Archive through December 15, 2000

** 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 December 15, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: D'Onston Stephenson, Robert: Archive through December 15, 2000

Author: John Monday, 29 November 1999 - 03:09 pm
Mr. Radka, Your intrusion is polite, your fears understandable, and you are deserving of an answer. The whole premise of my above post as regards research and knowledge is made in relation to unjustified and erroneous criticism being made of a valid suspect, who, apparently, Mr Speer saw fit to totally dismiss after reading a couple of books. In doing this he did not get his facts right and, apparently, did not consult the main works on this suspect which have been written by Mr Harris. Your beliefs and opinions are yours and you are perfectly entitled to them. However, if these are published with a view to release to the general public then you may expect (and almost certainly will get) criticism and corrections. And you should not expect everyone to agree with your conclusions. The mere nature of the subject material makes it certain that most conclusions are incapable of proof and universal agreement. For example, you can say, "Mary Ann Nichols was murdered on the morning of August 31, 1888," and I don't think that anyone would disagree with you. However, if you said, "Jack the Ripper murdered his first victim on the morning of August 31, 1888," many would agree but many would not. Your circumstances are your own, private business, and not really an area for any stranger to comment upon. You are perfectly entitled to write any paper you wish on any subject you wish. I do find some of your comments puzzling, for instance "My sense of the case wouldn't be altered by first-line research anyway..." How do you know this when you do not know what primary source research may reveal? Also, in using secondary sources inevitably they will contain some errors and be heavily slanted towards the ideas and theories of the authors of such sources. In other words they will be subjective to a greater degree than most primary and contemporary sources. You say, "Would I be pompous and disrespectful to publish?" Without seeing the content it is impossible to tell if what you write is pompous, and I can only imagine it would be disrespectful if it cast aspersions on the integrity of others. There is nothing wrong in declaring 'one's values, to try to make a contribution to knowledge about the case, and to submit to criticism.' Your next question is strange if you do not mind me saying so. It is, "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...?" I would suggest that if your work is devoted to your own ideas, is factual and accurate, does not attack the theories of others with erroneous 'facts' and subjective conclusions posing as fact, then it would be an admirable work. Your idea of this sort of subject is that it is a 'free for all' and there for anyone to write just whatever they like. You talk of 'fairness,' 'upstarts,' 'research credentials,' and 'deluxe' research materials. This all smacks of a personal feeling of inadequacy concerning this field of interest. Perhaps I can answer this point in the following way. I am very interested in the Kennedy assassination, I have read and own books on it, and I have my own opinions regarding it. But when I compare myself with researchers and authors on the Kennedy subject I feel totally inadequate and would not dare to write a paper on it. I cannot afford to do any prime source research on the Kennedy affair and have to remain satisfied with reading about it, and stating my own ideas to others with a like interest. Free speech is for all, all may contribute their own ideas on a subject, but be prepared to defend what you say and to marshal your facts and sources. Yes 'Jack the Ripper' is for everyone (if that's the way you like to put it), but not everyone claims to have solved the case.
Author: The Casebook Players Present.....Fun Mit Hans Monday, 29 November 1999 - 05:47 pm
Hello Hans, I see you've had a hard day; you are a bit cranky. I just wanted to express my opinion, which is just as valid as anyones. I wonder; when did god appointed you the guardian of intellect,and methodology? You are beginning to sound like a dictionary; nice words, but must you read them to me? Carole Anne Mismosh 'allo Ms. Mismosh, yew are such the idiot yes. Yew szhould know by now za corrrrectk vay tzu operrrrate ven yew are posding on za nutkaze. Yew vood do vel tzu rrremember vot hopppend za lahst tiime tzu trrried to match vits mit ick. Hans Gippleheimer Hi Ho Every one, I know I shouldn't buttt in, but I just think that anyone who has an opinion can just say so... don't you think? Like the time I solved the White Chaple Murders, and refused to tell anybody. So back off. Dennis Bobka
Author: Joshua Thumblick Jr. Monday, 29 November 1999 - 06:11 pm
Hi Cras, Don't pay any attension to that crank behind the curtain. Actually, don't pay attension to any of them, they're all the same person. Joshua
Author: anon Monday, 29 November 1999 - 06:24 pm
Hey, the idiot is back! (We know who she is).
Author: NickDanger Monday, 29 November 1999 - 09:34 pm
Dear Friends, Wow! I am about to intervene in my first Ripper brawl knowing full well that it is probably futile and I'll wind up getting stomped as well. Gentlemen, gentlemen. I neither know or have ever spoken to any of the participants in this brouhaha ("ha, ha, ha"). I think that Caz is trying to communicate a valid message. All the points made by the warring parties can be communicated without sacrificing dignity and respect. None of the content need be compromised. This is the normal give and take of scholarly discourse. When it's not simply a case of proving an opponent wrong but to shred, delegitimize, invalidate and humiliate, I think it has gone beyond anything that we might term scholarly. These types of exchanges result in the kinds of wounds that are nursed and brooded upon for years. This type of wounding behavior has already cost us several valuable sources of information in this forum and to be honest, I don't think it reflects well on any of us. Debunkers are to be treasured. It's a noble calling and a difficult one. I simply feel that the 'no prisoners' approach costs us more than we gain. It takes real skill and character to respond to someone that irks you without getting your hands dirty, but don't we all admire it when we see it well done? Hoping that this will be taken in the spirit in which it was given (All right, which one of youse is first!). Best wishes, Nick
Author: Caz Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 03:09 am
Hi All, When John stops jumping up and down, perhaps he would take a couple of moments to reread my post and find where he has managed to shoot himself in the foot by his peculiar response. I named no names and was trying to making a general point about the absurdity, as I see it, of anyone, be they author, researcher or unquestioning supporter of same, risking any respect they have hitherto earned by such ill-mannered ranting and raving as soon as someone, anyone, gets a fact wrong. Any sane amateur ripper enthusiasts reading these boards would be far more likely to admire an 'expert' (and buy their books!) if that expertise could be given without bouts of bad temper and personal insults. Some of the anons clearly get their kicks in direct proportion to the heat of the exchange, so I guess John can at least congratulate himself for being the one prolonging their fun. BTW, thanks Nick for accepting my post and understanding the message I intended to convey, instead of reading between the lines like John did and coming up with something more in his brain than mine. And, anon, to give you a little clue regarding the 'idiot', if you check the posting times you'll find whoever 'she' is will most likely be thousands of miles away from the UK, tucked up in her own bed right now, as I was in the early hours of this morning. Sorry mate but I can think of far nicer things to be doing at such times of the night than talking to you lot :-) Love, Caz
Author: Playhouse Productions Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 04:19 am
Hi Caz, Anon has trouble telling men from women anyhow. AS a matter of fact she seems to be confusing a hole in ground with something or other. :-) Ta ta
Author: Edana Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 05:25 am
Whew.....I just watched the Star Trek episode "Wolf in the Fold" again. Is it possible that the alien entity known as 'Red Jack' has entered the message boards and is thriving on bickering, irony and parody? Edana
Author: Jill Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 07:05 am
"Respect... All I want is a little bit respect..." I always have been of the opinion: you give respect first to receive some back. This is to all involved bickering to each other through insults, no matter who has the facts straight. Shshhh, get of your horsy. Cheers and peace, Jill
Author: D. Radka Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 08:27 am
Edana, Was it "Red Jack" or "Rejick?" Remember what he said from inside the computer: "Kesslah! Barradis! Rejick! Rejick! Rejick! I've existed since before time began, and will endure beyond its end! You'll all die, in s-e-a-r-ing pain! Die! Die! Die! Everybody die!" Heady stuff indeed, definitely a part of the case mythology. Could "Rejick" have been a kind of contraction of "Red Jack?" Incidentally, my own interest in solving the case dates from the first time I watched this episode. Remember when Spock deadpans "Jack the Ripper slew at will, in the heart of old earth's most populated city, yet was never identified." "Someday I'm going to prove him wrong," I thought. David
Author: Edana Tuesday, 30 November 1999 - 01:00 pm
David, when they asked the computer to identify 'Rejick', the computer answered that it was a contraction of the words 'Red Jack' which, according to the computer was a nickname for the killer otherwise known as Jack the Ripper. Spock, when explaining things, mentioned that the entity fed on women because they were so much easier to scare. Apparently they didn't have John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer in their computer banks. Edana
Author: Shelbi Friday, 03 December 1999 - 11:01 pm
I see nothing has changed here. You people would still rather harp on each other and call names than actually discuss the topic at hand. I'm not trying to be rude (even though I will come across that way), but can't we have a discussion without anyone putting another person down just for asking a question or making a point?
Author: Caz Saturday, 04 December 1999 - 08:00 am
Hi Shelbi, You really ought to take a peek over on the General Discussion Board: Identifying the Lusk Kidney, where there is a superb debate going on at present. No rudeness whatsoever among any of the named posters, great facts, interesting points of view, these are the people who can disagree without resorting to hurtful remarks. I'm gonna be sitting back admiring the positive stuff in future, while ignoring the negative, which I should have done ages ago :-( Welcome back, I hope you'll decide to hang around. Love, Caz
Author: Peter Levenda Tuesday, 15 February 2000 - 04:31 am
Ouch! I just saw your site for the first time, researching the Case for another project, and came across these message boards. I was interested in D'Onston Stephenson due to the Melvin Harris book and thought I would see if anything new had come up. But, ah, there seems to be as much ire in these postings as in UFO newsgroups and boards and somewhat more ire than in the JFK newsgroups. Didn't think that was possible, somehow. What is it about the Net that encourages this? The Germans have a saying, "Paper is patient". But electrons? Anyway, if anyone has information concerning this suspect that has come to light after the Harris book (I have the 1994 paperback version) I would appreciate it. I am interested in his occult background specifically; I know it was covered pretty thoroughly in Harris, but any additional scraps would be useful. Thanks! Peter
Author: Christopher T. George Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 12:40 pm
Hi, all: Some of you who were not at the US convention in Park Ridge may be wondering who the suspect is that I named in my presentation on the Jack the Ripper letters. That suspect is Roslyn D'Onston, whom I believe wrote both the Lusk letter and the Openshaw letter. As many of you will know, D'Onston was a patient in the London Hospital for 134 days from July 1888 through December 1888 covering the whole timespan of the canonical five murders plus the murder of Martha Tabram on August 7. D'Onston inserted himself into the investigation at various points, writing to the City of London police on October 16 about the Goulston Street graffito and publishing an article on the same topic in the December 1 issue of the Pall Mall Gazette (in both of which he said that the uterus of a prostitute was needed for black magic rituals), and then going to the police on Boxing Day with suspicions against a Dr. Davies, a doctor at the London Hospital. In the Lusk letter, received on October 16 by George A. Lusk, head of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, the writer says he "prasarved" the half a kidney enclosed with the letter. In D'Onston's letter, written on that same day, he uses some curious terminology. He asks the police to "preserve" his letter until he feels well enough to call on them himself. The slope to the upper right of the writing in D'Onston's letter, the Lusk letter, and the Openshaw letter, are similar, and certain letter formations are similar in all three letters. All of these indications and the fact that D'Onston had a fixation on the case--even if he were not the Ripper--lead me to believe he was responsible for the Lusk and Openshaw communications. I am not saying D'Onston wrote the September 25 Dear Boss letter or the Saucy Jacky postcard received by the Central News Agency on October 1. Indeed, the handwriting would indicate the culprit in those missives was a different individual with a more clerkly hand. I do think though that D'Onston, in the Openshaw letter, gratefully used the name "Jack the Ripper" used by that prior writer. I should have more to say about my findings on D'Onston and the writing of the Lusk and Openshaw letters in an upcoming issue of Ripper Notes. Chris George, Editor Ripper Notes Casebook Productions, Inc. csbkprod@casebook-productions.org http://www.casebook-productions.org/rn.htm
Author: David M. Radka Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 01:37 pm
Chris, When a Ripperologist finally broaches his thinking on the case publicly, it is called "spilling one's guts." I'm glad to see you begin to finally spill your guts. I'm sure we will all have an interesting time thinking through your ideas. I hope to be spilling my own guts sometime this year. Regards, David
Author: Scott Nelson Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 03:00 pm
Chris, Do you think D'Onston got the Lusk kidney from the London Hospital or from Eddowes?
Author: Christopher T. George Wednesday, 12 April 2000 - 03:18 pm
Hi, Scott: I don't know where D'Onston got the kidney, but if he was in the London Hospital, he was in a very good position to get it from a cadaver at the hospital, wasn't he? One thing for sure is that it is clear that the writer of the Openshaw letter was a prankster and a joker. As Tom Ind discussed previously, he had no problem whatsoever spelling "Pathological Curator" and "The London Hospital" on the envelope of the letter but used such words as "ospital" and "mikerscope" in the letter. So this leaves open the possibility that both the Lusk and Openshaw letters were pranks. Since Tom Ind has hopes of actually locating the Lusk kidney, which he believes may still be at the London Hospital, it might be possible to determine by DNA analysis whether the half a kidney belonged to Eddowes. We can only hope that these open questions may some day be resolved. Chris George
Author: D L Lewis Wednesday, 30 August 2000 - 11:36 pm
Surely the Lusk kidney was disposed of, as per Lusk's instructions?
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 31 August 2000 - 06:13 am
Hi DL Lusk was not a medical man. Dr Thomas Ind believes that at least a slide of the kidney if not the whole half a kidney might still exist at London Hospital since as he told me these things are rarely thrown away. The kidney was sent to Dr Thomas Horrocks Openshaw at the London for analysis. To my knowledge, Lusk never demanded that the organ be destroyed. Chris
Author: Carl Dodd Thursday, 31 August 2000 - 02:44 pm
Jules Rosenthal of the Ripperoo Magazine and the Australian C&D Club asked me to take a look into D'Onston as a possible suspect. The results will be in the next copy of the Ripperoo Magazine. More information to follow later.
Author: David M. Radka Thursday, 31 August 2000 - 08:01 pm
Oh yes, we have no cadavers-- Cadavers, we have none today--Ta Ta Ta! David
Author: D L Lewis Sunday, 03 September 2000 - 06:48 am
Thanks for your replies, everyone. I'm curious. Lusk wasn't a medical man, but he said "throw it away", not to policemen, but to journalists? I hope the kidney is at London Hospital, because it would settle the Lusk letter once and for all. Feldman brings a convincing case to teh Lusk letter being mistaken for the Jack the Ripper letter. A DNA test would certify the Lusk letter as genuine, or fake. Secondly: What is Ripperoo? Is it an Australian journal?
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 03 September 2000 - 10:03 am
Hello D.L.: Yes, "Ripperoo" is the new magazine of the Australian Cloak and Dagger Club. Julian Rosenthal or Leanne Perry can give you information about it. Indeed, you are correct that George Akins Lusk was not a medical man--he was a building contractor. A recent issue of "Ripperologist" carried a photograph of one of his premises. The only reason that I can think of that Lusk might have said to throw the kidney away was that, as reported by Christopher-Michael DiGrazia in his article on the Lusk kidney in the March issue of "Ripper Notes," George Lusk believed, at least initially, that the kidney was a practical joke. Chris George
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Sunday, 03 September 2000 - 12:35 pm
In an interview given to the "Telegraph" by Joseph Aarons, a member of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee (and forgive me for not having the date to hand), Lusk was quoted as saying to the Committee members who came to his house to view the kidney "throw it away; I hate the sight of it!" However, as this same interview contains a fair amount of medical nonsense in regards to the pathological condition of the Lusk Kidney, we can at least wonder whether GAL's words were exactly as quoted. In any event, whether Lusk asked that the kidney be thrown away or not, his wishes were moot once the offal was turned over to the police (as it was after Reed and Openshaw had a look at it). From that point on, it was evidence, and it was up to the police and associated medical men to decide what to do with it. We only know that the last documented location of the LK was in the hands of Dr Gordon Brown ("Star of the East" interview of, I believe, Oct 22). It is possible he kept it in a jar as a souvenir; it is also possible a slide might still be hidden away uncatalogued in the bowels of the London Hospital; it is also possible that once Brown completed his analysis and prepared a report for the City Police, he threw the kidney away, as there was no further need for it. CMD
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 03 September 2000 - 12:58 pm
Hi, CMD: If the kidney was thrown away it would have been offal. Chris George
Author: R.J. Palmer Sunday, 03 September 2000 - 02:16 pm
Hello, Everyone. A minor point, but, ultimately, I didn't find Feldman's argument about the Lusk letter convincing. For those who haven't read Feldman recently, he makes the claim that Robert Anderson was referring not to the Dear Boss letter as the work of "an enterprising London journalist", but to the Lusk letter. His argument centers around the fact that Anderson in his Blackwood's Magazine article was responding to Henry Smith, who had been defending the Lusk letter, and the fact that Anderson mentions 'Scotland Yard'...where the Lusk letter presumably was. (See Feldman pg 282-286). Feldman's motivation is obvious. The Maybrick Diary mimicks the language of the Dear Boss Letter, and it would be devastating to the Diary's authenticity if it was shown to be the work of 'an enterprising journalist'; Feldman needs to project Anderson's suspicions onto the Lusk letter. But Feldman is using (in my opinion) contorted logic mixed in with half-truths. I admit it looks convincing, until one goes back to the original Blackwood's articles, as well as to the statements by Macnaghten in Days of My Years. It becomes clear that the police officials were referring to the Dear Boss letter as the one written by journalists. (See Evans & Gainey's excellent discussion in Chapter 8, "Mysterious Communications", in Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer). All of this, being, of course, my opinion, with no offence to anyone. Cheers, RJP
Author: Leanne Perry Sunday, 03 September 2000 - 05:55 pm
G'day, For details on how to subscribe to 'Ripperoo', leave a postal address on our inbox at: {ripperoo2000@yahoo.com and we will send you a brochure! LEANNE!
Author: D L Lewis Monday, 04 September 2000 - 12:57 am
Hello again, Thanks Leanne for that address. You'll find mine there. Secondly, thanks for your interesting comments, RJ. I was unaware of these details, which compromises the integrity of the diary (yet again.) However, D'Onston remains weak as a suspect as well. I think D'onston remains much as a fantasist, who had a morbid fascination with death, aas much as the Ripper cases. Others in his circle (or at least, others whose circles he travelled in) made as grandiose boasts, if not more so. Could the Lusk kidney be checked for D's (or JM's, or any other reasonable suspects) DNA?
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Monday, 04 September 2000 - 04:30 am
Hi RJ, In that case it seems Feldy's reasoning was askew in more ways than one over the letters. It would appear that The Maybrick Diary author was also claiming the Lusk letter as his own work, judging by the little rhyme about 'eating cold kidney for supper'. Of course, this supports the idea that the Diary author was trying to incorporate all the juicy bits of the case into his/her effort. Offally poor show! Sorry for intruding on D'Onston's manor. BTW, Ripperoo is great (little plug for Jules and Lea there). Love, Caz
Author: Jim Leen Monday, 04 September 2000 - 10:04 am
Hello Everybody, RDO Stephenson is another one of those interesting characters that muddies the waters. Regardless of suspicions concerning his own character, he personally favoured a Dr. Davies of the London Hospital as JTR. Another thought has struck me, RDO was on his uppers, struggling to make ends meet as a writer. Could he perhaps be involved in other literary aspects of the case, specifically the Goulston Street graffito. I know that he wrote an article concerning the graffito for the Pall Mall Gazette. Could the writing on the wall actually have been his own work? More importantly, does anyone have a copy of the article which they could post? Thanking you for your consideration. Jim Leen
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 04:35 am
Jim: Hello. The article is quite long; if you can get hold of a copy of Harris's The True Face of Jack the Ripper it is reproduced in its entirety. It is an odd piece. D'Onston's argues that the writer of the graffito was French. If the word "Juwes" is written in script, and a dot is added over the top of the third upstroke, it can be read "juives", the french feminine form of "Jews". D'Onston writes: "Therefore, it is evident that the native language--or, to be more accurate, the language in which this murderer i{thinks}-- is French. The murderer is, therefore, a Frenchman. It may here be argued that both Swiss and Belgians make French their mother tongue; but Flemish is the natural and usual vehicle for the latter, while the idiosyncrasy of both those nationalities is adverse to this class of crime. On the contrary, in France, the murdering of prostitutes has long been practised, and has been considered to be almost peculiarly a French crime. Again, the grammatical construction of the sentence under examination is distinctly French in two points-- first, in the double negative contained; secondly, in the employment of the definite article before the second noun. An Englishman or an American would have said, 'The Jews are men who, &c.' But the murderer followed his native idiom 'Les Juifs sont des hommes' in his thoughts, and when putting it into English rendered des hommes 'the men'. Again, neither Belgians nor Swiss entertain any animosity to the Jews, whereas the hatred of the French proletarian to them is notorious." In the second half of the article, D'Onston expounds on his theory that the Ripper was a practitioner of Black Magic. At one point, D'Onston makes an puzzling blunder, claiming that the graffito was written over the body of Eddowes. As I say, it is an odd article. The big question is what D'Onston's motive was for writing it. Harris argues that D'Onston was in fact pointing the finger at himself, but in a safe way". Whatever his motive, this strange fellow seems to have been trying to involve himself in the Whitechapel investigation. I quite agree with you. D'Onston is an interesting character, and I liked Harris's book. D'Onston, Cream, Tumblety, Forbes Winslow, Robert Lees...to me, these curious eccentrics make the case worth reading about. By the way, Harris also mentions an interesting statement by Forbes Winslow. Winslow claimed that the Ripper actually wrote to him on two occasions. He recognized the handwriting because 'the writing corresponds with various inscriptions chalked under Whitechapel arches'(!) Now, I think we must take Winslow with...I think the standard phrase here is ...extreme trepidation. (One wonders where else he went looking for clues!) But this statement might indicate, at least, that there were strange messages chalked up all over in the doorways of Whitechapel, so perhaps the Goulston Street message was not that unusual, and we need not be surprised that the piece of apron ended up underneath it. Hope this was of some interest, RJP
Author: Jill De Schrijver Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 08:34 am
Hi RJ A bit of history and social groups theory in Belgium. Historically Belgium (the old Gallia) was first conquered by Caesar. The northern part was full of swamps and woods and thereby not conquered then (Ambiorix was a famous partizan). The northen border then of the Roman empire is exactly the same as the language border between Wallon and Flemish people. The mother language of Wallon people is French, of the Flemish is Dutch. The only place where the two groups can be found together is in Brussels. Dutch is only the natural vehicle for the Flemish and was the language for the lower class in the Flemish part before WWII. In the previous century the Flemish people were regarded as poor and they subsequently were subdued. All richer people, even the Flemish ones, spoke most of the time French, and they looked up to France. There is a saying: "If it pours in Paris, it dribbles in Brussels". Dutch speaking people belonged to the minorities in the previous century. After WWI the Flemish people rebelled: the officers were only French speaking, the soldiers were Dutch speaking. The discrimination caused a lot of friction. The first Dutch-speaking university was only institutionalised in the first half of the 20th century. Dutch schooling still was a problem after WWII, the same as it was for every subdued class, like the school problem in South-Africa in the sixties. We call them here the Battle of Schools. The subdueing according to language, was one of the reasons there were a lot of collaborators during WWII, hoping for a better Flemish environment. The last 20 years the picture has changed a lot. Wallon is the poor part now, with only old industry. Since we were becoming more and more important on the international market in comparison with Wallon, the younger generation's English is better than its French. My mother and father have better knowledge of French because they had to use it more when they started working, I use it only when asking for the way in Brussels. The conflict between Wallon and Flemish is a very complex situation still and if there are political upheaves they are about language, financial solidarity and the old sin of collaboration. Language problems are especially caused by the regions that are on the Flemish border with a majority of French speaking people living in it, especially around Brussels. It has created a situation where still a Dutch speaking child is hospitalised in the Wallon border part and parents and child are spoken to in French, not in Dutch. Or the other way around. Not only is there a big difference between languages, there is also a cultural one, also stemming from the days that Caesar conquered the Bello Gallico. Flemish and Wallon have become through the ages two different ethnic groups, the same as Serbs and Croations, although we don't fight with each other like that. One of those differences is that Flemish people can be regarded as less solidaire and more racistic, I'm sorry to say. I don't know if that was the case in 1888, but I know it is now. What is then of importance for the age of 1888 and French speaking Belgians. It could be any Belgian citisen except the Flemish labourers, since they didn't know French at all. Still since Flemish Belgians are more apt to learn many languages (cultural differences), I would suggest that the writer of the Goulston Graffiti, if Belgian, would have been a Flemish man, originating from the better class and thus brought up almost toally in French, that had to find his luck elsewhere, most probably from Antwerp where there always has been a large community of Chassidic Orthodox jews, who had and have control over the diamant business. Greetings, Jill
Author: Jim Leen Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 10:53 am
Hello RJ and Jill, Thanks for the information and the social history, most illuminating. Needless to say a copy of Harris' book will soon join the macabre section of my library which houses my JTR collection. I don't know if RDO was Jack the Ripper but I'm sure that he plays an important part in it. This is quite beside the curious statements that he made in the press, and most bizarrely his "Sudden Death" statement to the police. My own personal conclusion is that Stephenson himself may have penned the Goulston Street graffito. I also consider him to be the author of the Lusk Letter. Look at this report from the East Anglia Daily Times printed on the 31/12/1888. ...A gentleman who has for some time been engaged in philanthropic work in the East End recently received a letter, the handwriting of which had previously attracted the attention of the Post Office authorities on account of its similarity to that of the writer of some of the letters signed Jack the Ripper. The police made enquiries, and ascertained that the writer was known to his correspondent as a person intimately acquainted with East End life, and that he was then a patient in a Metropolitan hospital. It is stated that on enquiry at the hospital it was discovered that the person sought had left without the consent or knowledge of the hospital authorities, but that he has subsequently been seen, and is now under observation... Who was the gentleman I wondered. Barnardo possibly? But that's only my own idle curiosity. The article however seems to point to RDO whom, if you recall, had been a patient at the London Hospital. He had also "subsequently been seen" by the police. He once told Vittoria Cremers that he had been questioned twice which seems to tie in with the extant records in Scotland Yard. Is it possible that Stephenson could have purloined a kidney from the hospital laboratory? Thanking you Jim Leen
Author: R.J. Palmer Saturday, 23 September 2000 - 07:13 pm
Hello Jill, Hello Jim. Jill--thanks for the historical insight. Most interesting. Jim-- To me, D'Onston is such a theatrical character that it is a little difficult to feel much confidence in him as a suspect. I think he's work a look, though. One point of consideration might be the strange movements of Polly Nichols on the night of her murder. They never made such sense to me. She apparently spent most of the evening picking up clients and drinking away the proceeds at "The Frying Pan" on Brick Lane. At 2:30ish she is seen on the corner of Brick Lane & Whitechapel High Street, apparently on her way to Flower & Dean a couple blocks away in search of another client. (She lived on Thrawl). And yet, oddly--especially when one considers that she was staggeringly drunk--her body is found an hour later far away in the other direction in Buck's Row. This is very close to London Hospital. Unless one agrees with the musings of Simon Owen last spring that Nichol's body was dumped, I can only imagine that she was lured in that direction by a client. Just a thought. Best regards, RJP
Author: Kim Farnell Friday, 29 September 2000 - 05:40 am
I'm currently researching the life of Mabel Collins with a view towards writing her biography. I've read Crowley's Confessions and Melvin Harris' work, which have provided much information. As many people here appear to have conducted their own research into the Ripper case, I'm hoping that someone may have come across information about Mabel that they haven't shared as it isn't directly relevant to the Ripper. I'd be exceedingly grateful to hear from anyone who can offer any help. Best, Kim
Author: Carl Dodd Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 03:24 pm
In law enforcement there is a phrase for people like D'Onston. That phrase is "police character." A police character is a person who is familiar to officers who work in certain areas. D'Onston was one of these. Police characters are people who are really harmless kooks. I know of one police character who once admitted to 16 car burglaries, a dozen residential (home) burglaries and 6 armed robberies. The trouble is that he didn't do any of the crimes. We were able to confirm, through some medical records, that when most of the crimes were committed that he was confined to a mental health facility. D'Onston was one of these people. If D'Onston was still alive, I'll bet that he would confess to a whole list of crimes even though he never did them. To think that D'Onston is a viable suspect borders on being humorous. It is quite apparent that whoever suggested that D'Onston is a JtR suspect has never been in law enforcement, talked to any murderers or arrested any murderers. Couple this information with the fact that police officers in 1888 dismissed D'Onston as a JtR suspect shows that even in those days the cops knew when they had a police character around them.
Author: Jon Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 08:26 pm
(Gasp!!!!) Thou treadest on hallowed ground, my friend. :-) Jon
Author: Carl Dodd Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 11:53 pm
Jon, I know exactly to what you refer. I have no qualms in going over that hallowed ground. I've also been known to slaughter sacred cows, go against the current and, on occasions, even do the right thing.... Carl
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 15 December 2000 - 04:18 am
Hi Carl, I read your article in Issue Three of Ripperoo, and noticed the extra 'r' strategically placed in The True Face of JtR - you naughty boy. You'll be forever blackballed from committees set up exclusively for people who are full of, er, integrity. ;-) Love, Caz PS Watch your step if you are treading on hallowed ground where sacred cows have been, you might not get a pat on the back!