|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
New Suspect
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
New Suspect
Author: Rod
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 02:22 am |        | | Would anyone like to hear about a New Suspect. It has taken me 3 years to research him and put him at the scene ? |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 04:58 am | | | Let's hear it Rod! |
Author: Rod
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 08:19 am | | | The suspects name is Bowden Endacott. He was a police officer and was involved in The "Cass Case" in late 1887. It ruined his career. He was kept on the force though and was seconded to Whitechapel as a reserve officer. He also had a very poor upbringing with a very domineering mother. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 11:18 am | | Rod:
In their short piece on the Cass case the inimitable Messrs. Begg and Skinner (in "The Scotland Yard Files,) say that PC Endacott "spent the rest of his police career on special duty at the British Museum." which if true is a fair distance from Whitechapel. As he was 37 in 1888 (born Chagford, Devon.) he was probably still on active service rather than a reserve officer. He lived in Gower Street with wife Emily and son Bowden, born about 1877. I would be surprised if he was Jack.
Peter. |
Author: Rod
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 12:56 pm | | Peter:
Many thanks for your message.
At the time of the murders Bowden was in D Division (Marylebone). His divisional number was PC98DR. Although he did finish his career on duty at the British Museum he was in fact called in to patrol the streets of Whitechapel in plain clothes. I have checked this out in the records at the PRO. He stayed with the Met until his retirement in 1900 (still a PC), and died in 1905 in Minehead in Devon. His wife, Emily Caroline died in 1898 of Phthisis. At the time they were living at 22 Colville Place having moved from 21 Gower Street. |
Author: Rod
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 12:56 pm | | Peter:
Many thanks for your message.
At the time of the murders Bowden was in D Division (Marylebone). His divisional number was PC98DR. Although he did finish his career on duty at the British Museum he was in fact called in to patrol the streets of Whitechapel in plain clothes. I have checked this out in the records at the PRO. He stayed with the Met until his retirement in 1900 (still a PC), and died in 1905 in Minehead in Devon. His wife, Emily Caroline died in 1898 of Phthisis. At the time they were living at 22 Colville Place having moved from 21 Gower Street.
Rod |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 06:02 pm | | Hi, Rod:
Other than his arguably wrongful arrest of Miss Cass for soliciting in Regent Street, what makes you think that Bowden Endacott deserves the onerous title of suspect in the Whitechapel murders?
Chris George |
Author: Stu Pidman
Thursday, 20 January 2000 - 06:55 pm | | I dont know about you lot, but if I come across that blasted word again before I learn what it is !!!!
I never come across it before, I dont know what it means......and trying to pronounce it can be almost embarrasing, so I got ol' Mr Webster to give me a hand...Main Entry:
phthi·sis
Pronunciation: 'thI-s&s, 'tI-, 'fthI- or with i for I
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural phthi·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: Latin, from Greek, from phthinein to waste away; akin to Sanskrit ksinoti he destroys
Date: 1526
: a progressively wasting or consumptive condition; especially : pulmonary tuberculosis
So why dont they just say that !!!!! |
Author: Rod
Friday, 21 January 2000 - 01:47 am | | Hi Chris:
Thanks for your mail.
I think the best way to answer your question will be to give a (hopefully) short list of the reasons.
1. His upbringing. He had a dominant and cruel mother, and as soon a he was able he left the family home and joined the Devon Police.
2. He was raised on a farm. This would have given him the necessary anatomical skills that were supposedly evident in some of the murders.
3. He was forced to resign from the police force in Devon over trouble with a woman.
4. When he joined the Met his main role was as a plain clothes officer arresting prostitutes. A job he enjoyed immensely.
5. Because of the Cass Case and the fact that he was sure that she was a prostitute he lost his main job. Can you imagine how he felt after that with his life career and life in ruins?
6. He fits the FBI psychological profile of the murderer perfectly.
7. If you have read the article by Bernard Brown entitled "Special Employed" you will see that it would have been impossible for anyone to have been in the streets apart from a police officer. They were almost on every street corner, and if you read some witness statements carefully i.e. that of Charles Cross you will see that he originally said "You are wanted by a police officer in Buck's Row." Then went on to deny that he had spoken the words. Bowden could have been there and it would have been easy for him to threaten Cross or just make up an excuse for his presence.
I hope this helps.
Best wishes Rod |
Author: Rod
Friday, 21 January 2000 - 01:51 am | | Dear Stu:
Thanks for your missive.
You might be interested in knowing that Bowden died of Tubercular Laryngitis and Exhaustion in 1905, aged 54.
Best Wishes Rod. |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 21 January 2000 - 09:06 am | | Rod,
Whilst it is true that…
"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying"
…the matter was challenged at Nichols’ inquest.
"Replying to the coroner, witness [Cross] denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left."
And later…
"A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Cross: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."
(All pieces taken from The Daily Telegraph).
Although this evidence is contradictory, the way I'm reading it, Cross made a positive denial and it appears more likely that PC Mizen was mistaken. Since you have visited the PRO, if you are able to quote directly from the MEPO files to clear this up I'm be grateful. Thanks.
You may well have proven that PC Endacott was on duty in Whitechapel at the time of the murders. However, some further questions spring to mind immediately:-
1). Can you give us the dates of his special duties? Would it have been prior to 31st August?
2). Have you uncovered any evidence to link Endacott with any of the murder scenes or with the victims?
3). Was Endacott ever questioned about his movements by his superiors?
Your quote that "…it would have been easy for him to threaten Cross or just make up an excuse for his presence." is rather woolly and unconvincing. It wouldn’t have been so easy had he been discovered hovering about prior to his posting to Whitechapel. Or if he had been assigned to an area well away from the murder sites, (which also raises points about his straying into City Police territory). Besides, why would it be easy to threaten Cross, and where is the evidence for it?
Nor can I agree with your comment that "…it would have been impossible for anyone to have been in the streets apart from a police officer. They were almost on every street corner" It should be noted that the main streets would have been fairly busy at night, both with traffic and pedestrians. For instance, Whitechapel Road was the main artery in and out of London from East Anglia (a major supply line of the capital's food) whilst Commercial Road handled a lot of the docks traffic. Many trades were carried out nocturnally. Whilst admittedly most workers were in a fixed place of employment, there was inevitably a steady stream of people shifting around, (a good example being the Spitalfields Market area at the time Annie Chapman was killed). Besides this, since you noted that Endacott was in plain clothes, he wouldn't have stood out as a policeman, so if your statement were true it would have made him more likely to be noticed!
The rest of the case you make is based on the dubious merits of psychological profiling. Whilst this technique no doubt has its merits when in the hands of real experts, its use by amateur criminologists and even insufficiently expert policemen has proved to be controversial and has given the discipline a bad name in some quarters. As soon as you named Endacott, it was always a good guess that your points 4 and 5 would feature as part the of 'evidence' against him when really it is nothing of the sort, only speculation based on stereotypical analysis. (If you are trained in the disciplines or psychology or psychiatry, I am very willing to listen to a detailed rebuttal of this statement).
Without knowing the full extent of the research that you have done these past three years, it is impossible to know how strong your case against Endacott is. But on the basis of what you have posted to date, the evidence looks no better than that against the suicide case Edward Buchan.
Your answers and thoughts are awaited with interest.
Regards, V. |
Author: anon
Friday, 21 January 2000 - 11:58 am | | What an excellent post Viper. You really have put this theory in its place - i.e. it totally lacks evidence worth the name and is no different to plucking any number of contemporary people out of thin air and accusing them.
I thought that these 'names out of a hat with no evidence' antics had finished now, but I was obviously wrong. The theory has no merit whatsoever. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 08:09 am | | Dear Rod,
Viper has encapsulated a number of points that I feel are very relevant.
However that doesn't mean you have not got a viable suspect, merely that on the information presented by you so far it is impossible to say.
Obviously if you have been studying the case for three years then it is unreasonable to expect you to lay out the bulk of your case in only a few words.
There will be those who will dismiss your ideas completely usually with such phrases as 'this theory has no merit whatsoever'. Ignore such people, how on earth they think they can support or dismiss a theory on such scant acquaintance with it is beyond me unless of course, they claim to know who the real killer is.
Whether you are right or wrong is to a large extent unimportant, will we ever know for certain?
What is important is that someone has taken the time and trouble to do a bit of work, unearth a few more facts and add to our knowledge of the period and the people.
Good on you!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Rod
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 12:03 pm | | Dear Bob
Many thanks for the support. As you say it is difficult to lay out the whole case for Bowden being the Ripper in a few words and to be honest there is a book in the pipeline. I'm waiting to hear from my publisher.
I do ignore people who sign themselves Anon anyway. If someone has not got the decency to sign their own name then what they is probably irrelevant.
Thanks Bob
best wishes
Rod |
Author: anon
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 03:20 pm | | Well Mr Hinton, there's viable and there's viable. What one man may consider viable another may not. There are thousands of 'viable suspects' if you are seeking to pin a name on 'Jack the Ripper' without the support of anything so vulgar as evidence or reasonable suspicion. Still a comment such as this may be expected from Mr Hinton when we see that he proposes George Hutchinson as his candidate.
I am quite happy for Rod to ignore me, that is his prerogative. What makes it lacking in decency to use your own name when you are stating your opinion? Many on here do the same and many use pseudonyms. Whether or not what these individuals have to say is relevant or not is for others to judge, and simple anonymity certainly does not make something said irrelevant.
The game of 'name the Ripper' has descended to the level of a parlor game, and budding authors and theorists seem to think that it is sufficient to pluck a name from times and weave a case against him. Better still if some connection can be found to link him with the case, or with Whitechapel. The reason that so many wannabe authors latch on to this mystery is that publishers seem to have an insatiable thirst to publish yet more and more Ripper books. Never mind the quality, feel the width.
'Rod,' who is as anonymous to me as the word 'Anon,' is another prime example of this. The Cass case is so controversial and well-known that it really needs no enlargement here (it nearly ended the career of the Home Secretary, Henry Matthews, and almost brought down Salisbury's Government). If you want to write a book on the Cass Case, fine, even very commendable, but to sink to the level of having to make the police officer in the case into 'Jack the Ripper' in order to get such a book published is pretty low.
We can all do genealogical research on any of these characters of the 1880's, and in most cases come up with some tenuous reasons for suggesting they might be the Ripper. And this is all 'Rod' has done, he's decided the Ripper was a policeman, found one he deems to be a 'likely candidate' (he was involved in a scandalous prostitution case),and hey, we've found the Ripper.
Not good enough I'm afraid, and how long will this go on. As long as publishers willing to produce such books can be found I'm afraid. |
Author: Rod
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 02:17 am | | Dear Anon.
Thank you for your letter.
Who do you suspect as having been the Ripper? If you would care to send me your E-mail address I will send you some of what I know to be the facts about Bowden and why I consider him to be the murderer.
There is no need for any bickering between any of us, after all we are all seeking the same quest, and I apologise for any offence I may have given.
Best wishes
Rod |
Author: anon
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 05:22 am | | Rod,
Thank you for responding to my post, although you make little comment upon it.
I deal in facts, not suspicions. It cannot be proved who the Ripper was, therefore any suspicions I may have I keep to myself.
I do not wish to engage in E-mail correspondence, and much prefer an open discussion on these boards. I do not wish to argue the merits of personal conclusions as to why some person may have the attributes needed to be the killer. Most certainly I do not consider PC Bowden Endacott to be the (or even a) killer.
It was merely a common enough case of a wrongful arrest being made, probably because Endacott was mistaken as to her identity rather than any malicious deceit on his part. It was compounded by the actions of the magistrate, and ended up before the House. As we all know, the Conservative Government failed on a vote, and Matthews offered his resignation. It was the only defeat sustained by the long-serving Government of the day and Matthews' reputation suffered as a result.
I have seen the arguments you have already made for Endacott's candidacy as the 'Ripper' and none of them appear to me to be exceptional or really meaningful in such a context. As I said, I fully agree with Viper. They were -
1. 'Upbringing, dominant and cruel mother...', there must have been thousands of such mothers and are we to assume that they all spawned offspring who became serial killers. Many known killers had loving and possessive mothers, this really is not evidence nor proof of anything.
2. 'Raised on a farm which gave him the necessary anatomical skills.' Really? Well this point is very arguable as the victims were women and not sheep or pigs. It is arguable if the actual killer had much anatomical skill anyway, and in those days there were many more members of the community used to butchering animals than there are today.
3. 'Forced to resign from Devon Police over trouble with a woman.' Thousands of police officers have ended up losing their jobs over 'trouble with a woman' but they don't usually go on to kill. It couldn't have been too bad or the Met would not have accepted him in their ranks
4. 'Joined the Met where his main role was as a plain clothes officer arresting prostitutes, a job he enjoyed immensely.' I do not see what relevance this has at all. Most police officers probably enjoy the specialised work they do, or they would not volunteer for it. Or are you suggesting that all the police officers engaged in vice duties are potential serial killers?
5. 'Because of the Cass case he lost his main job which left his life and career in ruins.' His 'main job' was as a police officer (the duties of arresting prostitutes would be a specialised duty, usually temporary anyway), and he did not lose his job at all. He would have lost his job if he had been expelled from the police force, which he wasn't. He retained both his job and his pay. Hardly a life and career in ruins.
6. 'Fits the FBI psychological profile perfectly...' I thought most people realised what a nonsense this profile is by now. It was made to fit Kosminski in 1988, and I don't see much similarity between Kosminski and Endacott. It seems to me that these 'flexible' profiles can be adapted to fit almost anyone.
7. The article by Bernard Brown is quoted as claiming that '...it would have been impossible for anyone to have been on the streets apart from a police officer...' What a total nonsense as anyone who has studied the case at should be able to see. The streets were populated all night long, in fact the main thoroughfares were very busy all night long. This fallacy should have been disposed of years ago, it's the very reason the killer was not easily spotted, there were still crowds on the main streets to mix with and become unnoticed. Bernard Brown, like you, has a police officer as his suspect for 'Jack the Ripper' so I suppose that he would say this. |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 10:08 am | | Hi, Rod:
Following on anon's well-made points about your case against Bowden Endacott, I wanted to question you about your statement, "Joined the Met where his main role was as a plain clothes officer arresting prostitutes, a job he enjoyed immensely."
I will admit that I am not conversant with the Cass case as you and anon obviously are, and that I do not know more beyond what has been posted here and what is in A to Z and Fido's book. However, I am wondering on what basis you make the statement that "arresting prostitutes [was] a job [Endacott] enjoyed immensely." Perhaps there is something in the case that gives you leave to say this but it sounds as if this characterization of Endacott's relish of his job is your assumption. Am I right? If that is so, I feel you are taking a liberty with the historical record.
Chris George |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Wednesday, 02 February 2000 - 01:39 pm | | Evening all:
We're going away for a month but before I leave I wanted to mention one thing I've been thinking of for a while. It's a dictum of both Inspector Morse and Lady Harriet Wimsey nee Vane that the person who discovers the body is the one most likely to have done the crime. Obviously that doesn't hang true so much in factual crimes but it does have a leavening of common sense.
As I understand it, Charles Cross saw what he thought was a tarpaulin, crossed the street and found that it was a woman. He heard the footsteps of Robert Paul, went up to him and told him of the find. But do we only have Cross' word for this? Is it possible that an immature Jack, still careless, steps back from his work, hears Paul and sensibly fetches him over, pretending to have just found the body? Paul apparently thought Nichols was breathing faintly. If he was right, this should point to a very recent killing with no-one else near except for Cross and Paul and Cross states that Paul came along after the body was found. So what happened to Cross? Any thoughts?
And did Dave Radka really want a bottle of GlenliveR?
Peter. |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Wednesday, 02 February 2000 - 08:21 pm | | Hi All,
An intriguing idea, Peter. Based on Dr. LLewellyn's time of arrival, and his estimate of the time of death, it seems fairly certain that Nichols was killed within a very few minutes of Cross' arrival at the scene at 3:40. AFAIK, we have only Cross' inquest testimony as to the sequence of events leading up to Paul's arrival, though Paul's own inquest testimony would seem to corroborate Cross.
He and Paul left the scene prior to the arrival of PC Neil, however, both men appeared at the inquest, which indicates that the police identified and traced them.
Both Sugden and Begg state that the 3 men from Barber's slaughterhouse, Tomkins, Mumford, and Britten, were considered early suspects and questioned extensively, apparently because of their proximity to the scene at the time of the murder. (I think this is in Abberline's report dated 19 Sept, though I can't seem to locate my copy of that report at the moment). Given that, it seems to me that the possibility of Cross' involvement would also have occurred to the police, and they would have questioned him as well.
My own opinion is that Cross disturbed the Ripper, given his arrival at the scene within a few minutes of the murder, and given the relatively minor degree of mutilation in comparison to what was done to Chapman just over a week later.
I would never presume to speak for Dave Radka, but the word in his post reads "Glenlivet" on my screen. In any event, he certainly is to be commended on his taste in Scotch.
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: Diana Louise Comer
Wednesday, 02 February 2000 - 08:45 pm | | | I have suggested in the past that Cross was a viable suspect. Would welcome any more info. |
Author: NickDanger
Wednesday, 02 February 2000 - 09:26 pm | | Hi All,
While I would gently debate with Dave Radka and Jim DiPalma, the relative merits of Glenfyddich as opposed to Glenlivet, it could make for an interesting evening of research. And let us not turn our noses up at the blends. Hopefully this debate can be continued at the Conference in the Marriot bar. Meanwhile, do you think this discussion should be moved to 'Primary Sauces'.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Wednesday, 02 February 2000 - 11:15 pm | | Dear Nick,
I am a new poster to this site and would consider it a privilege to discuss/debate the merits of Scotch, especially single malts. While both Glenfyddich and Glenlevit are very fine scotches (I favor Glenlevit), I'd like to call your attention to the wonderful DALWHINNIE 15-year-old Single Malt. Light yet smoky, with a distinctive honey-heather finish, I prefer it hands down to both aforementioned "Glens." Probably my favorite all-around single malt is the 12-year-old Glenmorangie. Very nice.
I don't touch the blends anymore. Call me a snob, but I've been spoiled by the single malts. I keep a bottle of Cutty Sark in my bar for company, but I can't even get the nasty stuff to my nose anymore.
Thanks for letting me rant. |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 03 February 2000 - 01:20 am | | I agree about single malts vs. the blends--the former are smoother, and exquisitely more subtle in the finish. It's like the honey of heaven--I almost think I've finally come to intuitively understand why some become hooked on substances; you could almost put a rubber nipple over the bottle and go into the fetal position, it's so good. This camper didn't make the discovery until he'd reached his forties. One day, rumaging around the floor of the bedroom closet looking for a pair of sneakers, my hand bumped a forgotten, unopened bottle of 12-year Glenlivet a good friend had given us years before. The first few sips were incomparable, I'll not forget it. There is an infinity in the flavor of a good single-malt Scotch. As always, know when enough is enough.
David |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 03 February 2000 - 05:14 am | | Please excuse this timely reminder for those interested in Cross. The theory that Polly Nichols' killer was disturbed is the subject of the next Casebook Productions chatroom discussion on Sunday, 13th February at 3 p.m. EST (that is 8 p.m. GMT).
http://venus.beseen.com/chat/rooms/a/432561/
A detailed background to the murder can be found at...
http://www.casebook-productions.org/explore.htm
...selecting the 'Time lines' and 'Inquests' options. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Thursday, 03 February 2000 - 09:30 am | | And as well, for those in the US, after the 3.00pm discussion on February 13, the Discovery Channel will be showing their new JTR documentary at 10.00pm EST.
Having been to the Marriott Park Ridge, I can tell you that they do not seem to have a bar as such - only a Japanese restaurant and an American grill. The former was closed while I was there and the latter did not seem to have much in the way of single malts. They do have a lounge on the concierge level rooms, but I am under the impression ths will not be open at the time of the Conference. There are, however, a pub and an Italian restaurant each within 5 minutes of the hotel for those who wish to mount a rekky. Chris George was with me, so he can confirm or deny my observations
I'm an Usquebach man myself, though a snort of Bushmills Malt is also heavenly.
And now - really back to Cross. I must go check my "Telegraph" transcripts on this before Sunday.
CMD |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Thursday, 03 February 2000 - 09:36 am | | Hi All,
Sorry Nick, I'm with Michael and David on this one. No comparison between the single-malt and the blends, IMHO of course. I'm really much more of a beer drinker than a Scotch drinker, though.
Diane: I could not find any additional info on Cross. The A-Z had only the bare facts of his finding Nichols' body - no info on his age, background, place of residence, etc.
Jim |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 04 February 2000 - 03:23 pm | | Hello all, there seems to be two very important discussions going on here and I will take them one at a time.
P.C. Neil's beat took him through Bucks Row every half hour and the body of Polly Nichols was not there at 3:15 a.m.. Cross found the body at around 3:45 with Paul arriving only seconds later. Cross felt that she was dead and told P.C. Mizen so while Paul felt that she might have still have been breathing but " it's very little if she is." Dr. Llewellyn, who examined the body shortly after 4:00 a.m., felt that she had been dead for only half an hour or so (if you want to trust a time of death based solely on touching the body) so a time of 3:25 to 3:35 or so is indicated.
Firstly, it is highly unlikely that Polly Nichols was still alive when Cross and Paul examined her at 3:45 even if Cross was the murderer caught in the act. The vessels on both sides of the neck had been severed as well as the windpipe. If anyone believes that Cross is a likely candidate to being the Ripper because of Paul's observation that she might have still been breathing, you're out of luck. Secondly, Dr. Llewellyn's time of death based on a certain amount of coldness in the extremities is probably about right or at least the time was closer to 3:30 than it was to 3:45. The attack on Nichols would have taken only a minute or so to accomplish and if Cross had been the killer, why would he stand around for ten to fifteen minutes until Paul came walking down the road? Thirdly, both Cross and Paul were on there way to work and in fact were made late by the discovery of the body. I can acknowledge a crime of circumstance where the murderer commits his crime on the spur of the moment but I find it unlikely in this case. Cross would have had some blood on his hands and I find it hard to swallow that no one would notice this. Added to this argument is the fact that a murder of this nature, one of circumstance, is unlikely to be committed by someone who has killed for only the first or second time. It would take a much more assured and experienced killer to even attempt it, the risks of being caught being so great. My judgement is that Charles Cross is innocent of the charge of being the Ripper.
As for single malt versus blended, anyone who prefers blended shouldn't be allowed to drink Scotch. For a sublime taste of liquid Scotland I recommend 14 year old Oban, my tipple of choice.
Slainte mhath
Wolf. |
Author: JacksBack
Friday, 04 February 2000 - 07:50 pm | | "General"ly Speaking:
It seems a real shame that JocktheSipper left these boards just prior to a time when his deep and abiding experience and knowledge of "The Necter of the Gods" could have been applied to almost every posting this week. Like Ms. Mitchell said, "You don't know what you have got til it is gone"
JacArthur |
Author: David M. Radka
Saturday, 05 February 2000 - 07:51 am | | I believe the main reason blended Scotch is made is the attempt to cut the iodine taste by a means which permits lowering the price. Surely it is quite costly to warehouse casks of Scotch for the 10, 12, even 18 years necessary to permit the alcohol to interact with the wood to ease the iodine ting naturally. So, they blend together various kinds of Scotches, each made a bit differently, to generate the illusion on the tastebuds that there is no iodine flavor. Some of the blends are aged only 36 months! Has anyone here tried the Madiera wood single-malt Scotch?
David |
Author: NickDanger
Saturday, 05 February 2000 - 05:01 pm | | Hi All,
Since I'm probably going to be blamed for starting this I feel I must come to the defense of some of the blends. I enjoy several single malt scotches (there must be hundreds by now), but how anyone can turn their nose up at Johnnie Walker Black is incomprehensible to me (never cared much for Chivas Regal)and Dewars and J&B are nice light bar scotches. Of an evening I will be happy with my Glenfyddich, but will never turn down Mr. Walker's 12 year old blend. Has anyone tried Johnny Walker Blue? I think it's 20 years old. Someone in the movie business told me that Harrison Ford drinks nothing else (I know, I know, he's not necessarily a role model in this regard). And has anyone noticed how they're doing the Single Malt marketing thing with Bourbon now? Single Barrel Bourbons, I think they call them.
In closing, if anyone out there has gift bottles of Johnnie Walker Black that they will never open,
I will be happy to rescue them and give them a good home. On to Park Ridge!
Best wishes to all,
Nick |
Author: David M. Radka
Saturday, 05 February 2000 - 11:15 pm | | Nick,
I buy Dewars when I'm low on funds. Its Scotch. Think I'll go have one now. Hip Ho.
David
P.S. I wonder why the well-known Scotsman Mr. Chisolm hasn't yet joined this discussion. |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Sunday, 06 February 2000 - 12:36 am | | Nick makes an excellent point; Johnnie Walker Black is without a doubt the best of the blends. It's been so long since I've drank blended that I almost forgot about this gem. Shame on me!
On a side note, I'd just like to say that as a new poster, I am very impressed with the quality of the discussions here at the Casebook. Though not a new student of the Ripper, I must credit this site and its posters with rekindling my former passion for the case.
I am a paralegal by trade and a certified Legal Investigator, employed at my cousin's law firm, and I can assure you the closest I get to a real mystery is finding the deadbeats who've run off without paying their legal bills!
I plan on attending the conference and hope to meet many of you there. Perhaps you can all tell me how many of you are going to be there? I don't want to show up as a total stranger.
One thing that has been hotly debated - and I won't rekindle it here - is the degree of medical knowledge (if any) possessed by the Ripper. I'm struggling mightily with this as I am being pulled in two different directions.
Perhaps we can all discuss this in one of our hotel rooms while sampling some Oban, Glenfyddich, Dalwhinnie, Walker Black, Glenlevit, Glenmorangie, and perhaps some high-grade Sterno as well! ;-)
Thanks,
Michael |
Author: NickDanger
Sunday, 06 February 2000 - 01:17 am | | Hi Michael,
Sterno is all right but it doesn't have the mellow smoothness of Aqua Velva. I'm very happy that your interest in the case has been rekindled and am looking forward to your joining the message board discussions. On the medical knowledge matter, have you been following the recent medical discussions of Drs. Tom Ind and Mike Villon? Very interesting stuff.
Looking forward to meeting you at the conference. Perhaps Chris George can give you some idea of how many reservations have alrady been received or are expected. There's a sign over the counter of a pub near me that says 'You're a stranger here but once'. Now that we know your name, you won't be a stranger at the conference. I also wouldn't be surprised if there were some intense late night discussions accompanied by the finest of Scotland's natural resources. A legal investigator and a scotch drinker. Can a solution to the case be far behind?
Best wishes,
Nick |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Sunday, 06 February 2000 - 01:49 am | | Thanks, Nick, for the most gracious welcome.
I will indeed check out the medical discussion you mentioned. Very recently, I spoke with our firm's surgical advisor about the removal of Eddowes' kidney and gave the conditions. He was impressed that the organ was removed from the front - not because the Ripper didn't damage any other organs - but by the tight time constraints against him. He basically asserted that it would have been much easier (and quicker) to simply turn her over and remove the kidney in the traditional manner.
The problem apparent here is obvious: if he was surgically proficient and his desire (aside from feeding his twisted compulsion) was simply to get the kidney, why didn't he serve her thus?
If my memory serves, Nick Warren echoes my puzzlement.
Then, my advisor said something I found interesting: "He sounds like a show-off to me."
I'll need to consume copies draughts of "uisge beathea" before I can come up with something intelligent to proceed in that direction. Stay tuned ...
P.S. Believe it or not, Scotch is only my second-favorite potable. I am a bourbon man, first and foremost. If you ever get the opportunity to sample "Booker's", do not pass it up. Sublime. |
Author: Luana Havener
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 06:20 am | | | Does anyone have information of Jack-style murders of prostitutes in Jamaica and Nicaragua ( i hope that's how you spell it )late 1889 and 1900 ? Anything would be helpful. Luana |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 31 March 2001 - 09:52 am | | Luana
You should try a keyword search (on menu at left) for both "nicaragua" or "jamaica". We have written on those murders before but whether they are 'Jack-style' is in the eye of the beholder.
Regards, Jon |
|
|
|
|
