Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 03:46 pm |        |
Dear Ozzie,
You speak of confusion as a man addicted to it's embrace; your dialog replete with the details of your long affair. With every effort to prod you from the depths of sedation to the clarity of concise thought and expression, you have fought consciousness with the rigor of a man who can exist only in the twilight of a dream world, in the same way a fish needs water.
You speak of methods, and findings with weight and precision; you boast of scalpel like keenness, and double-edged humor, you wear these attributes with the same confidence as the emperor wore his new clothes. Their beauty is for your eyes only; I am not blinded by an aura that is visible solely to a man who has been abandoned by Psyche.
Your dementia prevents you from distinguishing posture from position, and sh_t from shinola.
My reply was directed to Mr. Ivor Edwards; if he has been wearing the cloak of the fool named Davidoz, then he has wasted his credibility by indiscriminant babblings, and cryptic mental meanderings down muddied and unclear paths.
If you are Mr. Edwards then say so bluntly, if not, then return to the wisdom of your sheep, and allow Mr. Edwards to speak for himself. |
Author: Davidoz
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 04:10 pm | |
I am here to investigate JTR not stroke your ego,
Joseph. |
Author: Mike Anstead
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 05:14 pm | |
Dear Joseph et. al.,
Please read Ivor Edwards' message of January 9 at 8:17 PM. He makes it clear that he has given Tim Wolfe and myself permission to post messages about his work. Also, please see my message of January 10 at 12:48PM.
How many of you have ever read "The True Face of Jack the Ripper" by Melvin Harris?
Ivor noticed this message thread a few days ago, but could not get on right away because he had lost his password. Since the topic of this thread is about the pattern formed by the murder sites, which is a key part of Ivor's reasearch, he thought people on the Casebook would be interested in seeing his map. Since he could not post a message himself at the time, he asked Tim and I to put some messages on here to tell people about his map, and that he has written a book which he is currently trying to get published. "Davidoz" is not associated with Ivor, Tim, or me. Ivor is not hiding behind a cloak, and Tim and I do not need to be official spokesmen, or get permission to from Steve Ryder to do this. We also don't need to have certain "credentials" or be part of the "Casebook family" to post messages about it. We are simply promoting Ivor's map available at the website listed in Tim Wolfe's first message of January 4. Have any of you actually looked at it yet? If no one wants to look at the map themselves that's fine, but please don't judge it until you've seen it. Ivor, Tim, and I thought people on the Casebook would be interested in the map, since that is the topic of this message board. None of us expected it would cause the anger that it has caused. |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 05:40 pm | |
Welcome to the world,
Like a babe shocked into life by the sting of a doctor's hand, you speak the speak of cognizance at last. How long you choose to maintain this posture is a matter yet to be seen.
Here is your first test: You hinted that a valuable clue was carved on Khofu's lintel. Tell us, what is the clue, locate the lintel, and tell us how it relates to the Whitechapel murders? You say you want to investigate JtR; here's your chance to make a positive contribution. Show us something; earn our respect, and please, stop patronizing us with you're "my word is gospel" attitude, we've seen that before; we're not impressed.
I hope the bogus Islamic hareem information you offered on another thread is not indicative of the value level of what you have to contribute here, otherwise you are wasting our time.
You can refuse to answer me on the grounds that you don't like my tone, but someone else is going to ask you the same question, or other similar questions, and if you're serious about "investigating JTR" then you're going to have to participate in the debate some time, and in some fashion and defend your position. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then what in hell are you doing here? Personally, I don't think you have anything to offer except more nonsense.
And if I have to depend on the likes of you, boy-o, to stroke my ego, then I am just as much a sad loser as you are. Here's a news flash for ya Shakespeare; I'm not.
Now's your chance, speak or get off the pot! |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 06:13 pm | |
Hello Mr. Anstead,
You are the first person, out of the three who have attempted thus far, to speak clearly on the subject. You make your intent very plain to understand. As you have stated, joining the Casebook family, and presenting credentials is not a necessity to accomplish your purpose. We can make any judgments we wish after checking out the web site you speak of. You are, more or less, giving us a "heads up" to some information that you feel might be of interest. Mr. Wolfe, on the other hand, sounded as if he was interested in discussing the matter on someone's behalf, which is quite a different matter.
Robert D'Onston Stephenson has been a subject for debate on a number of occasions here, and although I haven't had the pleasure of reading Mr. Harris's book, I am familiar with the Dr. Roslyn D'Onston story.
Mr. Edwards story sounds very interesting and I hope he sees fit to come back and fill us in on the details when that becomes possible.
My thanks to you for persevering with your desire to clarify your purpose, and for bringing this information to the Casebooks attention.
Good luck with the book Mr. E. |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 06:57 pm | |
| I'm curious about the phrase "victim to victim". I am assuming the terminology means the same thing as "as the crow flies"? If so, how would walking the routes, modern or circa 1888 give any useful information? I'm really not trying to be combative, just want to understand better. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 07:02 pm | |
Caz , its always been my conjecture that the bodies of the victims were placed in their appropriate locations , the murders being commited elsewhere ( ie in a carriage , although obviously not Stride ) thus this answers your question to Mr Edwards I hope. The bodies were put in position , it would have been easy to learn where and when the police patrolled and nip in in the interval to place the corpse.
If Ivor's research is as solid as we are led to believe , then the position of the corpses as being random looks ever less likely and the idea of a preplanned event looks much more certain. Can we really pass it off as a coincidence this time ?
Best of luck with your book Mr Edwards and congratulations on your research ! |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 07:18 pm | |
| Stride was kind of spoiled (from Jack's point of view) by the arrival of Diemschutz. He then goes haring off in a gynecidal rage determined to find a stand-in on short notice. He makes contact with Eddowes and only then remembers that her body must be placed exactly (what was it? 930 yards or something?) from the last victim. There has been no opportunity to measure the distance because Eddowes was the result of an unforeseen emergency. Unless all the murder sites were prepicked and measurements made ahead of time how could he have done this? The carriage would have had to be rerouted at the last moment. How do you explain the blood splashes on the fence at the Chapman site if she was killed elsewhere? Kelly doesn't fit the pattern of the cross at all does she? |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 07:59 pm | |
Ivor,
I have no desire here to dispute the canonicity of Liz Stride. As regulars to these boards may or may not have noticed, my opinion about the fact has changed several times over the past couple of years, and I remain open to new evidence and sensible debate about the matter. However, I must refute utterly your charge of not having walked the route from Berner Street to Mitre Square and its implication of being generally unfamiliar to the area.
Regards, V. |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 08:29 pm | |
| If Chapman was killed elsewhere, how did he manage to carry the dead weight of her body through a hallway in a house where people were living undetected? If she was mutilated elsewhere why didn't anyone find blood and bits of flesh lying in the hall (sorry to be gruesome)? |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 11:35 pm | |
Mr. Edwards, we both know that I am calling your crackpot theory absurd and I have indeed "walked the routes" several times in my life. Whether this gives me any more credibility or not I don't know but I don't see why it should. My credibility stems from the 29 years that I have spent studying the Ripper murders and therefore your saying that I have "a limited grasp of the facts of the case" is laughable.
Newspapers of the day as well as such experts as Coroner Wynne Baxter felt that Emma Smith was the first Ripper victim, does this make it so? Many "Ripper writers, newspapers, etc." felt, and feel, that Martha Tabram was a Ripper victim and yet you have failed to include her in your tape measure method of explaining sexual serial murder. Why?
As for Elizabeth Stride being a Ripper victim, of course you "know"that she was, otherwise your whole theory falls apart. Your methods in explaining these murders falls into the same category as "mathematical proof" that Stonehenge and the pyramids were built by space aliens. Whatever I or anyone else says to the contrary, we must be wrong, history, archeology, or forensic science be damned, the slide rule reveals all.
If you or your supporters are wondering whether I have read Melvin Harris's book The True Face of Jack the Ripper, you may rest assured that I have. It is part of an extensive library of books, newspapers and magazines that I own dealing with the Ripper murders and it is because of this library that I feel that I can offer one tiny bit of advice. If you haven't already done so, please read Jack the Ripper "Light-hearted Friend", by Richard Wallace. Wallace "proves beyond a shadow of a doubt" that Charles Dodgson, Lewis Carroll of Alice in Wonderland fame, was Jack the Ripper and that he hid anagrammatical taunts and messages in his poems and stories. It is not mathematically possible, Mr. Wallace tells us, for these anagrams to have occurred by accident and he has spent much time and effort poring over the works of Dodgson in order to bring to light several of these messages. Forget the fact that his theory is based on nothing else, or that the facts of the case refute Wallace's theory. To refute Wallace is to refute mathematics and probability and many long hours of study. Yeah, right. Much like your little theory Mr. Edwards, it is a tale full of sound and fury signifying nothing. You'll probably find it convincing.
Wolf. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 06:15 am | |
Hi All,
I've also read dear old Melvin's The True Face and it is very entertaining.
The idea of our budding occultist Jack believing he could conjure up supernatural powers with his murders is one thing. Any idea that such beliefs could conceivably have protected him from capture is, of course, quite another. And just imagine his disappointment when, fully expecting to be able to render himself invisible after his earlier murders, he creeps up to Mary Kelly, wearing his fifth large, black, bohemian-style tie and she bursts out laughing....
Love,
Caz |
Author: Justin Rose
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 08:14 am | |
I still go along with Mason simble that this all started with. Now just because it is a mason simble I'm not implying Gull. There were alot of reasons someone would want to pin the murders on the Mason's. They controled most government groups. Just look at the Police! Or it could have been another MAson. Who knows!
Guns and Roses Rule by the way!
J.D. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 11:44 am | |
Hello Joseph,
I've reread the first post as you requested and concur with your latest comments. You have indeed adequately addressed any misgivings which I may have had. It is appreciated that you have taken the time to clarify the situation. I came onto the board with the intention of sharing information I have acquired since 1993 with those of a serious disposition. The last time I came on the casebook was several years ago and it was in relation to the Maybrick Hoax. My belief is that the case will not be solved by one person alone; it will take the concerted effort of many working as a team. So far, I believe Ripper writers have chosen a suspect and woven their story to fit.In my case I had 3 questions I placed in priority. Firstly,I wanted to know how the murders were committed (this stage took 3-4 years of research). Then I examined the possible motive. Finally I determined who committed the crimes by the evidence gathered. My work is unique in that it gives great detail as to the planning and execution of the murders. In fact, 3/4 of the book deals with how rather than who.
Best wishes, Ivor |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 12:13 pm | |
Hello Caroline,
You must realise that the murders were planned in advance on a map. I had no knowledge of D'Onston at this point. Once the killer had picked his sites on the map (at the four points of the compass) he went to the sites to check on their suitability. After my investigations were complete I discovered that D'Onston had stated that the killer chose the sites ahead of time and then checked them for suitability. Site 2 (Chapman) fell in the middle of a crossroad, which was obviously too open, this site was moved 63 yards off true north to 29 Hanbury Street. He achieved the required accuracy by careful and precise planning using sacred (or secret) geometry (which in part has been utilised for centuries to solve problems). He certainly did not need to frighten them to go with him. They were prostitutes and I'm sure money would have been a very simple means of getting them to go along with him. They went because they made a fatal mistake, a mistake many victims of serial killers have made.He did not fit with their perception of an evil killer; he was, in their eyes,a gentleman.Nichols was picked up by the killer on the main Whitechapel Road and taken down a side alley at Woods Dwellings. She was last seen walking in this direction.Why do I think the killer took her down Woods Dwellings? Firstly, three other victims were led to their murder site through a covered passage. Woods Dwellings is more secluded than Court Street. If I was the killer I would choose Woods Dwellings. Chapman was picked up on the main road in Spitalfields and taken down Hanbury Street to the murder site. She was last seen going down Paternoster Row in Dorset Street in this direction. However, after taking several victims to the sites, measures were introduced by the police to catch the killer.One method was to stop any man seen in the company of a woman after 12.30am.To counteract this Jack could have agreed to meet his remaining victims on site.Stride was seen waiting only yards from where she was murdered and was heard to turn down a client. Some people believe Eddowes had arranged to meet someone at or near Mitre Square. The killer could have met Nichols and Chapman on site but I don't believe this is the case.These two victims were picked up on the main roads as near to the sites as possible.I hope I have answered some of your questions. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 12:44 pm | |
I wish to make the following points
Many secret societies use symbols which are also used by masons.In fact, they use many other aspects of masonic knowledge.This is certainly true of the occult. I have found no evidence to show that these murders were committed by a mason. Over the years I have been given information by a mason of 50 years experience. It is due to this information that I have been able to access certain facts of the case.During my research I was given the opportunity to become a mason; an offer I declined. In answer to Caroline and the remark about the killer believing himself invisible, I simply say don't take any notice of information relating to Crowley and Jack the Ripper and forget this rubbish about an invisible killer. You must sort the wheat from the chaff. |
Author: Justin Rose
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 01:05 pm | |
Mr. Edwards,
I started this topic so I want to know your opinon of the writting on the wall above the bloody pieace of Cathrine Eddowes dress. Do you feel it was written as D'Onston beleaved it was the french word for Jew. Which i don't have infront of me now.
Peace
J.D.
Guns and Roses Rule |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 01:26 pm | |
| In reply to Wolf's post: I do not consider Tabram to be a Ripper victim. I have already listed the names of those whom I consider to be victims. If you wish to rubbish my findings before you have read my book then so be it. But that is not the method adopted by a person who is interestsed in learning the truth about the murders.I know A little old lady who walks some of the routes every day does that mean she is familiar with the fact of the case?The word credibility has reared its head once more so while we are on the subject I will give you my credentials. I have 37 years experience in dealing with all types of crime and criminals. I have met and conversed with literally dozens and dozens of murderers. I have also met and conversed with many serial killers. I do not think what I am about, I know what I am about. Denigrating my work does not serve any purpose except to make you look like a professional sceptic. |
Author: Paul DUNLOP
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 03:40 pm | |
I am new to this site, but not new to this subject.
I like all of you have read many ideas as to who the killer was.
As a new suspect is found, evidence to suport it appears.
The latest favourite of mine is Dr Tumblety...but the jury is still out!
I wish to raise a minor observation that concerns one theory..the Masons.
The locations of the kiliings run some kind of pattern with masonic terms, such as Mitre Square etc.
It is worth bearing in mind that London was built and looked after by Masons and therefore they naturally named certain areas after objects that they held dear.
I live in a town with an area that has bird names for every street.
If a killer murdered persons in that area would modern day detectives assume that he/she is an ornithologist?
I bow to greater knowledge on this subject, but I have dealt with many active criminals who operate near to where they live...as a means of quick escape.
I think that the Masonic connection could be just a coincidence. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 04:14 pm | |
Hi Paul:
Our friend Viper can confirm this, but I believe the name "Mitre Square" is derived from a monastic establishment that used to stand in the area, and thus derives from a bishop's mitre, not a "mitre square" that may have been used by a mason or a carpenter.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Mike Anstead
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 04:25 pm | |
There have been a few messages about the distances on Ivor's map. Here is an example of the meticulous research Ivor did to create the map, and has kept records of what he did. I hope this helps to understand the map better:
A measurement was taken in the field from victim 3 at Dutfields Yard and victim 4 at Mitre Square was as follows: Victim 3 to centre point, 555.11 metres. Time taken was 5 minutes,10 seconds point 40 of a second Centre point to Dukes Street, 371.08 metres. Time taken was 3 minutes, 51 seconds, point 03 of a second.
Corner of Dukes Street to the entrance to St James passage,61.4 metres. Time taken was 32 seconds, point 09 of a second.
Entrance to St James Passage to victim 4, 51.3 metres. Time taken was 29 seconds, point 78 of a second. This was timed at a quick pace with a stop watch. It was then repeated at a normal pace with a wrist watch. A surveyor's wheel was used and the task was filmed for the record. No subways were used and barriers were climbed over to keep the route the same as they were in 1888.
The distance from victim 4 to Aldgate High Street via Mitre Street was 54.3metres. Time taken was 35 seconds, point 78 seconds. The length of Church passage in 1888 was 34.1 metres and it was 4 feet wide. |
Author: Davidoz
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 04:58 pm | |
Ivor,
One can appreciate the tremendous amount of patience required in your survey-work. Your suspect may yet be part of 'something' much more intriguing. Forgive the pun when I say you may have found yourself in a cul-de-sac, here. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 04:58 pm | |
Hello Justin,
Yes I do believe that the message at Goulston Street was placed by D'Onston and that the word Juwes was in fact Juives. Have you read the article By J Bloomfield in, WHO WAS JACK THE RIPPER compiled by Cammile Wolfe. It contains
a very good piece on where Jack got the idea for the graffito. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 05:12 pm | |
Hello viper,
I have walked the distance from Berner Street to Mitre Square.However I had to use the route via Commercial Road. The back route is no longer possible to travel as it would have been in 1888. New housing and the Blitz have made this task impossible.I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding which made you think I had not walked this route. Distances and Times for the above have
now been placed on this board on my behalf by Tim Wolfe. |
Author: Davidoz
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 06:45 pm | |
Ivor,
During the course of your peregrinations (!) thro'
the strange world of occult notions, and, (strange but true)connexions, between seemingly diverse characters, have you come across D'Onston and "Dr" Tumbelety? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 07:40 pm | |
| Viper I am sorry for getting my last post back to front in relation to who walked from Berner St to Mitre Square.I am guilty of not paying attention to your post of Jan10 07:59pm..In regards to my charge that you did not walk the distance etc please except my apology. |
Author: Davidoz
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 08:51 pm | |
Ivor,
May I presume by your discrete silence that you are aware of a connexion, factual or circumstantial, between D'Onston and Tumblety? I do understand why you do not wish to disclose the 'plot' before your publishers do. I was...feeling, thats all. |
Author: Davidoz
Thursday, 11 January 2001 - 09:51 pm | |
Ivor,
Sorry about that. I did promise Joseph I'd be on my best behaviour from now on...and whoops! I won't give any more away. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 01:05 am | |
| Davidoz, Did you receive 2 e-mails. I know of a connection between the two but are we talking about the same connection? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 05:46 am | |
Hi Ivor,
Thank you for your replies, which I found very interesting. I'm very much looking forward to your book now!
I shall be intrigued to read exactly what dark powers your killer hoped to achieve with his deeds, and how successful he thought he was at the end of it all. And why the kidney, for instance, if the womb was his ultimate goal?
Incidentally, I do hope you are back on friendly terms with anyone you may have clashed with over the Maybrick Diary - it has been a joy being able to discuss it sensibly recently, without people bursting blood vessels all over the place. Long may it continue. Nothing to do with this mystery is ever worth getting that steamed up about - is it?
Have a good weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Davidoz
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 09:03 am | |
Ivor,
Thanks for your email. Occassionally I have the odd one...But I expect it!
"I so much want to know the ending before the ending, cried Alice".
You will have to wait too, Ivor. |
Author: Davidoz
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 11:06 am | |
Joseph,
It seems we've had an audience! Your move. |
Author: Davidoz
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 12:42 pm | |
| ...Grand-Master? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 12:52 pm | |
Hi Caroline,
Glad to see that you have noticed that I am a changed person since the Maybrick saga! I have made the effort to behave myself this time round.Good question about the Kidney Caroline.Alas in the end it was all in vain. It has been a pleasure. And you are right it it not worth getting steamed up about. Have a good one yourself, Later, Ivor |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 01:04 pm | |
If you mean D'Onston was Doc Tumblety then no way.
If not then I've lost the plot. |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 01:04 pm | |
Not a problem, Ivor.
Chris,
With reference to your question of 11th January, 4:14 p.m., the honest answer is that I don’t know the exact derivation of the names Mitre Street/Square. London street names do have some obscure derivations. The origins of the ancient ones are occasionally subject to dispute.
The likelihood is though that your comment concerning a monastic derivation is correct. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries a number of monastic orders obtained land in London. Much of the land they acquired was round the edge of the walled city where space was readily available, some establishments being located just inside, others just outside the wall. The area surrounding Mitre Square was covered by the Holy Trinity Priory and its grounds. These Augustinian Canons were founded in 1108 with the patronage of Queen Matilda, (Henry I’s queen). On her death they were also given a large tract of land just outside the City gates, now the Portsoken Ward. The Prior of Holy Trinity was automatically made the Alderman for Portsoken. Years of high living and abuses of power gave the Holy Trinity a bad name and when it became the first casualty of Henry VIII’s policy of dissolving the monasteries in 1532, few locals were sorry to see it go.
Chapter 10 of Stephen Knight’s book attempts to play up the Masonic links with Mitre Square with comments like, "The square was literally riddled with Masonic connections. Its name, for a start, was entirely Masonic. Mitre and Square are the basic tools of the Freemason…" Though he goes on to mention the Holy Trinity Priory, it’s only after he has linked the square’s creation in the mid-nineteenth century to a local tavern with strong masonic heritage. Of course, this is pretty typical of Knight’s clever approach. His book blends fact, fiction and subtle implication to give a smooth, superficially convincing story, but not one that’s always accurate.
I will try to find out the derivation of these place names for you next week and will poste the results here if they prove to be based on anything other than the monastic connection above.
Regards, V. |
Author: Davidoz
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 01:20 pm | |
Viper,
What about the term "mite" as in "widow's mite", since we are using old English terminology here?
Of course the term "Widow" is of far more ancient origin. Perhaps you can look it up, Viper? |
Author: Davidoz
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 01:51 pm | |
Viper,
To cut a long story short, Templar property. |
Author: Grailfinder
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 01:59 pm | |
Hi Davidoz
Not that I have ever heard of a "Widows Mite" but in UK terminology a 'Mite' is a Flea, but it is also used to describe a poor desolate child, as in;
"Will nobody help the Widows son" the poor mite.
cheers |
Author: Davidoz
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 02:14 pm | |
Grailfinder,
If I read you right, this is the explicit claim of the Templars; their implicit claim/ideology, is then that of the "Widow & her Son"? Do I follow you right? |
