|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 10 January 2003
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Why Did He Suddenly Stop?:
Archive through 10 January 2003
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 02:31 pm |        | Ask a silly question....
Divia |
Author: Michael Raney
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 02:57 pm | | Divia darling,
I thought you would have known better..........
maybe you were gone too long to remember........
::wink::
Mikey |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 03:04 pm | | Dear Mikey:
It's my ongoing optimism. And my resolve not to say anything negative.
*smooch*
Divia |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 06:06 pm | | Kevin. I have had no contact with Michael Conlon regarding my research into the Carrie Brown murder. In fact I never even posted to him while he was on the boards although his work on Arbie La Bruckman is obviously interesting.
After reading Mr. Conlon's two articles I gathered that his writing is suspect driven, that is to say that he has looked at the murder of Brown from the perspective of how the known facts affect his suspect, La Bruckman. I have looked at the murder from an unbiased and neutral viewpoint using as much primary information as possible.
I do look at Arbie La Bruckman, as well as several others, in the ‘Suspects' section of my article and while I have not found any new information regarding La Bruckman I have offered a critical look at Mr. Conlon's theory. Among other things I have placed police suspicions regarding him in the context of the investigation as well as point out how certain information that Mr. Conlon has downplayed in his articles actually tends to point to La Bruckman's innocence. I also point out how Mr. Conlon has selectively edited an eyewitness description of the murderer so that it more closely fits with a description of La Bruckman. The unedited version does not fit with La Bruckman.
Wolf. |
Author: Kevin Braun
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 06:57 pm | | Wolf,
Thanks. Again, I look foward to reading the article.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: David Jetson
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 08:47 am | | http://forum.casebook.org/messages/5/2288.html?SaturdayNovember1319990725pm
Thinking about this thread - particularly the section quoted below - led me to run a keyword search on Monro. The url above is what I found.
"His suspect is a certain high-ranking police official that was denied a job by Warren in 1887. The Whitechapel murders were a plot to destroy his enemy. Every step of the way, his motive was to create as much chaos as possible; he did this by cleverly inciting Samuel Barnett, George Lusk, anti-semitism, the Star, the City of London Police, Drs. Brown & Baxter, etc. Years later, when Thomas Cutbush's odd activities were dangerously renewing interest in the Ripper murders among the Home Office, this same high-ranking official [the real murderer] attempted to convince them that the Ripper case was, in fact, closed. He did this by concocting false information that the Ripper had died suddenly at the end of 1888. It's all a great big circle, and very logical."
Sounds like Monro to me. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 10:01 am | | David--My insane theorist meant Macnaghten.
I'm not sure I can do this with a straight-face, but the bare bones are something along these lines:
Monro wanted to appoint Macnaghten in 1887, but Warren blocked the appointment saying that Macnaghten was the 'only man beat by the Hindus.'
Monro resigned in protest.
[the classic motive--revenge].
Warren's public troubles began on Lord Mayor's Day, 1887, when the police were accused of roughly handling a mob. It took precisely one year for him to be out, his resignation being made public Lord Mayor's Day, 1888. The Ripper murders were a severe blow to Warren's popularity, and the Star and others used them as an excuse to badger him.
The insane theorist makes much of the murder sites "reflecting motive." Tabram's murder, for instance, took place in what amounted to Samuel Barnett's backyard, thus arrousing the indignation of the most vocal critic of the social conditions in the East End.
The 'double event' pitted the City of London police against the Met, and, more importantly, Brown vs. Baxter, and Smith vs. Anderson.
Goulston Street was designed to rekindle anti-semitism; the Lusk kidney to incite the Vigilance Committee. Etc. Etc. [You can fill in your own details, at your leisure.]
The end result? Warren eventually self-destructed. Monro was back 'in', and Macnaghten finally got the post he wanted, and kept a few memories of the good old days locked in his bottom desk drawer.
The famous Macnaghten memorandum "gives the game away", my excitable friend would often shout. How could Macnaghten have known that 'no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer' unless he himself was the man? If Sir M really had "private information" about Druitt [presumably from Blackheath School or Druitt's family] he would have known that Druitt wasn't a Doctor! So why the mistake [ie., lie]? Clearly, Sir M was lying to make the convenient suicide more palatable.
In his old age, Monro began to suspect the truth. He called the solution a 'hot potato' and his family urged him to destroy his papers and forget about it.
As you see, "a great big circle, very logical." Indeed, I believe my friend shouted something to that effect as they carried him away...
Cheers, R J Palmer.
PS. The above is a parable. All you really need to known about historiology [a real word!] can be learned by looking at Bruegal's "Landscape with the Fall of Icarus." The "grand event " doesn't really exist. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 05:33 pm | | Dear RJ,
I am following you thus far but I fear the Byzantine nature of this parable still eludes me.
I rather like your crazy friend.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 08:57 pm | | Hi,
Serial killers, according J. Douglas anyway, often initiate their killings after some "trigger event". Douglas lists things like loss of job, divorce, financial hardships, and other stressful life events, as examples. Now, if this "trigger event" was the fuel that motivated the Ripper, and if this event was somehow "resolved", it could be that this removed the anger/frustration that resulted in the killings.
This is pure and utter speculation, and I'm not entirely sure I can think of any example of where a serial killer has "taken a holiday" because the "trigger event" was resolved in their life. Albert De Salvo (Boston Strangler) has been cited in the past as having stopped strangling when sexual relations between he and his wife improved, however, recent DNA evidence makes the De Salvo-Strangler link questionable for at least one of the murders.
Anyway, this is not meant as a "final solution", but is one remote possibility. Unfortunately, and this is I think it's biggest flaw in terms of usefulness, is that it doesn't really help us by providing an avenue for investigation. Things like "The Ripper committed suicide" tell us to check for suicides, then investigate any individuals found (as with Druitt). Because trigger events tend to be personal events, they become difficult to know what to look for in the absense of a suspect already.
However, if other evidence leads one to suspect "John Doe", and one finds that shortly before the murders John Doe's wife left him, and after the "last" murder (pick your favorite "last" here), John Doe and his wife reconciled, then one could suggest (not prove, but suggest) a possible motivation for both the beginning and the end.
Fun stuff.
- Jeff |
Author: John Dow
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 10:58 am | | Maybe he stopped because he was killed by someone who knew he was the ripper (a policeman?) but who didn't have the evidence to go through the proper channels. Fearing ending up on the business end of a rope, the vigilante kept his mouth shut.
Or something. |
Author: Michael Conlon
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 06:22 pm | | Mr. Vanderlinden and "Casebook" readers,
I thought nothing could compell me to return to this forum but I was wrong.
Mr. Vanderlinden has made a serious and offensive charge against me; a charge which any writer/researcher would find, if unsubstantiated, slanderous and intolerable. I am now telling Mr.Vanderlinden and Casebook readers that Mr. Vanderlinden's accusation is baseless and false.
On this thread on Friday, Jan.3, at 6:06 P.M., while discussing an up-coming article about the murder of Carrie Brown (which he claims will be published in "Ripper Notes"), he makes the following charge: "...I also point out how Mr. Conlon has selectively edited an eyewitness description of the murderer so that it more closely fits a description of LaBruckman. The unedited version does not fit La Bruckman."
Let me first provide some background. This accusation was first called to my attention by someone who e-mailed me. I no longer read the "Casebook". Upon seeing this precipitant charge,, I immediately sent e-mails to "Ripper Notes" editors Chris George and Christopher-Michael DiGrazia expressing in plain terms my consternation and outrage at this utterly false charge. Chris George was the first to get back to me and assured me he knew nothing about this article. In the e-mails I sent to Mr. DiGrazia, I asked that he furnish Mr. Vanderlinden with my e-mail address so that he might offer some explanation to me. It seems Mr. DiGrazia does not open his e-mails over the weekend (a wise policy) and so did not return my messages until today.
Mr. DiGrazia informed me that he knows nothing about any upcoming Carrie Brown article in "Ripper Notes" and ,given the fact that he consequently has no direct involvement in Mr. Vanderlinden's claims, understandably declined to be involved in yet another Ripper dispute.
Having now made it clear that I attempted to give Mr. Vanderlinden a chance to privately explain himself, and having been unable to reach Mr. Vanderlinden, I now feel I have no choice but to publicly declaim his false accusation, pointing out that he apparently made no attempt to contact me before stating that I wilfully mislead readers of my articles.
Here are the two passages from my two articles in which I give a description of Carrie Brown's killer: From "A Tale of Two Frenchys" : [Mary Miniter] felt she had a good look at the man and was sure she could recognize him again. She described him as being about five feet, eight inches tall, about thirty years old with a long, sharp nose, small light-brown mustache and light-brown hair. She thought from the few words he spoke, that he was a foreigner. He wore an overcoat, a black derby and impressed her as fairly well dressed"
From "The Ripper In America": " She described him as being about five feet eight inches tall, about thity years old, with brown hair, a brown mustache, and sharp nose, and wearing a Derby hat and cutaway coat. From the few words he spoke, she thought he was a foriegner."
Now, here are the corresponding sources I used (which were the earliest descriptions I could find given by Mary Miniter). From "The Daily Continent" for April 25, 1891: "Mary Minetur(sic) [is] so far the most important witness in the case...she said she could describe the man and recognize him if she should ever see him again. He was, she said, of a height which the police took to be about five feet eight and a half-inches, about thirty two years old, with a small light-brown mustache and light-brown hair. From the few words she heard him speak she thought he was a foreigner, very likely a German. He wore a light overcoat, a black derby hat and seemed to impress her as fairly well dressed."
From "The New York Herald" for April 26, 1891.Discussing some local prostitutes, the paper says: "They said that the two [Frenchy#1 & Frenchy#2] usually travelled together, but when one of them appeared alone, he generally went about inquiring for the other, whom the women designated as his 'cousin'...When the inspector heard the women's story, he sent again for Mamie Minetur(sic), the woman who let the couple into the hotel that night, and questioned her about it. She then recalled the fact that "Frenchy" [Ameer Ben Ali] was in the house that night, and that she recognized the man who came in with the murdered woman as "Frenchy's" cousin (La Bruckman)...This identification was further strengthened by comparisons between the descriptions which the prisoners had given of the man who accompanied Carrie Brown.
The prisoners said the cousin was a young man with a light complexion, brown mustache, a sharp nose, a Derby hat and a cutaway coat. Mamie Minetur had described Carrie Brown's companion as about thirty-two years old, with a light complexion, brown mustache, sharp nose, a Derby hat and cutaway coat.
From this concurrence and for other reasons, which he was not willing to give out in full, Inspector Byrnes was satisfied that the man who took Carrie Brown into room No.31 that night and then killed and mutilated her was the cousin and companion in vice of the man he locked up in a cell (Ali)."
Now, Mr. Vanderlinden, please explain to me and to Casebook readers where I have selectively edited a description to fit La Bruckman. If you are referring to the fact that I omitted that the man's accent sounded German to Miniter, it is because elsewhere it is described as perhaps Italian, Greek or German. It is also because, although we know that La Bruckman spoke with an accent, we have no idea what that accent sounded like. I also have pointed out, on the "Carrie Brown" section in the Casebook, that people who knew La Bruckman believed him to be an Alsatian, this denoting,if anything, a German accent,as this region was part of Germany in 1891.
If you mean by "selective editing" the fact that a description of a man with a large, light or blonde mustache was also in circulation after the killing, this too I have addressed on the Casebook. There was indeed more than one description circulated, but the ones I gave in the articles were the earliest provided by Miniter and some prostitutes and there is reason to believe that Byrnes and the police changed the description later on for their own reasons.
Again, Mr. Vanderlinden, please tell us where I have selectively edited, and by implication, intentionally mislead readers of my articles. If you cannot, I believe an apology as public as your accusation is in order.
As to your contention that you believe Brown does not seem to be a Ripper victim, I have dug up Brown's postmortem photos (in addition to a photo of her from life) which show wounds that I contend are almost identical to those of Chapman.
I anxiously await your answer, Mr. Vanderlinden.
Mike Conlon |
Author: Diana
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 08:37 pm | | | Mr Conlon, it is so great to have you on the boards again. I am anxious to know how your La Bruckman research is going. Have you found out anything more? ALB is such a viable suspect. If I sound like I'm buttering you up its because I really am excited about ALB and I know you're angry. I hope you can post again and tell us about your research. These boards are laced with contention. Fortunately or unfortunately it makes them more interesting. Sometimes new insights arise because of the back and forth that goes on. I guess one just has to grow a thick skin. I would really like to know what you've found. Who knows, maybe ALB was Jack and you'll be the one to prove it! |
Author: Michael Conlon
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 09:27 pm | | Hi, Diana,
Many thanks for your kind words now, and in the past. I'm afraid my return to the Casebook is an anomalous one, precipitated by Mr. Vanderlinden's unfair and untrue characterization of my work. I do not intend to make an extended stay for reasons that I don't wish to rehash.
I have not spent much more time researching La Bruckman lately, as I have been quite busy in the "real world", but, as I mention above, I have secured postmortem pictures of Carrie Brown along with some wound descriptions all of which, I believe, settle the question as to whether Brown's mutilations were similar to Ripper victims. Her wounds are very similar to those described as inflicted on Chapman - same sweeping, disembowelling cuts to the lower regions, same act of disembowelling, same cutting out of organs. Sadly, the people at the Archive tell me that no autopsy report survives, so the wound descriptions are culled from the indictment papers and news reports.The photos speak for themselves.
I would like to get back into research when I find the time. I have found newspaper reports which claim that Inspector Byrnes was in contact with Scotland Yard because they suspected this might be connected to the Ripper. Perhaps some record of this correspondence exists somewhere. I would also like to find out if a record exists in England of the supposed payment made out to LaBruckman by the Government after his release on suspicion of being the Whitechapel killer.
All this is on hold for the time being, but I do appreciate your interest and kind words, Diana.
All the best,
Mike Conlon |
Author: Michael Conlon
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 09:48 pm | | P.S. On rereading my first e-mail, I see that the fifth word of the first line should read "compel" ( "writer/researchers" should learn to spell before ranting).
M.C. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 11:00 pm | | Michael--We exchanged posts on a couple of occasions. Glad to see you back, even if it's only briefly and not under the most pleasant circumstances. I've always enjoyed your contributions, and really like your research philosophy. Keep plugging away. Best wishes, RJ Palmer
Rosie--My friend thanks you. Cheers. |
Author: Michael Conlon
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 11:31 pm | | Dear R.J. and Rosie,
Please believe me when I say that you are among two of my very favorite posters. You, R.J., because of your acumen, logic and always pellucid presentation of argument and fact, and Rosie for her acumen, humor and ...well, genius for inscrutability.
All the best!
Mike |
Author: judith stock
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:02 am | | Dear Mr Conlon,
Perhaps you shouldn't hold your breath waiting for an apology or clarification (even though a "clarification" does not seem to be in order..the charges laid at your door seem pretty clear). As you already know, these boards draw fire from the oddest of quarters; those salvos are sometimes "friendly", but more often not. Quite clearly, you have made a sober and compelling case for your integrity in the matter of your article and its' contents; an apology, or at the VERY least, an explanation, is called for, but may not be received. One would hope that charges laid, are made with foundation; when not, there is no alternative BUT to apologise. Please know, from an observer and sometime poster, that I feel badly the charges were ever made. I dislike vitriol, nasty asides, slander, innuendo, wild accusations and sheer stupidity. I abhor unfounded rumours and those who pass them along. AND, I think the majority of the posters here feel the same. I would hope that those who have read your post will think twice before engaging in such behaviour, and that ALL such posts will soon be as extinct as the Dodo Bird. Every time something like this comes up, I am reminded of an old saw my great grandmother used frequently: "Consider a bigot.....don't waste your breath arguing with one, or trying to change its' mind, as there is no logic in stupidity."
Best wishes to you AND your work in the New Year,
Judy |
Author: Michael Conlon
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:19 am | | Dear Judith,
Your most kind words are deeply appreciated.
As I have mentioned to others, it is precisely this kind of captious, hostile and unwarranted one-upmanship that has gone a long way to making people disgusted with this peculiar field of interest. There are unpleasant people in all disciplines, but this one seems to draw a disproportionate number.
Again, many thanks.
Best regards,
Mike |
Author: Billy Markland
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 09:35 am | | Mr. Conlon,
Unfortunately, I came on this board after your departure, but I have had the pleasure to read your dissertions regarding "Old Shakespeare" and ALB. Fantastic work!!
Regarding the suspected demise of ALB, you postulate that he, pardon my memory slips and paraphrasing, was tossed overboard by his shipmates when either suspicion of he being JtR became great or their distaste for his behavior reached a critical point.
In either case, would there not be a record somewhere, either in America or the UK, of he being lost at sea? I have seen several such references in the U.S. State Department correspondence between London & Washington but it all dealt with sailors lost on boats near Newfoundland and vicinity. I will continue trying to discover where files of this nature would be kept, perhaps with the Customs authorities for the respective countries.
On a tangent, there was a major running contretemps between the US and England regarding diseased cattle from the US. My speculation is that ALB had many occasions to kill cattle on board the ship which were suspected of being diseased (capitalism will prevail  )
Thank you for your contributions to this case and your compelling research!!
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 09:38 am | | Hi Mike, Judy, et al.:
First, Mike, it is nice to see you back on these boards if only briefly and as R. J. noted, not in the most pleasant of circumstances.
As Mike has noted, I as co-editor of Ripper Notes knew nothing of a planned upcoming article by Wolf on the Carrie Brown case, and Christopher-Michael also has said he was not aware of anything imminent from Wolf on the Brown case that we are planning to publish. That having been said, I do recall that Wolf, CMD, and myself were part of a panel at the UK conference in Bournemouth, England, September 28-October 1, 2001 and possibly Wolf might have mentioned something to CM, though not to me, that he was working on an article which he might submit to us sooner or later. That is just speculation on my part, however, and I don't want to prejudge either Wolf or Christopher-Michael in the matter. In any case, it remains true that we at Ripper Notes are not going to promise to publish anything sight unseen.
I do hope that this difference of opinion can be resolved amicably. Both you, Mike, and Wolf have made useful and important contributions to the field and I know you will both continue to do so.
Best regards
Chris George
Co-Editor
Ripper Notes |
Author: Kevin Braun
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 10:05 am | | Michael,
I would also like to welcome you back. I wish it was under different circumstances. I feel somewhat to blame because Wolf was responding to my question about his research into the Brown murder. I hope that Wolf will again respond and straighten this mess out.
The postmortem pictures of Carrie Brown and "newspaper reports which claim that Inspector Byrnes was in contact with Scotland Yard because they suspected this might be connected to the Ripper" are a great finds. Thank you for your continued "contributions" and your "compelling research".
Have a good new year. I am sorry for any inconvenience.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Michael Conlon
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:14 pm | | Hello to Billy, Chris and Kevin,
Thank you all for your kind and encouraging words.
Hi, Billy. You have been doing great research with various and sundry records and archives and I have always felt that these will be the most promising places to find hidden Ripper information. It was in the old D.A.'s files at the Archives where I first ran across mention of La Bruckman.
I never stated that La Bruckman was "tossed overboard", however. We don't know what became of La Bruckman. I think you're confusing me here with some other poster's work. Many thanks again.
Hi, Kevin. It is good to talk to you again. There is no need for you to feel any blame in this; you were simply asking Mr. Vanderlinden a perfectly legitimate question. Have a great year, also and all the best!
Hi, Chris. Let me first thank you for putting up with all the cranky e-mails I sent to you concerning this matter (and to poor Mr. DiGrazia as well).You have been, as always, completely courteous and helpful to me. I share your hopes that this situation can be amicably explained and resolved but I remain utterly nonplused by Mr. Vanderlin's charges.
I have now reread my articles several times and have dug out all my old copies of news reports and Archive material to try and fathom what Mr. Vanderlinden is getting at. The only possible other thing he might be referring to which I could find after an hour of digging through my reference material and re-checking all quotations was one discrepancy in the description furnished by the anonymous tipster who stated "There is a man named 'Frenchy' who answers the description of Frenchy No.2, and who was arrested in London about a year and a half ago in connection with the Whitechapel murders. I should call him a mongrel - a cross between French and Italian, or Italian and Greek. He is very swarthy in compexion and his predominating feature is his nose. It is a long and prominent one, and the mouth beneath it is large and ugly."
The reference to a "swarthy" complexion is at odds with the lighter complexion mentioned in one of Miniter's descriptions. But I can hardly believe that this detail is what Mr. Vanderlinden is referring to. First of all, this omission was not selective editing in order to more closely match La Bruckman for several obvious reasons.
First, and most obviously, because the tipster already states that this "Frenchy" is a man "...who ANSWERS THE DESCRIPTION OF FRENCHY NO.2", therefore, in the opinion of this tipster, he already answers the description which Miniter gave out, so why would I need to selectively edit it in order to make it fit LaBruckman?
Secondly, we have no descriptions of LaBruckman's complexion, light, dark or in-between. It is fair to surmise that the anonymous tipster is referring to LaBruckman because, as it turns out, LaBruckman himself admits that he was arrested in London on suspicion of being JtR. Reports state that LaBruckman did, indeed, have a long, prominent nose, just as Miniter and the tipster report, but make no reference to LaBruckman's complexion which, in any case is probably an irrelevancy insofar as it seems common sense that a sailor will have very different colored complexions depending on the time of year and exposure to sun.
Again, this does not seem likely to be what Mr.Vanderlinden is referring to as the simple equation remains this: Mary Miniter stated that she recognized the man who accompanied Carrie Brown as Ali's 'cousin', Frenchy No.2 - Inspector McCloskey confirmed that LaBruckman was the man being sought as Frenchy No.2 - LaBruckman admitted to being arrested in London on suspicion of being the Whitechapel killer - this is consistent with the report of the anonymous tipster who said his cattleboat sailor suspect "answers the description of Frenchy No.2", a description which Miniter gave out of the man she knew as Ali's 'cousin', whom the police confirmed was LaBruckman.
I have wracked my brain to think of any possible things that Mr. Vanderlinden might be referring to when he says I edited a description to fit LaBruckman and I cannot come up with anything else. Therefore I still await an explanation.
All the best, Chris, and thanks again for all your help!
Mike |
Author: Vila
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 02:34 pm | | Mike,
I'm also glad to see you back on these boards, since I'm one of those folks who think your ALB research is quite interesting and worthy of wider consideration. I respectfully request that you reconsider making your return to this forum a temporary one and do please stick around. After all, the best way to correct misperceptions about your research is to be here when such mistakes are made, answering them accordingly. I do realize that you felt it necessary to distance yourself from these Boards, but sir, your research is an important line that can best be served by continuing to place it before this crowd of rowdy researchers. (Of whom I am *usually* proud to count myself among. In any group of people engaging in any debate, there are times when something is said that, in hindsight, should have remained a private thought and left unexpressed. As has been noted by other posters, online debate is sometimes marred by incautious remarks. This is merely human nature.) I know that I am not alone in regretting your departure, just as I am not alone in welcoming your return.
I do hope that you can find it within yourself to dismiss the causes of your absence and return to these Boards to stay.
Vila |
Author: Michael Conlon
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 06:45 pm | | Hi, Vila,
It's good to hear from you again. You are extremely kind and your flattery of me, though undeserved, is of such suasion that an egotist such as myself could almost be persuaded, but I think not, and, again, I don't want to get into why.
Again, thanks to you and the rest for your very kind words.
Warmest regards,
Mike |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 08:24 pm | | | You know, if ALB wasn't JTR then we have to consider the possibility that there is a subspecies of psychopath who has a wierd compulsion to er- engage in surgery. Don't know what appelation should be assigned to this unique form of mental illness or who else should belong to the club. Ed Gein? How common is this particular pathology? SKs in general are a very small subset (thank heaven!) of the general populace. I would assume that ah- cutters up are an even smaller subset of the SK group. What I'm getting at is given current criminalogical data what is the statistical likelihood of more than one er- cutter-upper existing in Britain/America in the late 1880's/early 1890's? |
Author: Billy Markland
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 08:22 am | | Mr. Conlon,
Thanks for correcting my misattribution of ALB's demise. Now all I have to do is hunt down where I read that 
I think tonight I will check out the local archive's New Orleans passenger records to see if
a) if they have the relevent year (1888)
b) to see if they included seamen on cargo ships (unlikely).
I will also see if they have anything for Galveston but I believe New Orleans was the largest major deep water port close to the Texas cattle country so it is, to my mind, logical that cattle boats would make port there.
Best of wishes for your current research.
Billy |
Author: Michael Conlon
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 01:20 pm | | Hi, Billy,
Many thanks again for your kind words.
LaBruckman(alias John Francis and several other names) worked as a cattleboat drover and slaughterman for at least two shipping firms, the one I am certain he worked for was the "National Line". We know that the New York to London route was one of his regular ones.
Good luck with your research and keep up the great work. I'll stick around on the boards another couple of days to see if Mr. Vanderlinden can offer me some honest explanation, but if in the future you dig up some fascinating new info. on this topic, maybe someone can shoot me an e-mail and I'll check it out.
All the best, Billy.
Mike |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 03:23 pm | | Hi Michael,
As you're well aware, the Ripper case has so little hard facts from which to start. With all the missing reports, reliance upon press, etc, theories all get built upon how we interpret things. Statements like similar wounds get debated. Your finding of the C.B. photographs is among one of the most important finds in recent JtR research. I just wish to congratulate you on a job well done.
I hope the dispute which brought about your brief return, will get resolved in a friendly manor. As I tell my students, "Theories are just stories we make up to explain the evidence. Research is what we do to find new evidence that the story doesn't explain. It's not as important to get the story right as it is to find evidence that must be explained".
I suspect you agree with this sentiment, and so I understand why you are so upset with the accusation. However, if you receive no response, I hope you can find solace in the fact that by posting both your description and your sources for them, you allow everyone to compare the two and make their own evaluation of the accusation.
- Jeff |
Author: Michael Conlon
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 04:48 pm | | Many thanks, Jeff,
I do, indeed, agree with your percipient sentiment and also lament the fact that there is so much unnecessary disputatiousness in this field. I, too, hope that there may be some friendly resolution to this matter.
Many thanks for your kind words. All the best!
Mike |
Author: Bob Dulaney
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 07:44 pm | | Hi Mike,
Don't know if you remember me, but I had the distinct honor of exchanging posts with you virtually a year ago this very day! I asked you about R. Michael Gordon's Alias Jack the Ripper, where Gordon has both Mrs. Miniter and the Glenmore Hotel night clerk attribute a German accent to Foreigner No. 2. Your reply was so sagacious that I immediately switched allegiances from George Chapman to Arbie La Bruckman! It has remained so to this day.
Although my dreams of an ALB Press Project don't seem to have materialized, I should be the proud owner - when my check clears - of two issues of The Daily Telegraph from St. John, New Brunswick, dated May 1 & 11, 1891. The former has 2 articles, one 17" titled "Looking For Frenchy" and one 4" titled "Says He Has The Ripper" (referring to Inspector Byrnes). The paper from May 11 has a 31" article titled "Jack's Next Victim", with "many details I never heard before", according to the eBay description which caught my eye/wallet. If you're not familiar with these articles, drop me a line and I'll make sure you receive transcriptions by email.
All the very best,
Bob |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 08 January 2003 - 10:30 pm | | Mr. Conlon,
A friend of mine suggested that I might want to log on to the boards as there was "something brewing there." I find that you have returned in high dudgeon and are asking for an apology. You have it.
I have read your explanation for your use of the shortened, less detailed description of the man, signed in to the East River Hotel as C. Kniclo, given by Mary Miniter. You state that the earliest descriptions that you could find were from the Daily Continent for 25 April 1891 and from the New York Hereld from 26 April 1891, thus two days after the murder. If this is your explanation for not using what has become the "standard" description then I am bound to accept this and must in all good conscious apologize to you.
As you have brought this to the boards and have asked for an explanation for my post and since you have been unable to click on my profile in order to find my e-mail address, (my e-mail address is listed here and always has been even in the years when giving out your e-mail address was not mandatory), I will keep this on the boards if I may.
As you have described yourself as a writer/researcher Mr. Conlon you must understand that I found it hard to believe that you had missed what appears to be the standard description given by Mary Miniter of the man C. Kniclo. This description was given in more than one newspaper on the 25th of April, 1891, but, as you say, the only newspaper that you have found to contain a description of the murderer for this date is the Daily Continent, a minor even obscure newspaper which would cease to operate only months after the murder. You also say that you found a description, again a less detailed one, in the Herald from the next day.
Both Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and the New York Times, two newspapers that I had assumed any researcher interested in the facts behind the Carrie Brown murder would have checked, had virtually identical detailed descriptions from Mary Miniter published on the 25 April, 1891. Descriptions which you have apparently failed to come across. As I say, I guess I found that hard to believe but these things do happen and it is possible to miss things from even the most obvious sources. My disbelief, however, was compounded by the ubiquity of this description.
That you could miss the article in the World and the Times is, I suppose, conceivable and your explanation proves that you did but I wondered how you could have missed other works that used this same detailed description. Books such as Philip Sugden's monumental work, The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, (1994), which began the modern study of the Carrie Brown murder.
Sugden went back to primary sources and used Governor Benjamin Odell's Public Papers and the New York Times, from which he took the description of C. Kniclo, the murderer, so, had you read it, you would have had a second chance at the Times description. Had you read Larry Barbee's article, An Investigation into the Carrie Brown Murder here on the Casebook you would have had a third chance at finding this same description. Robert Graysmith's 1999 book, The Bell Tower, a fourth chance. William Bryk's article, Old Smoke, in the New York Press, a fifth chance. The chapter on the Brown murder in R. Michael Gordon's book Alias Jack the Ripper Beyond the Usual Whitechapel Suspects, (2001), a sixth chance. As you can see this description, by its ubiquity, has become standard in all the works on the Brown murder from the last eight or nine years. Except for your two articles of course.
To those of you wondering, Mr. Conlon offered these descriptions of the murderer in his two articles:
"She described him as being about five feet, eight inches tall, about thirty years old with a long, sharp nose, small light-brown mustache and light-brown hair. She thought from the few words he spoke, that he was a foreigner. He wore an overcoat, a black derby..." From A Tale of Two Frenchy's, Ripperana, October 2000.
And: "She described him as being about five feet eight inches tall, about thirty years old, with brown hair, a brown mustache, and sharp nose, and wearing a Derby hat and cutaway coat. From the few words he spoke, she thought he was a foreigner." From The Ripper in America, Ripperologist, December 2001.
Here now is the "standard" and more detailed description of the murderer used in the sources listed above:
"...about thirty-two years old, five feet eight inches in height, of slim build, with a long, sharp nose and a heavy moustache of light colour. He was clad in a dark-brown cutaway coat and black trousers, and wore an old black derby hat, the crown of which was much dented. He was evidently a foreigner, and the woman's impression was that he was a German.", the New York Times, 25 April, 1891.
Here is a second, very similar report:
"...a man about thirty-two to thirty-five years of age. He was about 5 feet 8 ½ inches tall and slim in build. He had a long sharp nose and a heavy blond moustache. He wore a dark-brown cutaway coat, dark trousers and a battered derby hat. He and the woman both appeared to be sober. I thought the man was a German.", the New York World, 25 April, 1891.
There are a couple of important details that are offered in these two reports from two of the largest newspapers in the United States at the time that are not found in either of Mr. Conlon's articles.
The first important difference is the fact that Mary Miniter thought that the man was German. Oddly the Daily Continent and the New York Herald missed this seemingly important detail and this apparently explains why Mr. Conlon never brought it up in either of his articles. I see that Mr. Conlon has since discovered this bit of information, obviously after publication of his article in Ripperologist, as he says in his post "If you are referring to the fact that I omitted that the man's accent sounded German to Miniter, it is because elsewhere it is described as perhaps Italian, Greek or German. It is also because, although we know that La Bruckman spoke with an accent, we have no idea what that accent sounded like."
Saying that C. Kniclo's accent has been described as either Greek or Italian is not supported by the evidence supplied by Mary Miniter. As we both know, Mr. Conlon, Mary Miniter never stated that the murderers accent sounded either Italian or Greek she only said that it sounded German. Early newspaper reports described the police as looking for someone who could have been either Greek or Italian and "the captured suspect", (Ameer Ben Ali or Frenchy 1), was also described as looking to be either Greek or Italian and this is where your confusion seems to lie. The swarthy Greek or Italian male that the police were looking for was Ben Ali but as he wasn't the real murderer it is important here not to confuse Mary Miniter's description of the killer with the police description of Ben Ali who they initially suspected.
It should be noted at this point that there may have been a second sighting of the murderer, C. Kniclo. The clerk at another of the East Sides flop houses, the Glenmore Hotel, stated that a confused and blood stained man attempted to get a room in the early hours of the morning of the murder. As this man had no money to pay for a room he was asked to leave. The clerks description of this man follows closely with Mary Miniter's and newspaper reports state that the police believed this man to have probably been the murderer. Kelly, the clerk at the Glenmore Hotel also stated that the man he talked to spoke with a German accent. Mr. Conlon did not mention the Glenmore Hotel in his first article but he does in his second yet fails to mention this fact.
Did La Bruckman speak with a German accent? Arbie La Bruckman was born in Morocco and moved to New York in around 1870, at the age of about eight. In 1891 La Bruckman was twenty-nine old which meant that he had lived in America for twenty-one years. I'm not sure where a pronounced "German" accent would come from but Mr. Conlon has also stated, "I also have pointed out, on the "Carrie Brown" section in the Casebook, that people who knew La Bruckman believed him to be an Alsatian, this denoting, if anything, a German accent, as this region was part of Germany in 1891."
This is an interesting statement Mr. Conlon as it seems to show that you researched this. The average person couldn't find Alsace on a map or know what its nationality is now let alone what it was in 1891. Your statement is of course absolutely true for the year 1891 but unfortunately your research has apparently failed to discover that Alsace had been a province of France up till the Franco Prussian war of 1870.
France lost the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine to the German Empire in that year and ChancellorBismarck proclaimed Alsace a Reichsland. The French language was banned in school and all newspapers had to be in German. Thus if the La Bruckman family was Alsatian, (the fact that they had moved to Morocco, which was mostly under French control at the time, adds credence to this), then they would be French. It is possible that although Arbie La Bruckman was born in Morocco I suspect that his family may have been Alsatian and may have returned to Alsace sometime before the Franco Prussian War. In 1870, when Germany took control of Alsace from France, thousands of Alsatians fled to America in order to get away from the Germenifacation of their home Province. This is the same year that the La Bruckman family arrived in New York.
Stating that Alsace was German in 1891 is thus meaningless as La Bruckman had fled a French Provence the year it was taken over by Germany and had lived the bulk of his life in America. To put it simply, why do you think that they called him "Frenchy"?
The second important detail left out of the description used by Mr. Conlon has to do with build. Mary Miniter offered the newspapers, before she was arrested as a material witness and thus put under the complete control of the police, a clear and detailed description of the murderer, C. Kniclo. She mentions age, height, colour of hair, distinctive facial features, nationality, a complete description of his clothing and the murderers build. Slim. So the man who murdered Carrie Brown was slim in build, or thin. does this match with descriptions of Arbie La Bruckman? Was he thin? No, he wasn't.
Here's a description of Arbie La Bruckman:
"the cattleman has big cheek bones, a prominent nose and very large mouth. His neck is like a bull's and there is not an ounce of spare flesh on his wiry frame. The tendons stand out on his arms like gaspipes." He was also described as a "miniature Hercules", (also small in stature?), and that he was " noted for his strength and physical prowess." Possibly he could be described as being of medium build, probably of stocky build but not slim.
The sources used by Mr. Conlon do not mention the build of the suspect and so it is impossible to compare this feature with that of Arbie La Bruckman. The question now is, if C. Kniclo murdered Carrie Brown was C. Kniclo Arbie La Bruckman? Or George Chapman? Or Dr. Francis Tumblety? Perhaps we can never answer that question, (although you can now rule out Chapman, or will be able to once my article comes out), but the only way we can attempt to answer it is to use the evidence concerning C. Kniclo. Mary Miniter tells us that he was a tall, for the times, blond haired, thin, German male. Arbie La Bruckman was perhaps a short, (miniature?), muscular Frenchman.
As the ubiquitous, full, standard description given by Mary Miniter in two of the largest newspapers in the world indicates that Arbie La Bruckman was not C. Kniclo, the murderer of Carrie Brown, this is why I stated that I believed that you, Mr. Conlon, had selectively edited the shorter, less detailed description that you found in your exhaustive research. I apologize once more.
Two quick things. First, I have in my records two letters to Christopher-Michael Digrazia discussing this article for Ripper Notes. Because the last of these is dated 22 May, 2002, I assume that it has slipped his mind. If Ripper Notes does not want to publish this article for any reason then I will simply offer it to Ripperologist.
Second, Mr. Conlon, you have stated, "As to your contention that you believe Brown does not seem to be a Ripper victim, I have dug up Brown's postmortem photos (in addition to a photo of her from life) which show wounds that I contend are almost identical to those of Chapman." and also, "I have secured postmortem pictures of Carrie Brown along with some wound descriptions all of which, I believe, settle the question as to whether Brown's mutilations were similar to Ripper victims. Her wounds are very similar to those described as inflicted on Chapman - same sweeping, disemboweling cuts to the lower regions, same act of disemboweling, same cutting out of organs. Sadly, the people at the Archive tell me that no autopsy report survives, so the wound descriptions are culled from the indictment papers and news reports. The photos speak for themselves."
I am assuming here that you personally are not qualified to look at photographs and be able to make pathological deductions from your layman's observations so I am afraid that you personally cannot "settle" the question as to whether Carrie Brown was murdered by Jack the Ripper. The "people at the Archive" are probably correct that no autopsy report survives but that does not mean that the contents of the autopsy are not known. They are and they are known by me. At the heart of my article lies my discovery of a detailed summery of Deputy Coroner Jenkins' Post Mortem report. I would think that my article and this report will "settle" the question once and for all, did London's Jack the Ripper murder New York's Carrie Brown.
Wolf. |
Author: Michael Conlon
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 05:15 am | | Mr. Vanderlinden,
Let's make this real simple, shall we.
I am well aware, as I previously stated, that other descriptions of Carrie Brown's killer were in circulation. About the only thing I could agree with in your post of January 3, was that my article was "suspect driven".
I set about investigating the murder of Brown, discovered the astonishing fact that the man being sought as the prime suspect, "Frenchy No.2", had been arrested in London on suspicion of being JtR. Rather a startling find, don't you think? I set about putting together as strong a case for this suspect as possible; something I think every researcher who proffers a suspect is 'guilty' of.
What I did NOT do is what you accused me of - selectively editing the descriptions I published to fit my suspect, and you damn well know it.
So know, that you can't back up this charge, you offer an ostensible apology and then go on to insinuate that, although I did not do any of the things you publicly accused me of, I nonetheless am deceptive in not offering every argument I can muster against my possible suspect and main thesis.
Well, Mr. Vanderlinden, that ain't how it works. If you have a case to make against my thesis, by all means, do it. But please address my thesis which, for the sake of brevity, I will re-advert to from my post to Chris George: Mary Miniter, who admittedly offered at least two inconsistent descriptions of Brown's killer, stated that she recognized the man who accompanied Brown in the East River Hotel as Ameer Ben Ali's 'cousin', referred to as "Frenchy No.2", for whom a massive manhunt was undertaken, pulling in more than 120 suspects.
Eventually, Arbie La Bruckman was arrested and Inspectors McCloskey, Murphy and Byrnes all confirmed that he was, indeed, the man being sought as "Frenchy No.2". His arrest was directly facilitated by the information of an anonymous tipster who stated that a cattleboat slaughterman called "Frenchy" and who "ANSWERS THE DESCRIPTION OF FRENCHY No.2" was someone worth looking into as he was known to travel back and forth between London, do extremely nasty things to cattle, and was, rather amazingly, arrested in London on suspicion of being the Whitechapel killer. La Bruckman admits, after being arrested as "Frenchy No.2", that he was, indeed, arrested in London on suspicion of being JtR. Quite a coincidental chain of circumstances,I would submit. Something worth sitting down and writing an article about, making the best case you can, don't you think?
Well, Mr. Vanderlinden, that's what I did, and I make no apologies, as I "selectively edited" NOTHING.
So let's stay focused on the central claim and on the fact that you maligned me without any basis.
All your ancillary arguments about other descriptions, what kind of accent La Bruckman may or may not have had based on the geo-political situation of late nineteenth century Europe, Mary Miniter's ability to discern a German, French Alsatian or Martian accent, etc., etc., evade my central thesis and avoid your charge which, given what follows your ostensible apology, is, let's just be honest, no apology at all.
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.
It was also established that LaBruckman was a sometime patron of the Glenmore hotel.
The police are also on record as saying that they came to believe Miniter's suspect descriptions were "wholly unreliable", making me feel justified in opting to go with a description that was coupled with her claim that she recognized Brown's companion as Ali's friend, a man also known as "Frenchy" and designated "Frenchy No.2", a man the police later affirm to be LaBruckman. Now add to this the revelation that he was arrested on suspicion of being JtR in London, and you have, I think, a tale worth telling - which I attempted to do in a "suspect driven" but HONEST way, Mr. Vanderlinden, despite your clear and continued insinuations to the contrary.
As to your query whether I am qualified to interpret postmortem photos, it is so hopelessly evasive that it barely deserves a serious answer. How about, if I can get a Ripper mag. interested in publishing them, we let people possessed of normal vision and common sense
decide.
Believe it or not, I absolutely detest these kind of captious confrontations, but you, sir, have set the tone.
M.Conlon |
Author: Michael Conlon
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 05:39 am | | Dear Bob,
I do, indeed, remember you and thanks for the kind words and helpful offer.
I apologize to you, and all Casebook readers for the foregoing vitriol. As i said, I deeply dislike engaging in this kind of garbage and it is a prime reason for my choosing to depart from these boards in the recent past, and, why I am convinced more than ever to depart once, again.
This odd little 'hobby' is simply not worth all this pointless nastiness and aggravation.
I am not aware, Bob, of the news reports you cite and they sound like interesting finds. Just now, I hope you'll understand, I am not keenly interested in seeing anything more on the topic of Carrie Brown ,or JtR, for that matter.
All the best & thanks for your kindness.
Mike |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 07:04 am | | Ok, I'm newish here, I haven't written a book, and I haven't personally done any significant research. I have an interest in the case going back many years to my childhood (was haunted by an article in a comic when I was young).
So I'm probably talking out of turn. But heck, its a free country.
I have no trouble understanding that someone who puts forward a view on who was the killer does not have to put all the counter arguments, that's everyone else's job. After all, until a suspect is proved to be the killer - something that is most unlikely to happen to everyone's satisfaction - there must always be discussions about what is relevant to a particular view of the case, which statements are trusted and which discounted, etc. etc.
Even when someone has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed a crime, there can still be contradictory evidence around, like the North Wales Hanratty sightings. That doesn't mean anyone lied, just they were mistaken.
So, unless someone can be shown to be actually inventing or falsifying evidence, why the accusations? We are talking matters of opinion regarding what weight to put on rival pieces of information, surely?
I really appreciate the opportunity to see the contributions of all those who clearly know a gazillion more things about the case than me.
I have great regard for those who try to pursue an objective view of the facts without plumping for a particular suspect.
Unfortunately the actual amount of incontrovertible fact available seems pretty thin, so it's equally understandable that others will shape their understanding around a particular view of the case, and as long as that is not an entrenched position - i.e. the holder of the view is prepared to consider any new evidence or counter argument - where's the harm? At least that ensures that new approaches and new information are evaluated from every angle. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:48 am | | Hi Peter,
You have made a thoughtful and valuable contribution to the boards.
There is a tendency among some devotees of the case to see the supremacy of their own view and then to attack not only the scholarship but the motivations of those with whom they disagree (as you have seen here and on the Cornwell boards).
That really advances nothing - except to arouse those who prefer insults to discussion.
Rich |
Author: Michael Conlon
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 01:45 pm | | Dear Peter and Richard,
Needless to say, I agree completely with your observations.
Back in about October of 2001, I received an e-mail from Paul Begg, who informed me that he liked my contributions to the Casebook and had found my "Ripperana" article about La Bruckman "important" and worthy of a larger audience.
He asked me if I would be interested in writing another article, and I informed him that I would be happy to and that I'd try to quickly find some more info.
I suggested to him that I write a more in-depth article this time, intending to cover some of the points alluded to by Mr. Vanderlinden. I told him I would like to make it about 20 type written pages.
Paul informed me that this would be too long, and would I please try to make my best case in 8-10 type written pages. I agreed, and it turned out to be 11 pages long.
I think any honest reader of my article in "Ripperologist" will agree that I was just able to coherently get all the salient features I needed to make my best case in the amount of space alloted. There is not, I believe, any extraneous or ancillary argumentation and there was not any room for such.
Thanks, again, for your sagacious words.
Mike |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 08:16 pm | | Hi Mike,
Thank you for your kind words and your wonderful contributions to the case. Best of luck in your future efforts. Many of us miss your regular contributions to the Casebook.
Take care,
Rich |
Author: Michael Conlon
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 09:38 pm | | Many thanks, Richard,
Your posts have always been a model of courtesy, patience and cogency, no matter how vituperative your opponents became.
All the best.
Mike |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:28 pm | | Thank you, Mike, I appreciate the supportive comments. I look forward to your next article.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 10:17 am | | Hi Mike and Rich
Thanks for the kind responses. I have read most of the archives on here and find the debates and counter points fascinating, and they have certainly changed my outlook on the case.
I was interested in this thread before it got diverted because I think the why (or even the when) of the murders ceasing is key to getting near to a genuine suspect, as is which murders one decides he committed. But every time there is a thread on the subject it seems to get derailed before we really get anywhere!
Regards
Pete |
|
|
|
|
