|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 14, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
The map view of the Murders:
Archive through January 14, 2001
Author: Davidoz
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 02:29 pm |        | Ivor,
So there you are! You have measured my House well.
But not its Altar.I have made a NEW Name for my believers.
As for MY NAME...that is the GREATEST MYSTERY OF ALL. |
Author: Grailfinder
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 02:55 pm | | The term "Will nobody help the Widows son" is, as far as I know, a verbal distress call used by the Masons. As to any Templar links? well that all depends on your views of Masonic heritage.
The term, was discovered by Robert Anton Wilson during research for his trilogy 'Illuminatus'.
Let me know when you have worked out who the original Widow/Son were! |
Author: Mike Anstead
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 03:25 pm | | Dear Wolf and Caz,
I believe there are other valid reasons for considering D'Onston a viable JTR suspect aside from the pattern formed by the murder sites.
Parts of the story he told Vittoria Cremers have been verified. He told Cremers that a doctor he knew had confessed to being JTR. In 1974 Stephen Knight discovered papers in the Scotland Yard files concerning D'Onston's accusation to the police that Dr. Morgan Davies was JTR. There is no way that Cremers would have known about this. Knight goes on for a few pages in his book about D'Onston and concludes with the insightful statement that the police should have been more suspicious of D'Onston than of Davies. Since the papers on D'Onston had nothing to do with Knight's theory, it makes me wonder if Knight actually may have had some nagging suspicions about D'Onston. It is now known that many criminals try to get involved in the investigation of their crimes, give anonymous tips to the police, etc. which is what D'Onston was doing.
D'Onston also told Cremers that there were only five Ripper victims, when it was generally believed at the time that there were seven victims.
Cremers also said that D'Onston told her that he served under Garibaldi in Italy and was once shot by a smuggler. Research has proven both of these things to be true. As with D'Onston's accusation of Dr. Davies, there is absolutely no way that Cremers could have known that documentary evidence existed that could verify these parts of D'Onston's story. If Cremers made the story up, she must have had ESP.
I was at the U.S. JTR Conference last April and Chris George gave a slide show. One of the slides showed a comparison of D'Onston's handwriting to the Lusk letter and Openshaw letter. While I certainly have no credentials as a handwriting analyst, I felt that the writing was similar enough that I believe a qualified handwriting analyst should compare D'Onston's handwriting to these letters. Even if the "Dear Boss" letter was a hoax, it is entirely possible that the Lusk letter came from the killer. See page 125 of The True Face - D'Onston may have pointed out the handwriting similarities himself. Here is a avenue for future research.
D'Onston is known to have been in Whitechapel during the murders which is more than you can say for many other suspects. I will admit that the fact that he was a hospital inpatient (which has also been confirmed by research) is a weakness in the case for him being JTR. However, there is a very plausible counter-argument in The True Face that he simply snuck out at night.
I don't believe that black magic prevented him from being caught. A certain amount of planning, caution and luck was why he didn't get caught. He probably figured no one would suspect a hospital inpatient. However, I have no problem believeing that someone involved in black magic could be a serial killer. Richard Ramirez, "The Night Stalker", murdered thirteen or fourteen people and was very heavily into Satanism. "Son of Sam" killer David Berkowitz says he was involved in a Satanic cult when he committed his murders. There have numerous cases of people involved in Satanic cults committing murder. In addition, D'Onston told Cremers he had committed some other murders, so he may have been a veteran serial killer before the 1888.
Ivor's research involves more than just the pattern formed by the murder sites. He has found more evidence in addition to what I have discussed above that implicates D'Onston. It will be discussed in his book. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 03:34 pm | | | Diana: My evidence shows that the 5 canonical victims were killed where they were found.The Sickett story about the victims being killed in a coach is now known to be a hoax. Also, the killer was not in a gynecidal rage;he kept his wits about him.You are correct when you say he knew the police beat times and used this interval. He killed his first four victims on site using the intervals between police 'visits.' He did not need to know or measure the distance (in the field) between eddowes and Stride. Forget about distances.This is how it worked.He planned the murders on a map, picking the chosen sites and planning the distances, etc on the map. He visited each site to check its suitability, remember his priorities were time and cover.The sites had to be located near a main road so he could get back to the main road as soon as possible after each murder and each route had to be as straight as possible because the most efficient route to travel from A to B is a straight line. When he killed Stride and headed west he had already chosen the exact spot where his next victim was to die.He knew the distances and how long it would take him to travel between them because he had checked them out ahead of time.You are right about the blood splashes on the fence.Forget about a carriage.He worked alone and on foot. Look at my map and check out the routes marked in yellow.He was a very careful planner.Best wishes. |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 03:46 pm | | | It has always been assumed that if Stride was a victim, JtR killed Eddowes because his bloodlust had gone unsatisfied. If JtR was a calcualted, logical killer who was simply filling in the blanks so to speak, why didn't he cut his losses after being interrupted by Stride and wait for another night to kill his West point victim (or whatever compass point Eddowes was, I can't remember)? The risk of exposure would have been much greater for him on that night, when there had already been an alarm raised. No other victims were killed as double events so it cannot be reasoned that he HAD to kill two women on the same night to fulfill the geometric design. The fact that he did would indicate beserker blood lust, not a methodical mathematically precise killer. |
Author: Grailfinder
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 04:19 pm | | Hi Aleqria
Sorry, but I disagree.
If Jack had pre-planed the murders/sites then he also surly planned the time for the crime to be committed, there is evidence for both Stride and Eddowes having had an arranged appointment, so if Jack had not kept his appointment with Eddowes in Mitre Sq, he would have to risk arranging another victim for another night. But this would leave a witness (Eddowes) knowing that the new victim was found at her arranged meeting place!
This could leave Jack in a dodgy position, he could of cause shut her up later, but why take more risks than necessary? better he should keep to his original plan and kill Eddowes on the planned 'double Event' night.
cheers. |
Author: LeatherApron
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 04:31 pm | | Mr. Anstead and Mr. Edwards,
When you have a chance please have a look at the story titled JACK/KNIFE under Games & Diversions and then under Original Ripper Fiction.
Cheers.
Caz,
Nice to see you and please give it a read too if you can. Though I don't think you'll find it quite as entertaining or amusing as the gents above, I'd be interested in your opinion.
Regards,
Jack (The Bloody Writer) |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 04:38 pm | | | One more question. I am familiar with pagan rituals that use the points of a compass as focuses for making circles of power. Traditionally an offerring is made as each point is invoked. If this is what your JtR was doing, he would not have been successful as you do not cross your circle of power. You begin at East or North and typically move E --> S --> W --> N invoking as you go. You would not Move E--> N --> S --> W as this would give you a backwards N or Z. It would not form a circle of power or protection and no spell cast in it would work. The sequence of invoking is as important in a spell as the spell components used. If your killer was precise enough to use sacred geometry to calculate where his corners of his spell should lie, why would he completely disregard the sequence? |
Author: Mike Anstead
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 04:48 pm | | Alegria,
I'll let Ivor explain why D'Onston took the risk of killing again after being interrupted with Stride. However, read my posting from earlier today about other reasons for D'Onston being JTR.
Diana,
Ivor's map shows how the Kelly murder site relates to that of the other four. It's quite amazing. If you take the intersecting point of the cross as the center of a circle, then draw an arc of a circle connecting the murder sites of Nichols and Eddowes, the Kelly murder site lies precisely on the arc. This is something Ivor discovered through his surveying and measuring, and is not mentioned in "The True Face of JTR". In his Pall-Mall Gazette article D'Onston didn't mention this, because it would show that he knew a little too much. He mentioned the cross and apparently the Tabram murder site and the torso found in a new police building at the time were also on the line of the cross connecting Nichols and Eddowes. because the Kelly murder site did not seem to fit in with the others, D'Onston wrote in his article that Kelly was probably not a Ripper victim. This was to throw a false scent and not give himself away. |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 05:41 pm | | Hi Grail,
Now you will have to bear with me because I do not know all of the evidence that points to Eddowes and Stride having pre-arranged "dates". All I have to refer to is Mr. Edwards post above which states: (paraphrasing here) that Stide was heard to turn down a client and some people believe that Eddowes was meeting someone. In regards to Stride, I do not find it credible that a prostitute in Victorian London would have turned down a sure thing because she was supposed to meet someone later. A bird in the hand is your next meal, the one in the bush is who the heck knows. If she turned someone down it is more likely that he wanted something she wasn't prepared to give or had dealings with him before, or a variety of other reasons. But to turn someone down because someone MIGHT show up later? I don't think so. I have no idea what the evidence is that Eddowes was meeting someone. It is, however, my opinion that after getting falling down drunk and being locked in a drunk tank, the last thing on her mind when she awoke was some (more than likely) hazy memory of an appointment. If she was concerned with the time, it probably was because she was concerned with getting her butt kicked when she got home.
Please do let me know what the evidence for her having an appointment is though. I can't really say one way or the other until I know what that is. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 05:57 pm | | Why can't the arrow point the other way?
Rick |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 06:07 pm | | Nice to see you back, Jack, Good hunting?
see you around.
Rick |
Author: Diana
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 06:14 pm | | I just went back to Grailfinder's post of November 30th where he posts that real neat map. I printed it out and went looking for a compass. My husband bless his heart has a unique way of storing things in the desk so I couldn't find one. Never mind. I grabbed a ruler. From the center point to Nichols is 1 and 15/16 or two inches (the dot is big enough around that it could be taken either way). From the center point to Eddowes is two inches. From the center point to Kelly is just about 1 & 5/16 inches. My math skills are weak (nay, paltry) so I may be wrong, but for Kelly to be on the same arc with Eddowes and Nichols, wouldn't the radii have to be equal for all three? I can buy the slight variation between the first two but not the third. Maybe I misunderstood what was meant concerning the arc?
If you don't buy into mapped preplanning, and for me I'm taking a wait and see attitude, I think the map pattern still has something to tell us. The center point is right in the middle of Whitechapel High Street ( Halfway between where it becomes Aldgate High Street and where it becomes Whitechapel Road.) I think its possible he used that stretch of road to pick up his victims, or perhaps some establishment located along that stretch of road. From the center point it is only a short walk to each of the murder sites. I intend to research each victim again in terms of where she was headed when last seen alive. It may confirm or refute my theory. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 08:06 pm | | Hi, all:
As Mike Anstead said, in my presentation on the Jack the Ripper letters at the 2000 US JtR Convention in Park Ridge, NJ, I showed slides of close-ups of D'Onston's letter of October 16, 1888 to the City Police along with the Lusk letter received that same day, and the Openshaw letter postmarked October 29. Because of similarities in the writing in all three letters, I think there is a good case to be made that D'Onston wrote all three missives. Nevertheless, that does not necessarily mean he was Jack, just that he was sticking his oar in the investigation as he did with his approach to Scotland Yard on Boxing Day, 1888, in which he expressed his suspicion that Dr. Morgan Davies was Jack.
Note that in his Pall Mall Gazette article of December 1 showing the profaned cross plotted against the murder sites, D'Onston said that the murder of Mary Jane Kelly did not fit on the cross. However, in the statement to the Yard about Dr. Davies, he stated that he had reason to believe that before she was murdered, MJK was subjected to anal intercourse--and that Davies demonstrated that MJK's throat was cut while in just such an act of anal intercourse. So D'Onston was hardly consistent in his thinking on the case. In a lot of ways, he comes across as an interested if not obsessed amateur. . . All the same, having written two articles on D'Onston in Ripperologist and Ripper Notes, in which I doubted his credentials as the killer, particularly because of his age and state of health, my analysis of the letters has strengthened my interest in him as a suspect.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Grailfinder
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 08:15 pm | | Hi Alegria
You are right in that there is no real evidence that either Stride or Eddowes had dates, only logical assumptions, with Stride I recall a reference to her having a conversation at the doss house with a woman who asked her to go for a drink but Stride said that she was going out?
Somebody bought her a flower? Liz would not have wasted money on buying it herself, added to the evidence that she was heard to say "not tonight" to a customer, it would seem likely (not proven) that she had an arranged appointment, probably with someone who could afford more than a thrupenny Knee-trembler.
Eddowes must have met somebody during the day who gave her money to get drunk? as nobody came forward at the inquest to admit to giving her anything, I can only assume that whoever she did meet? then that person did not want to come forward and give there account of the meeting, Finally, her concern with the time when being released from the cells? The problem I have with the "I'll get a beating when I get home" statement, is that she had no home! She was staying at the doss-house in shoe lane, while Kelly was in another doss-house entirely, so she would not be going home to her old man, so no beating? I believe she made-up the story of "the beating" to satisfy the police that she had somewhere to go, rather than the truth, that she was she was going straight back on the streets.
All this is of cause mere speculation, my point of the previous post was not so much Did they/Didn't they, have dates? but I was trying to explain why IMHO Jack carried on with the double event after being disturbed with Stride, not because of a crazed lust, but rather it was better to stick to his plans for the evening, rather than take unnecessary risks finding and arranging a new victim to meet him in Mitre Sq and hoping that Eddowes wouldn't put two and two together and realize that she was his intended victim, she would after all, be able to identify him, all in all, it would be safer to stick with his original double event plan, don't you think? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 08:28 pm | | | Stride was seen to be attacked at 12.45am.It is alleged that the killer was disturbed by Diemschutz at about 1.00am. So the killer spent 15 minutes killing Stride did he? Diemschutz saw no one he heard no one. The only evidence that has ever been produced that the killer was disturbed was the fact that the pony shied thus implying that the killer was present.That is not good enough by far.It has only ever been assumed that he was disturbed. That pony stopped because a dead body was to its front on the right.Stride was found on her side not on her back as with the other 4 victims. The killer was not disturbed while he was in the process of placing her on her back.She was not placed on her back because the killer had no intention of mutilating her. And there is a damm good reason why. Also 3 men were at the scene and only one can be accounted for. This has a bearing on the case.The killer had left the Yard before Deimschutz arrived.Also I was informed by Melvin Harris the occult decrees that if 2 victims are to be be killed and mutilations cannot be performed on the first then the second can be mutilated. There is a further reason why Stride was not mutilated, a very simple one at that. I cover the Berner Street murder in great detail in my book.Furthermore the man who was seen to attack Stride was not her murderer. It is about time someone took more notice of the man standing in the doorway.Aleqria states about pagan rituals and goes on to add, "if this was what your JR was doing".We will never know all the rituals he was using In relation to many aspects of the murders so it is no good trying to fit rituals in which he may not have used.We know what he wanted the body parts for.People who may know all the rituals he used are few and far between. I spent many years of my time just working out how he committed the murders let alone who he was. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 08:35 pm | | | Aleqria. A prostitute would turn down a client if greater rewards were on offer. |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 09:21 pm | | | All occult practices that I have ever read of, whether they follow the Way of Light, Satanism or anything good, bad or indifferent, invoke a CIRCLE of protection. This must be done by following the points of the compass in a clockwise or counter-clockwise motion. What rituals or spells they use once they have invoked the circle is of course, impossible to determine, as are what their plans for the circle is. However the circle is one of the universal symbols of magic. It is to call power and protection and neither can be done if you cross the points. Any person with the most basic study of magic would know not to cross the points. I meant no disrespect by saying "your JtR". I am simply trying to figure out how such a precise killer could have made such a glaring error. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 09:23 pm | | | Diana, you are doing better than most.You know where the routes go but why do they go there ?Why do the routes lead to the centre? You were so right about the times you picked up on.Why are those times nearly all the same? Why are those distances nearly all the same? What do you expect to find at or near the centre? You know somthing is there dont you. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 10:06 pm | | | Aleqria If you take a compass and place the point of it at the spot I marked on my map ( 1880,1890, O/S map scale 1/2500 )at the centre of the junction and place the other point at the exact spot Stride was found draw a circle. You will find that the rad of that circle is exactly 500yds.You will also find that it passes on the exact spots on which Eddowes and Kelly were murdered. You will also find two intersecting circles on my plan.Within these two circles you will find a pyramid. This is termed Pyramid with the tetractys and vesica pisces. It is the plan of a certain form of energy. Vesica Pisces, is also known as the yoni, Delta,or vagina it relates to what Jack took. Other symbols which are shown relate to women.A professor of 20 years experience into research on vesica pisces is studying my plan and other material on my behalf at the moment.When I get his findings I will make them available. Some of it is far too complex for me.Melvin Harris is the man you need to contact for the answers to your questions.Sorry I cant be of more help. Now I'm off to bed. |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 10:13 pm | | Grail,
I would agree that both the money that Eddowes used to get drunk and the flower that Stride had were probably bought by someone they had met earlier in the day. But is a huge leap to say it is a clue that they had appointments to keep later on. They could have very well serviced those clients and been done. Eddowes used her money to buy her drink, maybe Stide didn't service a man at all but pinched a flower from the market. Eddowes probably did say that about going home to throw the police off but again, it doesn't neccesarily follow that because she was going back to the streets, she had an appointment to keep. There are a dozen explanations for each event. And I understand the reasoning that Stride would have wanted to hold out for higher money if it was offered, however, I still think that these ladies would all have been experienced enough to know that just because a man says he'll be there, doesn't mean he will be. If I had been her I would not have said "some other night" I'd have said meet me in the bar in 45 sugar, that way I would have been assured of something. |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 12 January 2001 - 10:19 pm | | | I am not saying that the points where the bodies are found do not form a circle. They do. It is the order in which they were killed that do not. If I put 4 points on a piece of paper at N, S, E, and W there are many things that I can do with those points. I can make a square, an N, two parallel lines, an X, yada yada. If however, I want to do magic I cannot connect them E to N to S to W. That doesn't give me anything remotely magic like to use. Have a good night. |
Author: LeatherApron
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 01:10 pm | | Rick, Good to see you too and I hope you and your wife are well. I have not changed careers but I will be changing jobs nonetheless which should cheer me up.
Regards,
Jack |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 02:39 pm | | Diana : I know you doubt that the murders were committed in a carriage , and quote the Chapman case to back you up - but it is my assertion that the Chapman case is in fact good evidence that the murders WERE committed in a carriage ! I don't believe the Sickert theory is a hoax at all , although there is more to it than we know of at this present time I am sure.
I am suggesting that the Nichols , Chapman and Eddowes murders were commited in a carriage.
If you can just accept that even ONE of these killings was done in this manner , then why not accept they all were and such was part of the murderers plan ? In fact there is evidence to suggest that all 3 were killed away from the spot where they were found , placed in position.
I'll open the can of worms if you want - obviously nearly everyone will disagree with me , but I'll have a stab at making the case for it !
Simon |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 03:23 pm | | Hi, Simon:
I don't agree with you either, that the murders were committed in a carriage, but I and others will give you a fair hearing if you were to lay out your theory before us.
Thanks
Chris George |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 03:56 pm | | Simon,
Please, share. What is the evidence that the murders happened elsewhere? Don't lead us on and then cut us loose! Where's the beef? :-)
As someone (I believe Diana ?) mentioned earlier, how did they keep some of the icky bits and blood from leaving a trail? even if the dumped them straight from the carriage woudn't there have been trace deposits? And since Stride clearly was not killed else where, does that mean you discount her as a Ripper victim?
Thanks. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 04:15 pm | | Hi all:
While I have yet to be persuaded by Ivor Edwards' theory that Jack was a black magician, here are some websites that people here might find helpful. They have information on Ivor Edwards' Vesica Pisces symbol:
http://www.geomancy.org/sacred_space/old_ss/glastonb/chalice-well/chalice-well.html
http://www.geomancy.org/sacred_g/sacgeo-5.html
http://www.users.bigpond.com/artoworld/page17.html
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~chenry/
http://www.sckans.edu/~math/stacy.htm
Chris George |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 05:22 pm | | On the contrary , I do think Stride was a Ripper victim and the Stride case is part of the reason I think there was a carriage involved. Okay , my theory is mainly conjecture in that it involves interpreting the evidence in a certain way , but I'll put it up on the boards.
To understand what I mean : whats the difference between the Stride/Kelly cases and the other cases ? Whats missing in the other cases ? |
Author: LeatherApron
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 05:35 pm | | Simon says... the wombs.
J
Please continue. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 06:14 pm | | Simon
At the risk of boring everyone to tears, I might suggets that what you have is not a theory.
A theory is a set of plausible deductions that fit ALL the evidence.
If one of your deductions (key points) is based on speculation, therefore not supported by any evidence, then what you have is nothing more than an hypothesis, somewhat less than a theory. And if one piece of evidence goes against your hypothesis then what you have is even less than an hypothesis, ie: only speculation.
But go ahead, whatever it is it can't be worse than the diary.
And be prepared for broadsides from all quarters :-)
Regards, Jon
(purely positive criticizm, I asure you) |
Author: David M. Radka
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 07:05 pm | | Chris,
Why do you think D'Onston chose George Lusk as the addressee of the letter? The Ripper din't send Lusk any other letters--what was D'Onston thinking?
Eagerly anticipating your considered response,
David |
Author: Davidoz
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 08:02 pm | | Ivor,
You are not impressed by this flim-flam, are you Ivor?
You note the onset of sudden 'blindness' by our so-called professional Ripperologists, don't you Ivor?
Stupidity or cupidity, you wonder? Please tell us? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 09:01 pm | | | Davidoz, No Comment. |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 09:19 pm | | | Nichols did not have her womb taken. As to Satanic involvement, see my post of about a year ago. It describes Satanism from a New Testament prospective. |
Author: Davidoz
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 10:02 pm | | Forgive their ignorance of signals analysis. You in military intelligence, Ivor?
Then you know that 'silence' is the most telling time.
You no doubt noted my oblique warning...and of course, the dog in the night routine. Arrogance you thought? |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 10:04 pm | | Hi, David:
You will see from an article by Tom Wescott in the upcoming January Ripper Notes soon to be published, that George Lusk received more than one piece of correspondence from someone claiming to be the murderer. Indeed, the Manchester Evening News of 19 October 1888 in revealing that Lusk had received the "From Hell" letter states that: "Mr. Lusk, builder, of Alderney Road, has received several letters purportedly from the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders." The same article states that enquiries by the Exchange Telegraph Company led to the supposition that the letter and kidney could be a hoax. It goes on to say, "Similar practical jokes have previously been attempted in Whitechapel, but have not been made public, and it is asserted that their object is to continue the excitement and keep the police on the alert."
In the article, it is revealed that Lusk stated that "a day or two before receiving the box" he had received "a post-card" which read:
Say Boss, you seem rare frightened. Guess I'd like to give you fits, but can't stop. Time enough to let you have box of toys. Play copper games with me. But hope to see you when I don't hurry too much. Good bye, Boss.
I would suggest that these communications were a way for the murderer and/or hoaxers to keep the murder scare going in the six-week lull between the "Double Event" and the murder of Mary Jane Kelly, just as the press assumed. Of course, as we know, the press themselves may bear some responsibility for stirring up excitement over the murders if it is indeed true that the original Dear Boss communications were from a journalist, as several of the top police officials later claimed.
By the way, in terms of the half a kidney, the Manchester Evening News article is contradictory in saying, first, that Dr. Openshaw stated on examining the half kidney that it was human, was from a woman aged 45 years, and had been removed in the last three weeks, and then going on to say, second, that Dr. Sedgewick Saunders, Medical Officer of the City of London, told the press that it could be mistaken for a pig's kidney, that there is no difference between a male and female kidney, and that the right kidney remaining in the body was not diseased, and neither was her liver. He gave as his opinion that the woman did not drink, despite allegations that she was a heavy drinker, implying again that despite the story that her kidneys were diseased the remaining right kidney showed no evidence of Bright's disease. Sedgewick Saunders further stated as his belief that the kidney "was a student's prank." No wonder modern-day researchers are confused on the matter!
I think Roslyn D'Onston was either the Ripper or a practical joker, or both. We know that he inserted himself in the investigation, with his letter to the City Police of 16 October, his Pall Mall Gazette article of 1 December, and his visit to Scotland Yard of 26 December (Boxing Day), so is it not possible or even likely that he sent anonymous letters to the authorities as well? Again, I see similarities between the handwriting in his letter to the police of 16 October, the Lusk letter, and the Openshaw letter. I believe old D'Onston took pleasure in messing with the minds of the police and posing, say, as an ignorant Irishman (in the From Hell letter). . . perhaps mimicking the Irish navvies (laborers) he would know worked for Lusk in the building trade.
And why was Lusk targeted to receive these communications, you asked? Well, because Lusk had been mentioned in the press as leading the high profile Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. In The Times of 8 October, for example, Lusk had been mentioned in regard to petitioning the Queen on behalf of his committee to ask the Home Secretary to issue a reward for the murderer (see Evans and Skinner, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion, pp. 245-46). I would suggest that D'Onston, even if he were not the Ripper, enjoyed adding to the general mayhem and confusion. Now, how any of this fits with Ivor Edwards' black magic theory concerning D'Onston, I don't know. I look forward to receiving and perhaps reviewing Ivor's book for Ripper Notes and finding out if he has any theory on the matter of D'Onston as a prankster!
I will be saying more about D'Onston and the Lusk and Openshaw letters in the April issue of Ripper Notes following an invitation by Christopher-Michael DiGrazia, our new Editor, to follow up Tom Wescott's article on the letters in the January issue with an article based on my presentation on the JtR letters in Park Ridge.
I hope the above has helped, David.
Best regards
Chris George
Co-Editor
Ripper Notes |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 11:25 pm | | Mr. Edwards,
If you present a theory, then naturally you must expect to have to answer questions on it. If you came looking for blind acceptance, that was your error, not a failing on our part. If you are unable to answer our questions then maybe your theory requires further research before you are ready to present it. I have asked a simple question related to the most basic element in occult or ritual magic. I await your answer. |
Author: Joseph
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 11:38 pm | | Hello Mr. Edwards,
Your exchange of messages with Diana caught my attention. The first message was: By Diana on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 06:14 pm. Diana speculates that the pre-planned murder site theory is moot by virtue of the inconsistent geometry between murder sites. The theory as a possible solution is of no value, but taken as a reflection of the murder sites as whole, it may hold some promise.
You respond: By Ivor Edwards on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 09:23 pm, by acknowledging Diana's observations as an achievement of sorts, but, you attempt to further stimulate her detective skills by supplying her with speculative questions of your own.
Do you, by proposing your questions, imply that Diana could reach the same conclusion or understanding as you, simply by answering your questions?
How do the Casebook Jacks evaluate her answers in contrast with your conclusion/understanding, if all we have to work with is Diana's conjecture, and your acquiescence post facto? What would be the reward of this exercise, and how do you propose we solve the problem of Diana possibly being influenced by exposure to your conclusion/understanding, prior to her posting the result of her research?
My questions are the result of a critical reading of your reply to Diana's post and are not meant as an inquisition. Your reply to Diana appears to be leading, and seems out of context; I hope your response can clarify this observation.
Best regards
Him |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 13 January 2001 - 11:48 pm | | And although I am loathe to ask another question while I am awaiting the answer to the first...
Why did he pick sites where he couldn't get a hit at true North? Why not just move the other sites to correspond? If he did such meticulous research on angles, arcs, etc.; why not research the area more so that he could pick points where all murder sites would coincide with exact figures? |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 12:27 am | | | Also, why did he stop with the symbol half done? |
|
|
|
|
