|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 November 29, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
D'Onston Stephenson, Robert:
Archive through November 29, 1999
Author: Mike
Thursday, 08 April 1999 - 01:04 am |        | | Anyone read " Prisoner 1167: The Madman Who Was Jack the Ripper" by James Tilly?? his arguement is much more convincing than that of Harris. |
Author: Sladist
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 09:18 pm | | To Yazoo, re. your comments on "Ripper":
You may be interested to learn that "Michael Slade" is the pseudonym for a tag-team of three Canadian criminal attorneys, NOT some "ex-rock and roller" off the street. Between them, the authors have logged more than 100 man-hours of experience in real-life serial killer cases, having served as both defenders and prosecutors of suspected serial murderers from around the Pacific Rim. If their novels are a rough ride, it's because they pull absolutely NO punches as to the horrificness of the kind of crimes they've dealt with, in a legal capacity; their insights into the psychology of murder, and the forensic procedures involved in crime-solving, come from decades of professional experience and consultation with the best experts in Canada. A background in the legal profession might also have inspired Slade's inclusion of bibliographies in all of his/their novels ... not just this one.
The phrase "male sexuality is nitroglycerin" isn't couched as an accusation towards men in general, but rather as an observation about sexual desire: something which, if chronically and pathologically suppressed, really IS more prone to expend itself as violence in males (who make up the overwhelming majority of serial killers), than in females. The recurrent theme of men-against-women in "Ripper" -- although admittedly grating, at times -- isn't inappropriate given the mother-hating psychosis of one of the killers, and the Satanic/misogynist motif of both villains; conversely, the specific feminists whose portrayal you criticized were INTENDED to be extremists, who'd turned their son into a maniac by their ceaseless condemnations (just as any abusive parent might), so couldn't exactly be depicted as "nice"! It may ease your concerns to know that a more-recent Slade novel, "Primal Scream", turns the tables upon the misogynists of the world ... in that its killers -- there's more than one, although they're not partners as in "Ripper" -- hunt MEN to rape and murder.
Finally, I might point out that the misfortunes which "Ripper's" two central Mountie characters have suffered -- with the exception of DeClercq's loss of his first wife and daughter, for whom his grief has progressed believably from one book to the next -- have all taken place in previous Slade novels starring these two individuals. Unlike many authors, Slade isn't afraid to put heroes through the physical or emotional ringer ... OR to show them struggling with the painful after-effects, in subsequent novels: yet another legacy of the authors' careers in criminal law, and familiarity with how tragedy wears cops' spirits down. Certainly, the fact you never know who's going to make it through a Slade novel, in one piece -- that even recurring characters and "noncombatants" are vulnerable -- makes them a MUCH more challenging, nail-biting read than series where you KNOW nobody important's going to die. |
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 07 June 1999 - 10:00 pm | | Concerning D'Onston, Harris makes a point which seems to me to require further explanation. He speaks of D'Onston as being a good candidate for being the WM because of his great coldness, analytical bearing, military discipline, quiteness, etc., and then he explains what had to have been the great passion of the Ripper mutilations in terms of D'Onston sort of letting the gates open when it was time to do so. I don't follow this psychologically. If you're cold, you would appear to be cold. If you had these searing fires burning under your surface, wouldn't that make you appear to others as high-strung and anxious, rather than cold?
I don't think D'Onston was the type who committed the murders. I think the real murderer was not necessarily a cold fish-like creature, but rather an unusually uninhibited creature. When Harris uses the cold-fish architecture to blame D'Onston, he is really only going by what others who knew D'Onston--like Mabel and Vittoria--thought of him. THEY thought the cold fish was just the type to be JtR, and Harris presents their interpretations in a such a manner to get US to follow their thinking. Cold fish, it seems to me, don't do what JtR did.
David |
Author: Raymond Speer
Sunday, 21 November 1999 - 08:40 am | | Robert D'Onston Stephenson was one of the first Ripper buffs ---speculating about the identity and motives of the killer on the basis of second-hand evidence. (Hmmm, doesn't that description fit everyone who reads or contributes to this board.)
Stephenson's candidate for Jack the Ripper was a physician named Morgan Davies. Stephenson's opinion was based on the pantomime that Davies performed to demonstrate Davies' own theory of how the Ripper brought down his prey. (Obviously Dr. Davies was a Ripper buff too.) Stephenson deemed the simulation so convincing that he assumed that Davies had special insight into the killings. Ergo, Davies was the Ripper!
On 16.10.1888, Stephenson had written to the police abut his guess that the Goulston Street graffito had been mean to be read as, "The Juives are not the men That Will not be blamed for nothing." Hence, Stephenson suspected that the writer was a Frenchman who must have been a long time resident of Britain to "write so correctly; Frenchmen being, notoriously, The Worst linguists in the World." (In Ripperology, we've all seen stranger theories.)
In the _Pall Mall Gazette_ of 1.12.1888, Stephenson became the first Ripperologist to put in print the constantly popular theory that the murders in Whitechapel followed some sort of esoteric ritual. Like Percival Lowell gazing on Mars, Stephenson assumed he saw order in chaos, and proclaimed that joining together the murder sites on a map produced a cross-like image.
According to Jakuboski & Braud's _Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper_ (1999), Robert Stephenson had told another Ripper buff (George Marsh) that Morgan Davies was the Whitechapel murderer. On 24.12.1888, Marsh went to the police, naming Stephenson as the killer (on the basis that Stephenson's pantomime of the Ripper at work was too vivid to be performed by anyone but the killer). On 26.12.1888, Stephenson is supposed to have informed the police by writing of his suspicion that Morgan Davies (the originator of the notorious pantomime) was really JtR.
I suspect that the police immediately eliminated both Stephenson and Davies as suspects because there was no physical evidence found to support their conjecture that the Ripper had anally sodomized his victims before butchering them. Obviously, neither the doctor or his patient were more than airchair theorists, spinning fantasies to bridge the limited supply of facts.
Six or more years later, Stephenson was still telling his friends his solution to the Ripper mystery (but he never put it in print, suggestng that he knew that he could not win a libel action brought against him by Davies on the grounds that the doctor had excelled at a gruesome pantomime). He told that to his mate, Mabel Collins, and to Mabel's pal, Vittoria Cremers. Following the well-known tradition of estranged women suspecting that their ex was JtR, Mabel was convinced, at or following her breakup with Stephenson, that R.O'D.S. was really the Ripper. When Stephenson described what he thought Davies had done, Stephenson was actually providing an account of what he had done personally
If the ladies are to be believed, Stephenson had said that the murderous Dr. Davies had stolen the uteri from his victims and brought the organs home hidden under his necktie! Mabel claimed that she found bloodstained neckties under Stephenson's bed. QED -- Stephenson did it!
In the Nineteen Thirties, Mabel's friend gave the story to a journalist, some twenty five years after Stephenson's last venture, a book on religion.
As Robert Stephenson fancied himself a master of mystic arts, and may have dabbled in black masses and such stuff, it can be said that bloodstained ties might have been stage props for fakirs in the Theosophy-Spritualist-Magick fad of the Fin de Siecle. I would class the alleged ties, if they really existed, as being depositive evidence as per the Maybrick watch.
All in all, I am mystified as to how Stephenson is a suspect today while Stephenson's own favorite suspect, Dr. Davies, is no longer in the running. Students of the JtR crimes ought to acknowledge Stephenson as being one of the first students of the field, and lay off the accusations against him. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Monday, 22 November 1999 - 09:58 am | | TIME-WASTERS AT WORK.
One book and one book only, presents the full facts about Roslyn D'Onston and the Whitechapel connection. That book is my True Face of Jack the Ripper. I am quite happy for anyone to dissent from my conclusions AFTER they have read my book with care. But I have little time for people who misrepresent what I have written. And I have even less time for people who pontificate about D'Onston on the basis of skimpy and faulty presentations.
One such pontificator is Raymond Speer. He has not read my book. He is relying on the flawed article in the Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper. And he seems to be adding in his own share of distortions. I suggest that he now reads my book and returns to make his apologies.
And, while we are waiting, perhaps Mr Speer could entertain us all by telling us why he felt the need to invent the fiction that D'Onston "Six or more years later...was still telling his friends his solution to the Ripper mystery..."
The boobs and absurdities in other D'Onston postings will have to disgrace the screen until I have the time to deal with them fully. |
Author: John
Monday, 22 November 1999 - 10:14 am | | Perhaps Stephen Ryder could answer the question as to why Robert Stephenson appears under the head 'Later Suspects [1910 - Present]?, when he was a suspect in 1888.
As for Raymond Speer, he displays nothing here but his own ignorance of the subject. |
Author: Raymond Speer
Friday, 26 November 1999 - 08:26 am | | I thank Melvin Harris and John for their responses to my post of 21.11.1999. If all they can do is insult me personally, it follows that they have no evidence to refute my proposition that Stephenson was a Ripperologist, but not the Ripper.
Did Stephenson claim ever to be the Ripper, or did he cast Morgan Davies in that role? Is there any physical link between him and the killings, other than his stay in the London Hospital at the time of the murders and those allegedly blood-encrusted ties?
I think I know the answers to those questions, and I don't need to become an expert on black magick or war in Italy to know those answers. When I get a response to this post, please keep it germane to this bulletin board, and don't drift into side issues. |
Author: BradDal
Friday, 26 November 1999 - 01:39 pm | | | Until the missing police files on Stephenson are found, there is no evidence that he was a police suspect in 1888, let alone at any other time. |
Author: John
Friday, 26 November 1999 - 02:44 pm | | Two clever-dicks for the price of one here.
Both Speer and BradDal (?) are cast in the same mould. They know little, add nothing, and disparage others who have done sterling work on the subject such as Melvin Harris.
BradDal shows his own ignorance of the subject when he claims there is 'no evidence' showing Stephenson to have been checked out as a suspect by the 1888 police. It is reported in the Whittington-Egan, Jones & Lloyd, and Knight books. The reports on Stephenson were seen by researchers in the 1970's before they went missing and a photocopy of the report by Inspector Roots to Inspector Abberline on Stephenson exists.
I suggest that these two know-it-alls keep quiet before they embarrass themselves even further. |
Author: BradDal
Friday, 26 November 1999 - 08:16 pm | | Hey John, a "clever dick"? No, no not I. Simply one who looks at the facts of this case and the facts say this: look carefully at the selected paraphrases to the Roots report to Abberline, and to the revelant citations in Wittington-Eagen and Knight concening D'Onston. There is not one shread of evidence to suggest that he was considered a contemporary police suspect, other than the fact that he was brought to Abberline's attention as an eccentric. I stand by my previous statement, Stephenson should not be condidered a contemporary police suspect until more conclusive evidence (ie., missing police files) are brought to light.
So glad to know that Melvin Harris' supporters carry on his vindictive tradition of spiteful indignation of anyone daring to voice contrary views to anything he's written. |
Author: John
Saturday, 27 November 1999 - 12:41 am | | Are they spelling errors or typos as a result of your hysterical eagerness to respond?
Stephenson was investigated by the police as a result of a visit by George Marsh who stated, on 24 December 1888,(inter alia) "He illustrated the action. From his manner I am of opinion he is the murderer in the first six cases, if not the last one."
Two days later Inspector Roots reported on Stephenson stating, (inter alia) "With reference to the statement of Mr. George Marsh, of 24th inst., regarding the probable association of Dr. Davies and Stephenson with the murders in Whitechapel..."
This clearly indicates that Stephenson, who went into the police station and saw Roots, was looked at as a suspect as a result of Marsh's allegation. Yes, Roots dismissed him as being a likely murderer in a report to Swanson, but nevertheless he was looked at as a suspect in 1888. This is more than can be said of Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog. It is the way the majority of suspects were brought to police attention.
I do not think for one minute that Stephenson was the killer, but contemporary suspect he certainly was.
By the way, what new material have you found to add to the facts or background of the Whitechapel murders of 1888? |
Author: Melvin Harris
Saturday, 27 November 1999 - 12:09 pm | | SHORT ON FACTS AGAIN!
Mr Speer imagines that he has been insulted. He's wrong once more. He has been IDENTIFIED. He is an obvious time-waster. People like him are noted for the advancing of pet theories based on fragmentary knowledge and unreliable sources. Despite this they yearn to be taken seriously. They even resort to inventing claims when they wish to strenghten their argument. And Mr Speer has done this by stating that:- "Six or more years later, Stephenson was still telling his friends his solution to the Ripper mystery..." This is bad quality horsefeathers. After his statement to the Yard on December 28 1888, D'Onston's only known re-telling of his tale took place in 1890. And he was then converted to Christianity as early as 1893.
If Mr Speer wishes to dispute this, then he is now obliged to give us the NAMES of the friends who listened to D'Onston's "solution" and the DATES on which these amazing talks took place. In advance I can predict that he will not be able to do this.
I now see that D'Onston's very status as a suspect is being doubted. The facts prove otherwise. He was certainly pointed to as a suspect in the Yard statement dictated by Marsh. His own later statement to the police would certainly have placed him under more suspicion. While he himself said that he was taken in twice for questioning. And in 1896 his editor W.T. Stead, a man with many close contacts in the police force, wrote this:- "He has been known to me for many years. He is one of the most remarkable persons I ever met. For more than a year I was under the impression that he was the veritable Jack the Ripper; an impression which I believe was shared by the police, who at least once had him under arrest; although, as he completely satisfied them, they liberated him without bringing him into court." |
Author: BradDal
Saturday, 27 November 1999 - 07:48 pm | | My apologies to John and Melvin Harris:
On re-eading Mr. Harris' book "The True Face of Jack the Ripper.." I realize that I made some erroneous statements regarding D'Onston's status as a contemporary suspect (I read the book two years ago and let the bulk of the Mr. Harris' written evidence against this suspect slip away to memory). Having re-read the book, the evidence suggests clearly that he (D'Onston) ranks as a legitimate contemporary police suspect (and really the only contemporary police suspect that we have when you look at the contemporary evidence).
One can only hope that the police suspect files will someday be found (if they still survive) and shed further light on Stephenson. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding. |
Author: John
Saturday, 27 November 1999 - 10:38 pm | | Brad,
Thank you for the last post which, I am sure, took great courage, and many would not have made such an apology. I can only say that I, too, apologise if my comments were rather too harsh.
I agree that it would be nice to find the missing police files, thank you again, and keep that interest going. |
Author: Raymond Speer
Sunday, 28 November 1999 - 08:56 am | | In the 1890s, Vittoria Cremers was told by Stephenson that Morgan Davies had been the Ripper. That is adequate foundation for my statement that Stephenson never abandoned his theory. One thing he NEVER did is say that he was the RIPPER.
I am wasting time writing in reply to Melvin Harris, the Immanuel Velikosky of Ripper studies. When shown another interpretation of the facts that casts his theory in doubt, Mr. Harris prefers to claim that he has studied more than his critic . . . but never quite gets around to answering the objection.
All hail to Melvin Harris. May he pontificate endlessly about the shortcomings of the many people he manages to offend. I _still_ believe his critiques of the Maybrick diary, but I have learned through this exchange that Paul Feldman paints an accurate portrait of Mr. Harris' temper and behavior. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Sunday, 28 November 1999 - 01:06 pm | | STRAIGHT ANSWER PLEASE.
Mr Speer, you have not named the people involved or the dates involved to justify your claim which involves a period six or more years after December 1888.
You owe it to everyone to answer. If you are offended then take it from me that you have offended everyone else who has read your posting and noted that you are not able to answer a straight question. You are providing false information and it is that, that is offensive. |
Author: John
Sunday, 28 November 1999 - 01:32 pm | | Oh dear Mr Speer, way out of your depth and sinking fast.
As Mr Harris has pointed out, you have signally failed to justify your words in your first post "Six or more years later, Stephenson was still telling his friends his solution to the Ripper mystery..." This is false, wrong erroneous, incorrect, misleading, concocted, faulty, flawed, call it what you will, information. You cannot provide any historical source for this information.
Is there any 'physical link' between anyone and the killings? I would say that the proven fact that he was in the close vicinity of the murders at the time is a better link than can be provided for many other so-called suspects.
Melvin Harris is educated, well-read, highly respected, and very knowledgeable on this subject. He is probably a fair bit older than you and deserves greater respect than you accord him for his honesty. Your sarcasm is low and misplaced.
You state, "All hail to Melvin Harris. May he pontificate endlessly about the shortcomings of the many people he manages to offend." This is crass and unbelievable nonsense.
Now I have a further question for you Mr Speer: -
Just who are the many people he manages to offend? You have cast the slur on his character, now let's see if you can justify it.
I know you can't justify it Mr Speer. |
Author: Caz
Monday, 29 November 1999 - 09:05 am | | The following is all very much IMHO of course and I make no apology for butting in. I'm doing so because I have as much right to air my opinion here as the next person.
Intelligence is down to genetic luck. A good education is down to environmental good fortune. Respect has to be earned and need have little or no association with physical age. One can only admire a person's intelligence and education if they use their gifts productively and with their fellow man in mind.
But you'd be amazed at how that respect could be enhanced immeasurably by just the tiniest bit of good-natured give and take between fellow scholars....or lost forever in a moment of daft pomposity during a debate about a long-dead serial killer, with or without bloody ties!
But then, some of you gents must know all this already and have nonetheless decided in your wisdom that, in ripperology at least, there is nothing to be gained by being both a gentleman and a scholar. (sigh)
Caz |
Author: John
Monday, 29 November 1999 - 10:43 am | | Another misplaced intrusion by the garrulous Caz, defender of lost causes, righter of wrongs, all round font of wisdom, knower of all, and 'good guy' extraordinaire.
She did not apologise for the intrusion, and we would not expect an apology. She has the right to her opinion, and the right to try and force it upon whomsoever she wishes. She has the right to butt into every conversation, discussion, exchange, argument, dispute, topic, board, nook, cranny, niche, in fact anywhere she wishes, in order to spread her ubiquitous presence as far as it can possibly go. Invited or not, wanted or not, Caz will be there, and with plenty to say.
But she must not expect to go unanswered or unchallenged.
Age, in itself, should merit some respect, although Caz, whom I believe to be only middle-aged, is obviously of a mind that it does not. That is her opinion. Mr. Harris's merits are both God-given, and self imbued. He has worked hard to be well-read, well-educated, and has hard earned the undoubted respect he has.
What Caz cannot see is that her own pontifications are in themselves totally self-indulgent and very, very pompous (and often very 'daft'). She is lost in her own self-glory of defending what she sees as the underdog. Whilst such motives may contain some element of laudability, they are often misplaced, such as now.
This is exacerbated by her lack of in-depth knowledge of the subject matter, the fact that she doesn't even know the people involved, such as Mr Harris, and she apparently believes a lot of what certain people write.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see, that pompous declarations were made by Mr Speer upon the suspect Stephenson, and quoting a book (The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper) which is ill-researched, mediocre, and the authors, names of which he is unable to spell. Not only does that book contain wrong information, it contains untruths about Mr Harris. That does not stop Mr Speer pronouncing on Stephenson with obviously flawed and erroneous information.
Imagine how it must feel for an author who has spent years and much money researching and writing on a subject, seeing that subject attacked by someone who has done no more than read an incorrect book or books for his information, before launching the attack and giving a pompous verdict.
Anyone who knows Mr Harris well will attest to his generosity, his willingness to share, his honesty, his staunch friendship, and his kindness. These are all attributes to respect. But, then, Caz wouldn't know that, would she? |
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 29 November 1999 - 01:19 pm | | When I read the above post by John, I can't help thinking how these considerations might effect me. Please forgive me if I am intruding.
I believe that I have a solution for the case, and intend to publish it. This will be a 75-100 page paper, with footnotes. I believe I can answer all open questions on the case, or determine which are red herrings. But I have nothing like the time and money to spend researching in the UK--being a debt-ridden middle-aged accountant with family responsibilities. I cannot even afford the purchase of MEPO and other first-line documents, at over US$250 each for many, I am told. The time lost from work in writing, and the copyright fees I'll have to pay, are perhaps too much in themselves. My sense of the case wouldn't be altered by first-line research anyway--I believe there is an answer, in the sense of an epistemological center for the order of ideas, in the evidence presented in secondary sources. I have begun writing this paper; it reads quite simply.
Would I be considered pompous and disrespectful to publish? Isn't it virtuous to declare one's values, to try to make a contribution to knowledge about the case, and to submit to criticism? How could I write the paper to not seem contemptuous of people who've devoted many years to the case, and who've spent a lot of their money on research. It seems to me the fairness aspect of this works two ways--on the one hand, it doesn't seem fair for an upstart without research credentials to publish anything, let alone claim he has solved the case; but on the other, it doesn't seem fair that only those with access to deluxe research materials should be considered capable of making a contribution. Isn't Jack the Ripper for everyone?
In the end, it may come down to the free speech question again. While I may be a ragimuffin Ripperologist, I would have the right to say what I wish.
How do others feel? I'd appreciate knowing.
David |
|
|
|
|
