|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Why Did He Suddenly Stop?
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Why Did He Suddenly Stop?
Author: Michael Conlon
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 02:45 pm |        | Before departing the "Casebook",
I would again like to thank all who have expressed their kind support.
In parting I would just like to reiterate that I nowhere invented or 'assembled' any descriptions in my articles, that all claims I made, though admittedly gathered in support of my "suspect driven" work, have honest and accurate citations and references.
It is clearly documented that Miniter offered varying descriptions of the man seen with Brown on the night of her murder. The "few words" her killer spoke on this occasion disclosed he had an accent. Miniter took it to be, perhaps, German. LaBruckman was known to speak with an accent. We have no idea what it sounded like.
Because Miniter's descriptions were varying and suspect, it is well attested to that the police came to discount her veracity in this regard several days after her "standard" description was disseminated. It was called "wholly unreliable" and it was suggested that she was possibly giving out false information because she knew the killer.
Here is merely one reference from, in this particular instance, "The New York Recorder": "The confidence in Mary Miniter's ability and willingness to identify the man to whom she let the room that fatal night is not strong now. The police fear she has not given a correct description of him. The alarm sent out is therefore far from accurate in its description of the man who accompanied poor old Shakespeare...If the woman's veracity is impeached so soon she will be little use in identifying any one whom the police may happen to arrest and who answer the description she has given in every detail[the 'standard description' of the man with the blonde mustache, etc.]".
As I mentioned, the police feel this was a changed description because she may have known the man.It is clear she knew LaBruckman, at least by sight.
Despite the police's distrust of the 'standard' description, it is clear that they still took Miniter's assertion that the man was Ali's companion, Frenchy No.2, very seriously, as they assiduously continued to search for him in a huge manhunt. Thus, it was reasonable and justifiable that the description I provided, because it was the one accompanied by her assertion that she recognized the man as Ali's friend, Frenchy No.2, and because this assertion was the thing which the police took most seriously and found most salient,was most likely the more accurate description.
Therefore, any attempt to dismiss LaBruckman as a suspect on the basis of what Mr. Vanderlinden contests is the 'standard' description is, I would submit, doomed to failure. What came to be important to the police was not the description, but the identification of the man as Ali's companion, Frenchy No.2. Any person claiming to dismiss LaBruckman because of Miniter's modified description is neglecting the foregoing facts of the case. (by the way, I have only just discovered yet another link between Ali and LaBruckman; they shared the same alias).
Again, thanks to all who so kindly contacted me of these past few days. I wish you all well.
Best regards,
Mike |
Author: Kevin Braun
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 05:18 pm | | Mike,
It is sad to see you go. Continued success in your research. All the best!
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Bob Dulaney
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 06:13 pm | | Dear Mike,
I have always held you and your research in the highest regard, even awe.
I still do, only more so. The best always, and thank you!
Bob |
Author: Diana
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 08:18 pm | | | Even if La Bruckman was not the killer of Carrie Brown, we may be able to come to a conclusion about whether JTR was her killer. As I think about the list of mutilation murderers that I am aware of, there were perhaps 3 or 4 in the entire twentieth century whose work was as awful as Jack's. I would think that anyone whose work was that horiffic would have made the books. Is this kind of thing going on all the time and it never makes the nightly news? I doubt it. If the entire 20th century produced only 4, then how likely is it that there were two running around in the late 1880's or early 1890's? |
Author: Paula Wolff
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 09:33 pm | | As much as why he STOPPED to me is why he STARTED. Someone tried to answer this for me on a thread somewhere else but lost it. I think Jack was at least in the first stages(or later) of craziness ( and for perfectionists out there, choose your own word) and I still go with Mr. Kosminski. David Cohen is of great interest though. Anyway, what triggered all this ghoulishniess?
Ta,
Paula |
Author: Billy Markland
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 11:44 pm | | Diana, as far as murderers, your comments, to the best of my knowledge are correct. The portion regarding mutilations, well, another story entirely (remember, the side telling the story determines whether it was murder or a "legitimate" kill). Here is a list of "mutilations" inflicted upon dead whites after a battle (losing) with the Sioux and Cheyenne:
Eyes torn out and laid on the rocks.
Noses cut off.
Ears cut off.
Chins hewn off.
Teeth chopped out.
Joints of fingers. [sic]
Brains taken out and placed on rocks with other members of the body.
Entrails taken out and exposed.
Hands cut off.
Feet cut off.
Arms taken out from socket.
Private parts severed and indecently placed on the person.
Eyes, ears, mouth, and arms penetrated with spear heads, sticks and arrows.
Ribs slashed to separation with knifes.
Sculls [sic] severed in every form from chin to crown.
Muscles of calves, thighs, stomach, breast, back, arms and cheek, taken out.
Punctures upon every sensitive part of the body, even to the soles of the feet and palms of the hand.
I think about every one of the above, at one time or another, can be related to JtR slayings. Did an Indian do it? Doubtful, but there are so many ways a human body can be mutilated that have been performed in war-time settings that well, if a civilian tumbled upon what could be done with a knife.....
Hmmm, maybe I gave away my unknown suspect, a veteran of one of Queen Victoria's "little" wars, particularly in Afganistan.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Author: Philip Rayner
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 05:53 am | | Billy, you raise an intersting point.
I read a work of fiction, the name of which escapes me for the moment. The chapters were preceded by descriptions of atrocities committed by 'Normal sane and rational' people in wartime. One which stays with me because it is so cruel is the finding in India of a house in which a massacre took place. On a wall was a hook and about the height of a child below this were spatters of blood shaped like partial footprints. I leave you to draw the conclusion. In another was the story of a group of Native americans trapped in a cave. Tey sent out a young girl under a truce flag and the child was literally mown down by gunfire.
Whether true or not I am sure we have all read of so called normal people who have a sadistic nature which only comes out in certain circumstances (War and the treatment of slaves come to mind.)
If Jack somehow managed to convince himself that there was an excuse for his murders of the type described above, he wouldn't be the first to act on that. I note your suspect is an ex soldier, which has parallels in the problems modern war veterans have adjusting to peacetime situations.
It does make sense. The ability to kill without punishment Ie in wartime coupled with a wish to cleanse London of the filth (Not my word, just used to illustrate what JTR may have thought.) infesting it may have led to the murders. This could have been coupled with strong religious views reinforcing the cleansing part. If your suspect is who I think it is he did have strong religious views. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 04:29 pm | | Mr. Conlon,
I have already apologized for stating that you had "selectively edited" the shorter descriptions that you have used in your two articles, stated that you had not, that I had been wrong and explained why I said this. If you are not satisfied with this, if my apology was not sincere enough for you or, apparently, not obsequious or groveling enough for you, Mr. Conlon, tough. You wanted an apology, I gave it. You wanted an explanation, I gave that. If you want blood your not going to get it.
As for your theory, one of the things that becomes very clear when reading your touchy defence is that you seem unwilling to put the murder investigation of Carrie Brown into any sort of context or to take a discriminating look at the evidence.
Stating that Mary Miniter changed her description of C. Kniclo and was considered an unreliable witness by the police may impress those who know or understand little of the facts but it doesn't stand up to any scholarly scrutiny. Without showing that she had been arrested as a material witness and while in custody manipulated by a police force that was desperate and running scared, i.e. without putting her statement into context, you cannot weigh Mary Miniter's importance, or reliability, as a witness.
You state, "Additionally, there never was any C. Kniclo - it was established during the trial that he was invented as a name to put in the hotel registry in compliance with city ordinances." The trial of Ameer Ben Ali was a sham where the jury was "packed", evidence was manufactured, witnesses either perjured themselves or were frightened into changing their earlier statements and the prosecution needed at all costs to downplay the importance of C. Kniclo. Seen in this context how trustworthy is any of the prosecutions or police evidence regarding Kniclo?
Without a discriminating look at the evidence, and without putting anything in context, one can claim anything M. Conlon. I can quote several newspaper reports that absolutely prove that Ameer Ben Ali was the murderer of Carrie Brown. He was found guilty of her murder after all. Just as you can use newspaper reports to claim that La Bruckman was arrested for being Jack the Ripper. Without discrimination you apparently just accept that this is true despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence to prove this.
Finally, Mr. Conlon, this is not some sort of game or contest. You seem put out by the fact that I have knowledge of the contents of Carrie Brown's Post Mortem report and that I am publishing it. You seem to want to cling desperately to your belief that Brown was murdered by Jack the Ripper and that the police photographs can prove this. You state, "How about, if I can get a Ripper mag. interested in publishing them, we let people possessed of normal vision and common sense decide." Wise words Mr. Conlon and about all any of us can ask. You publish your photos, I'll publish the contents of the P.M. and others, scholars, experts and laymen, can and will decide for themselves.
Wolf. |
Author: Michael Conlon
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 07:04 pm | | My departure must be momentarily delayed.
Mr. Vanderlinden, this is getting tedious. First, you intimate that my claims are "selectively edited". When this proves false, you intimate that my claims are not backed up by evidence. I then supply the evidence, and you claim that this evidence is not in "context" or is not your particular interpretation of that evidence, and so on, and so on.
I am telling you and Casebook readers that I have endeavored to put the Brown murder in context and have, I submit, in my articles and here, done just that. All you are saying is, that it is not YOUR context, that it is not the thesis you wish to present in YOUR interpretation of the evidence.
All assertions I have made are backed up by solid citations and references. For instance, here are just the first two citations I could quickly find that the whole existence of C. Kniclo is an established canard. AND it was not "downplayed" by the police or prosecution as you contend, but was elicited by the defense. From the "New York Herald": "There was no name put on the register that night, but next day, after the murder was discovered, Thompson, the head bartender, told [Miniter] to say that the man had given the name of C. Nicole(sic) and that name was put in the register. As a matter of fact, the man gave no name."
From the "Morning Journal": " 'Shakespeare paid me a silver dollar, which she got from the man, and asked him to get some beer. I got some mixed ale for her. I did not put the names in the hotel register that night, and the next morning Tommy Thompson told me to say that C. Kniclo and wife had occupied room No.31 the night before...On cross-examination, Mary Miniter admitted that C. Kniclo was not put on the book until the next day after the murder was discovered. It was put there, she said, by bartender Thompson so as to make it appear right.
'As a matter of fact', said lawyer House[defense attorney], 'does any one ever register at the house?'
'No, sir, was the reply.
'Then you lied to the police when you told them the man had registered as Knoclo?'
'I did', was the frank admission. 'I did so because I was ordered to do so by the bartender and Mr.Jennings, the proprieter."
As to her claims about the man of your 'standard description', it is thoroughly and clearly attested to that the police completely came to disregard this description and suspect that, for whatever reason, Miniter was being intentionally deceptive and did not want to identify the true killer. If you wish to theorize that the police were wrong in doing this, go right ahead and give it your interpretation, but realize that it is just that, your interpretation.
I agree that we can quote varying and often contradictory news reports in support of varying theories. That is why I asked you to address my central point : that the man being sought as Frenchy No. 2 indeed turned out to be LaBruckman who was, indeed, tracked down because of the anonymous tipster who said that he,indeed, matched Miniter's description, and who, indeed, it rather startlingly turns out, was arrested in London on suspicion of being JtR. I agree that I have not yet found vey much more than these 'bare bones', but they certainly seem to be remarkable and suggestive.
Your silly claim that anything can be proven by supplying quotations because you can find quotations that Ali committed the murder, is the most flagrant example of taking something "out of context" in this whole polemic.
We both know, Mr.Vanderlinden, that Ali was eventually pardoned of this crime because his conviction was highly unsound. All of this, I have placed in context in my articles, so your analogy is hopeless.
All that you have shown, Mr. vanderlinden, is that you wish to present a different theory, with a different interpretation of the material from that which I have cited. You should do this, Mr. vanderlinden, and attempt to make a strong case for yourself, as I believe I have done. Allow people to draw their own conclusions, but don't set up a 'straw man' in preparation of your claims. Don't play this silly game claiming I can only impress "those who know or understand little of the facts", which don't stand up to scrutiny" which apparently means your "scrutiny" based on your interpretation. I hate to name drop, but Stewart Evans, who researched and wrote about this case in his book about Tumblety, and knows all about your 'standard description' of Miniter's man, has on several occasions informed me that he finds La Bruckman to be a completely legitimate and interesting suspect.
Again, everything I claim is documented by solid references. If it doesn't align with your take on the material, then you have an alternative theory based on alternative understandings. As I said, go ahead and make your case. I am not bothered by this, as you would like to suggest. BUT I am bothered by malicious accusation.
Finally, you claim that I seem "put out" by the fact that you have knowledge of the contents of Brown's postmortem report. How so, Mr. Vanderlinden?
I merely stated that I have discovered Brown's postmortem photos and I, personally, believe that they show a great similarity to Ripper victims. I have also found news reports of Coroner Jenkins' descriptions of the wounds,again, sounding much like Ripper victims. There are also indictment records discussing cuts to the breasts, lower extremities and abdomen which again seem consistent.I have found many news reports by newsmen WHO HAD SEEN BROWN's BODY IN SITU, and graphically described her wounds and the facts that her entrails had been pulled out and severed organs were found in the bed, again, sounding to this "layman", very much like a Ripper killing. I would ask anyone with common sense whether, had this particular murder occurred in London in 1888 instead of New York in 1891, would the authorities have doubted for a minute that this was a Ripper killing?
Again, to all who have expressed kind words to me, thank you very much. I intend this to be a final departure, unless someone once again makes untrue allegations concerning me.
M. Conlon |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 08:39 pm | | Hi Michael,
Your reputation for thoughtfulness, accuracy is well established. I do not agree necessarily with all of your conclusions, but I think your work has been outstanding and the integrity of your efforts should be emulated by others.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Michael Conlon
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 11:26 pm | | Richard - a last, quick thank you, as I slip out the Casebook's back door (Hopefully for good).
I don't believe that I have anywhere made any extravagant claims for my suspect or for the killing of Brown being unquestionably Ripper related. It may or may not be, - Mr. Vanderlinden's claims not withstanding.
I have merely constructed what I think to be a fair and strong case centered around the fact that the man who was originally the object of a massive manhunt in a killing that had much in common with the Ripper's work, turned out to be someone who was a regular 'visitor' to London and had, astonishingly, been arrested as a suspect in the Whitechapel murders. It is certainly something worthy of mention and consideration.
What this recent 'dust-up' has convinced me of, however, is the fact that I am simply not as emotionally and psychologically invested in the study of Jack the Ripper as many people here are. This is not a judgment of any kind, merely a self-observation. Therefore, I think I will now take a long and perhaps permanent vacation from this topic,but all 'Ripperologists' of 'good will' have my best wishes now and in the future.
Thanks!
Mike |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 12:23 am | | Hi Mike,
You heretic! Don't you know that you are supposed to commit your entire life to the case and then fret and scream, rant and rave if anyone disagrees with you?
I have enjoyed your writings and posts - and I will miss your sensible and polite tone!
Take care,
Rich |
Author: Billy Markland
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 12:47 am | | Philip,
Alas, I have no suspect, I am simply trying to move the pieces of the puzzle around to where they make some sort of sense.
Now, having said that, I think delving into the overall schema may, at least in my case, be more of the way to go rather than concentrating on individuals we know of. Honestly, I do not have strong convictions that any of the known "suspects" of being the individual known to history as JtR were in fact guilty. I do believe it likely that none of the persons mentioned so far are the culprit. Let's face it, we know what: 4 persons who were classified at one time or another as insane, one who committed suicide, one painter who wanted to be a cop, two convicted serial killers, one "quack", one peeping Tom, a bunch of Irish nationals looking to create discord, a sadistic sailor, one poor cotton broker, and about 7-8 more of different degrees of suspicion. What was the male population of London during 1888 between 18-50? The "known" suspects, I think, constitute an extremely small sample of the overall eligible population.
As I have been working on something else, I have not taken the time to draw up timelines, look up train schedules, and perform the necessary research needed to begin to home in, to my satisfaction, on not who the murderer was, but where he obtained his skill level. Our boy Jack was, in my opinion, not a gifted amateur!
Before the Cornwell thread degenerated, numbers were tossed around of the total population of England at that time. Viper, or one of the many experts could likely give us a rough estimate of how many men were within a four hour train trip of London's East End. Four hours? Just an arbitrary demarcation on my part based upon quick calculations of the estimated times of death.
I am not giving away anything, as I haven't anything to give, except a strong hunch, that our Jack was either current military or former military, who had served in either the Pacific or mid-East and had been engaged in combat. I am inclined to believe current military, but again, just a hunch.
One of these days I will move the pieces around and they will constitute a recognizable whole, but until then, I will continue to persevere in my spare time.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Author: richard nunweek
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 08:50 am | | | hello everyone. why did the murders stop ,if you are given a job to do and you complete it. you stop until you are given the next task. i would say any killer is not of complete sound mind but for exsample if the killer was given the unpleasant task of siliencing six women as in a form of contract , he would not carry on just because he found it NICE. but after the kelly victim would just stop job complete. |
|
|
|
|
