|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
A beginners guide for the amateur Ripper sleuth
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
A beginners guide for the amateur Ripper sleuth
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 07:39 pm |        | Dear Caroline,
"The struggle to understand is all ours." That's life...I guess. And the passion and the drama in this struggle to understand...to understand WHAT?
The soldier seeks to understand the enemy. The priest seeks his understanding with the 'godhead'.
The lunatic with self? But they all have one thing
in common...their own mortality.
The 'psychopath' has little or no sense of their own mortality...they are empowered by this oblique
self-knowledge. Tic, tic, tic...
Rosemary |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 02 April 2001 - 07:41 pm | | Anyway,
Where would we be without the little critters...
not here on the Casebook! |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 01:16 am | | Richard,
I see you know your Ted! I would harbor a guess that Ted knew exactly why he was doing what he was doing, at least later in life. As to Jack the Ripper, how long have you been interested in the case? What books do you own?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 06:36 am | | Hi Tom,
I have been following the Jack the Ripper case for about 20 years now. The first book I read was Donald Rumbelow's "The Complete Jack the Ripper." I have read just about all of them since then. I most admire Sugden's and Begg's work.
About Bundy and most serial killers I doubt there is really all that more to their motivation than an inate sexual compulsion to murder. Of course, its mere speculation on my part.
Admittedly, Peter Sutcliffe claimed a religious aspect to his motivations. Its difficult to know if he was being honest with us or himself regarding his Yorkshire Ripper slayings.
Rich |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 11:41 am | | Caroline, Rick, and all,
The talk here about serial killers and their motivations reminded me, once again, of the only serial killer to walk the same streets that I was walking at the same time (as far as I now know). David Berkowitz was not a sexual serial killer, of course, but that summer in NYC, when we were all looking at everyone at work or on the street or in the neighborhood as a possible suspect, no one had any idea what was making this killer commit these murders. Later, to a mixture of horror and laughter, we discovered that David had been listening to the promptings of his neighbor's dog, who spoke to him with the voice of a demon. David eventually killed the dog too, but smiled as they arrested him and was more than happy to explain to the police exactly what he had done and why. This explanation did not seem after the fact at all -- many of his actions during the time of the murders proved to be strong evidence that he was telling the truth about what he saw as his mission. As to why David started listening to a local pet that was telling him to go on killing sprees -- well, that's another discussion that would be long and complicated and that would have to include some thoughts about how New York treats its mentally ill and about David's family and about the use of certain medications and, well, you can see where it would all lead.
I was also reminded, reading the discussion above, of the strange little Atom Egoyan film Felicia's Journey, with Bob Hoskins. It came out back in 1999 and in it, Egoyan significantly expanded what were, originally, only a few lines concerning Mr. Hilditch's mother near then end of William Trevor's interesting novel -- turning her into a campy cooking show hostess from the 1950's (played by Egoyan's wife, Arsinée Khanjian) -- and thereby insinuating some thought provoking things about parenting and lost girls and boys and food and loneliness and other things that whirl inside the head of too many of us but explode in the head of a few.
I have no conclusions for any of this, but thought I would mention two sons, one of Sam and one of Gala, and slip back into the shadows.
Have a fine Tuesday of Masters Week,
--John
PS: Our David has since become born-again in Christ (of course) and now has some thoughts of his own about why he killed. For those wanting to see first hand a serial killer's mind still at work, you can visit his very own set of web pages of confessions, letters, Christian urgings and testimonials at the following rather creepy site:
http://www.inetworld.net/hutrcc/david.htm |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 02:31 pm | | John,
Thanks for the link. I'll have to check it out. What did you think of Spike Lee's 'Summer of Sam' movie? Also, the amazing thing about the dog is that Berkowitz shot him, but he survived! Many people have tried to turn the Son of Sam murders into a conspiracy, like the Ripper crimes, but just like the Ripper there's really nothing very convincing in the theories, although I must confess I'm not as familiar with that case as some.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 03:52 pm | | Hi Tom,
I was rather disappointed in the Spike Lee movie, I'm afraid. I remember living through that summer, and I thought in this case that Spike's penchant for melodramatic preaching, his heavy handed, almost cartoonish character development, and his sappy and overpowering score got in the way of telling a potentially interesting story. Also, the dog talking effect was just plain silly. It was badly paced, I thought, and a bit over-edited as well.
It's too bad, though. Because he missed a real opportunity here to say something important about New York and about the paranoia of the times.
And, I should mention, I really do like She's Gotta Have It and have repeatedly taught Do the Right Thing and think it's a fine emblematic fable and even think that the Malcolm X film was a decent bio-pic. But sometimes Spike tries too hard (as in He Got Game and his most recent satire of minstrelsy). Girl 6 was cute though, and the music in the jazz film was OK, but the stereotypes return there in too unselfconscious a way.
You're right, by the way, that although David shot the black lab next door, the dog was rushed to the vet and survived. I remember that, now.
For all interested, Sam also got his name from a letter later published in the papers, this one originally sent to the police. You can see a transcription and reproduction of the second page on the link below.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial/son/sonmain.htm
I don't remember whether David ever finally admitted to writing it. We do know he wrote a letter to his neighbor Sam about the dog, which was almost perfectly spelled, vaguely polite, and in clear, plain English. Of course, it also threatened death.
What would any of us do if we got the following anonymous note in the mail:
"I have asked you kindly to stop that dog from howling all day long, yet he continues to do so. I pleaded with you. I told you how this is destroying my family. We have no peace, no rest.
"Now I know what kind of a person you are and what kind of a family you are. You are cruel and inconsiderate. You have no love for any other human beings. Your selfish, Mr. Carr. My life is destroyed now. I have nothing to lose anymore. I can see that there shall be no peace in my life, or my family's life until I end yours."
--John
PS: No conspiracies, here, I think, Tom. David, was, in his own way, completely one of a kind. There is also a surprisingly intelligent 1985 TV movie about the case starring Martin Sheen, I recall, as the lead detective. It is called Out of the Darkness and also stars Hector Elizondo and Robert Trebor as a dead-on David. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 07:37 pm | | Hello John,
thanks for your comments, they're always welcome,(whether they are for or against my arguments). I'm just putting forward my view and seeing what comes back. I'm not one who must have the last word by any means,I hope Caz realises that,--I haven't heard anything from her yet. Thanks John for the Son of Sam info, I read it all, you are quite a diamond. I thought that statement that the publics demand for information was a big help to the killer, was interesting. If only the real reason for Jack's killings could be known, including the way he did them!!, then that would surely tell us who he was,--- wouldn't it?
All the Best, Rick |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 03 April 2001 - 08:27 pm | | Hi Rick,
Interesting that the site I mentioned above that gives the details of the Berkowitz case also mentions that in the end he did confess at least once to getting some sexual pleasure from the killings (although by this time, I suspect it would have been hard to tell when David was telling the truth and when he was performing). Finally though, he cites our own Jack as the inspiration for his writing to Jimmy Breslin at the paper and for adopting the nickname.
Here are the relevant passages that might give people thought on these boards:
"Ressler made it clear that he didn't buy the demon dog theory one bit and eventually he was able to get the truth out of Berkowitz. The demon story was to protect him when and if he was caught so that he could try to convince the authorities he was insane. He admitted to Ressler 'that his real reason for shooting women was out of resentment toward his own mother, and because of his inability to establish good relationships with women.' He would become sexually aroused in the stalking and shooting of women and would masturbate after it was over.
He also admitted to Ressler that stalking women had become a nightly adventure for him. If he didn't find a victim, he would go back to the scenes of his earlier murders and try to recall them. 'It was an erotic experience for him to see the remains of bloodstains on the ground, a police chalkmark or two: seated in his car, he would often contemplate these grisly mementos and masturbate.' So murderers do return to the scene of the crime, not out of guilt, but because they want to revive the memories of their crimes for sexual pleasure.
He wanted to go to the funerals of his victims but was afraid that the police would become suspicious. However, he did hang around diners near the police stations hoping to overhear policemen talking about his crimes. He also tried unsuccessfully to find the graves of his victims.
Like many serial killers, he nourished his sick ego from the newspaper attention he received for his crimes. He got the idea of sending the letter to Jimmy Breslin from a book on Jack the Ripper. Ressler found out that 'after the press started calling him Son of Sam he adopted the moniker as his own, and even fashioning a logo for it.'"
I wonder which book on the Ripper David Berkowitz was reading while he was murdering so many women?
--John
PS: Any Ripperologist or enthusiast who is genuinely curious about what particular Ripper book Berkowitz was reading during the nightmares of '76 and '77 can, if they like, try sending e-mail to hutrcc@inetworld.net and asking the people there to forward it to Berkowitz himself. These folks apparently are in steady contact with him.
I do not have what it takes to write and send such a post. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 07:19 am | | Hi Rick,
No probs, I just didn't have anything useful to come back with. (Do I ever?  )
Hi John,
Interesting stuff suggesting Berkowitz liked his given moniker so much that he adopted it for himself.
I have often wondered if Jack the Ripper had that kind of personality, being among the first of his kind to savour his publicity, in a brave new world full of newly-literate citizens, now able to afford and pore over newspapers and periodicals, thanks to the new laws, such as compulsory education and the abolition of paper tax and so on.
If Son of Sam was not his own invention, Berkowitz must have felt elated that he had finally been recognised and granted his place in society, given an identity at last, after years of feeling like Mr. Nobody, full of resentment at being either neglected, undervalued, humiliated, despised or otherwise ill-treated by those around him (whether such ill-treatment was real or more the product of a disturbed or paranoid imagination).
By rendering his victims powerless, physically (as well as sexually in other cases) I guess such a person could temporarily shake off his feelings of emasculation and become a man again - for the moment. To make that feeling more than just a temporary release, it's easy to see why he might badly want to relive the experience over and over, by reading the papers, revisiting the scene, or even helping with his own publicity campaign.
As I was typing all this, "Arise, Sir Jim" sprang to mind. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Tom Wescott
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 10:55 am | | John and all,
Berkowitz saying that he adopted the moniker doesn't quite jibe with other statements he made regarding the crimes, the dog, and the letters. I don't believe too much stock can be put in those words. For obvious reasons, it doesn't make much sense. The fact that points made in the first letter correspond with elements of Berkowitz's life, and that he would adopt the name, personality, and handwriting (if that would even be possible for him) of a hoaxer does not seem too realistic. Of course, Berkowitz has his own motives for making such a claim. Once convicted and inside the prison walls the 'insane' defense would no longer help and in fact would be a detriment, so he drops that and assumes the common M.O.'s that have been driven at him over the years. Not too many people have faith in Berkowitz's credibility, and I can see why. Of course, I'm just giving a hypothesis here, although I'm not alone in it. I can't prove it, but I believe the letters speak for themselves.
As to Spike's movie, I believe everyone was disappointed for exactly the reasons you mentioned. However, since I haven't actually known anyone who was 'there' I thought perhaps you might have seen something in it I didn't. I can see that's not the case and Spike simply missed the mark on that one. Just for the record my favorite Spike movie is 'Clockers'. I had a chance to meet him once and listen to him speak, and boy is he paranoid. Funny guy, though.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: John Omlor
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 12:47 pm | | Hi Tom,
Indeed, taking David's word for anything would be foolhardy at best. And I suspect you are probably right. Of course, it is also at least possible that David was reading a book about the Ripper in '76 and '77. I can imagine him being curious and it is pretty well established that he did have a long standing interest in all things creepy.
Yup, I've seen Spike a couple of times and he is funny and of course, somewhat single minded. Funny, though, his own work actually ends up, I think, being closer to Martin Scorcese's than to Baraka's or Walker's or Morrison's. He is very much the product of film school in many ways. Interesting that you like Clockers, as do many people I know. That's a case where Spike was working with material not his own and so his natural desire to convince was kept somewhat in check.
I suppose no one has taken up the idea of writing David Berkowitz to see what Ripper book he might have been reading. Can't say as I blame you all, that's for sure.
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 11:38 am | | Hi, John:
I don't particularly relish the idea of opening up a correspondence with Mr. Berkowitz but I would be prepared to bet that the Ripper book he was reading at the time of his 1976-1977 crime spree was Donald Rumbelow's The Complete Jack the Ripper, published in this country in 1975 by the New York Graphic Society in Boston.
Rumbelow's book was the most popular of the day and remains a top book on the Whitechapel murders despite the advent of the many recent excellent books by Begg, Fido, Skinner and Howells, Sugden, and Evans and Gainey. I can recall seeing Don interviewed on "60 Minutes" or some such TV program which was probably one of my first introductions to the Whitechapel murders. I recall he showed the audience his Ripper surgical knife, which may or may not have been associated with one of the Whitechapel murders, though probably not a canonical one. The idea of a modern-day serving policeman, as was Don at the time, pursuing the elusive murderer through the mists of time, instead of a mere hack writer, struck me as impressive, and no doubt that aspect would have impressed Mr. Berkowitz as well.
Don's book is well illustrated and contains facsimiles of a number of the Ripper letters and, moreover, one particular page where the different styles of writing, including the famous and macabre signature "Jack the Ripper," are compared one above the other (e.g., Dear Boss, Lusk letter [not signed with the Ripper's name], Openshaw letter, which did use the name, and so on. We might easily imagine that the impressionable Mr. Berkowitz might have lusted for similar fame under a bloody moniker all his own.
Also, don't forget, folks, that Donald Rumbelow, author of The Complete Jack the Ripper, will be Guest of Honor at the upcoming second US Jack the Ripper convention in Baltimore just over a year from now!!!  Check out the Casebook Productions website at http://www.casebook-productions.org/
All the best
Chris George |
Author: John Omlor
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 12:35 pm | | Hi there, Chris,
What a very sneaky way to slip in a shameless plug!
Yup, Berkowitz might very well have been reading Rumbelow in '76 or '77.
And you know what?
So was I.
I'm not at all sure what this means, but it does give me a moment's pause.
Bye for now,
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 03:20 pm | | Gee, John, maybe the NYPD got the wrong guy! 
Yep, you better get ready for some more shameless plugs for our Ripper Weekend 2002 in the coming months, too  |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 09:12 pm | | This discussion of whether reading Rumbelow's
book or any Ripper book stimulated Berkowitz's
summer of terror (which I recall quite vividly -
an acquaintance from my college looked a little
like one of the sketches published in the newspapers of "Son of Sam")reminds me of an odd
coincidence from about 1986 - 1989. I can't recall the exact year.
I had seen that the New York Historical Society
was running a show of it's collections of prints
and books (some real rarities among them) regarding murders in New York City. I went to
the show, and recalled that there were several
lithographs made in the late 1830s of the murder
of a well known prostitute named Helen Jewett.
Helen was murdered in the bordello she lived in
on Thomas Street in lower Manhattan in 1836.
Her probable murderer, a lover named Richard
Robinson, was acquitted after a well covered murder trial. The lithographs showed Helen in
bed, with some blood from a wound on her forehead,
while the killer (a man - possibly Robinson?) left
the room. Helen was killed by an axe, while
sleeping, and the room set on fire.
What bothered me at the time was that a few days
before the crime, two prostitutes were found dead
in a local motel, killed by axe blows to the head,
and their room set on fire. I began wondering
if it was a copycat killing. As it turns out,
it is academic. The police caught the killer, who
was convicted.
Jeff |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Saturday, 07 April 2001 - 07:28 pm | | That sounds more reminiscent of the Axe Man murders that happened in New Orleans in the late teens and early 1920s. The difference being that the axeman killed victims in the Italian community who were respectable citizens. The probable suspect was one Josepf Mumfre but he was never brought to trial. He was murdered by one of the victim's wife.
Jack the Ripper convention? I need input to quote a bad movie from the early 1990s. Kindest Regards ;-)Neil |
Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 04:16 pm | | I do not doubt a large spectrum of possibilities when it comes to Jack, but I WOULD put him in the same category of the Axe Man.
If for nothing else than elusiveness on both their parts.
Please--No Ripper conventions; there is enough Star Trek, Rocky Horror, and comic book fans out there to cover all the silliness.
I fear that a Ripper convention would became a farce. |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 04:54 pm | | Mark,
I do think a Ripper convention would differ from the Star Trek/comic book/ Rocky Horror genre a great deal. I personally can't see anyone popping along as their favourite victim or suspect. Though saying that I do have a vision of Rosemary turning up with her intestines slung over her shoulder demanding tuppence for a room for the night. Not to mention dear old Melvin Harris potraying the escaped lunatic.
Tris.
Ps,
Does anybody know what happened to that young man named Martin Fido ? Someone once told me he wrote diaries for a living. (boy, it's good to be back) |
Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 05:06 pm | | Tris,
Well, I know for a fact that you put a convention together and freaks will show up.
Never underestimate the stupidity of people is large groups.
Cheers,
Mark
P.S. Though it might be fun to go to one for the Hell of it.
P.S.S I doubt Martin would write diaries for a living. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 05:12 pm | | I'll write Maybrick Diaries for a living if anyone wants to pay me to do so. The only thing I won't do is pretend they aren't my work.
The two Ripper conventions Stewart Evans and Rosie Howell put together were anything but freakish or stupid. All I know about Sci-Fi conventions is that Sharyn McCrumb set one of her books in one, and perhaps the only thing I share with Billie Connolly is modelling as a faintly disreputable central character for her as he did in that.
Martin F |
Author: John Omlor
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 05:25 pm | | Tris,
You might want to check out the link I posted to the Space Monkeys board a few moments ago. You'll see what the fanatical convention-goer might indeed be wearing at the next shindig.
I think it's sort of awful.
--John |
Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 05:28 pm | | Martin,
I have never been to a Ripper convention, so I guess my view is somewhat biased, but I've seen the weirdos crawl out of the woodworks when it comes to a comic convention or cult movie or Marti Gras or anything that gives them an excuse.
Maybe it's because I'm from California...
Cheers
Mark
P.S.
What are your thoughts on the upcomming Ripper movie--'From Hell'? |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 05:39 pm | | Oh, by the way, Mark and John: in re the charming objet d'art John has posted on the Space monkies board, the excellent 'amateur' Ripper historian Adrian Morris - (he first set us onto Druitt's successful court appearance, and I only use the term amateur to distinguish him and others from those of us who've been lucky enough to get money out of publishers for our work) - created and brought to the Norwich conference a very convincing little Ripper figurine he had modelled after the witness descriptions. No topper, bag and knife. A cap, scarf and pea jacket.
Martin |
Author: Mark List
Tuesday, 17 April 2001 - 06:05 pm | | Sounds like a fisherman.
Does this support the theory that Joe Barnett was the Ripper? It sounds like it.
Didn't he gut fish for a living? Probably not a well-dressed man--more like a man working on the wharf.
Well, after comparing the FBI profile on Saucy Jack and the known facts about Barnett, I must say, the similarities ARE there.
Then again, Barnett WAS questioned by police and let off as a suspect, so who knows, Right?
Cheers,
Mark |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 18 April 2001 - 06:45 am | | Hi Mark,
My thoughts are that it can go back whence it declares it came as far as I'm concerned. Unlike Mr Begg I'm a boringly art-house movie fancier, and usually prefer my pictures with the words written across the bottom of the screen.
Martin F |
Author: Mark List
Wednesday, 18 April 2001 - 06:06 pm | | Martin,
According to what I've read, the movie is based on a comic book/graphic novel by Alan Moore, and he based the story off of Stephen Knight's "Final Solution."
I've read that even though he was lucky enough to get a hold of previously undisclosed documents from the royal family, he did ,as Mr. Beggs said, "picked a character and built the facts around him--keeping what fits and disregarding what doesn't."
But, anyway, the reason I asked was because I was simply curious if you felt that Ripper movies help the case or hurt it.
Mark
P.s. Maybe Paul Beggs can throw a thought on it my way sometime.
P.s.s. Nothing wrong with a good silent movie or art-house flick--I always liked the 1920 German "Nosferatu" myself. Max ?Schelk? was a freaky looking Vampire. (Hope I spelt his name right.)
Cheers! |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 05:02 am | | Dear Mark
- When it was reported that Alan Moore was working on a comic-book script based on detailed study of the case down to Knight's book,I dropped him a line offering to fill him in on all the work that had appeared since Knight. No reply. So I was not surprised that the one number I read centred on a supposed 'Ripper' incident I knew had never occurred (HRH PAV in bed with Annie Crook in Cleveland Street) and surrounded it with E.L.Doctorow-ish 'Trivial Pursuit' level knowledge of contemporary characters dragged in to make 'appropriate observations'. The celebrated graphic artist didn't exactly send me reeling to hail the new Rembrandt, either.
Now if somebody could only persuade a publisher to reissue the whole of Pogo, from start to finish, as a service to history, that's a comic book I would splash out on.
Martin F |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 05:46 pm | | Martin, or Paul
Okay, the money may not be enogh for you to do an update on the bible that is the "A-Z". But in this section do you mind telling us for free what you would up date ?
For an instance, would you include everybody's mate Mike Barrett ? And have the Casbook Messageboards helped you ?
All the best
Tris
Ps
If an update is on the cards can I have a mention. I would love that my name was in a book somewhere. Just put me under the heading "Irratating people who know nothing", or failing that "The Fourth Wise Space Monkey". |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 05:58 pm | | I don't think your question is answerable, Tris. When an update is in the offing we have meetings and fax exchanges of all three of us and argue at enormous length about what should go in and what may have to come out to make room for it. I think the question of Mike and Anne would lead to a lot of argument, but bearing in mind that Maybrick is only one suspect, and not one that most serious hgistorical investigators give much weight, I don't think it likely that they'd get their own entry. They might get personal mention under 'Maybrick diary' - and I might at last persuade my co-authors to let such an entry open with the words I have always wanted: 'A forgery...'!
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 06:24 pm | | Martin,
Wow, thank you for the quick response. I tahnk you for that alone.
On the subject of books, has anyone mentioned to you yet of you doing a book on the whole Maybrick Diary fraud ?
I know, like everyone else who reads Casebook, that it's a complex subject(filled with both trues and lies that even the wisest of people cant segregate). I'm sure one of you three wise space monkies can writ a first volume of the saga with a view to a follow up.
One thing I do know is is that the publishing world is a strange and fickle thing. But would you try pushing a book on the matter I suggested ? I know there have been books done on the subject, but would you do an authoritive view on the subject of the diary, MB and AG ?
Tris |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 06:36 am | | After which burst of speed, as you see Tris, I joined my wife in entertaining dinner guests, and went to bed, allowing 12 hours or so to pass before coming back to the boards.
No chance of our writing on the diary at present. The story hasn't ended, and we hold three slightly differing opinions on what may emerge if and when it does end.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Friday, 04 May 2001 - 02:29 pm | | Dear all,
For the sake of the heading and the benefit of my amusement I would like to know from anyone who has ever done a research bugger-up. You know the thing, held a conviction told everyone it's true but proved themselves wrong, or even went looking for a document you thought existed in a specific records office only to find out it didn't exist at all.
Give us your stories, help a green behind the ears researcher from looking a total pillock.
Tris. |
Author: Jason Mullins
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 10:49 am | | I second that Triston!! As a newcomer to this subject, I would hate to look like a putz
Crix |
Author: Jon
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 11:41 am | | Hey guy's, if the truth be known, we all go through the 'putz phase', at least once.
Not that I'm proud to admit this but one of the reasons I have been described as too rigid in my acceptance of evidence, and too critical in opposing certain views is that I too wore the dunces cap, trouble is....it fit.
Back in the late 60's, early 70's there was precious little in the way of books on the Ripper, compared with today.
I had been to the library and read every book (Woodhall, Matters, Cullen, Odell, Stewart, etc.) on the subject and found nothing really appealing. Then McCormick and Farson published books, I immediately found fault with Druitt (Cullen & Farson) but in McCormick I found the Russian spy Pedachenko proposal intriguing. So much so that all reason went out the window (hey, I was only 16-18), I was sold and viewed this as the answer at last.
That view I held for a few years until about '76 when Stephen Knight published 'The Final Solution', to my amazement here was a guy who not only solved the case himself but answered many questions I still had about it. My excuse is I was still an impressionable 22 year old and apparently not one imbued with much in the way of reason. I also read Velikovsky, Von Daniken and Denis Wheatley (Black Magic) so it is obvious to me now I did not have both my feet on the ground, even then.
Supporting Knights book for a few years in the very small circle of people who had even heard of Jack the Ripper was about all I was into in those days. Then I let the subject drop, for about 5 yrs. It was in the early '80s that I started reading up on the subject again, primarily after reading a few snippets of critisizm aimed at the Knight book in some book club review articles.
I think in that 5 yr hiatus I must have matured or found my feet, so to speak, and I read through Knights book again and with 20-20 vision I saw the holes in his arguments. This encouraged me to seek out all the past publications I could lay my hand on (I had a small library myself still) and review the case, that was an eyeopener.
Since about '84/85 I have been doggedly following as much of the case as I could and analyzing every minor aspect, looking at evidence from more than one perspective in an attempt to be as impartial as I could. Recognizing that each book (author) as a prime motive is to propose one particular suspect, and in some cases these authors leaving out certain evidence which did not fit their theories. This reality spoke volumes to me and made me realize that I have to gather my own copies of original source material, wherever possible.
Hence, today, I have somewhat rigid standards that I expect in order to treat these suspects fairly. I believe a researcher has to be impartial and unfortunately, with no intention of upsetting anyone, I believe that once a researcher falls into the trap of committing to a suspect his objectivity goes out the window.
Hence, you have the reason why I can be a pain in the a** to some people.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 03:06 pm | | Confess, Jon! Confess!
Actually, what you are saying is not quite I think what Tristan is asking. We have all I think changed our beliefs on the case as we have read new books and been exposed to new evidence. However, it appears that Tris is asking more about hypotheses that we may have held about the case that we have found to be incorrect due to our own hands-on research. Am I right, Tris?
I currently hold a theory about Dr. Tumblety that I am trying to prove one way or the other. After Tumblety's death in St. Louis on May 3, 1903, it was revealed that he was worth some $173,000 held by a New York banking firm. There was a will that surfaced in Baltimore supposedly written by Tumblety in 1901 and witnessed, among others, by a Major Joseph Kemp who was named executor. This will and another that Tumblety signed in St. Louis in 1903 were the subject of a court battle that subsequently went against Kemp and the Baltimore will, with the Missouri court in 1908 upholding the 1903 St. Louis will. My theory is that the 1901 Baltimore will may be fraudulent. I may be wrong about that, but I am currently researching the background of Kemp and two other witnesses to the will to see if they may later have been charged with or found guilty of any criminal activity, which might help to bear out my case.
I don't mind being proved a horse's arse if my little theory happens to be incorrect. I would think that is one of the penalties of being a researcher. We'll see!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 03:27 pm | | Oh I understand Chris but I am not in that category, all my research is background related, not suspect related.
Having been duped twice, in the words of Roger Daltry "Won't get fooled again!!!"
However, if there was some way to dig up more on J.W.S.S., I would be more than interested.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 06:22 pm | | Hi all,
I don't think what I was asking counts now. I have given a finite theory about Tumblety now. As in "If he wasn't the killer then he most certainly knew who was."
I think I will carry this over to the Tumblety page. Good day people.
Tris |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 06:40 pm | | Watch yerself Bunker...you're getting to be a smart-ass, now.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Triston Marc Bunker
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 06:53 pm | | Rosemary O Rosemary,
Sorry for saying something our league would disagree with. For once on these boards I felt I needed to say something almost intelligent.
But still, new theory though. In my book Tumblety knew who the killer was.
Tris |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 07:28 pm | | J.W.S.S., Jon?
Chris |
|
|
|
|
