Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 08:50 am |        |
| Dear Rosemary, I remind you that under the subject of Robert D'Onston Stevenson the topic of Tautriadelta-Pantalpha is not irrevelant to this discussion.If you can show me where it is not applicable to the suspect D'Onston I would much appreciate it.D'Onston used the term in referring to himself and thats a fact.David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 02:59 am | |
Andy and Sue,
Thanks for the kind words and will be in touch when I return. Phoned up the shop about that CD rom and they will let me know today if they can order one for me. Will e-mail you tonight before I go. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 04:03 am | |
Dear David Rhea,
He also claimed to have hidden the organs behind
his tie...obviously a joker like moi. As for the
grand mystical title, "Tautriadelta", let us know
when you find its meaning.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 04:19 am | |
Hi Rosey,
I'm trying to imagine the kind of spectacle D'Onston thought he was making of himself as he escaped the scenes of crime - an invisible man with a visible tie, hiding the extracted organs? Or an invisible man with an invisible tie, the organs bobbing up and down in clear view?
Not sure I'm quite grasping the idea yet.
David might like to 'tie' up the loose ends for us. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 01:00 pm | |
Dear Caroline,
Does it tie-in with that irascible and capricious old organ-grinder?
Rosey :-) |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 02:46 pm | |
| Dear Rosey;With all of your erudition in the Saturday Night Live repartee that still does not say why a couple of quotes regarding Pentalpha?Tautriadelta has no place under the topic of Stenenson.And O yes Caz if you are so sure--Who saw him, ties or no ties--With all of his murders there were no real leads were there? You have some information I don't--Good! fire away. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 05:49 pm | |
David,
You get two basic types on these boards those that get off their backsides to do the research and those that just sit on their backsides doing nothing but criticise and wisecrack those who do. You have two who do nothing on your case at the moment. D'Onston never hid any organs behind his tie when they were cut from the victims.It is my contention that he only placed them behind his tie when leaving his bolthole in Leman Street on his way back to the London Hospital and after they had been cleaned up.It is possible he used a tie pin to help hold a kidney or uterus etc in place. The suspect seen by Hutchinson was seen to be wearing a tie pin but he may not have been the killer.Victorian ties were larger than those of today and I have known criminals to hide objects behind their ties. One criminal known to me would carry a 9oz bar of solid pot in the lower half of his tie after each purchase. Also far too much faith has been used in descriptions of the suspects seen. From my own experiences many witnesses have been wrong in giving descriptions to the police. In fact many people have been wrongly arrested or convicted on faulty ID evidence which became somewhat of a problem some years ago and safeguard measures were called for.The men seen in the ripper case were suspects ONLY yet many assume that they were the killer.For example the man seen with Eddowes has been called the killer by many people including some experts. Prostitutes can be with one client one moment and another the next.So it is possible that the suspect seen by Lawende having already been serviced left the scene as soon as Lawende and company walked by.Eddowes could then have been accosted by Jack just few moments later because that is all the time it would take. It is pointless stating that ANY suspect put foward as the ripper cannot be the killer because he does not answer to the discriptions given by witnesses. WE DO NOT KNOW IF THE KILLER WAS EVER SEEN AND WE CERTAINLY DO NOT KNOW WHAT HE LOOKED LIKE.THIS IS WHY THE TERM "THE INVISIBLE KILLER" WAS COINED. As for the beliefs held by other people in relation to what they believe they can achieve through magic we should be careful not to scoff.To do so just shows utter ignorence and a lack of understanding of the subject matter. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 07:37 pm | |
Dear David Rhea,
References to the Esoteric Formulae should be sign-posted and explained to the viewer with the understanding that there is a formal set of ideas to which we all subscribe.
If D'Onston is a 'magical being', rational constructs are of no use in the matter of whether or not he 'was/was not' Jack the Ripper. He was either a FOOL, MADMAN OR WISEMAN. So, whatever this appellation "Tautriadelta"...is it your opinion he was one of the above trio. Or is he The Magus: Beyond all comprehension? GOD!?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 03:12 pm | |
Dear David Rhea,
There are two basic types in this world. The rare individual who at great risk peels back the multicardinal layers and reveal the viscera...and
probe the inner and outer limits of FOREVER. The rest are... the many... those that stand aghast and gape.
A ghastly Rose :-) |
Author: John Omlor
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 08:50 pm | |
Rosey,
You let me down this time. There are two basic types in this world. Those who think there are only two basic types in this world and those who know that such rhetorically convenient binarisms are nonsense.
--John |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 27 April 2002 - 08:37 am | |
I agree with Ivor - he's one basic type all right. 
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 27 April 2002 - 11:16 am | |
Dear John 'O',
Have signed on with sackcloth&ashes.com
Rosey :-) |
Author: David Radka
Saturday, 27 April 2002 - 08:11 pm | |
I have peeled back the multicardinal layers! And do you know what I found? I found that I AM THE VISCERA! I AM THE VISCERA!
David |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Sunday, 28 April 2002 - 09:21 am | |
Dear David Radka,
"Multicardinaltitude"...a recipe for a haggis.
Viscebrally Yours,
Off Course.
Rosey :-) |
Author: chris scott
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 06:08 pm | |
R D Stephenson - 1881 Census
I have found the entry below which may be of interest in the census for 1881
Address:
10 Hollingworth Street North
London
Head of Household:
Roslyn D Stephenson
Born 1842 in Sculcoates, York
Aged 39
MD (not practising and scientific writer on London Press)
Married
Wife:
Annie Stephenson
Born 1844 in Thorne, York
Aged 37
Hope this is of interest
Chris Scott |
Author: Howard Brown
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 11:00 pm | |
| Dear Chris...It sure is,as I have been immersed in JACK THE RIPPER'S BLACK MAGIC RITUALS,by my good friend,the author/researcher Ivor Edwards....because it compliments my reading !!! Thanks !!!!! |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 05:33 am | |
Chris:
To save anyone else a search:
1901 Census:
Roslyn D Ouston(sic) Inmate widowed aged 62 Profession: Dispenser (worker) born Hull Yorkshire
Residing: St. Mary Islington Parish Institution (workhouse) St. John's Road Upper Holloway N.
He is one of 728 persons in the workhouse. |
Author: stephen miller
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 07:11 am | |
Hi All just in case you don't know Sculcoates is an area closely associated with Kingston upon Hull to give the city it's full and proper name
from steve |
Author: chris scott
Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 10:29 am | |
MORGAN DAVIES: the Roslyn Donston suspect
I have located Morgan Davies in the 1881 census working at an establishment at 37 and 38 Great Alie Street which ran parallel to Whitechapel High St to the south and crossed Leman Street
His details from the census are listed as:
Morgan Davies
House Surgeon
Born 1854 in Whitechapel
Aged 27
Surgeon and Physician
This establishment is not named in the census, only given as an address. However it was considerable in that the following numbers of occupants are listed:
Admin staff 8
House Physicians 5
House surgeons 3
Others staff (maternity etc) 7
Sisters 22
Nurses 66
Domestic staff 28
Patients 605
I'd be very intrested if anyone knows what this establishment was
many thanks
CS |
Author: Noel c. Auger
Friday, 06 December 2002 - 04:36 pm | |
Chris,
The premises at Great Alie Street are so large and have so many staff that I would suggest they are a part of the London Hospital which is nearby. With 605 patients it must have been one of their larger wards.Perhaps the Ordnance Survey map of 1873 would be precise on the subject but unfortunately I have not got this particular map. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 07 December 2002 - 02:16 pm | |
Hi, Chris:
I have just looked at the copy of the 1873-1894 Ordnance Survey detailed maps for Aldgate from Godfrey (London Sheet 7.67) and unfortunately the map itself is not informative as to any medical establishment on Great Alie Street, and neither is the Whitechapel, Spitalfields, & the Bank map for 1894 (London Sheet 63).
This could though be the Royal London Hospital Eastern Dispensary which opened on Great Alie Street and moved to new premises in Leman Street in 1858. The dispensary became the Jewish Eastern Dispensary in that year and is now a pub--follow the link to take a look at it. A major Jewish Working Man's Club was also situated on Great Alie Street, apparently across the street from the Dispensary. Perhaps the intrepid Viper can add more to this information, and correct any misleading information that I may have given.
All the best
Chris |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 07 December 2002 - 04:36 pm | |
OK, request noted. Reading back to Chris Scott's entry on 1st December the premises do sound like some overspill of the London Hospital, possibly staff accomodation quarters. Will try to get an answer this week.
Regards, V. |
Author: chris scott
Sunday, 08 December 2002 - 08:51 am | |
many thanks all - will be very interested in your findings
your help is appreciated
Chris Scott |
