Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 08:02 am |        |
First - Apologies to any occultists I have offended by the reckless use of the term 'Black Magic'.
Second, despite my wish not to offend, I am bound to confess that I do not believe anything at all that appears to have been contradicted by the laws of science (this includes supposed christian miracles, resurrections - people seem to have been popping up from the dead all over the place in 1st century Palestine, according to the gospels and Acts - virgin births and the like).
Third, yes, I'm afraid that on the occult question in relation to the Ripper my mind is made up to the point of possibly seeming closed. I frankly do not believe there was any occult connection or any truth to Donston's story. I recognise that Donston COULD JUST have been the Ripper, IF a number of difficulties are resolved. That doesn't mean I think he was or that I think it remotely likely. Paul Begg accepts that I don't believe Kosminsky was the Ripper and am never going to say I think he was unless somebody produces some shattering new evidence to explain his wqndering at large without killing anyone for two years. Jon accepts that I think the Ripper murders were 'conventional' (if you can imagine such a horrific idea!) sexual serial murders, and it will take extremely strong evidence to budge me on that - not a lot of argument. So why must Donstonians behave as though niggling and fine-tuning and rehearsing their past arguments were going to make me change my mind? Why do they care? I've said I don't. that I start to yawn as soon as I hear somebody arguiing seriously pro Donston without introducing something new. that I couldn't give a toss about remembering or being accurate over the details of a case whose broad outline is so obviously inadequate. I have expressed my frespect for John Douglas's insistence on the broad sweep of a case as opposed to the fine and apparently inexplicable details. (One is reminded of Stephen Knight's upbraiding some other writer for daring to omit the apostrophe from Buck's Row - as if that made him an inferior historian!)
I'm going to try and post this now, as new updated and improved earthlink 5.0, like so many 'new and improveds' is less reliable than the old-fashioned version, and has kept freezing after I've drafted.
God bless, all,
Or, for those who prefer, 'Swelpmesatan' (Beverley Nicholls, 'The Tree That Sat Down')
Martin Fido |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 08:08 am | |
The one really bad thing about magic is that it doesn't work.
'Fifteen apparitions have I seen;
The worst a coat upon a coat-hanger.'
--WB Yeats |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 08:30 am | |
Jeff
You ask what 'phthisis' is. It is congested lungs.
You ask about consultations with forensic psychologists. Yes. Four have been consulted. Three in England were (independently) shown Cohen's and Kosminski's case notes and asked whether either could have been the Ripper. They were not told any details of the Ripper's case, and there is no reason to suppose they knew anything more than it was a series of sadistic killings with serious abdominal mutilations inflictied. All three said neither was at all likely; but Kosminsky was more likely than Cohen, as Cohen's advanced mania would have prevented him from evading capture.
The fourth, Professor Luigi Cancrini of Bologna, had made a study of the Ripper case using all information available to 1986, in order to give a paper on the psychological conclusions. He concluded that the crescendo of violence indicated a patient whose inner rage would ultimately turn on himself, leading quite probably to suicide. (All right, all right, all those who don't believe in a crescendo of rage! I know you exist! I have no objection to your holding your opinion! But please don't waste my time trying to convert me!) At this point Cancrini knew nothing about Cohen or Kosminski. When he heard about them, he agreed immediately that Cohen fitted his pattern as the increased inner rage could have led to degeneration into raving mania before a suicide could be attempted.
Back to the asylum. Cohen couldn't have attacked women. Men and women were separated into different wings. There is no evidence of anything in particular that provoked his violence.
And in re Anderson. There is no evidence known to me that he ever heard the suggestion that witchcraft was involved in the case. Everything I have read about and by him suggests that he would have been pretty intolerant of anything he considered such a revival of medieval and (worse!)papistical superstition, though he would have agreed that there was once a witch at En-Dor, and the Bible didn't think people like her deserved to live.
Rosemary -- terribly sorry; I'm an old fart who can't keep up with your humour (like those poor people who thought 'Boz' was just SILLY) and if there is a real question embedded in it which you want me to answer, it will have to be spelled out very plainly for the poor old fossil.
Martin F |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 09:06 am | |
| As one whose direct contact with Black Magic extends no further than reading Malleus Maleficarum - just the title, of course, not the whole thing - and once handling an extremely dusty box that contained a beginners selection of conjuring tricks, age 5-9, I wouldn't presume to comment on the above discussion except to ask what ritual was being performed and what previous examples of it are there. However, Gilleman was mentioned by Ivor above. Gilleman has been discussed in Ripperologist and on these Boards, and I would in particular direct anyone interested to the Liz Stride board and Alex Chisholm's message on Sunday, June 25, 2000. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 11:58 am | |
Dear Martin,
O Great Evoker of the Name! I've forgotten the question...the little dear turned over and went right back to sleep. I shall attempt to arouse it the 'next time around'. :-) |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 12:18 pm | |
Martin,
we haven't had much to say to each other on these boards, but I would like you to know I agree with a lot you have to say. I tend to look on the bible as a book of rules,(most good) to lead you through life, but written by man. Some men won't keep those rules, some take the rules to extreme, and some think they know better rules and start new religions and beliefs, the human race never seem to be able to stop the pendulum from going to extremes.
Regards Rick |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 02:05 pm | |
Dear Warwick,
We can read a lot "into" things, too!
For those posters not familiar with Ivor's Goetic
Magic...think "trophy" (pseudo-psychopathological
parallelisms, gulp).
For divination think "profiling"...et.,al.
Miserable mortals open your eyes! |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 02:39 pm | |
Thanks, Rick,
Martin |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 02:44 pm | |
Thanks MARTIN!
Blood is everything.
Rosy 'n red |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 03:26 pm | |
Martin, you have no need to apologise to Rosemary or anyone else when you use the
term occult in connection with black magic. She said black magic is a motley collection
of folk tales spun by spin-doctors. Black magic is simply magic invoking the powers of
evil. The occult means hidden, supernatural, esoteric, the study of the supernatural.
Thus, magic invoking the powers of evil is the supernatural. I think that wise people
reject the occult and black magic.One can be considered gullible to go along with it but
try telling that to those who believe in it. In reply to your post, Cremmers described not
one but several stained neckties. It has been taken for granted that D’Onston only used
the Whitchapel Hospital address. He was using a second address near the centre of the
junction. After murders 2, 3, 4and 5 he headed for this bolt hole. When he left Mitre
Square he never went straight to Goulston Street. He went to Goulston Street after
leaving his bolt hole. This explains the missing times we have. His bolt hole was about
half way between Berner Street and Mitre Square. He went to ground straight away after
the murders. I have timed myself from each site to this bolt hole. In fact, I reconstructed
everything in the field. I surveyed the whole area with a surveyor’s wheel and timed how
long it took to travel. Professor C. Henry who has studied some of my findings told me
that my work shows that the killer had planned the murders with a great deal of
consideration.
. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 03:28 pm | |
Alegria, Melvin wrote, “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.”
He is simply making a statement about the origins of religion which took advantage of
human weakness. He is terming religion as divisive and backward looking. You then jump
up accusing him of calling people backward, ignorant and deriding them.You have
posted meessages criticisingng the behaviour of others. Your actions give me the
impression that you wait in the wings to pounce on the slightest pretence to have a go at
Melvin just for the sake of it. Or is it that you do not pay sufficient attention to his written
words? You have given him a very valid reason to ignore further questions you may have.
Melvin is correct in what he states. The key theme of Egyptian history was laid down in
centralized power, a cult of the dead and the royal rituals. These three themes intertwined
to make Egypt the creator of one of the world’s first states and to achieve this a few
manipulated and controlled the masses. This was achieved through magic and the occult,
using subterfuge and depending on the guile of the populace. Adherents of the Temple in
Egypt believed that if the law, kingship, occult religion and ritual were kept to the same
pattern then all would last for eternity. All civilisations since have sought validation for
their power over the masses by creating great public symbols. One such early Egyptian
example was the Great Pyramid at Giza. Today most of us live in nations with some of
those Egyptian symbols; modern thinking is shaped by religious and social myth,
especially the myth of the great ruler, king, or God. It was in his name, in the bronze age,
that the many surrendered power to the few to live in the conditions in which most people
live today. It is easy to find people today who are gullible, ignorant and backward. Look
at Haiti where Voodoo is used to control the people. The west coast of Africa is another
example. I do not mock or ridicule such people and I don’t believe Melvin would. I
stated, “The occult dictates..”.. Then I mentioned THE GOETIC CIRCLE OF
BLACK EVOCATIONS AND PACTS. You ask, “Which occult branch are you
referring to?” I made it quite plain that I was referring to the occult concerning THE
GOETIC CIRCLE OF BLACK EVOCATIONS AND PACTS. Occult simply means
hidden, esoteric, supernatural. I thought it was quite obvious that the branch of the
occult to which I am referring is black magic. Again, I repeat, if you are looking for
information relating to occult ritual murder contact the Durban occult ritual murder
squad. In relation to D’Onston, he was a member of Lord Lytton’s self-contained Lodge
of Alexandria. This has nothing to do with the Freemason’s Lodge of Alexandra. I can
understand your hesitancy to assume content and meaning but a pedantic, and tiresome,
approach is unnecessary. We all know D’Onston was involved in Black Magic, under the
broad umbrella of occult belief. Let’s continue this thread with that understanding. |
Author: Jade
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 03:51 pm | |
How do you know about his 'bolt hole' Ivor? Was D'onston a medium rare in a world where the stakes are high.
Hidden can mean obscure which means something that is not widely known, like for example how do you know Royston had a 'bolt hole?' |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 04:07 pm | |
Dear Ivor,
Many thanks for your posting. I look forward to seeing your theory spelled out - and remember my own days scurrying around from Henriques Street to Mitre Square and on to Goulston Street, timing each leg with a watch, and fretting about the difference modern traffic made!
Martin |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 07:05 pm | |
Jade
I have no information on anyone named Royston. If you mean D'Onston then I know he had a second bolt hole for two reasons. One reason is that certain information uncovered points to it. This in turn enforces the second reason. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 07:23 pm | |
| What am I doing here Rosemary? I am a dialectical materialist for christ's sake! |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 07:41 pm | |
Dear Warwick,
I agree. But, the one really good thing about magic is Hollywood?
Rosy Lee |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 08:18 pm | |
Paul,
I will let you have a date when I get it.Do you want to do a review? In relation to Gilleman That report surely refers to Diemschutz. I worked it out that he was out in his time by 5 minutes. That puts the time at 12.55am and not 1.00am. All the newspaper reports I have place the time at 12.55am. This is one of the few facts they all agree on. Going by Dr. William Blackwell he arrived at 1.16am and said she had been dead no longer than 20 minutes. This would put the TOD at about 12.56am. Best wishes. |
Author: Alegria
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 09:52 pm | |
Ivor,
If a person says that a religion is evil, vicious and cruel, then you are implying that it's followers are likewise evil. You cannot have religion without people. The people are what shape the religion. Therefore whatever you say of religion, you are saying of the people who are religious.
I asked you to name the religion, the sect of black magic. Telling the name of the circle used is NOT naming the religion. Saying it was black magic is NOT naming the religion. Satanists can be deemed black magicians. They are different than pagan black magicians. There are numerous creeds of black magic, the same as there are numerous sects of Christianity.
As to my waiting in the wings to pounce on any comment: glad you caught on. |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 02:23 am | |
Hi Ivor
Yes, somebody will review the book for "Ripperologist", though it may not be reviewed by me personally. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 06:23 am | |
Dear Alegria,
A stranger in a strange land? |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 12:58 pm | |
| More like, Stranger women is a stranger land! |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 01:40 pm | |
Dear Ivor,
Touche! -)---------
Rosemary:-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 02:35 pm | |
Rosemary,
In the words of the late British comedian Dick Emery, "You are awful but I like you.
Ivor:-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 02:48 pm | |
| Because a sect, or religion may be cruel or vicious it is does not follow that all its members are. Many sects for example including the Moonies ripped off some of its members who were unsuspecting and no doubt had good intentions. You cannot tar everyone with the same brush.I do not intend to carry this topic any further with you. I stand by what I have said and you can take it or leave it. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 04:10 pm | |
Dear Ivor,
When you become 'the author'...weel ye nay come
back agin? A sequel..."Wheels within wheels"?
Gnosis to gnu!
Me - Ary Eros :-)) |
Author: Alegria
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 09:15 pm | |
Ivor,
I hope you use better logic in your book than you do in your posts. First of all the moonies are not a religion and so cannot logically be used to back your point. But let's suppose they are a religion. What is the basic ideology of the moonies? I believe it was peace and harmony other such innocuous things. Therefore, the people who would be drawn to it would be people of similar mindsets. The fact that the leaders of their 'religion' ripped them off royally, is no more germane to the argument than me saying the Catholic church also rips off its parishioners. The discussion was about how broad statements made about the IDEOLOGY of a religion would be applied to its followers. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 11:26 pm | |
| You silly girl pay attention if you read my message I said the moonies were a sect not a religion.Cant you read? If this is the best you can do then I suggest you take your doll and go and play with the other little girls and stop being a nuisance. Stop making stupid and childish comments just for the sake of making them.It is obvious what you are about, that can be seen from your childish and immature posts.All you are doing is mugging yourself off. Someone should keep a tighter leash on you.You know as much about the occult and religion as you do about Jack the Ripper,nothing.Be a good little girl,go away and stop bothering me. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 01:16 am | |
| Rosemary :-)) |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 07:08 am | |
Thank goodness for your smile, Ivor! I feared we were in for more abuse and counter-abuse!
Martin F |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 08:44 am | |
You can see what one has to contend with Martin :-)
I dont get abusive anymore especially with children.
I wanted to bring up a point with you Martin in relation to a suspect.The man in the doorway at Berner Street.What are your views in relation to him? He seems to be left out of the picture all of the time. |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 09:04 am | |
Ivor,
Do you mean the Pipe Man? Are you implying that the Pipe Man might have been D'Onston because we know that D'Onston was a pipe smoker?
David |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 09:38 am | |
Ivor,
Can't you read? Other than answering a point I did not make ( I said as the moonies were not a religion they were not germane to the argument, not that you claimed they were a religion), you have failed to address the initial argument, you silly little thing you! Maybe you are taking lessons in obfuscation and dodging from you idol. If calling people childish because they point out gapes in your logic is how you plan to deal with people after your book is read, maybe you ought to go back to playing with yourself, you poor old thing. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 11:02 am | |
Hi Ally,
Looks like Ivor's in for a better weekend if he takes your sensible advice than you are if you take his - beats playing with dolls any day. 
Have a great weekend everyone, whatever your favourite game is.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 11:12 am | |
Hi Alegria - any hope of smiles to keep the termperature cool in your exchanges with Ivor?
Hi Ivor - I must admit I've always taken the simplest possible view of pub/pipe man. Despite Stephen Knight's elaborate ingenuities, I have always assumed that he just stepped out of the pub (presumably to go home), and finding a little bit of a rumpus going on up the street, like Schwartz, ran away: my assumption has been that he was only running after Schwartz in the sense that he ran in the same direction.
But with unforgiveable indolence, I can't remember ever noticing before that the railway arch would have taken Schwartz beyond Ellen Street, and expect to enjoy the suggestions prpounded to explain this.
Finally, with respect to the invitation/encouragement to you to imitate Sir Basil Nardly Stoads (if anyone else remembers that pioneering figure from 'Private Eye'), my own everloving firmly says, 'You're w*nking again!' if she becomes aware that I've been playing the boards, or makes appropriate obscene hand gestures. So perhaps you have only to write back...
All the best
Martin F |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 12:06 pm | |
Hi Martin,
I hope that you didn't read the tone of my post as heated. It was not. In my experience when in the middle of an argument someone resorts to name-calling and insults as Ivor did, it is because they have no other recourse and are in effect (someone childishly) signalling defeat. Therefore:
 |
Author: Alkhemia
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 05:10 pm | |
Hello Everyone:
I may be stepping into the lion's den here, but I believe I have something to contribute to the lively debate.
On this, and a few other threads on the Casebook, I've seen references to Crowley, black magic and occult societies that flourished circa 1880. While I greatly respect many of the people who have contributed to those threads, I find some fundamental errors in the assessment of the "occult phenomena" during the Ripper murders. Has anyone actually read any source material on the Theosophical Society, Golden Dawn, et al? And no, reading Waite's "Book of Black Magic and Pacts" or a copy of the "Goetia" doesn't count. :-) For instance, all of the initiations and material relative to the Golden Dawn has been published for quite some time and is readily available. There is no mention *whatsoever* of conjuring Satan, "black masses," ritual sex, drug use or anything "immoral." I've been fortunate enough to view the original documents as well as the correspondence between members - and no there's no mention of "Satanism" or "black masses" there, either.
Most of the groups that flourished toward the end of the 19th century were rather benign and the majority died out, drifted off into spiritualism or focused upon contacting "ascended Masters". Groups like the GD or TS existed, in part, as social groups but they also appeared to have given their members a sense of control and a belief that they were getting closer to godhead. Whether or not you consider that rubbish is irrelevant - the fact is, the membership of the GD and TS would not have considered themselves "black magicians" or Satanists.
Crowley is another name that I have seen bandied about on these boards. Let me make it clear that I am no apologist for Crowley and I don't hold him in high regard, however, it must be kept in mind that Crowley was a relentless self-promoter who reveled in negative attention. Again, if you actually take the time to read his work, he makes it clear that he enjoys frightening the ignorant and the gullible by making outrageous claims. Crowley was a vindictive man incapable of sustaining personal relationships - but there is no evidence that he engaged in "Satanism" (nevermind that Satanism is a relatively modern invention ala Anton LaVey) or advocated ritual sacrifice.
To bring this discussion back into focus, D'Onston *may* have been a lunatic that enjoyed killing people, drinking blood, howling at the moon, etc. I obviously didn't know the man and it isn't outside the realm of possibility. However, to suggest his behavior (if he was the Ripper) was a result of his involvement within the TS or that it was somehow advocated by occult groups in general is absurd.
And Ivor, when you mention the "Goetic Circle of Evocations and Pacts," I am assuming you mean the circle with various Hebrew God/angelic names on the circumference. If so, I think I may have missed the point you were trying to make in bringing that up - please clarify.
Alkhemia |
Author: Alegria
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 06:53 pm | |
Hello Alkhemia,
A warm welcome (especially as I am having no luck getting answers to essentially the same question).
Since you asked, yes I have read a bit about Golden Dawn but only in relation to Yeats and his involvement. I am something of a fan. Crowley was expelled from it, if memory serves me right?
Also I am interested in your views on the goetic circle. To my understanding, although there are 72 demons that are classified as evil, there are a host of other benign spirits that one is capable of contacting? |
Author: Alkhemia
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 07:38 pm | |
Dear Alegria:
Yes, Crowley was expelled from the GD - but the issue is a bit of a complex one. Essentially, the GD was divided up into two groups; the Inner and Outer Orders. Crowley became eligible for the Inner Order in December of 1899, but many in the group (inclusive of Yeats) disliked Crowley immensely and wanted no part of him. Crowley had endeared himself to the increasingly odd S.L. Mathers and Mathers demanded that Crowley be admitted into the Inner Order. The overall weirdness of Mathers and his demands resulted in a schism within the GD and in Crowley being expelled without the consent of Mathers. Years later, Crowley managed to alienate himself from Mathers and was formally expelled by Mathers as well.
And yes, there are 72 "demons" in the Goetia - but the Goetia is just one part of a larger work called the Lemegeton.
Since I don't wish to incite the ire of the group for posting off-topic, please feel free to e-mail me.
Alkhemia |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 07:47 pm | |
Hi Alkhemia.Jack took a uterus fom two victims. The reason I mentioned the goetic circle was because two uterus are used in conjunction with the ritual associated with it.I am using that as an example as to why Jack would want two uterus.A heart for example, or certain other organs can be used for making up potions.Do you see the point I am making? I believe he simply took the organs for use in a ritual. OK.I have no idea of how many benign spirits can be contacted if you are asking that question.I have no interest in Crowley or The Golden Dawn.
Best wishes. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 08:04 pm | |
Hi Martin,
Yes I refer to the man with the pipe.The man was not seen coming from the pub he was seen standing
under the overhang of the doorway.He was seen lighting his pipe.He was in a position where in could see in all four street directions. He was well placed and out of the rain. The pub was closed as I understand.Did you know that a Kosminski owned a bakery in Berner Street.It would be interesting to know if this was the brother of Pauls suspect. This would give him a valid reason for being in Berner Street.Looking at the evidence I place KosminsKi on the site at Berner Street, rather than Mitre Square. It is possible that Kosminski attacked Stride ( if there is any truth in the seaside home saga ) but he did not kill her.I have a problem however in that the Kosminski ID took place 18 months after the murders.That is a hell of a long time to ID someone. I think the man in the doorway chased away the attacker ( Kosminski ) and then killed Stride.We do have a report that the man in the doorway went for the attacker.We aslo have a report that he followed Schwartz.Best wishes. |
