|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 June 12, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Dr Bond's report - a fake?:
Archive through June 12, 2001
Author: Jacunius
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 06:59 am |        | Due to Jon's message on June 07, 2001 - 06:55, which appears in 'The letter ready to view!' under Miscellaneous of the General Discussion. I have come to the conclusion that it has been deemed important enough to create a new conversation, and for those wishing to see how it evolved can do so by going to the above.
The report to which I am accusing of possibly being fake, is that filed; MEPO 3/3153, ff. 10-18. This document is well remembered for mysteriously showing up along with the 'Dear Boss' letters, posted anonymously to Scotland Yard in 1987. While researching the Ripper case, I have found many instances where evidence is omitted, misconceived, or completely made up! It is to this effect that I view Dr. Bond's report as being highly suspicious, since there are many discrepancies concerning it's authenticity.
Firstly: The writing is done supposedly in Dr. Bond's own handwriting - has this been officially verified? Or was it just assumed this because the front cover stated that it was by Dr. Thos: Bond?
secondly: Robert Anderson wrote a letter to the Home Office (13th Nov. 1888), explaining that he had wrote to Dr. Bond (25th Oct. 1888) of which he stated the Police needed his expertise 'as to the amount of surgical skill and anatomical knowledge probably possessed by the murderer.....and the medical evidence given at the several inquests...'
Thirdly: Dr. Bond then sent his report to the Police, upon which Anderson had requested. It was dated 10th Nov, and contained these particularly important words;
'I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a women found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street.'
'...the body was lying on the bed at the time of my visit...naked and mutilated as in the annexed report.'
The questions then arise "was this annexed report attached?" The answer is probably more so than not, as this is an 'associated report'.
Fourthly: This annexed report is not dated by Dr. Bond, and yet is stamped with official Metropolitan Police date of 16th Nov. Why? Could this have been a possible blank sheet of police paper with this stamp, in which the hoaxer used?
Obviously, this annexed report would have been attached to the general report, as stated by Bond and as requested by Anderson. There is no reason why Bond would send this around 6 days later, what is the use? Where is the evidence he was further requested by Anderson to supply this annexed report? Sudgen, in his book 'The Complete History of JTR', sums it up appropriately by stating on page 514;
"The annexed document was detached from the general report at some early date and has, until now, been presumed lost."
To me this seems as much an opportunity for a hoaxer to fake this report. Who would do this and why? I can not explain here in great depth for fear of completely revealing this aspect of my research. But this much I will say, just look at how many myths surrounding this victim (Mary Jane Kelly) have been crushed according to this annexed document. For all its worth, where ever the real document is, Kelly's heart probably was taken away and she may have been pregnant. So lets just face the probability that some hoaxer was out to rewrite history ie; look at the diary!
It seems now, more than ever that all of this will come under the chapter in my book as, 'False
evidence & the Diary of JTR.....maybe. Yet until there is an official analysis of Bond's report and (certain so-called Ripperologists stop faking evidence) I shall continue to dive deep into these murky waters of doubt, and will find these Octapulian creatures to cut away their tentacles of deception.
Yours
with a firery sword,
Jacunius. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 09:18 am | | Jacunius
You say (above) "there are many discrepancies concerning it's authenticity.".....followed by your four points.
In reply to point 1.
Whether the report is in Bond's own hand has never been questioned, never investigated, therefore is not a discrepancy. In order to be dubious it must be from the result of an investigation which turns up valid questionable data, this is not the case, therefore you are presuming to label the report 'fake' purely on your own opinion....can I assume you are not an expert in document analysis?.
- Conclusion = your opinion.
Your point 2.
Bond's report fulfilled Anderson's request without the need of the 'annexed' report. Whether this post-mortem report actually accompanied the general summary for Anderson we cannot determine, but it was not necessary that it should. Bond had been in attendance at Miller's Court with Dr. Phillips, Gabe, Dukes and Gordon-Brown of the City, according to reports, and as such would have compiled his own notes, which this 'annexed' report was done.
- Conclusion = your objection is not clear.
Your point 3.
This is based on your assumption that the second report was intended to accompany the general report....which, because it was created as a result of a post-mortem for the inquest, we cannot assume Bond would give such graphic details unless specifically requested to do so, which was not done.
- Conclusion = your opinion.
Your point 4.
We have discussed one likely scenario why the detailed report was only filed with the Met. Police. You need some basis in reason to question the date, as yet you have only said "what if?", which is no basis to condem the report as fake.
- Conclusion = your opinion.
Having said all that, whether the report is fake or not has never been looked into so no-one can say for certain 'yes' or 'no', but what you will need is something more substantial than "your opinion" to call such a document 'fake'.
I think we might all like to hear what your justification is for stating it as a 'fake', I still believe there is something in that report which conflicts with some theory of yours, which is why you attack the report in order to discredit it.....paving the way for your theory to appear unchallenged.
What is in that report that you want to invalidate?
Thanks, Jon |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 09:44 am | | Hi, Jacunius:
It is unfortunate that you need to prove the report allegedly by Dr Bond to be a fake to prove your theory. Significantly, the report is accepted as an authentic report by such authorities as Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner, who confirm that the report is written "in Dr Bond's own hand" (The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion, p. 355).
You make the statement, "This annexed report is not dated by Dr. Bond, and yet is stamped with official Metropolitan Police date of 16th Nov. Why? Could this have been a possible blank sheet of police paper with this stamp, in which the hoaxer used?"
While I have not seen the original manuscript of Dr. Bond's report, I can tell you that based on my experience dealing with period manuscripts it would be most unusual if not absurd for a manuscript to be date stamped on a separate piece of paper, which would defeat the purpose of the date stamping.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 10:48 am | | Hey Jacunius:
A question you could ask yourself is how Scotland Yard (or any other British criminal-record office) treats any material from anonymous sources, whether JtR-related or not.
Do they just accept it with a profound 'Thanks muchly'? I doubt it.
Or do they scrutinize its authenticity before they accept it...in all senses of those words "authenic" and "accept?" Are there instances where these anonymous offerings have been rejected as false, misleading, perhaps even malicious? I think so.
And in the case of JtR, do the official agencies that receive this type of correspondence have the further help of historians and researchers to judge authenticity? I think so.
But I can't tell from your post whether you believe this "hoax" to be of modern origin (because of its modern resurfacing) or whether the 1888-era authorities forged Dr. Bond's report roughly around the time of November 16th, 1888. Which is it?
I do hope you aren't suggested a compounded 'hoax' of both 1888 and circa 1987. But are you?
Whether the report is a modern hoax or an 1888-era 'hoax' require two different approaches to the document, wouldn't you agree?
The internal evidence of Bond's intentions for providing all of his information, in any reports he chose to create, are reason enough for their existence back in 1888. Bond doesn't feel the need to have Anderson's or anyone else's permission (or even their explicit request) to provide whatever information/points-of-view he wanted...that was why they paid him the big bucks, after all. No?
Bond also gave the police a pre-FBI criminal profile (before such a thing ever existed). Why doesn't that strike you as being evidence of an obvious modern hoax at work:
(1) Bond criminal profile of JtR is an example of something that hadn't been "invented" (supposedly) until the mid to late-20th century America. A clear case of anachronism, no? 'A modern forger at work!' (No!!)
(2) No one officially asked Bond to speculate on the habits and lifestyle of the murderer, period; or at least as far as we know until the MEPO's little pixie helpers send in more mailings.
So far I think you have provided no reason at all to suspect the authenticity of Bond's reporting. Bond gave his superiors considerably more than they ever asked for or even dreamed of. This is either a peculiar and aggravating (to some) or an endearing (to people like me) attribute of Dr. Bond.
Yaz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 12:52 pm | | As far as I can remember, there are two items that we now take for granted which rest on Bond's report: that MK's heart was missing and that she was not pregnant. Any ideas what particular theories would benefit from either point being being based on a faked document? I don't think that the Maybrick mess or the Clarence conspiracy would be helped by either but maybe one of MK's lovers could be in the frame if he knew she was pregnant and chose a rather extreme form of abortion?
I was thinking about the name "Jacunius" and I think that a similar name "Jaconius" appears in the "Navigatio" of St. Brendan, that wise Irishman who discovered America. One day, he and his comrades landed on a small island where they celebrated mass. Imagine their surprise when they found that the "island" was a friendly whale named Jaconius! |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 06:33 pm | | Dear Jacunius,
I second Chris...any half-decent graphologist will tell you the hand-writing is Dr Bond's.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 06:34 pm | | Just to return to something we covered earlier but a detail that did not get a mention.
The 'annexed' report which Jacunius choses to doubt was a report with no title, header or addressee. This report Dr. Bond wrote as a result of his post-mortem study and as such, when written, was intended for no other person.
When Anderson requested Bond to provide a summary of the murders Bond may have attached the results of his post-mortem examination. What remains of this 'annexed' report consists of two separate documents, the report itself ( consisting of 7 hand written pages) and a cover letter.
It is the cover letter which is dated Recieved (or Registered), 16 Novr 1888. The cover letter has 'H' division at the top.
Anderson must have returned the 'annexed' report to Dr. Bond as part of his medical notes, which a week or so later were filed with 'H' Div. on Nov. 16th.
The cover page was likely attached to the report by 'H' div. on receipt of the report and is not an actual part of the report. The cover letter has "Mr. Anderson, seen & noted", and 'noted' in this case must mean 'aknowledged' as there are no marginal notes on Bond's report.
For Bond's report to have to be faked then this cover letter would also have to be faked, and if you could appreciate the scribble, notes and stamps across this cover note it would be really stretching credibility to try sell that proposal.
The cover page has all the hallmarks of genuine messyness (is that a word?), typical of beaurocratic official files.
Regards, Jon
P.S., I must gratefully thank Stewart for providing me with a scan of the cover letter. |
Author: Jacunius
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 04:19 am | | Dear Jon/Chris,
Perhaps ‘discrepancy’ is not the right word to use, and yes you are right there has not been an investigation that anyone knows of on Dr. Bond’s ‘annexed report’, yet until recently I have questioned it’s authenticity. I am presuming to label the report ‘fake’ because it is unique amongst many documents that have surfaced within the last 20 years. The handwriting has not been officially verified, we are only led to believe it is Bond’s. (Where is this evidence?)
Concerning the Ripper case, do you always believe therefore it must be? Please do not be eluded, especially by this document. If there had been an investigation, I suppose you would then conform with the majority group of believers or disbelievers – look at the JTR diary for example!
As for being an expert on document analysis maybe I am, I cannot see how that would affect my judgement. You and I both have not seen this document in all it's entirety, so any educated guess as to whether it is genuine or not is valid, particularly as it now attracts such suspicion. However, I would definitely not be here assuming the report’s substance, had I seen it for myself, had it thoroughly examined, and officially cleared as the real McCoy. You know as much as I do that this has apparently not been done.
CONCLUSION = your opinion according to others, against my own.
You also are only assuming that Bond’s ‘annexed report’ was not necessary to accompany the general report. You seem to belief that Anderson’s request of Dr. Bond’s expertise and valued opinion was fulfilled, and that it had no need to contain this ‘annexed report’. Well then how do you explain the explanation of reference to it, when it is not present? Especially as the very man who wrote it refers to it, how hard really was it to just attach this ‘associated report’? Jon you even admit to not knowing whether this was even attached! Then how can you say this was fulfilled? Anderson, or for that point anyone after reading Bond’s general report would naturally ask themselves “where is this associated report?” Oh that’s right we have to wait 6 days for it to be posted, yet if you believe the general report had no need for it, why did Bond send it almost a week later?
CONCLUSION = your opinion against mine assumed from fact.
I have never assumed Bond gave away any graphic details whatsoever at the inquest of Kelly. It is quite self-explanatory why certain information was omitted from this inquest, and all the more reason why Bond would have included it attached to the Nov. 10th correspondence from which he mentions it, and not six days later!
CONCLUSION = your opinion against mine assumed from fact.
Yes Jon, you have also discussed a likely scenario for why the ‘annexed report’ was filed with the Met. Police, but are yet to hear mine – do not presume! As for my basis in reason to question the date, I do not know where you got the hint of my “what if?” solution. I guess the context of “what if?” stems from my whole argument of “what if this document is fake?” Then that would mean to imply that perhaps there might be something to endanger its authenticity. Is there? Well let’s recap shall we in case it escaped your mind.
*The Jack the Ripper history, not always full of honesty especially concerning historical fact!
*Without Kelly’s detailed Autopsy report, many myths surrounding the Millers court tragedy were to be forever expounded in the theories around it.
*So along comes this document posted anonymously within a bunch of other documents in 1987 back to Scotland Yard. Within the 14 yrs since being found, it has been heralded as crushing these myths – that’s a big call!
*I view this ‘annexed report’ as being the single most important find possible within the Ripper case.
*However, this document is date stamped by Met. Police on the Nov. 16th. The rest of Bond’s report having been dated on the Nov. 10th, of which was then forwarded to the Home Office on the Nov. 14th.
*Do not assume I have not taken other alternatives into consideration for example; Bond may have just simply sent this ‘annexed report’ 6 days later, but still it raises eyebrows as to why it was never sent to the H.O, like the rest of the report. And it does not explain, as you assume, (as I have said many times before) that if Bond’s general report had fulfilled Anderson’s request then what was the use of sending this associated report nearly a week later? Of course perhaps Bond did send the whole lot to the Met. Police, then that would mean the first part was sent to the H.O, while the second part deemed unnecessary was left behind. The stamp of Nov. 16th may have been applied because it lacked one once being detached from original report? Why 16th? This you will agree sounds absurd.
As for being an apprentice document analysis, I could be, and as for the treatment of those used in 1888, I will give you a few tips:
-When Bond’s Nov. 10th report went to the H.O, it would have passed through the strictest channel of secretaries before arriving on the desk in front of the Home Secretary Henry Matthews. Matthews himself would frequently write questions upon documents, especially if pointed out by his Under-Secretary the ones that need to be clarified. It is particularly important at that time in history, with fears revived as the Ripper had possibly killed another victim. The H.O. are requesting as much information as possible from the very surgeon that Anderson himself has much reliance in. Therefore it is hardly surprising that such statements in Bond’s general report consisting of;
“I have also made a Post Mortem Examination…”
“…Naked and mutilated as in the annexed report.”
Would not have gone unnoticed by Matthews or his skilfully trained entourage of secretaries. If the ‘annexed report’ had accompanied the rest of the report, we would find as there is ‘no secretarial questions’ explaining the absence of such an ‘associated document’. However Jon, you belief this part of the report not to have gone to the H.O.
If it had not, I find it hard to acknowledge that at least four Secretaries at the H.O would ignore the absence of this ‘annexed report’ as noted by Bond.
CONCLUSION = your opinion against my opinion based on fact.
FACTS TO BE MADE CLEAR!
If this justification is not enough to state my opinion for why Dr. Bond’s ‘annexed report’ may be a fake, then I gladly welcome your opinion, not a criticism that I am out there to attack it because it conflicts with some pet theory of mine. How petty! But then again, I am not surprised since many people in the past have concocted some c##k n bull theories – I will let you off easy this time Jon – Gee, am I nice or what? (I cannot believe they edited c##k?) A further point I should have made clear, is that the document itself is probably real, it is only the substance (writing) upon it I am suspicious of, thus making it ‘fake’.
As for my own theory (suspect), the ‘annexed report’ is light-years from ever affecting his soon to be proven guilt. In fact I hope the document is real, as it would only throw the Ripper case back into it’s primitive age of ignorance.
Yours
Only trying to help,
Jacunius.
PS, Yaz interestingly enough I have not given it much thought whether it is a 1888 hoax, I thought it perhaps of at least being done around the last 40 yrs. Thought provoking none the less.
PPS, Jon could you explain the paragraph –
‘Anderson must have returned the ‘annexed report’ to Dr. Bond as…on Nov. 16th.’
Is it possible to email a copy of the cover letter to proffiadam@scs.vuw.ac.nz or alternatively could you post it here on the discussion board.
Thanks J. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 09:23 am | | J.
This exchange is rapidly becoming what is commonly termed "floggin a dead 'orse".
From your above poste I get the impression you are stuck in a whirlpool of your own creation.
Your opinion that Bond's report may be fake is baseless, and to presume it attracts suspicion ("particularly as it attracts such suspicion.") is another weak attempt to suggest your opinion has support. Your opinion has no support and Bond's report attracts NO JUSTIFIED SUSPICION.
Your private opinion on this document is presumptive, self-fulfilling(?) and I might add is a result of poor research.
As I have pointed out before, the regular contributors, and some now occational contributors, collectively know all there is to know about this case. Should you take a less dogmatic approach "I have solved the case.", I am sure you will gain more help & accurate input, but if you keep on this confrontational position then who would want to take the time. There is quite a difference between helping someone who cannot see as opposed to one who will not see.
One last attempt.....
1 - get yourself some copies of Dr. Bond's handwriting, several (10-12) lines, not just his signature.
2 - get yourself a copy of Bond's post-mortem report.
Compare them, do some research, if the handwriting is distinctly different then you might have a case. If the handwriting is very similar then you may need to resort to a graphologist(?), or someone with credited experience in handwriting analysis. It is the result of this research that will be the backbone of your case against the content of this document.
Then, and only then does etiquette allow you to throw suspicion on both the document and Donald Rumbelow.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 05:35 pm | | Jon,
You are wrong. The posters and contributors here do not know all there is to know about the case. For example...who was Jack? We know all there is to know about everything that has been discovered up til now...that doesn't mean there isn't new things out there waiting to be discovered. A new theory does not have to be sanctioned by Stewart Evans (great though he undeniably is) to be worthy of exploration. It may turn out to be total BS and there may be a hundred things found to discredit it, but how will we know until someone looks into the possibility?
Jacunius,
Have you compared samples of Bond's handwriting to the report? That really seems to be the logical first step. I know I have not even thought about doing so and have not ever seen any examples of his handwriting. Right now all you have posted is a theory without any evidence at all to support it. We know that you feel it is a fake..other than the date, what evidence have you found to support that theory?
Also, Jon is right on one thing. Saying emphatically that you have solved the case is not exactly the best approach..especially while providing nothing but opinions. You have a theory and that is great..it is more than I have. But try not to bash us over the head with your own magnificence. We will come to worship you in our own time, I am sure.
Regards,
Ally |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 05:49 pm | | Alegria
"What there is to know" is 'what is available.' What has not been uncovered or discovered, is not available, therefore it is not included in "what there is to know"..(because nobody yet knows it)......understand?
Jon |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 06:04 pm | | Jon,
Your words:
"As I have pointed out before, the regular contributors, and some now occational contributors, collectively know all there is to know about this case.Should you take a less dogmatic approach "I have solved the case.", I am sure you will gain more help & accurate input, but if you keep on this confrontational position then who would want to take the time. There is quite a difference between helping someone who cannot see as opposed to one who will not see."
"all there is to know" is all there is to know. It does not mean everything that is available at this time. It does not allow for new people to make new discoveries. It condescends to anyone who tries a new approach or disagrees with the pack. Jacunius doesn't need our 'help'..he is as capable of doing the research as Mel or Stewart and forming his own opinion without any of us 'helping' him to see the light.
Understand? |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 06:38 pm | | "What there is to know" is exactly what is available, and this pool of knowledge increases year after year.
All that is known is available at the PRO, Newspapers, Census archives, published works and even though privately held by such as Stewart or Paul or Martin, etc. that information is always available to researchers, but for the asking.
Lets assume all that is known is placed in a room, my remark suggests that every scrap of info. in that room is known by someone who frequents these boards. Unless you believe that there is a secret hoard of info being stashed away by one Ripper researcher who we are not aware of.
Therefore, "all that there is to know, to learn, to study, that is available (because the 'unknown' is not available), is known by someone who frequents these boards.
Now, if you disagree with that it might be because you know of someone who has a secret hoard, and I don't think you do.
Every author will have a pile of info. which, for one reason of another never made it into his book, but that hardly qualifies as most of the cream of Ripper research are here.
There are a few prominent Ripper researchers, Anderson, Whittington-Egan, Connell, Ogan, Rumbelow, etc. who do not visit these boards, that question is do they hold any amount of info. to which they are only privy to?
With the exception of current on-going research, which will always be a factor, this info. will be published someday.
So, with those caveats, my point remains. This board collectively knows all that there is to know.
And those who I mentioned above are only a phonecall & fax away, we can access those sources.
There, philosophical Ripperology 101, explained.
(I hope)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 07:10 pm | | Jon,
English Syntax 101
You did not say " what there is to know" you said " all there is to know ". But this is not really the point. If you had said "what there is to know', I would still disagree with you because we do not know all there is to know about all the information available. New interpretations of old material is a viable option. Even if it has been examined by the Worthies a hundred times before. Has anyone looked into the possibility of the Bond report being a fake? Has there been handwriting analysis done? Has anyone examined it with the possibility of it being fake in mind? Maybe it is...how do you know ? The fact is, whenever anyone comes to the boards with a theory that is against what we 'know' everyone becomes indignant and patronizes the person posting. For some things that have been clearly disproven and are simply regurgitations of long disproven theories, this is understandable. For people who have a theory but cannot provide a single fact or provide incorrect facts to support it, understandable. However, if no one has ever looked at the possibility of the Bond report being a fake, then the idea hasn't been disproven, even if Stewart, Mel and everyone else has long accepted the report as legitimate. So until it has been proven to be false, a new theory is being discussed and we don't know all there is to know about it.
Ally |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 07:22 pm | | I agree Ally , we need to find out if the Bond document has been subjected to any analysis to find out whether it is genuine or not.
When Howells and Skinner discovered the typed copy of Macnaughton's notes they performed analysis and tests on it to determine that it was genuine : the Littlechild letter was confirmed genuine also.
Since Jacunius has raised the question , if we can answer it we should. It is wrong to dismiss his theory on a presumption - ie that the document surely must have been tested - without providing evidence for that.
Can we provide a scan of Bond's handwriting and a scan of the report for this Board ?
Simon |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 07:44 pm | | Ally
If I had said to my tutor just what you said to me he would have smacked me across the ear and screamed "I already told you Smyth, new discoveries, which includes new interpretations, are outside of WHAT WE KNOW"
....therefore reinforcing that all there is to know (presently) is known by someone, or in a worst case, is accessible by someone who frequents these boards.
The point still stands.
-------------------------------------
Simon
Jacunius has every right to question anything in this case, this has not been challenged.
The issue has always been that 'J' condems Bond's report without the skill to do so and prettywell accuses a well respected Ripper researcher of deceit (or fraud?) in connection with Bond's report.
This is not acceptable.
His(?) theory is not being dismissed on a presumption, his(?) theory appears to be based on a presumption, and a possible false presumption at that.
I have suggested he(?) does the required research before he(?) draws such conclusions.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 08:04 pm | | Jon,
Would your tutor also have told you that there is a vast difference between the words 'what we know' (which you say you meant) and 'all there is to know'(which is what you said)?
Anyway, this is getting nit-picky so I shall withdraw.
Regards,
Ally |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 08:15 pm | | Jon,
I have found this quote in Jacunius'posts "and (certain so-called Ripperologists stop faking evidence)" about accusing respected Ripperologists of fraud, however I have not been able to find to whom he was referring. Any help...?
We don't yet know what his theory is so we can't say that it is based on this presumption. And all theories start out with a presumption anyway, some based on better evidence than others...it may be right, maybe wrong. Although I admit,that the fiery swordsman has started out with the totally wrong attitude, why don't we give him a chance...maybe he has something worth listening to.
If you think it is bogus, you don't have to read it after all.
Regards,
Ally |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 08:38 pm | | Ally
I don't have the inclination to go back over 'J's postes again, but I recall the specific mention of Don Rumbelow.
All I have been able to deduce is that Bond's report figures in his(?) theory, but to what extent he(?) has not elaborated yet.
The next move belongs to 'J', he has all the time he requires, I just hope he(?) realises it takes more than opinion to support a theory. Opinion can only support an hypothesis. It takes facts to form a theory.
(learned from a friend of mine at NASA)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 09:02 pm | | Okay. Found the relevant details. Basically from what I have been able to glean from Jacunius posts he believes that Rumbelow came up with a bunch of Ripper stuff while rummaging through some old papers, possibly while he was a fresh young officer. Amongst the papers (he speculates) there might have been a blank date stamped piece on which Rumbelow then forged Bond's report. ..oooh kay. I first suggest that anyone who has contact with Donald Rumbelow, get in touch with him immediately and alert him to the innuendo happening here.
Jacunius, you had better be able to provide more than speculation or conjecture before continuing this line of posting. Otherwise you are going to be toasted crispy black. There is a huge difference between saying the report might be faked and insinuating someone faked it without providing ANY evidence. So...got any?
Ally |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 11:08 pm | | Before people start spouting off at the mouth about Donald Rumbelow being a forger they should have conclusive proof before even contemplating such comments.I do know Donald and he does not need to stoop to such measures. This is outragious behaviour to say the least.If the likes of Donald are to be the target of such unfounded comments then we had all better watch ourselves. I agree with ally in respect of this matter which should be nipped in the bud pronto.
Yet again my sense of justice has been outraged. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 11:54 pm | | | I second your's Ivor. It never ceases to amaze me how many idiotic notions permeate these boards. No wonder so many sensible researchers do not contribute here very often (of course I'm excluding myself from the latter category). |
Author: Jacunius
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 01:26 am | | Jon, Ally, Simon, Ivor & all,
I had a urgent call last night from Adam that I had better come see my emails. Within 48 hours of last posting, there had accumulated over thirty posts, most of which were discussing my theory - thanks!
Sorry I have not been able to reply till now but there had been various problems with the server etc. However much to the length of my replies, I will make this brief and very direct.
Jon - I do very much appreciate your input (I am still learning), but a matter of suggestion would be to tear off those horse blinkers, they do not make you at all look attractive!
Ally - Thanks for defending my point earlier on, and making it hopefully more clearer to Jon. You were for but a brief time the light from my sword, but then it was taken and swiftly stabbed in my back! To understand the Jacunian posts one must read them all, yet you show you have not. I have not said anywhere of the sort 'that I believe that Donald Rumbelow faked Dr. Bonds report!' I suspect you gathered your assumption from my posts in 'Miscellaneous: The letter ready to view',where I state certain curiosities of Rumbelow's activity concerning the Openshaw letter that has recently kicked up a fuss - not this! You are too much a wild horse for the reins of Jacunius to handle - luv the fire though!
Simon - Why are there not more people like you? Where Jacunius lacks logic from his brain, Simon steps forth to remedy the situation with thoughtful dedicated decisions. Good point, yes! The Bond report does need to be re-examined (sorry Jon, I know this must be deeply distressing for you, but I am certain if you get in contact with a women called Judith, she may have meds to relive such tension!)
Ivor - So you know old Rum do ya, well I have a few questions for him. I will post them to you with all confidentiality assured to pass on to Mr R, or perhaps if someone supplied me with his email address I will ask him myself. You can tell him if he wishes them not to be produced here on the board he better act fast! Oh by the way just for a treat as to what I intend to know, it is purely related to what is written by himself or others, especially concerning various files!
Yours
very alarmed,
Jacunius. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 02:48 am | | | Jacunius,If you post anything for Donald to me I will make sure he recieves it. |
Author: Alegria
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 06:50 am | | Jac,
Actually, I have read all of your posts and all of your references to your metaphorical flaming sword, which, in my opinion, you brandish at us much to often. As I do not ever want to be linked to your sword again in any way whatsover, please remember that one man's sword is another woman's penknife. Below are quotes from your post that led me to make the conclusion that I did. I fully admit that my opinion is based on an inference of your innuendo and is not necessarily accurate, so please feel free to clarify where I have gone awry.
Letter Ready to view
June 4
"I myself am very curious as to Mr R's activity throughout the years, especially concerning various documents! However due to my own secretive research conducted on JTR I am bound to reveal little. This much I can state; Why was a PC, such as 'R' at the fine age of 30-31 rummaging through important documents?"
"Perhaps someone in the force did give it to him, but why you ask?....mmmm one wonders. Maybe the reason he kept this all a secret was due to the sensitive topic surrounding the disappearances of many files, especially the suspect file!"
"Primarily we need more people discussing this, especially as I need this question answered: Does anyone know when Mr. 'R' joined the police force?"
June 6
"Rumbelow's discovery of photos, was made exactly at a time when the Police were moving headquarters - how appropriate! Also, how did he know they were the Ripper's victims?, because they were accompanied by the Album perhaps, which in many published books shows the old black backing and white writing(check out 'The Diary of JTR' for instance). Makes you wonder how many more missing photos lay in private collections?"
"The emergence of Rumbelow's Photo discovery in 1967 is no coincidence, neither are the 'sketches', the disappearance of the missing suspect list, or Dr Bond's report(which I believe is a fake). It also seems rather appropriate don't you think, that all that commotion around the unveiling of Dr Lusk's letter of 29th October(discovered by Rumbelow....of course) should appear at a time when a new block-buster movie on the Ripper is about to hit the screens later this year! It would not surprise me one bit if Mr R decides to print a new edition of his 'The Complete Jack the Ripper', Oh the book sales!"
Dr Bond’s Report --Initial post
"Yet until there is an official analysis of Bond's report and (certain so-called Ripperologists stop faking evidence ) I shall continue to dive deep into these murky waters of doubt"
In the midst of speculating as to why Rumbelow was foraging through police papers, you have been saying that you believe someone found a date stamped Police paper and forged the Bond Report.
So what exactly did you mean by Ripperologists faking evidence? |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 10:54 am | | | Sorry, I have known Don for over ten years and I must say for the record that I think the idea that he forges documents is absurd. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 11:51 am | | Dear Paul,
The Absurd? Just consider Paul...the most absurd
'forgery' has to be Jack the Ripper's Diary... followed closely by, Adolf Hitler's Diary.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 12:03 pm | | Hi, all:
I think Jacunius should be made to face up to the seriousness of the charges that he/she has made. I can imagine that if Melvin Harris, for example, were accused in such a fashion this website would be suffering from overload from his posts of denial and outrage.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 01:40 pm | | | Whilst one might dispute the degree of absurdity you attach to both documents, Rosey, it hasn't been denied that either are forgeries. That Donald Rumbelow is a forger is in my view completely absurd and without a morsel of support. |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 01:51 pm | | Making an accusation, allegation, or simply (and generously describing it as) "offering a theory" should be accompanied by whatever evidence, proof, and facts the writer has to prove the accusation/allegation/et al.
Someone who found missing documents therefore, by that fact or action alone, becomes someone who forged or faked the documents does not -- nowhere and nohow -- constitute evidence or fact or even theory.
Jacunius' accusations, insinuations, call-them-as-he/she-will are a species of thought bordering on the logic of a Warner Bros. cartoon...and I'm doing Daffy Duck and Wily Coyote a grievous disservice in making the comparison.
I would propose that anyone who names a name (public persona or private), and accuses or insinuates that the named person committed an unethical, immoral, or criminal act, must provide proof of the alleged act at the same time the accusation is made. Otherwise, the post should be deleted.
Second offense: the Casebook deletes the poster. Defamation and slander is not free speech.
And no, the Maybrick Diary is not a good example because some valid theories and suspicions can be made proving only...I'll repeat this 'un...proving only suspicion. And no, calling me (or anyone else) a jackass is not the same offense described above -- it may be poor taste, uncivilized conduct, immature behavior...but it is neither slander, defamation, libel, or falsely accusing another of a serious offense without what a reasonable person would recognize as "evidence."
Yaz |
Author: Jon
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 05:49 pm | | | I still want to know what it is that's written in Bond's report that Jac. feels threatens his theory. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 09:49 pm | | Again, just a minor point of interest in all
this hubbub. It is the name "Jacunius". I
don't know if you explained your choice of that
nomenclature (as my "JBloom" for Jeffrey
Bloomfield is fairly straightforward). By any
chance, are you going to announce that the
actual identity of Jack the Ripper can never
be settled, but you choose Sir Philip Francis
as the best candidate? Because, Sir Philip
is the person considered the best candidate (but
not conclusively proven) to have written the
"Junius" Letters of the 18th Century, the greatest
identity question in history prior to the Ripper
case? "Jacunius" can be "Jac[k]" + "[J]unius".
In any case, good luck on your investigation.
Jeff |
Author: Jacunius
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 10:17 am | | To Whom it may concern,
Hi, let me speak on behalf of Jacunius. It has come to my understanding that certain posts here are now blaming J. for serious allegations concerning defamation! i have advised J. that if i am to receive such single-minded trash from those replying, then it might be better off to find some other computer to do so.
J. is a very unknown professional scholar in the field of Ripperology. The studies and unpublished thesis, will i am, sure be of unprecedented importance for this case in years to come. i feel responsible for pushing J. into this website, as i thought it would help J's research. J. had always insisted that upon visiting it many years ago, it was only full of wanna-be students, who persist in blabbing constant repetitive stories. i myself am not really interested in the case of Jack the Ripper as much as J., but find this sort of nonsense really childish. J's theory as i am aware of, does not hinge on whether Dr. Bond's report is fake. The fact is J. would rather have it as a real document.
J's research is amazing, only then did i slightly get into this crazy serial killer stuff. J. has, i believe, found out who Jack the Ripper was, yet to more amazement J. has gone a step further. This was done by documenting the unexplained and dishonest treatment throughout the history of this case. This J. will only allow me to say; starting from the 'peculiarities' of 1888 - to when future Ripperologists have hatched wild theories - made up evidence - presented it - lost it - then discovered more of it! This regurgitating occurrence is one factor why J. started to study the ill-treatment this case has been subjected to. Here i am informed that the Diary popped up almost simultaneously when J. started bearing the sword of truth, it only inflamed J's statement even more! I hope everyone can bear in mind that all your replies are sent to my e-mail, and i read them too! This was put in place because J. needed or felt inclined not to reveal her or his identity. J. had never meant to accuse anyone living, yet feels more sorry for those of the day that do. I have talked long and hard with J., and advised that if my e-mail is to be used, i will expect interesting snippets of info that is required - not all out war from cyber-space! It has also been considered (much to the glee of others), that J. may leave this site altogether. It would be sad since J. has a lot to offer...plus we have many interesting conversations when J. comes to visit. So enough from me, i will leave you with J's words from which i am told, maybe according to the outcome be the very last.....
Thanks Adam, you are a true friend (I hope you do not mind the editing though). I have hastedly read the replies, and am shocked to know how easily people are misguided! Firstly on the debate of whether Dr. Bond's Report is a fake, I would like to clean up the filthy grease from which Jon & Co among many things, has smothered in my association that there is something in it that does not agree with my theory.
Yes! Jon...and I am the flipp'in Queen of England! Of course I have always explained this, but it seems your eyes must be painted on or something when I write this. All I am trying to point out to people, is that this report single-handedly is probably one of the most important finds within the last 20 years. I have already discussed why I think it may be fake, and you have for why it is real. But in the end we shall never know, until someone either proves substantial evidence it is real, or it get re-examined.
The reason why Jon?, the real reason is that no one has proven that , it is the only document so far that I have a grudge against. And as Adam has pointed out I basically leave no stone unturned, and in light of dodgy Ripper antics in the past, and no doubt those to come. I and many others I am certain, would like to know that this report is genuine. But where, Oh where is the official spokesperson, that would like to attach their name to this document, to state it is positively the real McCoy? Answer - none...so can I assume Jon that you are not an expert in document analysis? Hopefully the real ones are looking into it now, because I am thoroughly serious it could be a hoax. And who knows maybe Yaz is right, it might just be one from 1888 - God knows why, but wouldn't that be a headline!
Just a short note for Jeff, or can I call you 'JBloom?' So what brings an American Investigator to my presence, could you possibly help me find out if this document is a hoax? I suppose to rephrase that, what do you specialize in?, and maybe could you help solve this one. Many years ago, I had read your observation in 'Who was JTR?' This was an excellent hypothesis of which I am sure Jack had took note in, especially as I can prove my suspect may have read such literature as 'A STUDY IN SCARLET'.
As for your investigation into my pseudonym, once carried by an infamous 18th c. letter writer, you are bang on boss! Even your hyhenatic solution incorporating Jack is even right on. Well done! This coincidentally, is a clue to my suspect, and I do indeed write about the short history of Junius.
However, just like the Ripper this prolific writer was never caught. As for Sir Philip Francis as a suspect, I suggest that most powerfully written book by David McCracken (1979). I do not know who wrote those letters in 1768-1772, but McCracken definitely puts Francis in the light as the most convincing candidate. Much the same as in the Ripper case, but with a historical Maybrick and a fake diary - Oops did I say that?
Anyhow, due to such close mindedness, and an inability to seek the truth, I leave you all with the semantics of Jon and his immense talent of 'all there is to know.' So like Junius and Jack I will discreetly disappear.......
Yours
forever,
Jacunius. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 10:40 am | | Hello Jacunius:
Your last post gives every sign that you are schizophrenic. I certainly hope you will seek or, better yet, are already receiving psychiatric help.
Chris George |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 10:42 am | | Jacunius,
I don't think anyone here is smothering your hypothesis in grease. I am open to the possibility that the Bond report might have been faked and am intrigued by it. If you decide to withdraw from the topic, that is fine, however I would note that you are withdrawing without clarifying which Ripperologist you are accusing of faking evidence and you leave us all with the speculations of your intentions in questioning Donald Rumbelow's methods. I am open to speculation on the document's validity if there is no speculation on who forged it without ANY evidence whatsoever to point fingers. I don't care if it is necessary to disprove it to prove your theory or not. If there is evidence...different story. |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 10:46 am | | Chris,
Jacunius mentioned in his first post that he would be using a friend's computer to post and receive e-mail. The first half is the friend speaking on behalf of Jac, the second half is Jacunius. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 10:48 am | | Jeff:
It's interesting to bring Junius and his letters into this but I think that there's still a lot of discussion over the "onlie begetter" of the letters. For example, the Revd. James Wilmot was put forward by his niece (or possibly granddaughter Olivia Serres as part of the "evidence" to prove her to be of Royal Blood. And of course, if she had been, and Hannah Lightfoot's descendents had become in fact the rightful royal family, then we would not have had a Clarence Conspiracy , Stephen Knight would have ended his days as a humble local news reporter and Joe Sickert as a picture framer.
I still think that our mystery poster got his name from Jaconius the Friendly Whale and his real name is Brendan. |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 10:59 am | | So what do we have here from Jacunius? No clarifications, no substantiations for any of his accusations stated or implied, and certainly no apologies. Simply a statement of withdrawal from the boards. Somehow I don't think we should be at all surprised.
Wannabe students? Mr. Smyth has been an actual student of this case since 1972. To my knowledge he has no interest in joining the 'get rich quick' school of wannabe Ripper authors which has mushroomed in recent years. Jon's main asset here is his challenging of set ideas - something he bases on accumulated knowledge and careful research. That and reigning back the over-enthusiastic and frankly often cranky element who appear here out of nowhere from time to time claiming to have solved the case.
Regards, V. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 11:23 am | | Hi, Ally:
Okay I guess I jumped the gun saying that Jac is schizophrenic.... I missed that the first part of the last post was by a "friend." My mistake! I continue to think there is a certain hyperbolic aggrandizement and ridiculousness being displayed here by both Jac and friend, the Jackster waving his fiery sword of truth, all powerful over the mendacious and dishonest Ripperologists. Please! This is all rather juvenile stuff from somebody who pretends to pose as a researcher, if you can believe it. And as Viper says, Jac offers no clarification or retraction of his/her earlier accusatory posts. And the Jackal wonders why he/she got a hostile reception here????!!!!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Alegria
Tuesday, 12 June 2001 - 12:01 pm | | Chris,
I agree that there was just cause in the reactions Jacunius implications received. And that there is a decidedly juvenile component to the whole thing. However, I am advocating second chances and redemptions this month. If Jacunius had merely been speculating about the Bond letter, I doubt people's minds would have been as closed to him as they now are. He stepped in it big time when he started implying wrong-doing by Ripperologists. If he refuses to back down from this or provide evidence, then bombs away. If he wants to stick to discussing the possibility (however unlikely) that the Bond (James Bond) report might be fake, I say we should cut the new kid some slack. Mainly because the idea intrigues me for some odd reason.  |
|
|
|
|
