|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Remove Ostrog and Cream from the suspects list
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Remove Ostrog and Cream from the suspects list
Author: Stuart
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 04:09 am |        | I don't know if this has been suggested, but I think these 2 guys (and possibly others) need to be removed from the suspects list.
Put them in a new area called "Eliminated from our enquiries" or something.
They couldn't have been Jack as they were under lock and key elsewhere at the time.
Could and should they be removed?
I think so.
Discuss.
Cheers
Stu |
Author: chris scott
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 10:25 am | | Hi Stu
I's certainly agree with you that both Ostrog and Cream are highly unlikely candidates to be JTR. Despite the various contortions to prove Cream had a "double" who somehow took hism place in Joliet prison I think he can be safely discounted.
Whilst I have always thought Ostrog an extremely long shot as a candidate, I'm interested when you say he was under lock and key at the time of the murders.
According to the A-Z, on 30 September 1887 he was committed to the Surrey Pauper Lunatic asylum suffering from "mania" but was released on 10 March 1888. As the police issued a notice in October 1888 trying to trace him, I always assumed that his whereabouts at that crucial time were unkonw to the authorities.
Can you let me know if there is any more recent evidence that shows he was incarcerated at the time of the murders and if so where.
Many thanks
Chris S |
Author: Stuart
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 10:34 am | | Hi Chris.
The bit about Ostrog being in jail in France is in Sugden's Complete History somewhere. I dig it out when I get home (I'm at work now) and post the relevant wording and page number tomorrow.
I'd never heard the "Cream had a double" bit before. Jeez that sounds like an invention to keep a theory alive if ever I heard one. Still...
...and I've just found this too on the Ostrog thread...
Author: David Radka
Tuesday, 11 September 2001 - 12:46 am
Why do you people continue to postulate suspects who couldn't have done it? What is this fascination with marking time, wasting your precious biological clocks, setting a new world's record for watching paint dry? Ostrog was in France when the murders took place, for God's sake. You can do this, and you can write musical comedies about Jack ther Ripper, but have you got half a brain in your head to actually work toward a solution?
You have never had any idea whatever of who you're dealing with.
David
I don't know who david is, but he puts his point strongly there!
catch you tomorrow.
Stu |
Author: Stuart
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 10:48 am | | | Deleted double posting. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 12:44 pm | | Hi Stu:
Don't forget Lewis Carroll!
By the way, if you read more of David's posts, I'm sure you'll see a pattern. He's a strong opinioned person, for sure.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Kevin Braun
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 01:46 pm | | Here is a link to a short review by Nick Warren of Philip Sugden's The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. From that review...
Somewhat more controversially, Sugden claims to have demolished the case against another of Scotland Yard’s contemporary suspects, Michael Ostrog, who was arrested by the Paris police on 26 July 1888 and convicted on 14 November 1888. Since the Ripper murders occurred between August and mid-November of that year, he argues that Ostrog is necessarily innocent of the crimes. But would he really have been held in police custody for nearly four months?
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 02:47 pm | | "I don't know who david is"
Stu,
David is our chief suspect at the moment.
Sir Robert |
Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 04:18 pm | | Just a few hours after I wrote the post above about Ostrog, I was acutely stricken and was taken to the hospital. They hooked me up to life support, and I put myself in God's hands. And with His help, I'm still here, looking forward to life and work.
David |
Author: Stan Russo
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 05:26 pm | | Stuart and all,
There are only four men proposed as suspects who can conclusively be cleared of committing the murders.
Frank Miles - locked away in a mental asylum at Brislington
John William Smith Sanders - locked away in West Malling Place mental asylum in Kent
Dr. John Hewiit - proposed as Sickert's unnamed veterinary student. Locked away in Coton Hill mental asylum during the nights of the murders.
Dr. Thomas Neill Cream - locked away in Joliet Prison. Released after the 1888 murder spree.
Other suspects such as Ostrog, George Gissing, and everybody's new favorite hated suspect Walter Sickert have been suggested as being out of the country during the time of the murders.
A thorough researcher can not conclusively exonerate any suspect until it can be proven beyond any doubt that they were out of the country when the murders took place.
Ostrog may have been arrested under the alias Stanistan Sublinsky in Paris in mid-November 1888. This doesn't clear Mikhael Ostrog, it only casts further doubt as to whether he could have been the murderer.
George Gissing left London for Italy on a five month trip after finishing a story prompted by the death of his prostitute wife. Gissing left London on September 16th and is said to have returned in late February - early March. Again, this does not mean that Gissing was not 'JTR', but adds further doubt.
Walter Sickert has been talked about endlessly over the past year because of Cornwell's 'he was a bad man theory'. A letter from Sickert's mother states that Walter was swimming in Dieppe on the morning or afternoon of September 6th. This still leaves enough time for a return to London and the late night murder of Annie Chapman.
Researchers, theorists, and posters should not eliminate suspects from the suspect pool unless there is hard evidence to back up their exclusion. While I believe this may be the future of the case, eliminating suspects until there is only one left, eliminating simply for the sake of eliminating is "McCormickian", or nonsense.
STAN |
Author: Stuart
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 04:42 am | | Hi all. This is from Sugden's book.
Pages xx to xxi of Sugden’s Complete History…It should be noted that the date 14 November 1888, five days after the murder of Mary Kelly, was that of Ostrog’s conviction. The conviction record does not tell us when Ostrog re-entered France that year, or even why he stole the microscope. That information might be established by further research. But crucially, it does tell us the date of his arrest by the French police in Paris – 26 July 1888. So there we have it. During the late summer and autumn of 1888, when Jack the Ripper was slaughtering prostitutes in London, Ostrog was in custody in France. He was completely innocent of any involvement in the crimes.
Watch me get busted for copywrite infringement now 
Stan...you say this... "While I believe this may be the future of the case, eliminating suspects until there is only one left, eliminating simply for the sake of eliminating is "McCormickian", or (is?) nonsense." I must be a bit thick, but I don't know what "McCormickian" means, but I guess it means doing something that is convenient yet not entirely wise.
I wasn't proposing that we eliminate for the sake of convenience. Far from it.
Just that Ostrog and Cream were in jail elsewhere at the time.
If in the coming months and years, someone proves that Sickert was in France also, should he be removed? I think so. Why not? Do we want to keep the suspect list chock-a-block full to achieve some other goal?
I may be naive in thinking this, but surely this is the whole point. Or do we go round and round forever over already cleared suspects until in the year 2020 we've got a suspect list which contains many "impossibles". The police wouldn't. I know were not the police either, but this is "kind of" what we're doing.
Hi Divia. Ah Mr Carroll. Keep him on the suspect list unless he has been positively ruled out I say. Otherwise it WILL be the case that we are eliminating them for the sake of it. Most (if not all) think the case against him is nonsense anyway.
I don't want to appear as the newby coming here and saying "do this and that". I'm not like that. But it just seems odd (mild word usage there) to keep Ostrog and Cream on the suspect list when they're not.
Hi David. Glad you're better. Looks like you've got strong opinions. Cool.
Cheers guys
Stu |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 06:33 am | | I think you can easily remove Prince Eddy too, on the grounds that he was at various royal events at the time.
But the entries probably should remain - people come to these boards having been told that various people must have done it, and giving an explanation may help them reconsider. And there is no need to be rude by saying - hey, that guy? only a sap would think he did it! A polite 'not a likely suspect' - which is what the entries do say - seems adequate. |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:52 am | | Dear Stu:
I agree, to a certain point, as to why you should leave Carroll on the list of suspects. No, we shouldn't eliminate just for the sake of narrowing down the list. However, the case against Carroll is completely ludicrous in my opinion. Carroll could have come up with better ways of venting his murderous behavior than with some poorly constructed anagrams. And since that is the only reason why he is suspected in the first place, with no other reasonable, court admissible evidence in sight, we have no reason to suspect him in the first place.
But we have seen enough twisting of facts to fit a theory for more than one suspect in the past 30 years to know that anything can be explained away....
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Joseph P. Matthews
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 11:21 am | | Hello all,
Personally, I do not think that we should remove anyone from the suspect listings at the Casebook. If someone with absolutely no knowledge of the case sees a show on TV about the Royal Conspiracy and then does an internet search that leads them here, I think it would be a shame if they could not find those suspects listed. As the site is now, they could read about them and get the facts and then form their own opinions. The site would help them weed out the truth from the myth. I thought that was a goal of this site as well... to help dispel the myths of the case. Sweeping them under the carpet won't help them go away, but education would be a good start.
Best wishes,
Joe |
Author: John Hacker
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 11:26 am | | Hiya Joe,
I agree completely. Even the patently innoncent suspects should not be removed, they should simply be kept up to date with information that shows them to be innocent.
The Casebook is the best place for JtR related info on the net and it would be a shame to see useful information removed.
John |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 11:27 am | | Dear Joe:
Good point, well taken!
Divia |
Author: Stuart
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 11:45 am | | Thanks for the replies.
My suggestion is not to remove them from the Casebook. That wouldn't be a good idea, and Joseph and John's explanations as to why this shouldn't be done are spot on.
My original suggestion was...
"Put them in a new area called "Eliminated from our enquiries" or something."
With a brief summary of why they were suspects in the first place, followed by a summary of why they're totally innocent. Not highly unlikely suspects; just the totally innocent. Leave those who are not eliminated as suspects for the sake of "correct procedure".
Why am I suggesting this? A friend asked me about JTR and I told him what I knew. 1 minute later when I'd finished... ...he went for a look at this site. Some time later he said, "That Cream looks a dodgy character." I said, "Yeah. Looks dodgy, and was a poisoner, but was in jail at the time of the Ripper murders." He said, "Why is he down as a suspect then?". I explained about the last second "confession". My friend laughed and said "Pathetic".
Cheers
Stu |
Author: Stan Russo
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 01:22 pm | | To all,
I said those four suspects should be eliminated from consideration as 'Jack the Ripper'. Keep them in the casebook archives if you want but they should not be discussed when seriously attempting to decipher the case. Those four suspects could not have been the murderer.
Again Stuart,
Stanistan Sublisnky, not Mikhael Ostrog, was arrested in Paris in June and sentenced in November. Sublinsky may not be Ostrog, so do not eliminate Ostrog. That is eliminating for the sake of eliminating.
I do not personally believe Ostrog, or Kosminski and Druitt were 'JTR'. MacNaghten's flaws about his 3 suspects are apparent. Unfortunately my beliefs and opinions do not warrant Ostrog's, or Druitt's and Kosminski's exclusion as a suspect.
Show Walter Sickert in France in a timeframe that makes his ability to travel back to London and commit any of the five 'canonical' murders impossible and I will be the first to eliminate him from consideration. Just because you believe he would have stayed in France past September 8th, does not mean he did so. Proof to eliminate is needed.
"McCormickian" - nonsense, of the likes of the stories and inventions told by researcher Donald McCormick who invented an entire suspect, based on another theorist's invented suspect.
The anagram theory regarding Lewis Carroll is outrageous and most likely false. Again, my opinion. Carroll can not be eliminated simply because the theory that prompted his proposal as a suspect is flawed. If that were the case eliminate Montague John Druitt because he was not a Doctor, not 41 years of age, not a failed barrister and did not commit suicide right after the November 9th murder in Miller's Court.
You wouldn't be so carefree to eliminate Druitt despite the errors that prompted his proposal as a suspect. A researcher and theorist should remain objective and observe a certain degree of rules when discussing suspects, such as - Was Lewis Carroll 'JTR'? Probably not. Could Lewis Carroll have been 'JTR'? Yes.
Perhaps the casebook should be divided into two sections -
Serious researchers of the case,
and
People who just want to chat about topics regardless of research and the following of certain rules that must be adhered to while investigating a case such as this
STAN |
Author: Kevin Braun
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 03:01 pm | | Stan,
I'm confused. Your first post on this thread... "Ostrog may have been arrested under the alias Stanistan Sublinsky in Paris in mid-November 1888. This doesn't clear Mikhael Ostrog, it only casts further doubt as to whether he could have been the murderer".
Second post... "Stanistan Sublisnky, not Mikhael Ostrog, was arrested in Paris in June and sentenced in November. Sublinsky may not be Ostrog, so do not eliminate Ostrog. That is eliminating for the sake of eliminating".
With all due respect, you say that Ostrog (under the alias Stanistan Sublinsky)may have been arrested in mid November 1888 (first post). Second post, Stanistan Sublisnky, not Mikhael Ostrog was arrested in June 1888 and sentenced in November 1888. Did you change your opinion on the arrest dates or do you think that two men were working together? Again from The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, "It should be noted that the date 14 November 1888, five days after the murder of Mary Kelly, was that of Ostrog’s conviction. The conviction record does not tell us when Ostrog re-entered France that year, or even why he stole the microscope. That information might be established by further research. But crucially, it does tell us the date of his arrest by the French police in Paris – 26 July 1888. So there we have it. During the late summer and autumn of 1888, when Jack the Ripper was slaughtering prostitutes in London, Ostrog was in custody in France. He was completely innocent of any involvement in the crimes."
Maybe I have missed something. Is there a reference to Stanistan Sublisnky in The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, or in other works on JtR? Perhaps your own research? The Sublisnky arrest dates do not match Ostrog.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Stan Russo
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 05:39 pm | | Kevin,
I have read Sugden. To my understanding Sugden believes Ostrog was Sublinsky, used as one of many of Ostrog's aliases. Ostrog may have been Sublinsky, and if he was then he can be conclusively cleared. When someone comes up with the proof that Ostrog was Sublinsky or Ostrog was behind bars during the autumn of 1888 then he can be cleared. Until then ...
STAN |
Author: Garry Ross
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 11:06 pm | | Hello All,
On the subject of Lewis Carroll - didn't the author of the book write it just to prove that you can make any person look like a suspect if you try to fit them into the facts by making up silly things but it'll still be taken seriously by some?
I'm sure I read that right at the end of the book, unless of course another author picked up on a few things, didn't read it properly and then wrote another book?
take care
Garry |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 09:09 am | | Garry Ross,
I don't think so... Wallace is apparently serious.
But Trow did a nice little essay based on that premise that was published in the "Mammoth JtR". I believe it was called "The Road to Hell" and featured a real individual (I can't recall who he named offhand) put in the frame just to show how easy it is.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Author: Garry Ross
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 10:53 am | | John,
Ah, I'm probably getting mixed up, there are that many books and some ridiculous suspects that it gets easy to do that.
take care
Garry |
Author: Stuart
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 11:06 am | | Hi all. Me again…
Stan.
“Again Stuart,
Stanistan Sublisnky, not Mikhael Ostrog, was arrested in Paris in June and sentenced in November. Sublinsky may not be Ostrog, so do not eliminate Ostrog. That is eliminating for the sake of eliminating. “
Looks like there’s still some debate on this. I was sure that Sugden HAD ruled Ostrog out. If not then…yes…keep him as a suspect until he IS ruled out. My apologies. I thought he had been. I don’t want to eliminate for the sake of it.
“Perhaps the casebook should be divided into two sections -
Serious researchers of the case,
and
People who just want to chat about topics regardless of research and the following of certain rules that must be adhered to while investigating a case such as this “
I don’t think this is viable.
Stan, I’m quite sure that the vast majority of people who register on this site have a great interest in JTR, but their levels of knowledge and, therefore, discussion will vary widely.
As I have admitted openly on other threads, I’m a total newby. I know next to nothing compared to some here. My “research” has been to read some books. Not very good I admit, but I haven’t the time, money, knowledge and a whole raft of other things to enable me to research source material all the time. I am, however, conducting “research” of a kind. One of my top suspects is William Bury, who just happens to have been born and lived only 14 miles up the road from me. As there is no known photograph of this guy known to exist, I thought that I’d try and find one. You never know. I just might. If not, then what the heck. Anyway, my point is that I think everyone here is contributing in their own way, as best they can.
My IT work is one of the main reasons I suggested the removal of COMPLETELY INNOCENT people from the suspects page of this site. Move them to somewhere else, but don’t remove them at all, and certainly keep the information about them, for reasons gone over already in this thread. IT makes you think in a logical fashion, and it seemed sensible to me to remove them from the list. I would lay money down that Joe Public may browse onto this site, look at the suspect list, and go away thinking Cream and (as mentioned above) Prince Albert Victor are still viable Ripper suspects. Therefore perpetrating completely false myths. My lack of knowledge about Ostrog accepted.
If I have a fault, it is that I talk too much. Ask my girlfriend or any of my mates if you knew them. I’ll talk to anyone about anything anytime. JTR crops up now and then. I’ll talk to the guy next to me in the shop, or down the pub about it. One of the most common beliefs amongst the General Public is that JTR was a Royal Conspiracy. Nearly everyone I talk to about it, who isn’t as knowledgeable as even the briefest "delver" always quotes the Royal Conspiracy. Now I admit that proving the Royal Conspiracy 100% false is probably a tall order, but I think that if we know 100% that certain people are innocent they should be eliminated from our enquiries.
They are already eliminated from my own (and yours too by the sounds of it), but in a broader sense I was thinking of Joe Public browsing here and looking at the Suspect page. You never know, they may already know Cream and Eddy's history. They would then think it most odd in the extreme that this site still has them as suspects. An Eliminated page would be a much clearer indication of their worth as a Ripper suspect.
Just an idea.
Cheers
Stu |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 11:19 am | | Hi All,
John, from memory (which means I'm probably mistaken :-)), I recall Trow's hypothetical "suspect" was Charrington, scion of the famous brewing family.
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: John Hacker
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 11:20 am | | Jim,
Yep, I think that was it! Many thanks!
John |
Author: Stuart
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 11:45 am | | Hi Jim and John.
Charrington it was. I remember reading it and thinking, "Just goes to show eh?"
Stu |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 12:00 am | | Stu, the "Cream had a double" theory was first
mentioned (to my knowledge) in a book that had
nothing to do with Jack the Ripper except in
incidentals. It appeared in Edward Majoirbanks
biography FOR THE DEFENSE: THE LIFE OF SIR EDWARD
MARSHALL HALL. The great Edwardian barrister
told the story that he had defended a man on an
incredible charge of bigamy, where more than two
wives were involved. The client was very calm and
said he would win. He did, when a telegram arrived showing the man had been in prison at the
time of the multiple marriages. Hall was amazed
at the man's fortunate escape. Then, years later,
when Cream was on trial for his Stepney and Lambeth poisonings, Hall saw him and recognized him as the man in the bigamy trial. Subsequently
Hall heard of Cream's comment at his execution,
when he supposedly shouted "I am Jack..." as the
trap of the scaffold opened underneath him.
Hall came to the conclusion that Cream and a double had an arrangement regarding giving each
other alibis for court purposes. The double for
Cream must have been Jack the Ripper.
Hall was (for his time) a magnificent advocate,
although for all his great successes in court
(Robert Wood in the Camden Town Murder, Madame
Fahmy for the shooting of her husband at the
Savoy in 1924, Ronald Light in the Green Bicycle
Case) he lost a surprising number of big cases
too (George Joseph Smith, Frederick Seddon, Lt.
Holt, Herbert Bennett). He liked the colorful in
life. He insisted that the secret of George
Joseph Smith's murders was his hypnotic powers
over people. He insisted that Crippen could have
been proved innocent of murder by a theory that
the American herb doctor accidently overdosed his
wife with the hyoscin. Hall's story about Cream
and his double, therefore, is a part of the
barrister's love of the colorful. It should be
taken with a great deal of care.
For instance, what was the remarkable bigamy case
that Cream's double appeared at? It has never
actually been pinpointed (and Majoribanks does not
mention such a case, outside the vague description
in the anecdote). Also, certain internal information from the biography makes the story
impossible. Cream was a sinister looking man, with a cross-eyed squint, and bullet-shaped bald
head. It was difficult for anyone to forget his
appearance. But his very distinct appearance is
hard to imagine duplicated with a non-hereditary
twin in the world. At the same time, in the
Majoribanks' biography, there is a later incident
where Hall admits having a problem remembering
people's faces. So, as you can see, this is not
an easy story to believe on several levels - before testing the anecdote's basic shared facts:
the story of Cream's execution in November 1892
by Billington.
The execution story is that Cream, as the trap
was sprung, shouted "I am Jack..." It was not
(by the way) the first time that the Ripper made
an unexpected appearance in Cream's final police
case. While he was in Police Court, having the
charges formally read against him, a message arrived which announced that Cream was innocent, and the killer was the author of the message -
Jack the Ripper. No doubt to many people of that
period (only four years after the Autumn of Terror) Cream was like another Ripper. Both did
prey on prostitutes, and both had (supposedly)
medical knowledge. Their choice of locales for
the killings was similar (Stepney and Lambeth are
close to Whitechapel). The disimilarities were
glaring too: Cream seemed to enjoy mixing business
opportunities with his killings (such as blackmailing people whom he tried to frame for his killings). Cream also used poison, not a
knife. Finally, Cream also murdered at least one
man - a well-to-do Chicagoan named Daniel Stott in 1880 (for which he got a prison sentence). We
know of no male victims of Jack the Ripper.
But the public of 1892 fastened onto the similarities, not the differences. It is notable
too that at this time Cream shared public hatred
reserved for the missing Ripper with another
future Ripper suspect, the wife and children
murderer of Liverpool, England, and Melbourne,
Victoria (Australia) Frederick Deeming. Deeming's murders of his first wife and children
and his second wife occurred in the same period of
late 1891 into early 1892 that Cream operated in.
Newspaper accounts compared them frequently.
Interestingly enough, the Majoribanks' anecdote
has a stream of conciousness approach to it, for
the Cream story is followed by one about Deeming
(also dealing with a telegram arriving, only in
this case supposedly too late), and a third one
about Jack the Ripper (dealing with Lord Sheffield being threatened by someone claiming to
be the Ripper). Either Majoribanks was recalling
some way that Hall had told the three stories
(presumably after a dinner over cigars and brandy), or he pushed them together because of the way the three killers seem to naturally fit
together.
But back to Cream - the anecdote is short about
Cream's execution. The story of Cream's saying
"I am Jack" appears in John Laurence's A HISTORY
OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. What I have always found
fascinating about it is something ignored by most
people reading the story. Billington went around
telling the story about Cream's last words. But
elsewhere in Laurence's book, Billington is revealled to be a practical joker. The story of
Cream making such a statement as he is about to
hang is like people in a crowded elevator hearing
one of two men talking as they leave the car. One
says, "Now, what about unsafe cables..." as the
elevator door closes. And everyone left in the car starts sweating thinking about what they just
may have heard. The trick is that the event
involved makes further hearing impossible. Also,
analyze what Cream's statement would mean if it
was true. A man about to be executed for four
poisoning, responsible for at least five other
poisonings, is finally being executed, and he
admits he was the perpatrator of at least five
more unsolved murder - and thus deserving of the
punishment that will still his mouth forever. And
Billington's comment was had he known what Cream
was about to say, he would have stopped the
execution. Oh really? Why?
One can go on about the Cream anecdote, but I will only say that I feel Billington was exercising his sense of humor when he said Cream
made the statement. However, there was one
alternative theory. Jonathan Goodman once suggested that Cream, his nerves shot by his
inevitable doom, was admitting to wetting himself
in fright - "I am ejaculating!" Somehow that is
almost as good a suggestion as the Billington
practical joke idea.
Jeff |
Author: Howard Brown
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 06:23 am | | | Jeff: Thank you for the above post. If Goodman is correct about the alternative phrase,Cream had a soul-mate in a later serial killer,Peter Kurten,the Vampire of Dusseldorf. Kurten wished to be able to "enjoy" his execution,probably for the same resulting sexual titillation Cream experienced. Another good one on your part,as usual,Jeff !!! HB |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 11:04 am | | Thanks for the kind word Howard. I only wish
to add that Jonathan Goodman's comment about
Cream's statement referring to ejaculating
appears in THE BLACK MUSEUM: SCOTLAND YARD'S
CHAMBER OF CRIME by Mr. Goodman and Bill Waddell
(Great Britain, Harrap Ltd., 1987) on page 72.
I once suggested to him that it might be called
the "eJackulation" theory.
Jeff |
|
|
|
|
