|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 24, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Robert Maloney's Theory:
Archive through June 24, 2001
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 01:26 pm |        | | I have taken the liberty of starting this topic because the conversations on the Ripper Letters / General Discussion / Analysis of "Dear Boss" and "Lusk" letters have gone so far off-topic. Many of them relate to Robert Maloney's theory. So please refer to the subject above for earlier comments, and poste material relating to Mr. Maloney’s theory here. |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 01:52 pm | | Is anybody else finding the conversation about this theory all rather confusing with everything going over at the other topic?
Firstly, can we nail down the definition of a chandler’s store, given all the alternative descriptions? Martin Fido is correct, the term was used simply to mean a grocer, as becomes obvious from the trade and street directories of the time. However, the likelihood is that a chandler would sell not just food, but also other household products too and that would most certainly have included candles. Try to remember (those of us who are old enough) the small grocers stores that used to exist in every British high street prior to the monopoly power of supermarkets.
Some chandlers might also have sold cooked food. In studying the case we find that James Brown, Elizabeth Mahoney and Isaac Lewis Jacobs all visited late-opening chandler’s shops for their supper, and one account has Mrs. Mahoney buying fish and chips - a hot supper. In an area where so many people lacked basic amenities there was added value in either selling hot meals or in heating up food for customers. (In fact a feature of the Coffee Tavern movement was that people could take food in and it would be cooked for them).
Now let’s take a look at the knife. What evidence does Robert Maloney have that the knife retrieved from the street by Thomas Coram and PC Drage can be linked to the chandler’s shop at the corner of Berner and Fairclough Streets, and further to the murder of Liz Stride? For instance, is there any evidence at all that the shopkeeper was ever called upon to identify the knife? I note also the comments of Dr. Phillips:- “On examination I found it to be such a knife as would be used in a chandler's shop, called a slicing knife. It had blood upon it, which was similar to that of a warm-blooded being. It has been recently blunted and the edge turned by apparently rubbing on a stone. It evidently was before that a very sharp knife. Such a knife could have produced the incision and injuries to the neck of the deceased; but it was not such a weapon as I would have chosen to inflict injuries in this particular place; and if my opinion as regards the position of the body is correct, the knife in question would become an improbable instrument as having caused the incision.” That was taken from The Times of 6/Oct/88 with my emphasis.
And now onto that old chestnut, the M and possible other letter on Kelly’s wall. Let’s not go over all that again – it’s already been done to death on these boards. However, you, Mr. Maloney, will be aware that the issue is contentious and is a dangerous one on which to hang parts of a theory. Suffice to say, the best reproduction I have seen of the Kelly photos is the one posted here from Stewart Evans some time ago. It’s not very helpful to the case of the ‘letters brigade’.
Regards, V. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 02:32 pm | | Hi, Viper:
Let us also not forget that Florence Maybrick's maiden name was Florence Elizabeth Chandler.  Anyway, to Robert Maloney's theory. . .
Chris George |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 05:35 pm | | I think you might say that another name for a chandlers would be a ' general store '.
The BBC 1970s TV comedy series ' Open All Hours ' provided an excellent depiction of an old-fashioned grocer with Ronnie Barker taking the role of Arkwright and David Jason playing his errand-boy Granville. I don't suppose that a 19th century grocer would have been much different , apart from a lack of many modern-day branded products and imported goods , plus the lack of a vicious manual cash register and an appalling stutter ! 
Simon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 06:55 pm | | Dear Simon,
Do I detect the germ of a theory in Mr Mahoney's
ideas not unlike the proposed theory of both Ivor and Ed...a secret group of men working toward an invisible end? Ivor and Ed put some flesh(!)on it,
and can such a solution be described as an open and unbounded discourse...or am I being a pain in the philosophical, philological, ontological butt?
Of course!
Rosey P Rune :-) |
Author: Robert Maloney
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 09:51 pm | | Hello everyone,
I would like to thank you all for helping to change the overall tone of this discussion. As there are a number of questions to answer, and I now have a bad sunburn, I will reply in the morning. Mr. George, I apologize for not remembering that my wife asked that question you were referring to. But being that my name appeared at the top, that would not occur to me as an example of double posting. She said my husband Rob, I believe, and it read Robert Maloney. I told her not to ask that question.
However, you have my word that I have never posted under another name and never will.
Thanks again,
Rob |
Author: Robert Maloney
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 10:04 pm | | I should have said, that I have never met, and do not know, Jacunius. Or anyone else on these boards other than David and my wife of course.
Rob |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 05:06 am | | Hi Rob,
You told your wife not to ask a question???
Are you tired of living or something?
Of course you are - silly me - you are still here, after all. I hope no one gives you too hard a time - I know the feeling only too well. 
Love,
Caz
Question: If a man is standing in the middle of the forest speaking and there is no woman around to hear him...is he still wrong? |
Author: Robert Maloney
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 07:41 am | | Hi Caz,
I would like to thank you so much, really.
You can tell who the dear "Boss" is in my house.
And the answer to your question is: of course.
Rob |
Author: Robert Maloney
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 10:36 am | | Hello everyone,
The first subject I would like to comment on is the knife found on Whitechapel Road. There are several reasons why I think this knife should be considered a possible murder weapon of Liz Stride.
First lets look at some of the testimony regarding the knife.
From the Daily Telegraph, Oct.6, 1888
Dr. Phillips:
The knife produced on the last occasion was delivered to me, properly secured, by a constable, and on examination I found it to be such a knife as is used in a chandler's shop, and is called a slicing knife. It has blood upon it, which has characteristics similar to the blood of a human being. It has been recently blunted, and its edge apparently turned by rubbing on a stone such as a kerbstone. It evidently was before a very sharp knife.
The Coroner: Is it such a knife as could have caused the injuries which were inflicted upon the deceased? - Such a knife could have produced the incision and injuries to the neck, but it is not such a weapon as I should have fixed upon as having caused the injuries in this case; and if my opinion as regards the position of the body is correct, the knife in question would become an improbable instrument as having caused the incision.
[Coroner] What is your idea as to the position the body was in when the crime was committed? - I have come to a conclusion as to the position of both the murderer and the victim, and I opine that the latter was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, and that the murderer was on her right side when he inflicted the cut. I am of the opinion that the cut was made from the left to the right side of the deceased, and taking into account the position of the incision it is unlikely that such a long knife inflicted the wound in the neck.
[Coroner] The knife produced on the last occasion was not sharp pointed, was it? - No, it was rounded at the tip, which was about an inch across. The blade was wider at the base.
[Coroner] Was there anything to indicate that the cut on the neck of the deceased was made with a pointed knife? - Nothing.
[Coroner] Have you formed any opinion as to the manner in which the deceased's right hand became stained with blood? - It is a mystery. There were small oblong clots on the back of the hand. I may say that I am taking it as a fact that after death the hand always remained in the position in which I found it - across the body.
Dr. Blackwell - With respect to the knife which was found, I should like to say that I concur with Dr. Phillips in his opinion that, although it might possibly have inflicted the injury, it is an extremely unlikely instrument to have been used. It appears to me that a murderer, in using a round-pointed instrument, would seriously handicap himself, as he would be only able to use it in one particular way. I am told that slaughterers always use a sharp-pointed instrument.
The Coroner: No one has suggested that this crime was committed by a slaughterer. - Witness: I simply intended to point out the inconvenience that might arise from using a blunt-pointed weapon.
It should be clear the that analysis given by both men suggests the knife in question could have caused the injuries to Liz Stride. And each man gave their respective reasons for why they thought the weapon was an unlikely choice. However, there are some problems with each of their testimonies. As everyone here knows quite well, if Dr. Blackwell, in the year 2001 had said "I am told slaughterers always use a sharp-pointed instrument" any attorney in the world would have had a field day with such a statement.
For example, "Are you telling us sir that you believe the Whitechapel Murderer was a slaughterer? And that you do not believe he would have used a slicing knife? So you are saying sir, that such a knife could have caused the injuries, are you not?"
In any event the value of his testimony would have been diminished.
There appears, to me, to have been a predilection on the part of the doctor, away from the chandler's shop knife and towards one used by slaughterers.
As to Dr.Phillips testimony there are some problems as well. He says the weapon is not one he would have FIXED UPON. And then describes a scenario that he says would make it an unlikely murder weapon. But what if his scenario was wrong?
And I have read some people think it was wrong.
Doesn't this suggest it COULD have been the murder weapon. And if so, Why wasn't the night man at the Chandler's shop called to testify? Judging from the large number of people that did comment on that night, I would suggest he was called. But he obviously did not appear. Why? Shouldn't someone from the shop have been asked if they recognize that knife? And where was he on the night in question.
This is what James Brown had to say:
"I was going from my house to the chandler's shop at the corner of the Berner-street and Faircloug-street, to get some supper. I stayed there three or four minutes, and then went back home, when I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of the Board School".
Now this is the man with the long dark coat.
It is not quite clear that anyone gave him any service at the chandler's shop. So there is something unusual about this sequence of events.
Now as you know I am arguing they were performing rituals and repeating events in the life of their criminal idol Jack Sheppard. His story was very popular among the criminals of the day. Those that could read would read aloud to each other at places like the coffee-stalls.
Now here is a piece taken from Jack Sheppard, from The Complete Newgate Calendar.
(Although only in the twenty-third year of his age when he was executed at Tyburn, on the 16th of November, 1724, Jack Sheppard had become so notorious as a housebreaker and prison-breaker that his exploits were the talk of all ranks of society. A great warrior could not have received greater attention than this famous criminal. Books and pamphlets were written about him; a pantomime at Drury Lane.......)
John Sheppard was born in Spitalfields the son of a carpenter. He frequented the Black Lion ale house in Drury Lane where he became acquainted with prostitutes. Now I will type the relevent part of the story about the Chandler's shop.
(Night coming on, and being pressed by hunger, he ventured to a chandler's shop in Tottenham Court Road, where he........hiding his irons with a long greatcoat)
Now I believe that the man in the long great coat with Liz Stride was NOT asking for what we normally would expect, but rather to take part in something. Her reply 'no, not tonight maybe some other night' is not what you would expect from a so-called prostitute.
Futhermore, the oval shaped clots on the back of her hand suggest to me paternoster/rosary symbolism, something you might expect to see with a black magician pertaining to - the son of a carpenter. Another thing that is important to know about black/folk magicians is that it was considered extremely bad luck to find a knife, so you can be quite sure that if they did place that knife there on Whitechapel Road, they were hoping a policeman would pick it up.
I have to do my work now so I will finish later.
My goodness you people must type fast. Where do you find the time? This took all morning.
Rob |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 10:55 am | | Hi Rob,
You wrote:
'Now as you know I am arguing they were performing rituals and repeating events in the life of their criminal idol Jack Sheppard.'
Thanks for finding the time to post. I find this idea extremely interesting, that a serial killer (or group of killers) could have a criminal idol (or idols), and be trying to follow in their footsteps. (And it would make a great story, even if not based in truth, wouldn't it?)
Looking forward to hearing more.
All the best.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 11:42 am | | | I am currently reading a book about the Hillside Strangler which turned out to be two men, one of whom idolized Caryl Chessman. |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 11:45 am | | | I would like to propose an exception to the rule about not using other posters names. Spouses should be allowed. You need have no fear in my case. My husband thinks my interest in JTR is peculiar and so do my children! |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 01:24 pm | | Rob,
Thanks for your response on points concerning the knife. Unfortunately nothing you say about it tells us anything new or advances your case. That founders first and foremost because you don't provide any evidence to link the knife retrieved in Whitechapel Road and presented at the Stride inquest to Liz's murder, or to Norris' chandlers shop, both of which you claimed to have done. Neither doctor and no policeman was asked, or voluntarily stated such a link. For the record, I can't see anything in the case papers either (as published in the Ultimate JTR Sourcebook). Until you can provide such evidence your comments must remain pure speculation.
Whilst both Phillips and Blackwall admitted that the weapon could have been used to kill Stride, neither thought it was a likely choice and they gave their reasons. Whether they were correct or not is another matter, but the fact remains that they saw the knife, we didn't. Phillips, we know, was very used to seeing knife wounds and to conducting post-mortems.
Suggesting that Norris (or whoever minded the shop for him) may have been called to give evidence is no substitute for providing evidence that he actually was called. The official inquest papers don't exist for the Stride murder, but the chandler's attendance was not reported in the newspapers. Neither does any police statement attributable to him survive.
Incidentally, Brown's comment that "I had nearly finished my supper when I heard screams of 'Police' and 'Murder'." (from The Times, 6th October) suggests very strongly that he did receive service at the shop.
Regards, V. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 09:18 pm | | Viper,
Just a quick comment on the argument that Brown did get served at chandler's shop. Using your "type" of argument, you have provided no evidence that Brown did get supper at the chandler's shop. Your theory suggests that if he didn't get served, he would have gone to sleep hungry. The type of argument I am making is cumulative. (1) The knife could have caused the injury. (2) We have no evidence that the chandler's shop attendant testified that the knife DID NOT come from the corner shop, therefore, he probably DID NOT testify, and that alone, is important. (3) The scene that took place was reminiscent from the life of Jack Sheppard. (4) James Brown does not say he encountered anyone at the chandler's shop. (5) The doctors obviously believed that the knife would have been an unlikely weapon to cause mutilations - and there were no mutilations. And yet this deviation from the MO usually gets attributed to the belief that he was interupted by Louis Diemschutz and not to the theory that the knife would have made such injuries difficult to perform. Furthermore, you did not comment on the very telling remark by the doctor, that "I am told that slaughterers always use a sharp-pointed instrument." This comment alone makes his testimony worthless.
In the final analysis, while I am alleging chandler shop involvement, my theory is in no way
based on it. Once again, I am arguing that the events of that night were part of a ritual. All with the purpose of invoking the spirit of Jack Sheppard. In fact, there is no evidence that contradicts any of my "speculations". Frankly, I find it odd that you think being speculative weakens my argument. Are you under the impression that this case will finally be "solved" to everyone's satisfaction one day? That it can be "proven" in any truly meaningful way? Even if someone theorized the most "elegant" solution, it can't be considered proof. This case is like time-decay phenomena, we may get closer all the time, but we will never see the end of it.
A little story about the night man:
When I first read the inquest, I really did believe that the knife came from the chandler's shop. I thought it possible the night man was Morris Kosminski. Afterall, he did live down the street I believe, (I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong), near a public house (which I believe is an important aspect to this case), he had a son named Israel ( maybe named after Israel "Lipski") and if he was the night man, wouldn't that fit the saying, 'the sole occupant of the premises after nightfall' (which by the way I cannot remember who said this - could you remind me?)
So I did some keyword searches to find a database that might list people who made donations. I knew the chandler's shop was Norris'. But perhaps Kosminski made a donation to a charity from the shop. I needed to know what the address was of the chandler's shop so I went to Casebook Productions and found 48 Berner Street.
As luck would have it, I found a donation from 48 Berner W in 1891 from M. Kosminski. And, as you are well aware, 48 Berner W. did not exist. It was either 48 Berner East or 48 Berners W. So knowing that Martin Kosminski was over there on Berners, I had to find what was located at 48 Berners W. Listed at 48 Berners W. was R.W Jones & Co (manuf.jewellers) and Avant (Louisa) & Co (art studio). So I thought that being Martin Kosminski was a furrier, maybe 48 Berner W. really referred to the chandler's shop. But just to be sure, I tried to find Martin Kosminski and I located him at 50 Berners in 1909. So I quess the odds are that it was some kind of mistake and the address referred to Martin Kosminski and not to the chandler's shop.
But, you never know....maybe the night man really was.....
Thanks for the arguments Viper.
Caz, as Diana pointed out, many criminals have idols and it is not at all unusual. And hey, what do you mean even if it isn't true? (put smile here)
Diana, stay with me, I need all the help I can get.
Rob |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 03:03 am | | Rob,
You squeeze a lot in above. To deal briefly with the main points you make.
(1) The knife could have caused the injury. We don't disagree - both doctors said it could have.
(2) We have no evidence that the chandler's shop attendant testified that the knife DID NOT come from the corner shop, therefore, he probably DID NOT testify, and that alone, is important. Lots of negatives here! The chandler did not testify at the inquest - so I'll agree with that. It's all that matters anyway. In the absence of any other documents nobody can say where the knife came from.
(3) The scene that took place was reminiscent from the life of Jack Sheppard. I've no comment to make on this part of your theory other than that historical back-links of this type are normally coincidental.
(4) James Brown does not say he encountered anyone at the chandler's shop.
True. He says he went there to buy supper, he didn't mention going anywhere else and he was interrupted as he finished eating his supper. We come down to what is and what is not a reasonable deduction.
(5) The doctors obviously believed that the knife would have been an unlikely weapon to cause mutilations - and there were no mutilations... Furthermore, you did not comment on the very telling remark by the doctor, that "I am told that slaughterers always use a sharp-pointed instrument." This comment alone makes his testimony worthless. Please indicate where the doctors commented about the use of this knife in mutilation, rather than simply as a murder weapon.
You are right that I didn't comment on the remark about the sharp pointed knife. Dr. Blackwell's testimony is only 'very telling' in that he thought a sharp-pointed knife would be a better choice of weapon. By no stretch of the imagination was his testimony 'worthless'. The coroner's interjection related only to the fact that the doctor had connected sharp-pointed knives with slaughtermen - an additional comment which should not have been added. Blackwell's basic comment stands.
Are you under the impression that this case will finally be "solved" to everyone's satisfaction one day? No, it will not be solved to everybody's satisfaction. Too long has passed and too much of the evidence has disappeared.
You are correct in stating that there was a Kosminski resident in Berner Street. I am unaware of his personal details and must therefore refrain from comment. Perhaps Paul Begg or Martin Fido would be able to comment or to assist you, since they both visit the boards from time to time.
Berner Street was a thoroughfare running north to south. I have never seen any reference to East and West divisions of the street. Can you please tell us where that reference to Berner W. came from. Some of the street and commercial directories were a bit ambiguous with their abbreviations, so one possibility is that the W. stood for something else, such as Walk. The only other thought that comes to mind is that there was a Berners Street in the West End, and that the W. suffix refers to a postal district.
Regards, V. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 04:04 am | | Hi Rob,
The adjective I used was 'interesting', not 'unusual', when referring to the basic idea that the Whitechapel murderer could have been anything from a lone serial killer, seeking to emulate his hero from criminal history (far from outlandish or bizarre, as Diana noted), to a group of killers intent on invoking the spirit of their idol or idols (definitely making a good ripping yarn, if nothing else!).
There was a growing interest in spiritualism and seances among Victorians (many were already obsessed with it), so I'm not sure why your basic idea has gone down here like a lead balloon. You are still presumably in the early stages of research and information gathering to see if you might have something, and if I'm right, that's a bit far removed - yet - from thrusting the black magician's ripper robes on dreary old D'Onston and his pair of dopey admirers, using whatever facts make the robes fit best, then putting in print:
'He went on to become the most notorious of all the Rippers - the one known as Jack...' (Melvin Harris - The True Face of Jack The Ripper)
Now, if that's not writing speculation as fact, I don't know what is. But it's pretty much standard stuff among ripper authors, and people eventually stop hopping up and down with indignation at one author and start on another. The same thing happens here with casebook posters and their speculations. I always think of my dear mother-in-law's expression: "All the while they are having a go at me, they are leaving someone else alone."
Love,
Caz |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 04:44 am | | Rob, A quick trawl with the search facility reveals that details of the various Kosminskis were discussed back in March 2001 over on the suspects board. Contemporary Suspects [1888-1910] / Aaron Kosminski.
Regards, V. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 10:11 am | | Hi Caz,
You and my wife would obviously get along. When I wrote "unusual", my wife said, after reading what I wrote, "she didn't say unusual" and I said, "I know, She'll know what I mean". This type of communication is very tricky as I know you know all too well. Think how often people have to put smile faces after everything they write. I should point out, as I'm sure you are well aware by now, that I very seldom write. In fact I have never been on a message board before and very infrequently use e-mail. I write math programs for a living. The only writing I've ever done was in college and it was on many of the subjects that I have been discussing here. That includes evidence collection, evaluating expert testimony, forensic psychology, the importance of symbolism, etc. Otherwise, I would never have stuck my two cents in. I will never claim to be a JtR expert. Perhaps one of the drawbacks to this type of forum is that it inevitably leads to a very tight core group of people with a special talent for writing. This means that other people who might have something to contribute probably will shy away. It was only my arrogant belief that I'm right (about Dear Boss and Black Magic) that would make a person like myself post here. I have no desire to write a book - I'm no writer - I know that. So you will have to deal with the strange ways I formulate a sentence. It is a very different mental process from writing a math formula. Before I posted anything, I showed something I wrote to someone who can write, and they made so many changes I said - forget it - I'll just have to wing it. I do stand in awe of those of you who can write so easily and effortlessly. It must be great fun, like playing an instrument. But having said, that I feel no embarrassment whatsoever if someone calls my "theory" silly or ridiculous. Having gone to what is generally regarded as the best criminal justice college in the U.S and having been utterly humiliated before hundreds of students, (many of them police officers) during debates with criminal justice experts, I would hardly be threatened by "that type" of argument. In fact, it is obviously the other way around. And as you mentioned, I am early in my research but I have no intention of finishing it. My views are simple and to the point. 'Dear Boss' was from the killers. It was a Black Magic money drawing spell directed at the
government to offer a substantial reward. Had one been offered there would have been a "scapegoat" put forth and the money would have been collected presumably, by people with close ties to the Vigilance Committee. The killers were inspired by and attempting to invoke the spirit of their idol Jack Sheppard. All the symbolism used by the killers in the case was a combination of Black Magic ritual and symbolism that represented "Jack". The gang continued to flaunt their invincibility through use of their associates like Hutchinson who would appear at the police station giving truthful descriptions of the killers the police were seeking, while at the same time leaving their calling card with words like "RED" in their statements. And these associates would of course not show up at the inquest hearings. This concept of "flaunting" was directly inspired by Jack Sheppard. Joseph Isaacs was most probably "Astrakhan Man". And he, after being initiated in the Black Arts by a so called Hex-master Doctor, (hexmeister, probably from the United States and possibly from the Pennsylvania area as there were a series of murders there as well) needed to test the spell cast at the "Mass" for Mary Kelly by stealing a watch from a pawnbroker just exactly as Jack Sheppard had done. (this is what folk/black magicians do to test spells) The way he was dressed testifies to his black magician status. The color combination of white/black/red, the seal for enclosing spells in envelopes, the "good luck" horseshoe pin, the large palm sized divinity stone that was "RED", the parcel wrapped in American oil cloth that probably contained holy water and a seam RIPPER,
all highly significant for purposes of black magic.
The reason for the Astrakhan/spats/boots dress was that this was stereotypical of the theatrical style found near Charing Cross. (Israel Schwartz was also described as theatrical looking). And this connection was directly attributable again to events involving Jack Sheppard. (other repeat scenes include the long greatcoat man at the chandler's shop) The reason Isaacs stayed in Little Paternoster Row is that Paternoster is a very important word for folk/black magicians. (there was also a Paternoster Row near where Jack Sheppard was held in Newgate. There may have been rosary/paternoster symbolism found on Liz Stride in the form of oval shaped blood clots with her hand across her chest symbolically clutching the rosary - "you would say anything but your prayers")
Also at certain ceremonial gatherings a fiddle is often used and Isaacs had a fiddle in his room. Jack Sheppard was known to be able to break out of a room (the RED room over the "Castle") leaving the door locked behind him just as with Mary Kelly's room. And someone dressed as "Astrakhan Man" was (a magician) would certainly have been expected to use Runes. The examples here are those that "may" have been on Mary Kelly's wall and the protection Rune inscribed on the Saucy Jacky postcard used by magicians to safely get something through the mail. The Runes on Mary Kelly's wall have direct significance to this case. (gateway symbolism as all the murders took place near gateways and passageways)
The various "Jack" symbolism used can be found in old English dictionaries and in books devoted to English slang. Some examples are ,a farthing, a seal, a variety of polyanthus, Jack the sailor, (the Romany/Gypsy word for Jack is jarika and it means apron) and of course - the inevitable nickname of any man surnamed Sheppard.
I apologize for any historical inaccuracies above for while I did try to read as many messages as I could, I admit I formulated this over a short time. And as I say, I won't be doing much more because this experience was not exactly enjoyable. With the exception of course, of "talking" with you Caz, and Mr Omlor, Diana, Yaz, Viper, Seth and a few others.
Boy I did go on and on didn't I? Sorry.
Rob |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 10:14 am | | | Rob, I'm not necessarily buying your theory, only your right to posit it and I think your knowledge would be useful to the rest of us. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 10:36 am | | Hi Viper,
Sorry if I was unclear. I assume that Berner W. does refer to Berners West and that the address I was looking at must have been a mistake. You see, if the address had read 48 Berner E. than the person who made the donation was M. Kosminski and this would be significant because that would be the chandlers' shop. However, since the address read 48 Berner W. and no place like that exists, I had to figure out which address 48 Berner W. was referring to. Remember Morris Kosminski gave his occupation as shopmaster/baker and that is very chandler shop sounding to me. So I assumed maybe, we can track him to the corner chandler's shop. When I found a database containing the address 48 Berner W. - M. Kosminski, I thought maybe that address really referred to 48 Berner E. Because, as far as I'm aware, no 48 Berner W. existed. It's either 48 Berner E. or 48 Berners W.
But, since M. Kosminski lived or worked over at 50 Berners W. I will assume somehow this address ( 48 Berner W.) refers to that. Otherwise, the night man at the chandler's shop WAS M. Kosminski!
Rob |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 22 June 2001 - 04:40 am | | Rob,
You are correct in thinking that there has been a misunderstanding here. I had failed to appreciate the meaning of all your Berner East and Berner W. references. Only after reading the comments about Martin Kosminski being a resident of Berners Street, W. at the other topic did it dawn on me that you were indeed referring to the suffixes as postal districts. Sorry about the confusion.
[Just in case anyone else out there is still wondering what this is all about, it's probably worth explaining the point. By the time of the murders London was a city of four million people and covered an extensive area. With so many duplicate street names, London addresses were given a suffix letter or pair of letters, to indicate which district an address came into. If you like, it was the first attempt at implementing the post code system we have in Britain today (equivalent to zip codes in the USA). The six letters used were based on points of the compass and were E, SE, SW, W, NW and N. For the busy commerical district right at the centre, comprised of the City and Holborn areas, the codes EC and WC were used. You'll see these letters on various documents related to the case.]
The Kosminski at Berner Street back in the East End was named Maurice. According to Paul Begg, "He arrived in Britain in 1884. By December 1889 he was living at 70 Berner Street and stayed there until 10th January 1895, when he moved to 36 Christian Street." Again, Rob, you have made a statement; "Otherwise, the night man at the chandler's shop WAS M. Kosminski!" that looks from here like an assertion stated as a fact. Have you uncovered any new evidence to back it?
Regards, V. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Friday, 22 June 2001 - 10:28 am | | Hi Viper,
Sorry Viper, I didn't mean it that way, as I was only completing the sentence/joke in the earlier post where I said "you never know...maybe the night man was....." In other words, being that the address I have lists M. Kosminski at 48 Berner W. and we know that the chandler shop was listed at 48 Berner East, there exists a possibility that the address - 48 Berner W. actually refers to 48 Berner E. because of 2 reasons. (1) 48 Berner W. did not exist. 48 Berner(s) W. did. (2) So if the address that I have, 48 Berner W.= M. Kosminski actually refers to 48 Berner(s) W. then why was Jones Jewelry shop listed at that address and not Martin Kosminski.
Now adding to those confusing points, I was suggesting that Morris/Maurice Kosminski may have worked at a chandler's shop because he was listed in the 1891 census (the address I have is also 1891) as a shopmaster/baker which could easily be applied to chandler shop work. Now adding to that, was the fact that he lived down the street (at 70 Berner) from the chandler's shop (at 48 Berner) and right next to a public house (at 68 Berner), which is near where William Marshall (at 64 Berner) witnessed Liz Stride with a man. Okay, now lets back up. If we are conducting an investigation of this murder, it is not unimportant that we have a name of a possible suspect (Kosminski) living near where a witness says he saw Liz Stride with a man, especially if the man who lives in that house "may" have worked at a chandler's shop where there exists a possibility the murder weapon came from. And being that I contend that the chandler's shop does play a role in this case in connection to the events in the life of Jack Sheppard (the man with a long great coat) and candle making etc., these details could be important if you also have an address 48 Berner = M. Kosminski. But, being that the address is actually 48 Berner W., we are left to wonder what address 48 Berner W. was actually referring to. Because, once again, 48 Berner W. did not exist, 48 Berners W. did not list Martin Kosminski and 48 Berner E. was the chandler's shop. Just a quick question - didn't someone say the suspect was 'the sole occupant of the premises after nightfall'. And doesn't that suggest possibly a place of work?
And before I forget, the fact that M. Kosminski was listed at 50 Berners in 1909, certainly DOES NOT help my argument that 48 Berner W. was a mistake that actually referred to the chandler's shop at 48 Berner. I, of course, admit that.
One point that may have no significance whatsoever, is that if Maurice Kosminski lived at 70 Berner, wouldn't that place him in close proximity, I assume, to where Israel Schwartz had lived? And just to be sure I'm clear here, I am not in anyway suggesting that Maurice was the suspect 'Kosminski', mentioned by Swanson and Macnaghten. My own opinion is that the 'Kosminski' they were referring to had only one name, that being Kosminski. No Aaron, no Martin, no Maurice, just Kosminski. But, since the suspect had a brother..........
Now of course, these are all speculations and subtle connections, none of which hurt my argument that the chandler shop was involved and arguably, none of which help. But you know my opinion on that. If we are looking for proof, we can all go home right now.
By the way, I got the address for the public house, the George IV at 68 Berner, from A.M. Phypers excellent dissertation "The House Where Jack Swilled?".
thanks Viper,
Rob |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 22 June 2001 - 02:02 pm | | Rob,
First you say, If we are conducting an investigation of this murder, it is not unimportant that we have a name of a possible suspect (Kosminski) living near where a witness says he saw Liz Stride with a man... Then later you contradict it with "And just to be sure I'm clear here, I am not in anyway suggesting that Maurice was the suspect 'Kosminski', mentioned by Swanson and Macnaghten." I'm really not clear on what you are saying then.
The important fact is surely that Maurice Kosminski cannot have been the suspect Kosminski because their descriptions and movements don't tally. All that remains therefore is a coincidence of name. We don't even know where Maurice Kosminski was lodging at the time of the murders.
Your theory seems to rely very heavily on matches (or near matches) of names, addresses, places, colours and so on. It isn't unique in that respect. Invariably theories of this type don't prove to be sustainable. Things like these alone cannot solve real murders - you need to provide some proper evidence with them. Sometimes a coincidence is just that.
Regards, V. |
Author: Diana
Friday, 22 June 2001 - 04:27 pm | | | How common was the name Kosminski? Was it like Jones? If it was a rare or unusual name then you may be on to something. It might help if somebody has a London phone directory. Granted it is 113 years later, but names like Smith and Jones have a long history of being ubiquitous. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Saturday, 23 June 2001 - 09:35 am | | Hello Viper and Diana,
I would like to thank both of you for your comments and replies.
Diana, I did, over a short period of time, a good deal of death notice and marriage certificate research. And Kosminski was NOT a common name. And I did alot of family tree research as well. Some of what I uncovered is important to this case. Some of it was interesting even if meaningless. For example,
I knew there would be a family tie from Grand and Bachelor to the Vigilance Committee, and I found it. Sinister, no, but is this the right way to do things? - It sure is. This is the way I was taught. An old, ruddy faced, brilliant, semi-famous, ex-detective, professor of mine used to say, "a phone directory is a detectives best friend".
Now Viper, having said that, there is a lot here we need to clear up.
First, what I wrote was not at all a contradiction. Kosminski is the name of a suspect and we know that name existed on Berner Street. The fact that I don't think Maurice was the 'Kosminski' referred to by Swanson is irrelevant. Because the suspect had a brother and we don't know the name of that brother. Maurice could have been a relative. Now if your mind is leaping to Aaron, that is a mistake. Because the odds weigh very heavily AGAINST Aaron being the suspect. And here is why.
Unfortunately, for this, we need to delve into probability theory.
(1) Two men (Swanson and Macnaugten) use the name 'Kosminski' when referring to the suspect. The probability that two men would refer to a suspect by a surname only is low. Think about it. Almost
every other suspect in this case, and there are hundreds of them it seems, have two names. (2) Now, two men (Swanson and Anderson) say the suspect died shortly afterwards. (Aaron did not) Again, the probability that both men are wrong about this is fairly low. Now when you consider the low probability of the first point with the low probability of the second point, the probability of Aaron being the suspect is very, very low. (multiplying probs together makes them even smaller)
And of course this does not include all the other factors used to argue against Aaron being the suspect. So therefore knowing Aaron's brother's name is important but not all important.
I should point out though, that I believe the name Abrahams was important for some other reasons as well. And that the surname Woolf was very closely linked to the Kosminskis and the Barnetts (not Joe Barnett, Augusta Barnett, wife of Martin Kosminski)
And to prove my point that someone might just have the name 'Kosminski' and only Kosminski, I did family tree research and found a man, born in Poland during the right years, and his name was Kosminski, just plain Kosminski. No first name.
The next point you make I find very strange.
You wrote:
"The important fact is surely that Maurice could not have been the suspect because their descriptions and movements don't tally"
What does that mean? What do you know about Maurice, his description, his movements? And the suspect? We don't even know who he was.
How does any of that make sense? And when you talk about descriptions, do you mean these:
Dark beard, no moustache, small fair moustache, small brown moustache, black moustache turned up at the ends, stout, not so stout, average build, age 28, age 30-35, age 30, age over 40, age 34-35, age 37, shabby genteel, respectably dressed, rough and shabby, foreign looking, Jewish looking, definitely English, small coat, long coat almost down to his heels, fair complexion, dark complexion. You mean those descriptions? The ones that PROVE that this case involves more than one killer. What most people are trying to argue is that if a description does not fit THEIR suspect - they can just get rid of it.
"Oh Hutchinson, he was lying" - and as 'Astrakhan Man' was dressed exactly like a black magician would dress - with seals for placing spells in envelopes like 'Dear Boss', "good luck" horseshoe pins to represent the sign of the horse like the Rune on Mary Kelly's wall, red/black/white color combinations - their 3 major colors, a large palm sized divinity stone that just happened to be RED (for the element of fire), and a parcel in water proof cloth that might have contained CLIPPERS for cutting a lady's ears off and cutting RED wool, a seam RIPPER (gee doesn't that name sound familiar), and some holy water to be used at the "Mass" of Mary Kelly - all of this is just another "coincidence" I suppose? (to suspect Hutchinson is correct however, just not for this reason)
No Viper, my theory does not depend on Maurice, or Kosminski or the chandler's shop or anything other than the fact that Dear Boss was a black magic spell written by a Hex-master Doctor whose JOB it was to perform black magic craftWORK for a price. ('the next JOB I do' - and job means spell by the way) And while this might sound strange to people living in the "enlightened" time in which we live now, we are talking about the year 1888. And the fact there are many people doing this right now seems to be something most people are unaware of.
And as I have not put forth my "theory" in any complete form, any attacks upon it are meaningless anyway. Right after my nephew David set up an account for me here, I saw a documentary on Jack the Ripper where 'Dear Boss' was shown. I turned to my wife and said "oh, red ink and gingerbeer for the citric acid - he was writing a black magic spell. Citric acid and Kosher salt is the anti-coagulant of choice for those making an ink from blood, human or otherwise. And isn't the rhythm of the wording somewhat American too? Aren't those expressions ones used by gangsters?, like boss and squeal? Does "right" track mean underworld "right" or the black magic "left-hand path"? Hey this IS interesting.
The lone killer theory is simply not supportable and any attempt to psychoanalyze the killer from a sexual serial killer perspective, is bound to end in failure.
Obviously my "theory" is unique in that respect, and when it becomes more understandable and the right people carry it forward, it will stand the test of time as well.
Rob |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 23 June 2001 - 10:10 am | | Rob
Your closing statement above,"The lone killer theory is simply not supportable" is contrary to all the known evidence of the case. There are those who might speculate that in certain cases Jack may have benefited from an accomplice, but this is no more than a suggestion and is by no means supported by any solid evidence.
Your next statement, any attempt to psychoanalyze the killer from a sexual serial killer perspective, is bound to end in failure." is more in line with my thinking on the case, but I have stated my reasons for this as clear as I can and my reasons in no way conform to what I have read of your 'theory'.
I look forward to reading your conclusions after the next 4 months of research.
Regards, Jon |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 23 June 2001 - 11:27 am | | Hi Rob,
I have just one small thought about the nature of writing and response and debate.
You write:
"And as I have not put forth my 'theory' in any complete form, any attacks upon it are meaningless anyway."
I'm afraid this is a little too convenient. If you are going to post your ideas in a public forum like this one, even in a fragmentary and incomplete form, then you have to expect that those ideas will draw responses and even "attacks" and people will read what you are saying as your "theory" in your posts and respond to them accordingly. These responses and attacks are not simply and logically meaningless just because you have not written your "theory" here in a complete form. If that were the case, none of us could respond to any of us, unless we all had first written out and made public our complete account of the case and all its details. This is not the way the debate works, I'm afraid, and it is certainly not a logical necessity. Responses and attacks upon what you write can in fact have meaning even though they are responses only to a single post of yours or even to a single idea.
But it would have been a neat trick. I would have used that line in every post of mine, if it would have worked.
Of course, I don't have a theory...
In any case, I continue to read your accounts with interest and they still seem very creative to me and I am looking forward to where they take you next. You are on an adventure, it seems to me.
All the best,
--John |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 23 June 2001 - 12:43 pm | | | If there was another Kosminski, who was just plain Kosminski, he needs to be looked into. Even if Aaron turns out not to be Jack, madness tends to run in families. |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 23 June 2001 - 01:01 pm | | Diana,
It's not a bad idea, but a check of the London telephone directory can't be considered a reliable guide. I had a quick scan of the London Residential directory of a couple of years ago this morning. There were a few close matches, but no precise entries for the names Kosminski or Kozminski. However, whereas in 1888 the Jewish population was concentrated in the area it has now dispersed across the country. Some immigrants also changed or Anglicised their names. That said, we are probably entitled to conclude that the name Kosminski wasn't common. There are, after all, still plenty of Cohens and Goldsteins showing up.
Rob. No, we're not talking physical descriptions here because we have no idea what Maurice Kosminski looked like, as you recognise. I was thinking more along other lines. For example, from the Macnaghten Memoranda, "This man became insane owing to many years indulgence in solitary vices. He had a great hatred of women, specially of the prostitute class, & had strong homicidal tendencies; he was removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889. There were many circs connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'". That and the description of the muttering lunatic foraging for scraps in the gutter. None of it sounds compatible with the family man and baker who resided at 70 Berner Street.
I now understand your comment about the suspect Kosminski (whether it was Aaron or not) having a brother. Fair point, but once again that means you'll have to do some digging to establish any firm links between Maurice and the suspect. There are a few people writing on these boards who have found and looked into other Kosminskis. Perhaps one of them is reading this.
On the general subject of the physical descriptions we have, I don't set much store by any of them, other than perhaps the very general characteristics like the height and build (and some readers here would even question those details). An examination of the timings of the suspect sitings shows that the most likely witnesses to have seen the murderer were Mrs. Long and Joseph Lawende. Neither had a good view; Mrs. Long only saw the back of her suspect whilst Lawende saw his in the dark and didn't appear to pay much attention. He only identified Kate Eddowes by her clothes and didn't think he'd know the suspect again. Remember also that neither of these witnesses had much reason to notice the men they saw - the murders hadn't happened at the time of the sitings so there was no reason to stare at the suspects and digest all their details.
Two-man and gang theories are certainly not new. Perhaps the most obvious example is the now utterly discredited 'Royal Conspiracy'. The multiple-killer enterprise is possible, but overwhelmingly the likelihood is that the murderer worked alone. It is a fact that where serial murders of this type have been solved, they are nearly always the work of a lone man.
The more people who are involved in the enterprise of murder, the more likely the chance of discovery becomes. There is far more chance of somebody cracking, becoming careless or getting cold feet. The police of the time recognised this fact by checking known criminal's operations. Eventually they also issued notice of a pardon to an accomplice not directly involved in the murder of Mary Kelly. This might have tempted a wavering accessory to come forwards. Another temptation was the considerable sum of money put up by the Corporation of London, the newspapers and by private individuals as rewards, (though one wonders whether in reality these would have been paid to accomplices).
Regards, V. |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 23 June 2001 - 06:37 pm | | | The Hillside Strangler turned out to be two men. However, you are correct, Kenneth Bianchi decided to try to go solo for two murders and was caught. He then plea bargained and agreed to give evidence against Buono in exchange for his life. But Bianchi and Buono were joint serial killers. |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 23 June 2001 - 09:56 pm | | I guess this theory revolves around a bunch of late 19th century American "gangsters" -- or English equivalents -- coming to England, invoking grand hoodoo hex masters and the shade of John Sheppard, all for another theory to do with Black Magick purposes.
Anton LaVey, the "founder" of the Church of Satan, was once asked to defend his "church" against the widespread hysteria that satanism promotes and caused untold murders. Here is one version of LaVey's answer, which is -- at its core -- always the same:
"What I have done is open a Pandora's box," he says. Since he founded his church, Satanism has come a long way: The devil has become rock music's nihilistic symbol and there have been the Satan-tinged murders - from Charles Manson to the Night Stalker.
"These people are not Satanists," says LaVey, eyes closed, voice a whisper. "They are deranged. But no matter how many they do, they'll never catch up with the Christians. We have centuries of psychopathic killing in the name of God."
I'm afraid this is one thing he said that I think is correct: "These people are not Satanists...They are deranged."
There is little or no evidence of any "organized" murders by magicians, hexmasters, satanists, or hoodoo-meisters...no where, at no time. It's another "witch hunt." History tells one bloody story after another of one group believing and accusing others of these types of beliefs and crimes. And probably the largest target group (after Jews) is women. How many have been tortured and killed as witches throughout the centuries -- without a shred of any criminal intent, violent act, or even proof that the accused believed in whatever "doctrine" was conjured up by their sanctimonious accusers? It is particularly distressing to me to continue hearing theories bandied about JtR's murders being related to Magick, witchcraft, hex-a-whatsits, etc. Women are accused of being involved in these practices and they were killed. The only new thing is that now women aren't actually the practitioners, but the elements of the ritual or spell or whatsit...and they still died.
Deranged individuals may commit murders and claim voodoo influences all they want; but one (non-deranged; non-violent) person's voodoo is another (deranged; violent) person's incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo. Where is the orthodoxy, the dogma, the catechism that is universally recognized by all tribes of magicians, wizards, satanists, or hoodoo Don Corleones that sanctions murders, period, let alone JtR's murders? What schema did a magickal JtR follow; what are this schema's acknowledged texts; where are its proven precedents in history; where are its believer-descendents?
These days, the Casebook sounds more and more like Salem, Massachusetts in the 17th century, and I hear the ringing tones of the conviction of little Cotton Mathers and teeny Heinrich Kramers and James Sprengers in too many posts.
Blechhh!
-----------
On another note, it has always seemed a shame to me that people don't really want to discuss how these murders (and possibly the Torso Murders, to name two coeval examples) could be motivated by organized crime for the purely financial purposes of controlling women's bodies when these women are involved in prostitution. The objective is Terror. The actual perpetration of the murders may be performed by a sexually, sadistically, insanely motivated person or persons unknown -- "professional" killers. The "solution" is for the women to "accept the protection" of men (for the most part) and they pay with part/most/all of their earnings.
The other conspiracy theories have been cast down, but this one has never to my knowledge been adequately raised. It should be, IMHO, even if just to rule it out. After all, we have no evidence of Prince Al threatening a prostitute, or any black magick juju-boy shaking his lucky stick in a threatening manner. But we do have contemporary evidence of a Leather Apron Boy making threats against prostitutes. But unfortunately these complaints come directly from the prostitutes themselves...and who believes anything women like that might tell you, right?
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 01:13 am | | Hi, all:
I think the "M. Kosminski" at "48 Berner[s] St. W." is probably the furrier Martin Kosminski who more likely would have been located in the more affluent West End Berners Street than in the East End's Berner Street. See Paul Begg, The Uncensored Facts, pp. 206-208. As Paul documents, Martin Kosminski was a Polish Jew from Kalisch, Poland, born on July 12, 1845, the son of a furrier named Mark Kosminski. Martin Kosminski was granted British naturalization in December 1877. He appears to have lived until the 1920s since his business was taken over by his son Charles in 1922.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Robert Maloney
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 10:41 am | | Hello everyone,
Jon, I'm not sure that I am looking forward to 4 more months of research! But thanks anyway.
Hello again Mr. Omlor,
You are right, of course. And I regretted writing that line shortly after posting it. It was a purely emotional response and not carefully considered at all. My only defense for it was that I was running out of breath defending the more insignificant supporting details of the story. Needless to say, I appreciate any comments from you, and I definitely consider them all quite seriously.
Viper, like Mr. Omlor, I too "enjoy" finding a weakness in a person's argument and taking part in friendly debates. I have tried to avoid the point for point exchanges only because I just don't have the time. But you and Yaz have raised so many issues, that I just can't help myself.
First, regarding descriptions, you say that you just don't place much store in any of them and then go on to say with the possible exception of the two who admit they did not get a good view of the murderer.(timing? - what about Schwartz?) Now one can easily see from this type of argument that you are not happy with the wide variation in the eyewitness descriptions because they clearly work against the lone killer theory that you support. Imagine trying to list all the reasons why each and every description given to us by an eyewitness is for some reason worthless. It would defy logic and probability. We all know that eyewitness reliability is questionable, and on that point I agree, but the range in this case is staggering. And I do not believe that it is proper police procedure to simply throw out all or any eyewitness descriptions because they do not fit the "theory" in the case. The theory should be arrived at by analyzing and comparing the descriptions first, not the other way around.
Then you write ('overwhelmingly' the 'likelihood' is that the murderer worked alone). Well, overwhelmingly and likelihood do not carry the same "weight", so assuming you mean overwhelmingly, how, may I ask, can you use that word? There really is overwhelming evidence that the killer worked alone? Can you show me where it is please? Overwhelming might be five different people giving very evenly matched descriptions and even then I'm not sure that is overwhelming.
Then you write "It is a fact that where serial murders of this type have been solved, they are nearly always the work of one man." There are so many things wrong with this statement, I not sure where to begin.
(1) It is a fact? You can back this up with facts? (2) Saying serial murders of this "type" suggests we know what type this was and that is what we are trying to figure out. (3) But Viper, this case wasn't solved. So can't one make the argument that those cases that were not solved were the work of more than one man? Don't you really need to know what happened in the cases that were not solved in order to make that statement?
Then you argue the more people involved the better the chance for discovery. What would be the purpose of "organized crime" then? Do you have any idea of how many unsolved murders there were in Chicago during the Al Capone era? How many people do you think were involved in the St. Valentines Day massacre? Everyone "knew" Capone had ordered the hit but he was never charged with anything more than tax-evasion.
Now when you started writing about large rewards and pardons for associates, then you were on the "right" track. I suggest you start thinking about those inter-relationships if you really ever want to solve this case.
Worktime so I will answer Yaz when I get back.
And Yaz, calm down.
Mr. George, perhaps you missed the part where I said this is a little story about my attempt to track down the chandler shop night man. Being that Maurice Kosminski gave his occupation as shopmaster/baker, and lived at 70 Berner, I thought it possible he could have worked at a chandler shop. So when I found the address 48 Berner W. = M. Kosminski and knowing that the chandler shop was 48 Berner E., I thought what a funny coincidence when I was trying to link M. Kosminski to 48 Berner E. And I wrote, quite clearly, that this address probably was referring to Martin Kosminski on Berners even though he IS NOT listed at 48 Berners because a Jewelry Shop was. Remember there is NO 48 Berner W. It is either 48 Berners W. or 48 Berner East.
My address read 48 Berner W. So there is a 50-50 chance as to what this address was really referring to as this address is evidently a mistake, one that I admit probably refers to Martin in the West. In other words, just a coincidence, and having no significance to this case. I hope I am clear now. But keep trying Mr. George, I'm due for a mistake sooner or later.
Rob |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 11:33 am | | Hi, Rob:
In the list of Donors to the Society for Relieving the Aged Needy in 1891 which you mention you found in your research and that cites M. Kosminski of "48 Berner Street W" (see http://www.jeffreymaynard.com/Aged91EK.htm, it is clear that the letters after the street names are postal districts, which would make this location in the West End, and most probably therefore Berners Street.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Robert Maloney
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 12:51 pm | | Hi Yaz,
Your message conveyed a certain amount of palpable disgust. I am sorry you feel that way and I can only tell you how I feel while I am tossing out various theories on black magic and using names that are so obviously ethnic in connection with these murders. I don't like it. I don't like it one bit, believe me. But I wouldn't have written what I did if I didn't believe it. Lets be honest, you can't solve any case if you are going to be overly-sensitive to any group or religion. Your message demonstrated a more than casual interest in how Jews, witchcraft (by using the k in magic) and women, are being regarded in this case. And for the most part, I agree with you.
I have not gotten deep into this part of my argument yet but I am very interested in the part the public house played in connection to prostitution. I am not denying the sexual components to this story, but when there is more than one person involved, there are different motivations as well. Financial, sexual, political, and religious motivations are all present here. I'm not sure why people want to, or need to, oversimplify. And that is why I have said that I don't like the "Poor Polish Jew" theory at all. And I am not even Jewish. (though my wife is I should add)
I believe, as I have said before, some of the killers MAY have been Jewish and some MAY have been Christian, but I don't see why this is important at all. It is only when a label gets applied, and when there is so little true evidence
to begin with, that I think people should get upset. I don't care what the killers were. I believe people should be trying to get at the truth, wherever that leads. So when you write that there is no evidence of black magic murders anywhere at anytime, you are simply wrong. I don't know if you were being defensive when you wrote that or you really are unaware of what has gone on and what is going on to this very day. But that approach and that attitude won't lead you to the truth in this case whether I am right or wrong that the 'Dear Boss' letter was a black magic money spell and the murders were ritual killings.
I really want to be very clear about this. I believe that most people who practice magic are good people who mean no harm to anyone. And they are almost always highly intelligent as well. I really do feel bad bringing up these theories in connection to Jack the Ripper. Again, I am not trying to push a theory or write a book or sell anything or slander any group. I was simply giving my interpretation of the 'Dear Boss' letter and then trying to show how it connected to the murders. I intend to write a post going over 'Dear Boss' in detail and then go into Jack the Ripper retirement.
I am really sorry if you think I have been careless in what I have written. I did not mean to be. I do respect a good deal of what you and Mr. Omlor and others have written. And in no way was I suggesting to have solved this case. I was only trying to add to it.
Rob |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 02:18 pm | | | As a possible supplement to the above post by Chris, the "Contributions to the Sick Room Helps Society" for 1907-8 list a Mrs. M. Kosminski, 50 Brener's Street, W. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 02:48 pm | | Yazoo,
Let me ask you a question if I might. Does the saucy Jacky postcard look like it might contain the Rune Algiz (the protection Rune, antler/horns) inscribed on it? (to help get it through the mail) And if there is an M on Mary Kelly's wall, might that possibly be Ehwaz? (the symbol of the horse) And might the deerstalker hats be symbolic of Algiz as well. And why would Astrakhan Man have a horseshoe pin and a divinity stone that was red (for the element of fire) and carry a parcel wrapped in American oilcloth? And you know that seals are used for enclosing spells in envelopes.
And you don't think the farthings were part of a money spell where they placed a hankerchief over the small pile? And the flower color combination of red/white is not part of Gypsy ritual where you spin around counterclockwise? Like Liz Stride for example. And black magicians are not interested in gateway symbolism? Which is another interpretation for the Runes on Mary's wall.
And red ink for spell writing does not ring any bells with you? And you do know, I believe, that to make an ink from blood you mix citric acid (ginger beer) with sour salt. The "good luck" in Dear Boss means nothing to you? And "job" did not mean spell? and "work" did not mean craftwork? "Right" track was not a play on "left-hand" path?
And that folk magicians and black magicians are not fond of the color "RED" and do not use clippers (clip the lady's ears off) and seam RIPPERS.
They do not use Paternoster symbolism (Isaacs stayed in little PATERNOSTER Row right before the killings) And had a fiddle in his room. And you know the importance of a fiddle. Is it not considered extremely lucky in folk/black magic to find keys? And is not considered very bad luck to find a knife? (Whitechapel Road)
Are these not part of the funny little games. Wasn't an out house in the gateway Liz Stride was found in locked from the inside just like Mary Kelly's room and don't you recognize this from the Jack Sheppard stories? Do you really think the second part of "Dear Boss" was really written in crayon?
This came after he wrote the words 'wasn't good enough' and 'curse it' and 'no luck yet'. Remember Red ink is fit enough I hope Ha-Ha. He means as opposed to the proper Red stuff. And you also know that "stuff" is actually a stage in the process of making tallow which is made from various parts of the kidney? And that "glue" is a stage as well? And when he wrote "doctor" he wasn't laughing because he knows he is a Hex-master doctor? One who performs black magic for a cost to anyone who wants a spell or hex cast. (the next JOB I do) And you don't think that he was initiating the other killers but differentiated the killings by saying (Grand work the LAST JOB was) referring to Annie Chapman, the killing with the most surgical skill displayed? And this does not explain why there was such confusion as to whether he displayed skill or not? The fact that there were other killers? And the oval shaped blood clots on Liz Stride, whose hand was across her chest was not rosary/Paternoster symbolism? What about the grapes? Does that not ring any bells either? And the bonnets and other "whoredom" symbolism? And the saying "you would say anything but your prayers" just happens to fit perfectly with what I am suggesting here by pure chance? And being that this was said by a man seen before the man seen by Schwartz does not suggest more than one killer? And finally Mary Kelly. Her name (MARY) does not mean anything to you and the way she was dressed and the reason for the fire? You don't recognize this "Mass" and what they did to her and why she was so mutilated? This was not Black Magic?
Rob |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 03:48 pm | | | Could the writer of Dear Boss have been a Satanist without being JTR? Just another hoaxer who also happens to be a cultist? And how could you make sure Stride's blood clots were the right shape? Especially if Diemschutz interrupted you. |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 04:03 pm | | Hey Rob:
Not to be rude, but I see no reason to answer all of your questions since only a few (albeit, sarcastic) sample answers will suffice:
On the runes: runes, like beauty, are in the eyes of the beholder.
The M on Kelly's wall: If...then...[insert your personal variables] Big IFs and big THENs, as well.
On deerstalkers hats: I won't testify to their magical use but I'm sure they came in handy on cold and blustery days, and some gents probably looked quite natty in them too.
On seals to close envelopes: Hmmm. If I'm not mistaken, seals were used throughout human history to identify some authority (who supposedly held exclusive use of the said seal) and also simply as a fashionable and less messy way of ensuring the privacy of a letter's contents -- used by untold numbers of people, again throughout history, until the real evil bastards invented that nasty-tasting glue that bonds two paper surfaces -- forming a seal for privacy -- when the sender applies saliva to it..that is, the "self-sticking" envelope.
All of your questions fall into the category of finding hidden/esoteric/magical meaning in natural, simple, and/or random events, acts, objects...for instance, the ancient and persistent belief that eclipses portend great (mostly bad) events; or comets had some sympathetic influence on natural forces like earthquakes/hurricanes/etc; and shooting stars are capable of granting wishes; the various fetishes about dead criminals' bones (and, to be fair, dead saints' and holy folks' bones too).
The Newgate Calendar entry for John Sheppard describes Sheppard's advice to his friends that, if he could not perform another of his pre-Houdini escapes before he was hanged (and he almost pulled off that trick except for one lucky cop's last minute search which found a pocketknife on dear old Johnny), all his friends had to do was:
a) immediately get his body to a warm bed
b) open a vein
c) the blood that would supposedly flow would bring him back to life
This recipe for resurrection was given to Sheppard on supposedly good authority. But do note that Johnny-boy still relied on his pocketknife to cut his ropes on his way to his hanging rather than on the recipe for resurrection. Johnny had his priorities straight!
Is Sheppard's recipe for resurrection magic or simple (in all senses of the word) folk-belief? These two ideas, magic and folklore, are often indistinguishable. Which preceded the other? Which contains any element of any kind of "truth"? If there is some kind of truth in these beliefs, what is that truth?
These are the same silly folk beliefs that include meeting and bargaining with the devil at a crossroads (and how many saps waited through wind and rain; sleet and hail; all in vain) prompted by the various execution and body disposal methodologies -- killing or displaying malefactors at the crossroads outside of town -- used for "criminals" (including probably the helpless stranger who wandered into the wrong village at the wrong time, for instance during a sudden and inexplicable epidemic) of countless pre-industrial communities.
Criminals; their deaths; their places of execution and burial...all became part of widespread folklore, the details of these beliefs or legends sometimes containing a core common element or a few overlaps. The purpose, meaning, and use of this folklore varied from community to community; from individual to individual.
Folklore and the bastardization of both Western and Eastern religious beliefs coalesced in the 19th century to produce squads of theosophist, spiritualists, magicians, hoodoo voodoo, and rampant charlatinism/exploitation.
These charlatans, like the simple and/or uneducated people of the heydays of folklore, never failed to steal some current event or personality to add to their personal folklore/myths or, in the worst cases, their abuse of their charismatic power.
The darker charlatans and exploiters invented their own creeds, spells, rituals, and texts to re-invent themselves in the eyes of their gullible followers who were expected to pay for the maintenance and well-being of these "masters" -- and when the followers grew wise and closed their checkbooks, the ex-"masters" simply turned their entrepreneurial sights on publishing their "secret" knowledge and wisdom. Thus was born modern "Black Magic."
Now, I've jumped around quite a bit but my path is progressive, leading to the ideas that made up some of the ingredients of magic and magical thinking.
This (over-)simplified progression of ideas is Black Magic.
Now I've at least attempted to answer your questions, why don't you answer mine?
Where are you getting this orthodoxy of belief and meaning; dogma and ritual; symbolism and practice? What are your texts or authorities? Where is the historical evidence that any of these ideas/practices/rituals/texts of yours were ever known or applied prior to their miraculous appearance in 1888 London? (I obviously can't dissuade you from the belief in supposed meanings in all your examples being their own proof that such things existed in 1888.) Where are you getting the specificity of terms like "hex master" and kidney-glue?
In the end, John Sheppard couldn't outrun or escape his death sentence. Not exactly who I would choose as a role model for my criminal proclivities, if I was ever so inclined.
But bringing back the ghost of that old, executed, but supposedly still-powerful image of the executed 18th century criminal, John Sheppard, is deeply rooted in the creation and belief in folklore -- a modern example of which seems to be playing out right before my eyes here on the Casebook.
Yaz |
|
|
|
|
