Dr. Bond in his report to Anderson stated that "in all cases there appears to be no evidence of struggling..." Since none of them states exactly what led them to this conclusion, anything I might say in this direction would be pure speculation. However it would seem that this is one of the few things about this case where there is such a unanimity of opinion amongst the doctors involved.
I do think that the helplessness of these women is sometimes a bit overstated. Certainly a good case can be made for Chapman (I will not try to use the fight with Eliza Cooper to support my case, as I believe Cooper's version was largely fabricated). But Eddowes, arms bronzed from hard work in the fields, had had nearly 4 hours to sleep off her drunk. Stride was described as "fairly nourished" and if, as the A-Z says, her height was indeed 5'5" then she would have stood almost eye to eye with her murderer, unless virtually every eyewitness statement is disregarded as insignificant. And, as you say, Mary Jane Kelly was young and healthy. All of which leads me to the conclusion that some sign of struggle, however small, would have been noticed by those who saw the bodies in situ if any of the modes of attack that are commonly described had been employed. So, in my opinion, an attack on a crouching or kneeling victim is the only way that the murderer could have subdued his victims virtually instantly, which the lack of a struggle would seem to indicate. And, as I have said, it offers an explanation for bruises on the shoulders of Stride and the bruises on the upper chest or collarbones of Chapman, Stride and possibly others.
Now, hopefully you won't mind if I ask a question of my own. Do you see any logical reason why it couldn't have happened the way I describe? Or why some other explanation is preferable? I'd be most interested to have your feedback.
AAA88 |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 05:01 pm | |
Viper,Thank you for posting that interesting information on the board.Your comments were very interesting.
Rick, I was using the strangle hold method to show how easy it was to subdue a fit and fully grown man.In my book which I dont believe you have read I state the same method as you have ie, from the back and hand over the nose and mouth.It would not take much effort on the part of the killer to deal with the victims.One was already dying.
Asegerdal,Like Viper you have made some very logical and valid points which people should take note of. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 06:07 pm | |
| Jesse,While in the process of doing my research I received a sentence of one year for a "pot" related offence. I spent 6 months in H.M P. Wandsworth, London, as the Hospital NO.1 Orderly.In the hospital one could find various types of murderers,and various other types of criminals.The full number of Hospital staff numbered ( in several shifts) about fifty.I can assure you that this group between them knew a great deal about criminal behaviour and psychiatry and phychology,and about every other kind of medical condition associated with criminal and mental behavour.Because of what I had discovered, the nature of my research, and my attitude I was not treated like a prisoner.They treated me better than a customer in a five star hotel.A finer group of people I have never met.They knew all about my research and believed in it. The help which they gave me was of great value.They read the medical report from Dr Bond and all other medical evidence and gave me their opinions. They did a great deal to assist me in finding out how the victims were attacked and killed by all the available evidence.One or two even reconstructed attacks for me.These people deal with killers every day of the week. No author on any previous ripper book has ever been in such a position to gain so much information from so many experts in their field. It was a most unique position to be in and I took full advantage of it.When people question certain aspects of my work they also question the ability of many people who are some of the best minds in their field in this country.This has only been one small aspect of my research.The rest was achieved just as carefully I can assure you.Suffice to state that the above people after viewing my work concluded that my research proved that the murders must have been planned in advance on a map. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 07:39 pm | |
Hello again Jesse, thank you for your comments. Of course I can't and wouldn't rubbish your theory, in your mind you think you could be right,in my mind I think I could be right. The thing is we shall never know for sure shall we?.
I'm not a believer that Stride was a Ripper victim
but I do think Tabram could have been his first.
Her killing maybe started with hands round the neck, he took her to the floor, and ended up banging her head hard on the floor, before she lost consciousness and he started using the knife.
Whether she was kneeling or squatting when this attack started I wouldn't like to guess, but she could have been doing either,couldn't she?
Rick |
Author: david rhea
Sunday, 03 February 2002 - 10:02 pm | |
| If the Ripper had a method to his madness then 1 These were not random killings.2The victims were placed in their death positions for a purpose. It appears that 3 of them plus Mary Kelly were placed in the position of engaging in intercourse with the male as the dominate partner.3-There was no semen evident but the whole thing had some sexual connotation.What was it?4-The first 4 victims were killed within minutes and left to immediately be discovered. If Ivor is right about the victims being placed in north south east west quadrants-all in positions ,except Stride, to recieve intercourse then you are going to have to come off of the killer just as a homicidal maniac, and try to discover his real purpose. I believe it is there to be discovered in connection with some secret Temple dedicated ti the pursuit of Black Magic. We write Crowley off as some kind of a nut, but he is recognized as a gemius who knew exactly what he wanted to achieve in his order the O T O |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 05:24 am | |
Hi All,
If the victims were attacked from behind (following on from Alastair's posts on the subject), it wouldn't necessarily be while they were positioning themselves for sex from behind. It would depend on who was leading the way to the murder spot. As long as the victim was slightly in front on arrival she would automatically have her back to Jack, not yet prepared for sex, even if a position or service had been negotiated, and he could have slashed her before she had time either to turn round and face him, standing or crouching, or to stay as she was but bend forward and hoist her skirts up. So sexual position need not have come into it at all.
The priority for the prostitute would be to get paid, but this could have been while the couple were making their way to a suitable spot, or upon arrival, rather than on a high street during the initial encounter, where the actual exchange of cash might be thought a bit risky. And so much easier for Jack if he didn't have to retrieve his coins after each murder.
Love,
Caz |
Author: graziano
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 07:14 am | |
Guy Hatton posted some days ago a on another thread (I do not understand why it did not get any attention) a very beatiful picture of Mrs Lilley (Lilly ?) chatting with one friend of her right outside her door in Buck's row (east-west).
When The Viper says: "...his (Jack's) best route was to zip round the Board School and either out through Wood's buildings or diagonally across Buck's row and through Court street...". He may be right in comparing this solution to the Stable yard (really not convincing as a hiding or escaping place for the murderer).
But he does not contemplate all possibilities.
The picture of Guy Hatton may provide us with another thought.
Hope he will be able to repost it.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Monty
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 08:09 am | |
Caz,
Here, here,Im with you on that.
I do not think it got that far, why should it?
Positioning would have wasted time.
Lets just get it on
Monty
|
Author: david rhea
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 08:47 am | |
| WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE VICTIMS WERE POSITIONED BY THE MURDERER SO THAT WHEN THEY WERE FOUND THE AUDIENCE WOULD SEE THAT PARTICULAR POSE.The victims were as on a stage playing a part in a type of drama the killer was acting out? |
Author: graziano
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 09:30 am | |
So that when they were found the audience would be terrorized and angry.
The victims were certainly as on a stage playing a part in a type of drama the killers were acting out.
Well, I guess a lot of similitudes.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 09:56 am | |
| Laid out intentionally?Not many murders are so theatrical-say as the last Boston Strangler victims were.Now am I right in saying that your position is that these were random killings perpturated by different people.Do you say that you will stand by the word similitudes in reference to these murders? A similitude can also mean 'like a parable' or allegory. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 10:26 am | |
Similitudes between what you posted and what I did.
I do not know what you intend by "laid out intentionally", but it seems to me that in the laying down of the victims were the only mistakes the murderers committed.
Who could blame them ? It was dark. And they had to do it quickly.
Do not misinterpret me though.
The locations were indeed intentional.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 04 February 2002 - 10:47 am | |
| What I mean is that they were placed in that position on purpose.He did not kill then and let them fall where they may.The positions were to signify something-say similitudes-of a purpose the killer had had in mind.From these positions and all but Stride were in similar positions,he was concerned to either send a message or gain some personal reward for himself.If you agree that the locations were intentional then why not the positions of the bodies.If this is true then a whole new line of discussion can emerge. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 04:59 am | |
Graz -
How do you know this is Mrs. Lilley? As I said before, I'm not altogether convinced by the claim made by the Hulton Archive that this picture dates from 1888.
Cheers
Guy |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 05 February 2002 - 07:28 pm | |
| David,Both police and medical evidence indicates that the first four victims (Nichols,Chapman,Stride,and Eddowes were laid down by the killer.Thus they were rendered unconscious while standing up. |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 08:20 am | |
David,
Positions similar ?? Perhaps, but not exact.
Why not put then in the precise position he wanted them in ??
They all differ slightly, Eddowes had her arms out, Kellys were tucked in.
It seems to me its how they fell except for Kelly.
Monty
|
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 01:34 pm | |
| Stride did not die instantaneously as the others.It took about 1-1/2 min. for her to die.There seemed to be more blood about 2 Qts.There was only one cut across the throat rather than two-one above the other as with the others.Would you say that Stride was a botched job?Why do you suppose he didnt use his own knife-he certainly had it with him(I am right in assuming that the knife was different am I not?).Do you think as some have said that he used Stride's knife that she kept for protection.If so there was more of a struugle than some think.He had to get it away from her. |
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 06 February 2002 - 01:53 pm | |
| If it took that long for her to die would there be no movement? If there was he would have to place her in the position-seems like(a fetal position ?)he wanted her.The others appear to be in a sexual position though the Ripper didn't have sex withm alive or dead.They couldn't have fallen like that.Even M.Kelly was in a similar position as Nicols=Chapman Eddowes.If the locations of the murders was picked beforehand the why not the positions their corpses lay. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 10:21 am | |
Attn. Viper, Paul Begg, and CMD:
Viper, I enjoyed the "Whitechapel Dossier" in the latest (January 2002) issue Ripper Notes with information on the Elizabeth Stride murder scene in Dutfield's Yard, Berner Street. Very informative. I note that editor Christopher-Michael DiGrazia reproduced the period photograph of the corner of Berner Street and Fairclough Street that appeared in Paul Begg's Jack the Ripper: The Uncensored Facts (1988).
The corner is certainly Berner Street and Fairclough Street, as indicated on the street names evident in the plaques on the wall of the corner shop, but the row of terraced houses that continues on from the corner is unbroken by a yard, i.e., Dutfield's Yard, as if a house has been inserted in the gap where the yard gates would have been and the row of houses gives an even unbroken roofline unlike that seen in an 1888 era photograph that does show the yard. Also the corner shop does not appear to correspond with what would have been the corner pub, the Nelson, from which the "pipe man" mentioned in Israel Schwartz's testimony is thought to have emerged to chase away the witness.
Could the photograph therefore be actually of the southeast corner of Berner Street and Fairclough Street not of the northwest corner, the view which would have shown the position of the yard? That is, are we in the view that I am questioning actually looking southeast not northwest as would have been necessary to see the position of Dutfield's Yard, which I would be prepared to bet still existed when this photograph was taken... that is, as shown in the other old photograph available of Berner Street showing the wagon wheel above the entrance to the yard.
These two photographs of Berner Street that I am discussing can be seen on this site. In these views, the photograph that I am questioning is labeled "Berner Street in the mid-20th century. All traces of the old buildings are now extinct." However, the archways to the front doors of the terraced houses would seem to indicate these are themselves older Victorian buildings and not buildings that replaced those that stood there in 1888. Thoughts anyone?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 10:58 am | |
Chris -
I have to second your doubts that the two are actually the same viewpoint. In addition to the lack of any signs of Dutfield's Yard, I note the following:
1.) The doorway of the house next to the shop is markedly different.
2.) The houses 'filling in' where the yard entrance should be show no obvious signs of being later additions - they match the surrounding buildings too well.
3.) The taller buildings in the background (just visible at the right edge of the 'cartwheel' photo) have also apparently gone missing (not conclusive, of course, but worthy of note).
Anybody?
Guy |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 10:59 am | |
...oh, and:
4.) The gable end is significantly different.
Cheers
Guy |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 11:07 am | |
This obtucleous error in captioning the picture is inexcusable. Several good books on the case correctly describe the perspective of this photograph as the other end of Berner Street, they could easily have been referred to by the Editor, and this information should have been known to him in any event as elementary knowledge of the case.
David |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 01:27 pm | |
Christopher George is, of course, correct. The picture is indeed of the east side of Berner Street looking south from Fairclough Street, as Viper mentions in the text:
"South East from Fairclough Street crossroads was a long, continuous row of small terraced houses which stretched all the way to Ellen Street, a distance of over a hundred yards. The house at the crossroads (also converted to a shop soon after 1900) had a street lamp attached to the wall – the closest light source to the murder scene. A photograph of this terrace appears in Paul Begg's Uncensored Facts."
The photo is merely mislabeled.
Wolf. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 02:27 pm | |
Hi, Guy, Wolf, and David:
Thanks for clearing this up. It should be noted then that the photograph appears mislabeled in the current Ripper Notes, in Paul's book, and in the illustrations here on the Casebook.... Gulp...  To give CM credit, having sat in the hot seat of top dog editor I know what it is like to try to meet deadlines, something CM is managing to do more successfully than I did when I was trying to copyedit, lay out, as well as write for two, count 'em, two quarterly magazines, Ripper Notes plus another history quarterly, try to help organize the 2000 US Ripper convention and other duties, while trying to hold down a job as well. So to publish in good faith a photograph miscaptioned in other sources is not the worst of sins.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 04:49 pm | |
I am called the evilest of bastards here in obvious misinterpretations of my statements, and no one stands up for me. Mr. SoMalia receives the kindest support amidst the most eggregious errors. How do you think I feel?
David |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 06:47 pm | |
| Dear David: Before your post gets away.I like the word obtucleous.Did you coin it? What does it mean? May I use it when I get the definition? |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 07:59 pm | |
Chris George is indeed correct in spotting the error here. Wolf Vanderlinden, as so often, is accurate in his analysis (see above). The photograph is indeed mis-captioned, for which all of us associated with the article apologise. The error was recognised last weekend and alerted to the Editor. I understand it will be corrected in the next issue.
Just while we’re on this subject, here’s another fault that I’m aware of. At the top of page 17 of the same article:- It was to be the 1820s before Commercial Road began to be straightened and widened bit-by-bit at the eastern end. For that read the western end. That one is unequivocally my fault – an old failing about distinguishing right from left, east from west. (Bloody good job I don’t drive a car!)
Thanks to everybody for the input on this subject. It is pleasing to know that people are applying critical tests to the data we publish in the Whitechapel Dossier. I hope nobody’s enjoyment or trust in our objective has been spoilt by it.
Regards, V. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 10:22 pm | |
Hi, David:
Don't get too hot under the collar, matey. I have just received your renewal for Ripper Notes and thank you for your support. Evidently you are pleased enough with your subscription and with the quality of the information on the case given in our pages, even with a glitch now and then. Let's face it, even top class journalistic enterprises such as The New York Times are regularly forced to print errata, and we are no exception.
Best regards
Chris George
Co-Editor
Ripper Notes |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 07 February 2002 - 10:54 pm | |
obtucleous--adj.--1. centrifugally off-the-mark. 2. obtusely eccentric, deviant. 3. centerless.
David |
Author: david rhea
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 08:07 am | |
| Deae David: Thanks again. I like it.I think that it applies very well. David R. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 12:33 pm | |
Alternatively,
Autochthonous Homuncleii.
Rosey :-) |
Author: david rhea
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 01:18 pm | |
| Certain men connected to this environment? That too applies. |
Author: david rhea
Friday, 08 February 2002 - 01:31 pm | |
| Diminutive men-I used the phrase 'encircling verbosities' earlier to describe the awesome phenomena.We then can say: Autochthonous Homuncleii whose obtucleous displays show forth in their applied encircling verbosities. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 11 February 2002 - 10:22 am | |
Thank you a lot Guy Hatton to have posted the picture again.
Sorry not to have answered you immediately but a lot of work and a little journey..... to London prevented me in doing so.
I find this picture really wonderful and still I do not understand why it keeps not attracting any attention by the experts ripperologists who instead immediately flock together to state that the picture in Paul Begg's book is not correct in showing the Stride's murder site.
A detail (really only a detail) already known by every casebooker older than three and a half and repeated by the same Paul Begg on these same boards quite some times.
But after all it's a good opportunity for them to congratulate themselves and eachother.
But it's OK, if they are happy I am happy.
The more men smoking cigars on the sofa after an heavy dinner the more women walking alone around the streets.
Well, you ask me how do I know that the woman in the picture is Mrs Lilley.
I ask you why you say that this is a picture of the murder site ?
Documentation.
Newspapers articles, Ordinance Survey maps, Census papers.
That's why I say this is Mrs Lilley.
Not that the above documents tell me that.
But they do tell me that in stating that I am much more likely than you in having correct my assertion.
Believing that the inquests reports (as they have been transcripted in the newspapers) have established beyond doubt the murder location and then indicating the same location on the 1967 picture of Buck's row between the terraced houses and the Board School is just a joke.
If Viper really believe what he stated about the escaping possibilities for the murderer he must be kidding or just concealing something.
If all the research done about the murders has produced such assurance in so plain mistakes, guys, you need a good hard flogging.
I am certainly not an expert and I am certainly not an Eastender but it took me not a long time to understand what could not be.
And I am not trying to show any kind of sagacity, believe me.
In any case, thank you again.
To have re-posted the picture of Mrs Lilley.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: By the way, Viper, the transcriptions of the Buck's row murder inquest in the Daily Telegraph and in The Times are one and the same report and are absolutely not two different versions.
And since you (rightly) say that the ELO version is more accurate I think I may safely assume that in fact you were not kidding.
Does it speak about the passage through Wood's Building ? |
