Archive through March 14, 2001

** 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 March 14, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : Can we end the hunt for the 'profile' of the Ripper?: Archive through March 14, 2001

Author: Diana Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 08:13 pm
I watched the Ustinov presentation back in 1988 and taped it. I still have the tape so if you have any questions . . . (BTW that film and another were what got me hooked on the ripper)
Author: Martin Fido Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 11:41 pm
My apologies to Mark and John for overlooking their inaccurate inclusion of the word 'bloodstained' in the description of the apron in Hanbury street. (It was wet, but with water, not blood). The 'sheer balderdash' attitude to the farthings is being sensibly discussed on another board. Melvin might like to consult John Ross of the Black Museum, who visited Mark Olshaker shortly after I did, if he wants another opinion as to whether they looked at later material than 1988. Few of us pay the closest attention when Donston is mentioned. If Melvin wishes to rest his standing as a historian on the historical judgement that Donston was the Ripper, the rest of us can't really do much for him except to insist that, despite this, he is probably the best among us at identifying physical evidence of fraud and forgery. Martin F
Author: Martin Fido Friday, 09 March 2001 - 08:16 am
I've just read through the whole of this board from top to bottom. A lot of extremely interestin stuff on it. Where has Midori vanished to? She had some interesting input. David Radka - in answer to an earlier 'Ehh??' you posted, floccinaucinihilipilification is (in the words of the Concise OED) 'the act or habit of estimating as worthless'. It's an 'inkhorn term', that is, a pretentious and self-conscious construction from Latin which does more to show off the user's knowledge than to enlighten listeners or readers. It puts togethe Latin stems to mean 'rated as nothing as straw'. Its real claim to fame is that it stands as the longest word in the language (beating past claimants like antidisestablishmentarianism or honorificabitudilinis) and is almost never used except in discussions on that particular record. The only writer I've ever seen drop it into a published passage of prose as if he meant it is H.J. Eysenck, and he was pretty clearly intending to be funny/clever. For anyone interested in the formulation of the Peter-Ustinov-reciting-telephone-numbers-through-a-cloud-of-studio-smoke television programme, NONE of the contributors describing Ripper theories had their theoretical or accusatory work used in the construction of the FBI profile. Douglas and Hazelwood were given a digest of historical facts about the actual murders and murder sites, edited to clear them of opinions, and didn't even know there were suspects, let alone the cases made for each of them, until they had completed their profile. The theory consultants all gave videotaped interviews to Cosgrove-Muerer's team They made Don Rumbelow's and mine particularly long, as they decided to use us for the unbiassed historical narrative sections, and Paul Begg's longer still, as although they didn't use him on screen, they found his assessment of other people's work the fullest and most convincing, and used it for their own reference purposes. Hence he alons is credited as historical adviser on the titles. But Paul's taped interview, too, was not put before Douglas and Hazelwood when they drew up ther profile: indeed, I don't think any of the panelists ever saw any of it. Nor did Paul, Don or I have any say in how the factual material was presented to Douglas and Hazelwood, or how ultimately it was shown to the panelists. Until Douglas and Olshaker's book appeared, I had no idea that the Cosgrove-Muerer programme-makers had kept entirely to themselves all the discussion of Cohen - (and they heard plenty about him from me and Paul)- so that except for Bill Eckert, none of the panelists had heard a word about him. I do not know whether Bill participated in the 'discussions' about how to present the material they had collected. I have no idea why Robert Ressler has started to loom large in this discussion. His inaccuracies and any betises have little bearing on the FBI profile on the Ripper. He's long retired; played no part in either drawing up the profile or making the programme, and his claim to fame has never rested on any claim to historical accuracy or knowledgeability. I'm sure he wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that his historical asides are as inaccurate and off-target as the amateur 'profiles' of specific undetected murderers invented by people with no experience of psychological profiling or interviewing serious criminals. Martin F
Author: Michael Lyden Friday, 09 March 2001 - 07:52 pm
Hello Martin, I am the guilty party,yes I threw in the big word in a light hearted attempt to turn the tables on David Radka,Who often has me reaching for the dictionary! By the way Martin, although I consider your David Cohen theory to be one of the most plausible around, can I ask you this? What percentage of serial killers actually go insane and get carted of to an asylum.There obviously have been cases, but I think the most likely scenario is that Jack was somebody very much like Peter sutcliffe in character and the sudden end to his career was brought about illness resulting in death.A very boring scenario that wouldn't sell books I know. Your comments would be most welcome. All the best, Mick Lyden.
Author: Diana Friday, 09 March 2001 - 09:16 pm
A couple of summers ago there was a prolonged discussion re the possibility that rummaging around inside a dead body was a good way to pick up a nasty disease. One poster who was a Dr. suggested that if Jack only nicked himself in the process of attacking his victim and then plunged his cut hand into her entrails he could have picked up septicemia (fatal). Not so boring after all.
Author: Martin Fido Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 12:07 am
Mick - It's late at night, and I'm thinking fast offhand. But certainly after incarceration a number (like Sutcliffe now; and David Berkowitz and Ian Brady come to mind) - are found to be nutty as fruitcakes, which I think they probably were while active. As I mentioned somewhere earlier, check out the shrink's intro to Masters on Nilsen for a suggestion about how murdering may keep these unfortunate but dreadful people from exhibiting their insanity to all and sundry in obvious ways. (By the way, I didn't mean to suggest that anyone now using inkhorn terms for fun is pretentious: only those Tudor scholars who devised them and thought they were proving their intelligence and learning). Martin Fido
Author: Jeff Bloomfield Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 05:47 pm
Martin if you consider killers like Brady, Sutcliffe, and Berkowitz nutty as fruitcakes, do you feel they cannot have actual, rational motives for the crimes they commit? That the explosion of violence is a release of their internal pressures but nothing more? Jeff
Author: Ivor Edwards Saturday, 10 March 2001 - 10:54 pm
Mr Fido, I would like to know what reasons you have for discounting D'Onston as being the Ripper.What in your view was the motive for the murders ? Are you anti-D'Onston because you are anti- Melvin Harris.I note that you have used the word 'Dotty' in relation to Harris and his theory.Does this apply to anyone who believes that D'Onston was the ripper? I have a very valid reason for asking such questions as you will become aware.
Author: Paul Begg Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 04:39 am
Hi Ivor What's the latest news about your book. Do you have a firm publication date yet?
Author: Martin Fido Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 06:04 am
Dear Ivor, No - anti-Donstonism and dislike of much of Melvin Harris's work are two quite separate matters. I should detest the tone of Melvin's writing and disapprove of his tendency to assert his conclusions as indisputable facts (as in his remarks about the farthings above), especially when they are guesses about how other people's minds are working, even if he were a dedicated adherent of the David Cohen theory. Reason 1 for my rejecting Donston is the badness of the source. Anybody playing around with black magic is, in my view, credulous and stupid from the outset. Add to this Donston's apparent wish to aggrandise himself in the eyes of the women devotees, and the story that emerges between them seems palpably false. Reason 2, the story is internally inconsistent with known facts about the Ripper case. Organs were not removed and taken away from all the victims, and it must be doubted whether an 1888 necktie would have supplied an adequate shield for those that were. Reason 3, Donston's hospitalisation, while apparently bringing him into Whitechapel at the right time, also precludes him from being up and about on all the murder dates. There was a complaint made in the press around that time that hospital security at night was so tight that nurses couldn't get out. So I think we can forget Dr D rambling off in his dressing gown and slippers with his knife tucked under his nightshirt. Reason 4 is, unfortunately, an inevitable criticism of Melvin. I find no merit in the quasi-profiling questionnaire he applied to all the suspects he knew of to determine which was the Ripper. It is looking for congruence with a number of questionable deductions (like the assumption that a punter with an educated middle class appearance would have been trusted by prostitutes during the scare). It feels amateur armchair detective, and compares very unfavourably with the FBI's professional profiling which looked for congruence with the observable facts of the case (as they had been told them) and grounded itself in wide experience of serial killers. Reason 5 is an appeal to the wider public and a wet thumb in the air to see how the test of time may come out. With the possible exception of yourself and maybe Andy Aliffe, I know of nobody but Melvin who has studied the case and given Donston a moment's credence as the Ripper. All the best, Martin Fido
Author: Martin Fido Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 07:01 am
Dear Ivor, I notice that you also asked what, in my view, was the motive for the murders. Without wanting to arouse Jon's ire, and with no intention of getting into debate on the subject, I simply think that these were sexual serial murders, and the word 'motive' if it implies rational and explicable purpose, doesn't apply. I know that in a case like Sutcliffe's there could be 'trigger' experiences that actually did relate to women (being bilked by one prostitute, and given a well-deserved tongue-lashing by a respectable charlady). But I don't call these things 'motive'. All the best, Martin F
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 07:05 am
Dear Posters, Its shun Rosemary Year...but the provocative little minx thinx. Are we now witnessing the overthrow of Orthodoxy? The 'craxy Juew' theory? Is this the decisive moment in Ripper-History? Was it a mere historical coincidence that the Occult Revival began with... Jack? Only the Casebook can reveal all! Se Or Mary.
Author: Tom Wescott Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 11:01 am
Dear all, I'm going to have to go with Martin on this one. I have no personal objections to Melvin Harris at all, other than some of the behavior I've seen from him during the great 'Diary' debate. Nothing I would hold against him, though. Harris' 'The True Face of Jack the Ripper' makes for an interesting read but fails to be convincing, unless you have a predisposed interest in black magic and yearn to see it connected with the Ripper crimes. The necktie thing always seemed odd to me, for obvious reasons. As to the F.B.I. profiling of the Ripper, allow me to remind everyone that the general rule of their practice was not applied in the case of the Ripper - They couldn't visit the crime scenes, couldn't interview witnesses, the majority of the official files were long gone, not being Victorian scholars their knowledge of the time and area was admittedly lacking, they were working on a deadline, and not all the facts available to us today were available to them in 1988, and some of the 'facts' of 1988 have been proven to be mistruths since then. I think profiling is a great thing, and I think they're profile of the Ripper has some good points, but it must be taken with a grain of salt. D'Onston, on the other hand, must be taken with a pillar. However, Ivor, I for one look forward to reading your book with an open mind. Please just don't include more circles or diagrams suggesting there was some grand design to where the murders took place. The bodies fell where they fell, nothing more. When and where will your book be available? Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Judith Stock Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 12:55 pm
I agree with Tom on this one; I'm looking forward to Ivor's book, because I read everything printed about our friend. I find the search fascinating, and all the theories....old, new, controversial or ho-hum indifferent..simply add to the fun of the hunt. That said, I DO NOT believe anyone will ever name the Ripper (and, NO, that doesn't disappoint me!), and yes, I do believe the motive was only sexual, whether release was achieved upon actual death, or when the mutilations were carried out doesn't matter. Now for the real can of worms: I don't believe the Ripper had a plan; I don't believe the missing key has any significance; I don't believe the folded clothes have any significance; I don't believe the graffito has any significance; I don't believe the Ripper wrote any of the letters to the press or the police.....well, my jury is still out on the Lusk letter......I don't believe the Diary has any significance. I DO believe Jack was just a regular, East End bloke with a real problem; I do believe he may have cut himself at the Eddowes scene, and thus took away a bit of apron to wrap his hand; I do believe he washed his hands in Gouston Street, and dropped the apron bit there; I do believe that he probably died after Kelly......maybe from blood poisoning from the cut, maybe from a fight in a pub, maybe from being run over by a beer wagon. But bring on the book,Ivor;the more the merrier! Cheers, Judy
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 01:11 pm
Dear Judith, A lot of don't/maybes, but I'd second you on it being a regular East Ender...who happened to put his neck in a noose every few weeks! Good grief!
Author: Tom Wescott Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 06:38 pm
Judith, You believe he washed his hands in Goulston Street? Where on Goulston Street? As to the Lusk letter, if your jury is still out on it, perhaps it should still be out on the graffito as well. They are both very similar in their semi-illiteracy and both accompany items representing a victim. In other words, if you accept that the Ripper wrote one item you have to accept the possibility he wrote more. I agree with you about the key: Kelly and Barnett lost the key, that's all there is to it. I believe the folded clothes should remain considered as a clue, although I couldn't tell you their significance just yet, but they are part of the crime scene. I share your enthusiasm for new books. I mean, aren't the books what got most of us into this stuff in the first place? Don't most of us have rather impressive Ripper libraries? That's why I don't understand when I hear people b@tch about all the books and theories. Why the hell do they keep buying and reading them? Makes no sense. The only book I b@tch about is the Smithkey book. 43 pages!!! $26.00!!! I would like to say 'Congratulations' to Ivor for having the will, patience, courage, and tenacity to research, write, and publish his own book. If I pay for it and it turns out to be only 43 pages, though, don't expect to see Ivor around these boards much longer. Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Jeff Bloomfield Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 07:23 pm
I am sorry to change the subject a little Martin, but I have a question about the Cohen theory. I understand it in general but it is a small matter of interest. Given his history of violence prior to his incarceration in the asylum, did David Cohen ever display similar violent outbursts while he was in the asylum? Did he ever injure anybody there, including himself? I am sorry if the question seems very rudimentary but I am curious about this. And when did Cohen die? All the best, Jeff
Author: Tom Wescott Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 11:40 pm
Jeff and Martin, Those are good questions, Jeff. I have one of my own for Mr. Fido. Martin, where was David Cohen living just prior to and during the Whitechapel murders? I assume he had a place of his own? The subject of dwellings came up in discussion on another board, and I thought I'd throw this up to you. Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Martin Fido Monday, 12 March 2001 - 07:25 am
Jeff - Extracts from Cohen's case notes: 'He has been very violent since admission. Threatened other patients' (in Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary) '[1888 Dec] 28th ....Kept apart from other patients as patient is restless and agitated.... 30th Not so restless. Sleeps better at night. No violence recorded. [i.e. this last point is itself noteworthy on this patient].... [1889] April 8th Restless and excited; frequently kicks passers-by.... July 7th Michievous. [A much stronger word then than now, potentially carrying the force of 'malicious'].' In another volume - a sort of punishment book - from which unfortunately I took no transcript, it is recorded that he was at one point transferred to incarceration away from all other patients because he couldn't be trusted near them. Tom - We wish we knew. The address given (I guess in the Infirmary records, as I find it is not down in my transcript of the asylum records) is 86 Leman Street. But this was a Protestant Boys' Refuge (it later became an industrial school). The 1891 census shows no Jews whatsoever among the boys resident, although oddly enough there was a caretaker called Henry Cohen living on the premises. Before jumping to any conclusions or deductions about him as a possible relative, we must be aware that the asylum records state that no relative of David Cohen's is known. I conjectured (before the census records were available) that 86 might be a misprint for 84, since the latter was the Temporary Refuge for Poor Homeless Jews. It was just a couple of doors away from the Leman Street Police Station where the Ripper investigation was locally centred, and it would bring a suspect right back under the noses of the police if the doctors suddenly declared he was cured and should be sent home. Subsequently, however, we (i.e. Paul Begg) discovered that the Refuge only provided accommodation for two weeks for newly landed immigrants. It would be helpful if we could examine its records (which have survived) and see if there's any trace of Cohen - we might, most obviously, be able to clear him of all suspicion conclusively if he turned out to have arrived in England during November. Finally, to conjecture on an even more fine-drawn thread: Cohen's court appearance is docket-numbered alongside the names of a procuress and a harlot, both arrested in the course of a raid on a brothel. It is a reasonable assumption that Cohen was arrested at the same time and possibly on the premises. An anonymous brothel madam had previously informed Scotland Yard that she suspected an unnamed man who hung around her house of being the Ripper. This is mere coincidence on which a thin conjecture might be based - the sort of reasoning sometimes wrongly described as 'only circumstantial evidence' (as if circumstantial evidence, like fingerprints, isn't often far better than unreliable eye-witnesses!) But, as you see, we don't know where Cohen lived, except that the authorities accepted that he'd been in Whitechapel a year (to qualify for relief from the parish rates). We don't know how they knew that, or his name, age and occupation, given his general incoherence and the absence of any witness saying they knew anything about him. All we know are the important coincidences that Anderson says a poor Polish Jew from Whitechapel went into the asylum before the panic had died down and was identified as the Ripper; Swanson though naming him as Kosminsky, says categorically (and wrongly if Kosminski is intended) that he died shortly thereafter; and Cohen is the only poor Polish Jew from Whitechapel to enter the asylum at the time when the murders ended, and the only Jewish patient to die prematurely over the next four years, and his records suggest mania compatible with his having been the Ripper. All the best, Martin F
Author: Jeff Bloomfield Monday, 12 March 2001 - 09:02 pm
Martin - My knowledge of the treatment of the insane (and the criminally insane) is spotty at best. Aside from heavy restraints (a strait jacket or similar device) did patients in the 1880s and 1890s have any kinds of restraining drugs. Something like the 19th Century equivalent to say lithium today. Just to keep them calm or controlled. Jeff
Author: Martin Fido Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 01:20 am
Jeff - I couldn't tell you with any certainty about the criminally insane: I've never examined the Broadmoor records. Richard Dadd was certainly allowed to paint in Broadmoor, where he produced some of his most interesting work, so it wasn't all inhumane. I don't recall seeing any drugs prescribed for tranquillising, and don't imagine there was anything akin to our tranquillisers available. I shouldn't imagine there was anything stronger than a bromide (if that) for calming the insane. I doubt whether there was an adult equivalent of Godfrey's Cordial (laudanum and alcohol, used for calming infants in the 1840s!) In addition to serious restraint, we know that there was 'strong clothing' (presumably something like canvas). Cohen was put in this quite early on as he ripped up his clothes if he could. All the best, Martin
Author: Martin Fido Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 01:28 am
Jeff - I've just noticed that you also asked when Cohen died. He died in Colney Hatch at 9.50am on October 29th, 1889, in the presence of an asylum attendant. The Medical Superintendent reported to the coroner that 'The cause of Death was Exhaustion of Mania and Pulmonary Phthisis, and the duration of the illness was over 10 months.' Martin
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 01:09 pm
Dear Martin, I am sorry to know that you dislike much of Melvin Harris�s work and that you are anti-Donston. It is no good when people work against each other for whatever reason,much is lost and nothing is ever gained. However, allow me reply to your reasons. Reason 1. Let me state for the record I put no credence in Black Magic but people who do believe in it are just as sure of their beliefs as any religious fanatic. You state that anyone playing around with black magic is, in your view, credulous and stupid. Credulous, maybe, but not stupid. Stupid is to be slow witted, gormless, unintelligent, daft, dense dull, thick, lacking intelligence. Such attributes can be said of Kosminski or Cohen. So if either was the Ripper then nothing can be said of those who have tried to find the killer. Many well known, intelligent and powerful people throughout history have been playing about with black magic. Look at the Nazi party and the part that the occult played in it. Acknowledging that the occult was part of the Nazi party does not mean I condone it--in fact I abhor their actions. I have met and conversed with many intelligent people but at the end of the day some have not possessed the ability to be wise. Grace Kelly, for example, was a very beautiful and intelligent woman who paid a large sum of money to become the High priestess of an occult group which was responsible for mass suicide and murder.This group is under investigation today. Grace was intelligent, yes, but she was not wise to get involved in this cult. Many serial killers are known to have very high IQs but you can�t class them as being wise. D�Onston was intelligent; look at the work involved in his book �The Patristic Gospels�. He collated bible texts from 120 of the Greek and Latin fathers from the 2nd to 10th century, from the 26 old Latin versions of the 2nd century,from 24 Greek uncials and some cursive, from the vulgate, Syriac, the Egyptian and other ancient versions, all the Greek text from 1550 to 1881. D�Onston travelled the world in search of knowledge. He may have been a lot of things but slow witted and gormless he was not. Reason 2: You write, �The story is internally inconsistent with known facts about the Ripper case. Organs were not removed and taken away from all the victims, and it must be doubted whether an1888 necktie would have supplied an adequate shield for those that were.� To what known facts of the case do you refer? Why should organs be removed and taken from all the victims? He took the organs he required no more, no less. I don�t believe that he used a necktie to carry off the organs from Eddowes. I believe that Jon hit the nail on the head by stating that these organs were wrapped in the stolen apron piece. This leaves the missing organs from Chapman and Kelly. I cover this subject at depth in my book. But I will say that neckties in 1888 were wider than today. I have known criminals to hide objects behind their ties. In fact, I witnessed one suspect undergoing a street search in the 1960�s,including all his pockets. Nothing was found on him. It transpired that he had rather a large quantity of drugs placed inside his tie. Reason 3. I have covered this aspect of the case by going to the London Hospital and making inquiries to see if this was feasible. How many others have done the same I wonder? Why does the hospitalisation preclude him from being up and about on all the murder dates? He was not ill, he was feigning illness. He was a medical man and to him it would be child�s play to con anunsuspecting doctor. Prison hospitals, for example, have many inmates who feign a complaint to have an easier time of it. I have been told by the curator of the hospital museum that patients wore their own clothes (unlike today at the Surrey County Hospital for one example). I have a photo of the ward D�Onston was in which shows the patients dressed up in their own clothes. D�Onston would not have been rambling around in dressing gowns or slippers with a knife tucked under his night-shirt as you may believe. You make mention of a newspaper report indicating that a complaint was made because security was so tight that nurses could not get out at night. I have a newspaper report that states a little boy found Stride and he summoned a man named Koster. I have another news report that a man named Gilleman raised the alarm. The moral of this story is don�t believe all you read from newspaper reports especially when they relate to the Ripper case. I know of a newspaper report that two policemen used a young girl as bait outside the London Hospital. (If security was so tight at the hospital why would police of the day be there, waiting for a suspect, in the first place?). While standing on the pavement a rope came over from a hospital wall and and hit her on the head. I have it on good authority that when the Elephant man was in the London Hospital (at the same time as D�Onston, I might add) bars had to be fitted on the windows of his apartment. I have a photo which shows this. The bars were not placed on the windows to keep Merrick in. But to keep intruders out. At night people would gain access into the hospital grounds to see him and it became a problem. Much more information is placed in my book to cover this question. I can assure you that I have investigated this aspect of the case in great detail, as I have with many other aspects relating to D�Onston. I am no armchair detective I spend more time out and about than I do at my desk. That is why it has taken me so long to answer your post. I do not place my research on this matter on a dubious newspaper report. Don�t you think that I have checked up on Melvin�s research? Reason 4. Profiling is a hit and miss affair. I am familiar with Professor Canter and have corresponded with him. For every point you raise in his favour I can raise several negative ones. Like many experts he is prone to ignore facts which do not fit in with his ideas hoping they will go away. I know people who know him, including police officers who worked with him on the Railway murders. He has been known for unprofessional conduct and rude outbursts at female staff members. He deduced that because the murders were committed by railway stations this indicated that the killer (two men were in fact involved in the murders and, yes, I know of your comments on this ) was utilising the network. I have a nine year old niece who could have told the police about this brilliant piece of deduction. Canter has made many bad mistakes but we don�t get to hear of them do we? He lets his ego and self-importance get the better of him. If he is considered by some to be the best profiler in the country then it does not say much for profiling in general in the UK. When I wanted to know about certain aspects of serial murders I asked a serial killer not someone who thought they knew about them. Reason 5: I agree that only a few people have written on the subject accusing D�Onston of being the Ripper. But this can be said of many suspects. It means nothing. There are people who have not written on the subject who believe it possible that D�Onston was the Ripper. Look how many innocent people have been unjustly accused of a crime they did not commit by a judge and jury. They were hanged or given a life sentence. And in the majority of cases the gullible masses believed them guilty. One or two people then stood by them to prove their innocence and their cause grew until a miscarriage of justice had been found. Do you realise how many such cases have taken place in the last ten years? The only reason hanging was ever abolished in this country was that far too many innocent people were being hanged in the name of justice. The point I am making is that because only one or two people believe in a cause it does not mean to say that they are wrong in their beliefs. As for the motive for the murders, many believe that they were not the work of a sexual serial killer. Professor Jeremy Coid, a forensic Psychiatrist, stated that there is nothing in terms of evidence which shows without a doubt that these crimes were committed by somebody in a state of sexual arousal. I agree that Jack may have had some type of sexual thrill from certain aspects of the case (like the chase or the kill etc.) but his motive for murder was not a sexual one. I don�t believe he had sex with any of his victims and there is no medical or other evidence to show that he did. I believe that the police failed to find the true motive, hence the failure in catching the killer. One should never look for a killer without first ascertaining his motive. I was informed by Lindsay Symons,of Headline Publishing, on 10 October 1996 that after viewing my work you confirmed that my thesis is genuinely original and that you were very interested in my research since then it has come on by leaps and bounds and has been essentially rewritten.I thank you for these comments and very best wishes.
Author: Melvin Harris Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 03:29 pm
ACCURACY PLEASE! Fido is on written record as admitting to be an "opinionated pontificator". He is also prone to throw his Quakerism into his judgements. And he is far too eager to use sneers and jibes when dealing with ideas that he neither understands, nor tries to understand. Yard after yard on his Cohen theory, but no attempt to report accurately on the material he is supposed to have read on D'Onston. Instead we have Vittoria Cremers branded as "batty" and D'Onston dealt with thus: "Anybody playing around with black magic is, in my view, credulous and stupid from the start." In Cremers' case we have a woman whose written recollections are level-headed, matter-of-fact, and free from attempts to colour her accounts. And they are, in fact, more accurate than any of the accounts by retired policemen that I know of. She wrote at a time when confirmation of many of her statements was not possible. But when the Yard files were opened; When D'Onston's Customs records were found; when his hospital and family records were located; then it became clear that her reporting was good and trustworthy. But Fido needs her to be "batty"! Well, the only grounds for using such a term lie in the fact that her religious ideas clash with Fido's. She was a Theosophist and Fido does not accept those beliefs. So he acts like a religious bigot and sneers and smears. Yet his own beliefs are just as riddled with supernatural illusions as hers. It is well known that I regard all religions as tragic survivals from Man's infancy. They are the products of fear, ignorance and bewilderment, combined with a wish to control a hostile world. They are divisive and backward-looking. But I also understand why many people feel the need to cling to their faiths and I would never deride them for having that need. Not so with Fido. A lady offers some testimony that jars with him; but since she has odd religious ideas, the simple way out is to dismiss her as "batty". Pretty loathsome thinking to my mind. But sneers apart, how does Fido's grasp of 'known facts' rate? He tells us that D'Onston is inconsistent with these known facts since "Organs were not removed and taken from all the victims." Does Fido really know what he is talking about? Cremers in her account states something very different. She recalls how D'Onston spoke of the killings and she says: (p 81) "For the first time, I learned how, in two instances, the murderer, after mutilating the bodies took away the uterus..." IN TWO INSTANCES MR FIDO. So much for his fair play and historical competence. As for organs behind a neck tie. The ties in question were broad indeed, and held against the body by the waistcoat. I have experimented with such ties and chicken necks and the idea is quite feasible. Even more so if you remember that D'Onston was a pipe smoker and could use the oil-skin tobacco pouches of the time as containers to limit seepage. Yes, the ties were used to conceal things, there was even a spy camera meant to snuggle under a neckpiece. As for Fido's hospitalisation musings, these are unreal. As a private patient with medical knowledge, D'Onston was in a privileged position. He would be more trusted and looked up to than the average patient. As an 'insomniac' and pipe-smoker he could wander into the hospital grounds as often as he chose, and in outdoor clothes. Such regular practice is a perfect cover for the odd excursion and since there were only FOUR nights involved the risks were minimal. Fido's claims for the tightness of hospital security at the time are worthless. The facts are that at night, and especially at weekends, most hospitals were run on a slack basis, no matter how strict the written regulations might seem. If gates were locked then nurses and other staff went over the walls. Since Fido refers to the newspapers of the day, I suggest that he looks at the 'Star' for Dec 19th 1888. He will find a report headed OVER THE HOSPITAL WALLS. It deals with events at the Croydon (S. London) Infirmary. It reports that at night, nurses and other officials (male and female) scaled the walls of the hospital on a regular basis. False attendance times were logged into the porter's book "...thus showing there is no dependence to be placed on the entries..." (This abuse only came to light after an enquiry was held into the mistaken identification of a corpse) In the case of the London Hospital an exit was even easier, since the rear area had no high walls, just simple short railings, set in low, brick support-walls. And there were plenty of shrubs and trees to provide cover. The 'profile' I drew up was perectly valid for the limited use to be made of it. It was simply a guide to further study. But, of course, it eliminated asylum-worthy Jews. Ages before I even considered D'Onston seriously, I had thrown out the idea that a Polish Jew had been identified in an asylum by a fellow Jew who refused to testify against him, in case this led to a trial and hanging. This scenario was in direct conflict, in every aspect, with the law as it stood then. Here it was Major Smith not Anderson who spoke the truth. And there was never any doubt for me and others, that a gentle sounding client used to talking to prostitutes, could blarney away fears and get the victims just where he wanted them. It turned out that D'Onston was just such a man. And his very service records show his involvement with prostitutes as early as 1868. He even wanted to marry one of the sisterhood. And it later turned out that he was in Whitechapel with an easily faked malady that was treated with nothing more potent than rest and a bromide and chloral mixture! Public belief in my ideas has never meant anything to me. As long as I am not saddled with false ideas and faked charges I am content. But if public endorsement is a guide to worthiness then we should all be believing in those popular icons the Duke of Clarence and Sir William Gull. As for qualified people who do think like me, well they do exist but, like myself, they are not publicity hungry. You can find two of them (Canadian criminal lawyers), mentioned in 'Ripper Notes' Vol 4 No 4. To sum up, Martin Fido's record in dealing with D'Onston is a dismal one. In his book he tried to sweep reliable history to one side by sneering at Mabel Collins and Cremers as "...rather silly ladies in the Aleister Crowley circle..." The facts are that Crowley was a schoolboy at the time of the murders and the Pompadour affair; that Collins was never involved with Crowley at any time and that Cremers only met Crowley twenty-three years after the killings. That same book went on to misrepresent D'Onston's statements about W T Stead; misrepresentations which were echoed by Begg and carried over into two editions of the 'A to Z' (see my 'TRUE FACE' pp 130-2) Having mentioned Stead, it is fitting to point out that he knew D'Onston's whereabouts at the time of the murders. He knew D'Onston's state of health; he knew his cold-blooded nature and he deemed him quite capable of killing and mutilating the Whitechapel victims. That, for me, is worth more than any number of twentieth century 'profiles'. And it is fitting to remind those who imagine that the D'Onston saga is simply about Black Magic, that the man himself tied together the sexual elements with the ritualistic excitements. (page 132 'TRUE FACE') Anyone who has studied sexual anomalies and perversions will know that bizarre rituals play important and even essential, roles in the sex drives of many people. Black and White magical cults draw on these needs. They have always been noted for their dependence on sexual ecstasy as a means of giving their devotees fulfillment. Their magical beliefs serve as mental aphrodisiacs.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 04:31 pm
Dear Brothers & Sisters, I, personally, have a great regard for Quakers. But I wish someone will tell us why a uterus... or two? Having gone through my dusty grimoires and rotting papyrus, can't find a ref. anywhere...but its just possible.
Author: Alegria Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 04:51 pm
Mel, You state: Fido is on written record as admitting to be an "opinionated pontificator". He is also prone to throw his Quakerism into his judgements. And he is far too eager to use sneers and jibes when dealing with ideas that he neither understands, nor tries to understand. Then you state: It is well known that I regard all religions as tragic survivals from Man's infancy. They are the products of fear, ignorance and bewilderment, combined with a wish to control a hostile world. They are divisive and backward-looking. You say that contrary to Martin, you would never deride people for their beliefs. Well Jesus Christ! If calling someone backward, ignorant, fearful and bewildered isn't deriding them, what in the Nasty Afterlife is? On a different topic: When you say that "white magic cults are well known for their dependence on sexual ecstacy as a means of giving their devotees fulfilment", could you be more specific as to which white magic cults you are referring? I would definitely like to join! Seriously, I would like to know which cults these are as I have not heard about them and would like to broaden my knowlege of magical subjects.
Author: Martin Fido Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 07:25 pm
Dear Ivor, Many thanks for your long response to my comments. I differ from you in thinking it is possible to be stupid and intelligent at the same time. W.B.Yeats was in many ways supremely intelligent (assuming it requires a high degree of intelligence to write what many of us find the finest 20th century poetry in English). He was stupid when he dabbled with Black Magic; intelligent in some of the uses he made of symbolism deriving from it. I think that some, but by no means all of Black Magic's adherents hold honest beliefs. Some, I think, like Crowley and Mather, are charlatans exploiting the credulity of others. Some are enjoying a frisson of 'let's pretend' half-belief. (I speak as one who once belonged to a college society that, a couple of years before my day, had used an old ritual to 'conjure up the devil', and then had a warning visit from a 'white witch'). I very much doubt whether Donston believed absolutely in black magic. For he was, as you say, an intelligent man. 'The Patristic Gospels' is an ingenious as well as learned work of textual criticism. I'm not sure, however, how profound a linguist he really was. I think of Robert Graves' strictures on Ezra Pound's frequent ventures into fragments of obscure and dead languages, and wonder whether Donston worked from a well-stocked collection of dictionaries rather than a well-stocked mind. When I write off Donston and Cremers as 'a bad source', I mean essentially that he was a poseur, and so untrustworthy; she had a credulous ambition to possess knowledge and lore unknown to common mortals, and would be willingly leap into self-deception if she thought she knew who the Ripper was and he related to her secret lore. If you think that Katherine Eddowes' organs were carried away in her apron, then you either don't see the need for the bloodstained necktie Cremers described in her case, or you have to explain why he chucked his carrying wrap away after a few minutes walking and reverted to the tie he had used in Annie Chapman's case. I'm not suggesting you haven't considered these points and argued your way around them; only that I may feel, as I do with the various arguments around objections I raised to the Maybrick Diary, that I remain unconvinced. (I don't know until your book comes out). You, of course, are in no way expected to be convinced by my thinking. The newspaper item on hospital security to which I refer was neither a piece on the Ripper nor a sensational story. It was a serious article on a definite problem. The Elephant Man was, indeed, in the London Hospital - (his bones still are). I cannot easily envisage nurses who wanted to get out past the porter sneaking through his rooms and windows. Whether or not Donston was subtle (and sober) enough to get past doctors or porters at a time when the place was locked up is a matter of opinion. I was, of course, being facetious wheh putting him in dressing gown and slippers. I don't, myself, agree with a great deal that David Canter has said about the Ripper. I have only met him briefly; I don't think that attacks on his character and personality have any bearing on the evaluation of his work and opinions, unless it can be shown that he is characteristcally dishionest, evasive, or in some other way abuses the evidence he finds. And by shown, I mean 'shown', not asserted. This is exactly the mode of 'debate' I find extremely objectionable in Melvin Harris. Of course it is true that the number of people who have written in support of a theory are no reliable guide to its validity. I myself called it 'a thumb in the wind'. But so far, the Donston theory has had twelve or thirteen years in the field, and in its current form has not found any well-informed takers that I am aware of. While I don't share your opinion that it is necessary to know 'motive' before one can know 'who' in a murder case - (what, for example, do you take to be David Berkowitz's 'motive', now that he claims to have been acting as part of a cult?) - I note with interest that you seem to be proposing a new and different motive, and look forward to seeing what it is and how it changes the Donston theory. With all good wishes, Martin F
Author: Alegria Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 07:39 pm
Yeats was not a black magician. He was a student and practioner of the occult. Despite Christian attempts to turn occult into a synonym for evil, it is not.
Author: Martin Fido Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 07:43 pm
Dear Alegria, Many thanks for your remarks. As Melvin knows, I do not respond to his pieces addressed to me on the boards, since he declines to say who is posting for him, and I do not wish to be placed in the situation of meeting socially with anyone who lends themselves to assisting Melvin in his public abuse of me and others. While Melvin's posters skulk behind anonymity (with the honourable exception of Peter Birchwood) I decline to notice Melvin's utterances. (This is of some importance, since he and I have some common friends, one of whom, at least, has been rumoured to post for Melvin. I have no wish to interfere with Melvin's friendships, but I am sure anybody reading the above post of his will see that they have to choose between his friendship and mine). In case you're wondering what all the blather about my Quakerism is, I have when appropriate mentioned that having been brought up among extreme nonconformists - a Quaker home, a Methodist school; Seventh day Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, Plymouth Brethren, and yes, even Theosophist friends among other cranky asociates whom I have always respected as sincere people, some of them unquestionably people of higher integrity and moral character than myself - I am deeply aware of just what forms of dishonesty and self-deception may be found in such groups. And Dr Robert Anderson's adherence to crusading evangelical christianity, in the particular forms it took, was absolutely incompatible with his wilfully telling boastful lies in print, as people who objected to his claim to know the Ripper have sometimes maintained. I insist that, though he may have been wrong, he believed what he was saying. And that is absolutely all my religious beliefs (which are not at all what Melvin seems to imagine) or experiences have brought to my theorizing on the Ripper. My personal objection to Melvin is not that he is not a christian, but that he is not a gentleman. All the best, Martin F
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 07:58 pm
Dear Martin, Since I have sought an answer to a simple question which it appears to be, and by which all theory will be judged by from now on (mark my words), can any of the protagonists within/or without the Occult camp explain why Jack the Ripper would risk his life five (or more times)to obtain an item that was just as readily and easily available anywhere else than at midnight in Whitechapel? There are just as discerning minds as yours here. Thankyou
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 08:53 pm
Dear Me, Lets be honest boys! You just don't know do you? I could think of three uses right now.
Author: Jeff Bloomfield Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 09:38 pm
Dear Rosemary, This is only a guess but wouldn't an occultist type think that the night is symbolically more fitting to practice black magic, and that (in that the individual is seeking power from the devil) not only must the actions involved be evil, but they must invite great danger of discovery or capture to the perpetrator occultist? Martin -Thank you for telling me the date of Cohen's death in October 1889 (I see the record even gave the hour of his death). It is very curious to me. He apparently had such violence in his psychological make-up (excuse the attempt at some kind of jargon), that he brought about a heart attack or heart damage that caused his death (what exactly is a pulmonary phthisis?). But he was, you said, violent most of the time, needing restraint. Do the records of Colney Hatch show if Cohen, when he was violent, attacked everyone indiscriminately, or only women patients and (if any) nurses or attendants? I think you can see what I am thinking about here. The pitiful record of the Whitechapel case show only a class of poor women attacked. There is nothing that shows any men being attacked. Now given the paucity of evidence, we can't say that the Ripper would never assault a male, but there are grounds to think that he only attacked women. If Cohen attacked both men and women in the asylum, it does suggest he has more than injuring members of one sex. There is another possible explination involved. He could have been worsening and then becoming more generally violent. I am sorry to ask this question, but did you ever check with a psychologist or psychiatrist on the behavior of Cohen, whether it shows any consistancy or inconsistancy with what the Whitechapel Murderer would have acted like. In the record that still exists for Cohen, is there any explination of what he screamed about when he became excited and angry? Was he yelling about sex or rejection or screaming about conspiracies against him? Regarding the adherents of Black Magin in the last century, the list is varied. Besides vermin like Crowley (how did the world take him so seriously for so long), you mentioned Yeats. Ivor mentioned the late Grace Kelly. Others include William Lyons MacKenzie King, Canada's greatest Prime Minister (who believed in spiritualism), Stead, Conan Doyle, Franklin Roosevelt (who was supposedly very superstitious), even Harry Houdini. People tend to forget that Houdini's crusade against false spiritualists was because he was hoping that one day he would find a legitimate one. It's all a matter of degree with these people, and training. Houdini could spot the fakery because of his training as a magician and escapoloist. Conan Doyle had no such training, and for all his so-called expert reasoning, his books like Edge of the Unknown make for sad reading (I even have a copy of PHENIAS SPEAKS, which a friend gave me). FDR might avoid ladders or Fridays the 13, but he did not go the length of King, who not only sought the advice of his dead mother, and the dead FDR (after 1945), but his dog as well! The point is that people react to the occult as far as they will go. The deeper they wish to believe (Conan Doyle, King) the more pathetic. But I am curious now - did Sir Robert Anderson, in his religious zeal, ever show a belief in spiritualism? He died about 1918, just when the rising death rates in the Great War were increasing public support for the movement (Conan Doyle's loss of his mother, oldest son Kingsley, and brother-in-law Horning -who wrote the Raffles stories - made him a firm supporter). Did Anderson think there was anything wrong with spiritualism, or did he tie it to the worst aspects of the Black Mass and that hideous garbage? Did Anderson take his cue from the Old Testament injunction that you shall not let a witch live? My apologies if this message is rambling a bit, but these issues should be settled, at least I think so. Jeff
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 09:51 pm
Dear Jeff, There are more evil men... guarding us! And for what, you may wonder? A crazy Jew in the christian lunatic asylum...a nightmare scenario.Some people have no pity (including me!).
Author: Jeff Bloomfield Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 10:01 pm
But my dear Rosemary - everyone knows the lunatics are running the asylum (HEH,HEH,HEH,HEH,HEH,HEH!!!). And what about Naomi? Jeff
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 10:15 pm
One uterus was taken from Chapman the other from Eddowes. The occult dictates that the uterus must be taken from a murdered harlet. Each uterus is then made into a holy candle.The occult dictates that the two candle's should be placed in two moon shaped candle holders. They are then placed with other items inside of a circle named a GOETIC CIRCLE OF BLACK EVOCATIONS AND PACTS.Certain items are placed on the circle. Drawn inside of the circle are certain symbols. The victims must be killed at certain points.So now you know of four uses Rosemary.For more information contact the Durban Police Department who have set up a special murder squad to deal with the ever increasing number of occult ritual murders.
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 10:52 pm
In answer to Paul Begg and Tom Westcott. Greenfield Publishing wish to publish my book but as yet I have no date. You will get value for your money Tom, over 8 years of damm hard work's worth.I promise no more circles. I was going to throw in a couple of crop circles as a bonus but I could not find a wheat field in Whitechapel! So you are off the hook my friend. Martin I will answer your post tomorrow it is nearly four in the morning here and I am ready for my bed. Goodnight all.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 05:37 am
Dear Me, Well, there you go folks! I'm not a yid, nor yet a foreign skipper. I am, your light-hearted friend Yours truly, Jack the Wiccer! In this instance re, Black Magic, or primitive prayer...I'll stick with the Methodists. Move over Martin.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 06:21 am
Dear Me Too, The Occult is both an art and a science. Black Magic is a motley collection of folktales told by spin-doctors...as you see. Still, all ideas are gratefully received...the more the merrier. And I know Ed Carter has another use for a uterus or two. I bet NASA are planning a uterus-farm on Mars!
Author: Paul Begg Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 06:22 am
Hi Ivor I've mentioned your book a couple of times in "Ripperologist" but would like to give some advance warning of the publication date as and when you receive it if you'd be kind enough to let me know. Thanks.
Author: Alegria Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 06:58 am
Ivor, You say "The occult dictates...".. The word occult is not used like Prebyterian or Catholic. It is not a specific religion. Saying the "occult dictates.." is like saying "Christians believe..." Although there are a couple of universal beliefs, not everything once sect believes or dictates is followed by the whole. So which occult branch are you referring to?