|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 July 13, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Jack The Ripper was "one of the highest in the land".:
Archive through July 13, 2001
Author: Thomas Neagle
Wednesday, 04 July 2001 - 09:59 pm |        | | I believe Jack The Ripper was either Sir William Gull, J.K. Stephen, Prince Eddy or Sir Randolph Churchill. I hope people use this area to talk about the upper-class suspects. |
Author: Judith Stock
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 12:05 am | | Dear Thomas,
You'll have to come up with more than "I believe" to get by this bunch!!!
I believe the Ripper was either Victoria in lifts and a false mustache, or Sooty in a Howdy Doody suit, but I have no proof of either theory.
You had best come up with some hard evidence before you begin making accusations, and since your choice of suspects is pretty broad, it appears you are aiming at ONLY the upper class gents. Is there any particular reason for that?
Your comments are welcome, but none of these folks will let you get away with "I believe....." and leave it at that!
Cheers,
Judy |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 12:26 am | | | A policeman by the name of Benjamin Leeson most probably corroborates that DR. William Gull was Jack The Ripper or very closely associated with Jack The Ripper. He said in his memoirs that a 'certain doctor' who was never far away when the crimes were committed could have 'thrown quite a lot of light' on the mystery. That is in the Sugden book. Now, Dr. Thomas corroboration that I have been talking who was a close friend of Dr. Theodore Dyke Acland and his wife Caroline, the daughter of Dr. William Gull, read Dr. William Gull's notes and talked to Caroline about them. He said that 'it was said that on more than one occasion Sir William Gull was seen in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel on the night of a murder'. That is in the Knight book. Caroline probably told him that. So the doctor that policeman Benjamin Leeson was talking about was probably the same doctor that Dr. Thomas corroboration that I have been talking and Caroline were talking about, Dr. William Gull. This corroboration of what policeman Benjamin Leeson said in his memoirs and what Dr. Thomas corroboration that I have been talking said means that Jack The Ripper was probably Dr. William Gull or someone very closely associated with Dr. William Gull, such as one of his patients, J.K. Stephen or Prince Eddy. Some of the people out there incorrectly slide by this most important corroboration that I have been talking about that points directly to Dr. William Gull or someone very closely associated with Dr. William Gull as being Jack The Ripper. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 12:56 am | | Hi Judy:
Everyone knows Jack the Ripper wore a top hat and a cape and carried a cane so he had to have been upper class, don't you think?
All the best
Chris
P.S. Is that pesky bear out ripping again?  |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 01:40 am | | | A policeman by the name of Benjamin Leeson most probably corroborates that Dr. William Gull was Jack The Ripper or very closely associated with Jack The Ripper. He said in his memoirs that a 'certain doctor' who was never far away when the crimes were committed, could have 'thrown quite a lot of light' on the mystery. That is in the Sugden book. Now, Dr. Thomas Stowell, who was a close friend of Dr. Theodore Dyke Acland and his wife Caroline the daughter of Dr. William Gull, read Dr. William Gull's notes and talked to Caroline about them. He said that 'it was said that on more than one occasion Sir William Gull was seen in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel on the night of a murder. That is in the Knight book. Caroline probably told him that. So the doctor policeman Benjamin Leeson was talking about was probably the same doctor that Dr. Thomas Stowell and Caroline were talking about, Dr. William Gull. This corroboration of what policeman Benjamin Leeson said in his memoirs and what Dr. Thomas Stowell said means that Jack The Ripper was probably Dr. William Gull or someone very closely associated with Dr. William Gull, such as one of his patients, J.K. Stephen or Prince Eddy. Some of the people out there incorrectly slide by this most important corroboration I have been talking about that points directly to Dr. William Gull or someone very closely associated with Dr. William Gull as being Jack The Ripper. |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 04:35 am | | Hi Thomas,
"He said that it was said".... "Caroline probably told him that"... "Probably the same doctor"...
This is little more than an amalgamation of a handful of suggestive coincidences. What is the evidence that the 'certain doctor' spoken of by Leeson is the one and the same as Gull? It brings us no closer to a solution to say that this doctor was 'probably' Gull. Leeson could have been talking about any one of a thousand doctors in the vicinity whose name is lost to us forever - and of course, this all presupposes that Leeson had correctly identified the killer. Are you sure he wasn't talking about Druitt - who was (wrongly) identified as a doctor by many people involved with the case?
I'm not saying that the theory is wrong (although I think it is, evidence being paltry at best) but as others have already mentioned, a chain of real evidence has to be made for a suspect to become plausible.
All the best in your hunting!
Carps |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 06:06 am | | Paul
I'm sorry Paul but you have got it totally wrong. Maybe you have not thought about it deeply enough. It seems so. What I wrote was very simple and clear. There was no sugestive anything in what I wrote. I pointed out the fact that Dr. Thomas Stowell, a close friend of Dr. Theodore Dyke Acland and his wife Caroline, the daughter of Dr. William Gull, read Dr. William Gull's notes and talked to Caroline about them. From either one of the Aclands or from the notes themselves, Dr. Thomas Stowell wrote in an article in 'The Criminologist'(Nov.1970), that 'it was said that on more than one occasion Sir William Gull was seen in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel on the night of a murder'. The only way that statement is wrong is if Dr. Thomas Stowell was lying. That is what it seems you are saying and your wrong. Dr. Thomas Stowell was a very close friend of Dr. Theodore Dyke Acland and his wife Caroline, the daughter of Dr. William Gull. He would not have lied. Now, Policeman Benjamin Leeson in his memoirs said a certain doctor was never far away when the crimes were committed and Dr. Stowell wrote that it was said that on more than one occasion Sir William Gull was seen in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel on the night of a murder. It would be too much of a coincidence for two different doctors to be seen in Whitechapel the nights of all or many of the murders which is what both Policeman Leeson and Dr. Stowell are saying. Thus logically there is a high probably that the doctor Policeman Leeson was talking about and the doctor Dr. Stowell was talking about, Dr. William Gull, were the same man. |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 08:07 am | | Hi Thomas,
You have nothing of note to your original posting that further supports your case. I respectfully suggest that it is you who is not thinking deeply enough about this. All you have done is collect two small, superficially connected pieces of anecdotal evidence, and welded them together to support a particular theory.
Firstly, Thomas Stowell said: 'it was said that on more than one occasion Sir William Gull was seen in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel on the night of a murder'. Read that back to yourself, and ask what it is exactly that that sentence says.
Not what you can imply from it - but what it actually says.
Do you see what a scant piece of evidence it is? Thomas Stowell, with access to Gull's own papers cannot say anything more solid that the doctor was seen in the neighbourhood on the night of some (i.e. more than one) of the murders. In fact, he goes further than this, and qualifies that statement by saying that this wasn't even a definitely ascertained fact: it was only 'said.' He doesn't say that Gull was present in Whitechapel on the nights of all the murders. He doesn't say that Gull committed the murders (though no doubt this is the inference we are meant to draw.)
So this piece of evidence amounts to a rumour which, by itself, proves nothing.
Now, move on to consider Leeson's "certain doctor" and ask yourself about the value of this testimony. Firstly, how accurate are Leeson's recollections... how many years had passed before he set his memoirs to paper? What was his involvement with the case to begin with? Was he likely to have been privy to information that the top police officials (Anderson, Swanson etc) weren't?
If you are satisfied that he is an important source in these respects, then actually consider his words. He mentions "a certain doctor." Due to the passage of time, we only know of a handful of suspects at the time. How many of them were doctors? We can't say. Therefore to imply that Gull must be the doctor in question is exceptionally shaky logic. There were hundreds, thousands of doctors in London at the time, many of which no doubt came under suspicion because of the belief that the Ripper was medically knowledgable. Indeed a leading suspect (Druitt) was incorrectly identified as a doctor by several investigators into the case in their memoirs. You can't pin Leeson's mention of a doctor down on the basis of Stowell's rumour (which presumably was set down many years after the events anyway).
Even if Stowell and Leeson are both talking about Gull (which is pure speculation) this still doesn't make a compelling case for Gull as the Ripper. Being in the area on the nights of the murders is a piece of evidence that places the whole population of Whitechapel in the frame!
All of this then leaves you with the other evidence that contradicts Gull as a suspect. As far as records show, an eyewitness identified a poor Polish Jew as the Ripper, whilst a Blackheath barrister was the favoured suspect of some of the top ranking officers of the case. Some senior Officers went to the grave sure in their minds that the Ripper was never known, whilst the person perhaps most associated with the case decided that the evidence pointed to a notorious murderer, Severin Klosowski.
Keep on the trail,
Carps |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 08:33 am | | Mr Neagle, I think it was a good idea on your part to start a thread about upper class suspects. It is an idea that has been tossed around in a sort of fuzzy way for a long time without anyone really focussing on the pros and cons.
In favor of it being an upper class suspect is the nature of Victorian society. When the rich and powerful did something criminal, it was hushed up. They were sometimes hustled off to a sanitarium and a plausible story was spread around to account for their absence. They did not go to jail. This would explain why Jack was officially never caught in spite of a massive manhunt.
Against it being an upper class suspect is the kind of victims that were chosen. If Jack were rich he could have afforded someone far more expensive than the likes of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes. He would not have had an intimate knowledge of Whitechapel, being only an occasional visitor, not a resident. He would not have murdered in the street, but would have purchased for himself (either through lease or purchase) a tenement or more likely a house where he could have done his thing in relative security.
As to Doctors, I am 55 years old and I remember well the days of house calls. (Nowadays it takes two months to get an appointment, but I digress.) It worked like this: I get sick. Someone in my family picks up the phone (or in Victorian England sends a messenger) to call the Dr. If I get sick at nite the Dr. is contacted at his home. He brings a large black leather carrying case with medicines and instruments in it and visits me at my home in my own bed. Since people seem to get sick at night as well as in the day there would be Doctors going around Whitechapel at night, tending to the sick, delivering babies, etc. I believe that when Nichols was found a Dr. Llewellyn, whose office was not far away was called out. Having said that, I guess it would still be difficult to explain why Dr. Gull would have been in Whitechapel at all since he was I assume a West End physician. |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 11:03 am | | Paul
Look at what policeman Benjamin Leeson said. He said that a 'certain doctor' who was never far away when the crimes were committed, could have 'thrown quite a lot of light' on the mystery. He seems to be saying that there was a certain doctor in the vicinity of all the crime scenes. I do admit that this doctor may not have been Dr. William Gull but the comparison with what Dr. Thomas Stowell said is compelling. Dr. Thomas Stowell said that 'it was said that on more than one occasion Sir William Gull was seen in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel on the night of a murder'. He got that information either from Dr. Theodore Dyke Acland or his wife Caroline, the daughter of Dr. William Gull, or in Dr. William Gull's notes themselves. Dr. Stowell said Dr. William Gull was there on more than one occasion. That means Dr. William Gull may have been in the vicinity of the scenes of the crimes two, three, or all four nights of the murders. Also Dr. Thomas Stowell said that Dr. William Gull was at the time being accused of being Jack The Ripper. He said '...it was not unnatural for the rumour mongers to pick on a most illustrious member of my profession of the time - perhaps of all time - Sir william Gull'. That is in the Knight book.
Now, policeman Leeson said a certain doctor was never far away from where all the murders took place. Dr. Stowell said that Dr, William Gull was seen in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel two, three or all four nights of the murders. Why would a 71 year old man who had a slight stroke in 1887, a West End Physician of high standing, be in Whitechapel, the dirtiest and poorest part of London, on two, three or all four nights of the murders, if he wasn't Jack The Ripper or closely associated with Jack the Ripper.
I cannot prove that the doctor that policeman Benjamin Leeson was talking about and the doctor Dr. Thomas Stowell was talking about, Dr. William Gull, were the same doctor but the comparison is compelling. I believe that it is highly possible that they both were talking about the same man, Dr. William Gull. |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 11:23 am | | Diana
It would be absurd to think that Dr. William Gull would be in Whitechapel two, three or all four nights of the murders if he wasn't Jack The Ripper or closely associated with Jack The Ripper, such as if one of his patients, J.K. Stephen or Prince Eddy was Jack The Ripper. Your right about what you said about Dr. William Gull. |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 11:47 am | | Hi Thomas,
"Why would a 71 year old man who had a slight stroke in 1887, a West End Physician of high standing, be in Whitechapel, the dirtiest and poorest part of London, on two, three or all four nights of the murders, if he wasn't Jack The Ripper or closely associated with Jack the Ripper."
That question does little to advance your cause. Do really you think that a 71 yr old man in failing health is the best candidate for a murderer who killed swiftly and surely, always within seconds of possible discovery, and who apparently evaded detection by fleeing down narrow dimly-lit streets? Or even as someone who a putative serial killer would choose as an accomplice? Evidence of this nature is inherently valueless, as the weight and tilt that is put on it is invariably clouded by your own preconceptions about the case.
And it still doesn't show that he was in the district on the nights in question. I repeat: Stowell says that Gull was 'said' to have been in the district 'on more than one occasion.' Well it might have been 'said' but how does that make it true? Stowell openly points to the fact that it was little more than a rumour:
"...it was not unnatural for the rumour mongers to pick on a most illustrious member of my profession of the time - perhaps of all time - Sir william Gull."
So we have established that there was a rumour against Gull. This proves nothing. Rumours are sometimes accurate, but more often than not are simply baseless accusations whispered behind hands. Can you see why simply adducing Leeson's mention of an un-named doctor to this rumour doesn't really stack up as evidence of a meaningful kind?
All in all, I suggest that you move along from Knight's book. It has proved to be a popular starting point for a lot of armchair Ripper sleuths, but a quick look amongst some of the other books may help you to see why most students of the case consider Knight's book to be utter bunk. Have a look here for more information.
Stick with it - it gets more interesting the deeper and longer you look...
All the best,
Carps |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 02:15 pm | | Whether Gull did it or not I think Mr. Neagle has raised an interesting issue, namely the question of Jack coming from the upper classes. It has only been explored tangentially and I think a serious, in depth discussion of the pros and cons would be valuable, even if the consensus is, at the end, negative. It is true that in general SK's go after people who have similar socioeconomic/racial/sexual preference backgrounds, eg. poor people kill poor people, rich people kill rich people, black people kill black people, white people kill white people, heterosexuals kill heterosexuals (of the opposite gender)and homosexuals kill homosexuals. At least that is my understanding. But over against that you have the Cleveland Street scandal and I think Prince Eddy was involved with the lower classes there. Which paradigm is accurate? Which paradigm fits? Is it possible to postulate a blue blooded Jack who went after the lowest of the low precisely because they were so vulnerable?
What other evidence points to an upper crust Jack? What evidence seems to disprove it? |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 03:21 pm | | Diana , I don't think Jack intended to pay for the services of any of these ladies !
Evidence for the killer not living in Whitechapel is that , presuming he wasn't a total madman , Jack must have known that these killings would cause a sensation. And that repeated killings would bring questioning from the police , house to house searches and potential capture. You have to ask , why did Jack not kill his victims somewhere else ? In another area of the city altogether ( eg the notoriously poor area around Covent Garden and Seven Dials , or Southwark ) maybe ?
Or in other words : dogs don't crap on their own doorstep !
So if the killer didn't live in Whitechapel , how did he get there ? Public transport would be dangerous as he might have got covered in blood while commiting a crime , or sustained an injury , leading to public suspicion. But if he had access to a private carriage... |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 03:31 pm | | I don't know if this is the right board to put it on , but I had an idea for why Jack committed the 'Double Event '.
For sensationalism really. The murder after Nichols had to be more sensational , so Jack dissected Annie Chapman and removed her body parts. But then , the next murder had to be more sensational again , to capture the imagination of the public : so let things go quiet for a while then strike again in the most horrific way.Two murders in one night , with one of the victims mutilated and cut up.
Its almost like a theatrical piece , with the most dramatic scenes saved for last.
Finally Jack outdoes himself again with Mary Kelly , mutilating her beyond all recognition. And not only on the day of the Lord Mayor's parade but on the Prince of Wales' birthday too.
Maybe he stopped because he could not take his ' art ' any further , he could not better in his own mind what he had already achieved.
Therefore , whether a nobleman or not , if this scenario is true then I could well imagine Jack in cape and hat , seeing himself as a stylish and flamboyant anti-hero ! |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 06:37 pm | | Paul
You have misstated the facts that I mentioned. Maybe it would be good for you to read the Knight book or the Abrahamsen book and catch up with the article that Dr. Thomas Stowell wrote in The Criminologist, important parts of which are in those books. It would also behoove you to read more closely. You said Stowell said that it was little more than a rumour that Dr. William Gull was seen in Whitechapel on more than one occasion. That is not what Dr. Stowell said and that is not what I wrote. Dr. Stowell said that 'It was said that on more than one occasion Sir William Gull was seen in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel on the night of a murder'. He did not say it was a rumour. The person or persons who said this were probably the Aclands or the police or Dr. Wlliam Gull himself. I repeat, he did not say it was a rumour. What Dr. Stowell said was a rumour was that Dr. William Gull was Jack The Ripper. His exact words were '...it was not unnatural for the rumour mongers to pick on a most illustrious member of my profession at the time- perhaps of all time- Sir william Gull'. Dr. Stowell nver said that it was a rumour that Dr. William Gull was seen in Whitechapel only that it was a rumour that Dr. William Gull was Jack The Ripper. And as I said either the Aclands or the police or Dr. William Gull himself were probably the person or persons who said that Dr. William Gull was seen in Whitechapel. Dr. Stowell never used the word rumour in terms of Dr. William Gull being seen in Whitechapel. He said clearly that Dr. William Gull was seen in Whitechapel. |
Author: Alegria
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 06:51 pm | | If a person is repeating rumour, conjecture, or blatant speculation, he or she will say "They said..." or "It was said...". If they are stating fact, they say "Dr. Gull was in Whitechapel on the nights of the murders" Or "The police stated that Gull was in Whitechapel". "It was said.." means rumour. He also said rumour mongers..does this give you the impression that he was swayed by what "they said"?
Ally
Is this board to discuss Jack the Gent or Gull as Jack? If the latter, Gull already has a suspects page. |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 05 July 2001 - 07:02 pm | | | Jack always got away. To some, this indicates an intimate knowledge of the geography of Whitechapel, ie. he lived there. This militates against a blueblood. |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 12:45 am | | The most important statement, fact or evidence in the whole of the Jack The Ripper case is this: Inspector Abberline, in his retirement in the early 1920's, said to Nigel Moreland, publisher of 'The Criminologist; "I cannot reveal anything except this- of course we knew who he was, one of the highest in the land". I believe Inspector Abberline and the reason why I believe is this; he said this to Nigel Moreland in private not in public. To be honest with ourselves, we have to keep in consideration that there might have been a public cover-up. This is what I believe. I believe that there was a large cover-up at the highest levels involving the royalty, government and the police. In the police, the cover-up took the form of the persons of Commissioner Charles Warren and Robert Anderson, Assistant Commissioner of CID at Scotland Yard and possibibly Chief Inspector Donald Swanson. So in my opinion, you cannot believe what these high ranking policemen said publically because there was a large cover-up. Also you cannot believe what they said in their writings because they knew their writings would be read by the public.
Now, in 1903, when Inspector Abberline said publically that he thought Chapman was Jack The Ripper, he may have been telling his honest opinion at the time. He may not have been involved in the cover-up at the time. But then again he may have been involved in the cover-up then. I don't know. Anyway he said that publically and he would not have told the truth publically because of the pressure by the powers that be involved in the cover-up. The same stance publically that Warren, Anderson and Swanson took. And at some point Inspector Abberline was involved in the cover-up or at least at some point he found out about the cover-up and the truth about who Jack The Ripper was. Inspector Abberline said to Nigel Moreland "Of course we knew who he was...".
Someone might say that maybe Inspector Abberline was boasting to Nigel Moreland about knowing who Jack The Ripper was and really didn't know. Read the whole encounter between Inspector Abberline and Nigel Moreland in the introduction of the Spiering book and you will see that he wasn't falsely boasting but telling the truth. And as I explained the important point is that what Inspector Abberline said to Nigel Moreland was in private and not in public. Publically he would have been pressured to lie about who Jack The Ripper was like Warren,Anderson and Swanson did.
So, I believe Inspector Abberline when he said to Nigel Moreland that Jack The Ripper was "one of the highest in the land". |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 04:24 am | | Thomas,
You said: "You said Stowell said that it was little more than a rumour that Dr. William Gull was seen in Whitechapel on more than one occasion. That is not what Dr. Stowell said and that is not what I wrote."
What I actually said was that you said that Dr. Stowell said that it was said that Gull was seen in Whitechapel. 
You see the difficulty we've already reached when you don't bother to think critically about the sources you are using? We've simply amassed a lot of 'he said' 'it was rumoured' 'probably' and 'I believe'. None of which is concrete proof, all of which is qualified by context and therefore contestable. If you won't even admit this then we aren't going to get any further in this discussion.
But! Once more into the breach... Only Stowell names Gull. When Stowell does name Gull his statements are, as you posted:
1) "...it was not unnatural for the rumour mongers to pick on a most illustrious member of my profession of the time - perhaps of all time - Sir william Gull."
2) "It was said that on more than one occasion Sir William Gull was seen in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel on the night of a murder"
Read them back to yourself again. What are they saying? Does Stowell say "The rumours about William Gull being Jack the Ripper were true"? Does he say "Gull was definitely in the district on the nights when the murders were committed"?
Have a look. Think about it.
How can it be stressed to you that what Stowell says amounts to a rumour and nothing more? How much clearer can it be?
So we have Stowell's rumours (which he corroborates with no evidence) a copper mentioning a 'certain' doctor, and Abberline mentioning "one of the highest in the land." Knight can suggest that they are all talking about the same suspect, and you might believe it to be so, but it is beyond empirical investigation. Without a belief system that names Gull as the suspect, it is pretty meaningless.
Try reading a book on a different suspect (Tumblety, say) and see how it modifies your thinking. Everyone who has ever started on this case begins with a favourite suspect. My first book was on Tumblety, and I would have argued till I was blue in the face that it was him. Then I read Paul Begg's "Uncensored Facts" and was just about as sure that it was a poor Polish Jew. Sugden makes a persuasive case for George Chapman. Believe me when I tell you that once you have seen more of the evidence from other books, Knight will start to seem pretty unreliable.
All the best,
Carps
P.S.
I do, however, congratulate you on the most times anyone has ever bothered to type out "Dr. William Gull" in a single post! |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 05:27 pm | | Diana , it doesn't necessarily mean that Jack lived in Whitechapel because he always got away ; you don't need to live in a place to have intimate knowledge of it. Since the murders took place in a small area ( it can be walked in a few hours ) over a matter of weeks it would be easy to acquire knowledge of the area by ' walking the ground ' so to speak.
Is there ANY evidence that shows that Jack must have lived in Whitechapel ? |
Author: Diana
Friday, 06 July 2001 - 05:54 pm | | | If he didn't live there he must have spent a lot of time there. Since this is the "blueblood?" board, another question arises. Was it common for people of the upper crust to go to Whitechapel when they wanted something illicit? Were there a lot of rich folks running around there at night hiring unfortunates? Was the Cleveland Street episode an abberation or was it part of a larger pattern? |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Saturday, 07 July 2001 - 01:19 am | | Paul
I have read The Ultimate Guide, Sugden, A-z, The Uncencored Facts, Rumbelow and ten to fifteen other books. I am very well informed in the Jack The Ripper case. Take Kosminski, Chapman, Tumblety and Maybrick. There is no there there. The reason why there is nothing there is because none of them was Jack The Ripper.
There is very little published evidence in the Jack The Ripper case. The only evidence is the cut apron of Catharine Eddowes and the Goulston Steet Grafito. That's it. There is not enough published evidence to make a case against any suspect. What you have to do is look at all the accusations and statements made against all the suspects. Then you have to find a suspect who you think that all the accusations and statements made against him make him probably Jack The Ripper. There are many more accusations and statements against the four upper-class suspects, Dr. William Gull, J.K. Stephen, Prince Eddy and Randolph Churchill than any other suspect or collection of suspects. There's the old saying where there is smoke there's fire. You can make a strong case against any of the four upper-class suspects but taking into consideration the almost non-existant evidence in the case, it is hard to prove. There is basically no case against any other suspect. |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Saturday, 07 July 2001 - 01:49 am | | | The best chance for The Jack The Ripper Case To be solved is this; If some Authors go out and talk to the relatives of the Suspects, Government Officials, Police and the Royalty of the time. I'm afraid to say, but that may be the only way for this case to be solved. Not only would an author get a successfull book out of it, he would probably crack the case of Jack The Ripper. There's probably a good amount of people out there who know who Jack The Ripper was, this information being handed down by the relatives of the above catagories of people. Authors, go talk to the relatives and get to the truth of who Jack The Ripper was. |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 03:05 am | | I wanted to mention all of the statements and accusations made against one or another of the four suspects, Dr. William Gull, J.K. Stephen, Prince Eddy and Randolph Churchill.
1 Inspector Abberline
( "I cannot reveal anything except this- of
of course we knew who he was, one of the
highest in the land". ) The Spiering book
2 Nigel Moreland
( Publisher of 'The Criminologist' )
3 James Monro
Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
( He wrote in some papers of his either who Jack
The Ripper was or his theory of who Jack The
Ripper was and his son said it was
"a very hot potato". ) A-Z book
4 The Chicago Sunday Times-herald of April 28,1895
( The Dr. Benjamin Howard Article )
5 Dr. Benjamin Howard
6 Dr. Thomas Stowell
7 Caroline Acland
The daughter of Dr. William Gull.
( By association with Dr. Thomas Stowell. )
8 Robert James Lees
9 Joseph Sickert
10 Walter Sickert
( By association with Joseph Sickert. )
11 Mrs Marny Hallam (of Newbury)
( She wrote a letter "to the Sunday Times(16
Febuary 1975)in which she stated that her
great-grandfather,a barrister,had long ago
told his daughter that the authorities knew
Stephen to be the Ripper". ) A-Z book
12 Policeman Benjamin Leeson
( In his memoirs he said that 'certain doctor'
who was never far away when the crimes were
committed, could have 'thrown quite a lot of
light' on the mystery. ) The Sugden book
13 Florence Pash
( She was a friend of Jean Overton Fuller's
mother as well as a friend of Walter
Sickert. ) The Sickert and The Ripper Crimes
book.
14 Bob and Sue Parlour
( They said that there was an old oral
tradition that said that Jack The Ripper was
a royal doctor or the Queen's son. )
The O'donnel book
For accusations and statements against all other suspects all you have is Anderson in his writings say that a polish jew was identified as Jack The Ripper. Why should anyone believe Anderson when he was probably involved in a high-level cover-up.
Even if he was telling the truth in this instance, the identification was made two years after the Mary Jane Kelly murder, thus it was flawed. You have Swanson, probably also involved in the high level cover-up, agreeing with Anderson. You have Macnaghten saying that maybe Druit was Jack The Ripper. And you have Littlechild saying that Tumblety was a suspect. That's it. That's all the accusations and statements made against all other suspects.
If I was a betting man, and I was going to choose between what all the people said against one or another of the four suspects, Dr. William Gull, J.K. Stephen, Prince Eddy or Randolph Churchill and what policemen like Anderson and Swanson, probably both involved in a high level cover-up said, I'd go with the people. |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 03:31 am | | "Take Kosminski, Chapman, Tumblety and Maybrick. There is no there there. The reason why there is nothing there is because none of them was Jack The Ripper"
Apart from the Swanson marginalia... the seaside home identification... the asylum records... Abberline's interviews... the Littlechild letter... the conviction for another murder... the collection of uterii and the avowed mysoginism... the eyewitness description... the diary... the watch...
There is a host of evidence, all of which is far better than some "oral tradition" and a set of rumours against a 71 yr old doctor with failing health. Having read Sugden's book, as you claim, how can you argue that Eddy might have been there when court records show that on every occasion he was at some other part of the country?
You can't simply say that public statements to the contrary are part of a cover-up. That is a pathetic line of attack that simply lets you wriggle out of the evidence that contradicts your own with a simple line of attack. You really believe that Swanson wrote the marginalia in his personal copy of a book and put it on the shelf for the next umpteen years as part of his cover-up? Why not simply write a book saying "I know who Jack The Ripper Was?" and name someone else.
You are going around in circles. |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 08:17 am | | If Jack was from the upper crust then some of the methods for acquisition of anatomical skills would be eliminated. He would not be a slaughterhouse worker, or a butcher or some kind of mortuary worker or a lowly worker in a hospital. He would not have hunted in order to eat.
He could have been a Dr. or he could have been someone who hunted for sport. Other than that I can't think of how an upper crust person would have acquired anatomical knowledge.
Rather than argue over Gull or Stephen or Prince Eddy, why not consider the problem of an upper crust Jack in the abstract. That way you are letting the evidence lead to the criminal rather than starting with the criminal and trying to find evidence for his culpability. |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 11:12 am | | Paul
Your so-called evidence is worthless. If it was good the police would have arrested one of the middle-class or lower-class suspects. But looking quickly; Abberline interviewed a lot of suspects and there was nothing there. Jack the Ripper was not arrested; Littlechild said that Tumblety was a suspect. There was a lot of suspects. Again, Jack the Ripper was not arrested; Years later Chapman poisoned some wives. He was convicted of murder. There were a lot of convicted murderers who were not Jack the Ripper. The police had all the evidence and facts in front of them. He was not arrested; Tumblety may have had a collection of uterii and he may have been a mysoginist, but that doesn't mean he was capable of committing the Jack the Ripper murders. He was not arrested; The Asylum records do not prove anyone to be Jack the Ripper; The eye-witness accounts tell of men that look a lot like Netly, J.K. Stephen and Sickert. But then again, there is no definite proof of anyone being Jack the Ripper from eye-witness accounts; The Maybrick Diary and the watch are fakes; Swanson may have got the situation wrong about the alleged identification of Kosminski but anyway the alleged identifier of Kosminski allegedly identified him two years after the Mary Jane Kelly murder which makes that alleged identification flawed. He may have been mistaken. A lot of people have been mistakenly identified. Also it's possible that the alleged identifier of Kosminski may have been the person who allegedly identified William Grant Grainger in 1895 as Jack the Ripper. That would make his alleged identification of Kosminski worthless. Smith, Macnaghten and Abberline did not agree with Anderson and Swanson on their opinions of Kosminski. 'Littlechild, pointedly told George R. Sims in a personal letter of 1913 that Anderson only "thought he knew".' That is on pg.420 of the Sugden book.
I said that I believe that there was a high level cover-up involving the Royalty, Government and the Police. I believe the policemen involved in the cover-up were Warren, Anderson and possibly Swanson. I don't think that Abberline was involved in the cover-up at the beginning, but at some point he was brought into the cover-up or found out about the cover-up and who Jack the Ripper was. As Abberline said "...of course we knew who he was, one of the highest in the land".
That is in the introduction of the Spiering book.
The only hard evidence in the case is Catharine Eddowes cut apron and the Goulston Street Graffito. The police looked at all the evidence and did not arrest anybody.
The weight of a case against any of the four upper-class suspects; Dr. William Gull, J.K. Stephen, Prince Eddy or Randolph Churchill, considering all the accusations and statements made against them which I listed on an earlier post, is by far heavier than any case against any other suspect or collection of suspects. The probability that Dr. William Gull, J.K. Stephen, Prince Eddy or Randolph Churchill was Jack the Ripper is far higher than any other suspects.
I'd rather look for evidence and make a case against either Dr. William Gull, J.K. Stephen, Prince Eddy or Randolph Churchill because one of them was Jack the Ripper. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 08 July 2001 - 12:35 pm | | Thomas
Your enthusiasm for such a ludicrous theory reminds me of Charles Johnson, and his list of 100 'scientific proofs' that the Earth is flat...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm
I mean, who can argue that the world is covered 2/3rds with water.....and as anyone can see, water is flat.
Take a look across any lake or ocean....proof positive.
Etc,...etc...
Thomas, you are preaching your gospel about your suspect(s), nothing will change your mind, you refuse to listen to reason, you insist your way is the only way......."let us pray".
(sound familiar?)
Everyone is allowed to express their opinion, that goes without saying, but dont try to sell your '14 rumours' as witness testimony.
Witches were burned on rumours.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 01:50 am | | Jon
You act as if upper-class people do not commit murder but only middle-class and lower-class people. You are being foolish. Upper-class people do commit murder as well as people from other classes. By your not admitting that it is possible that an upper-class person could have committed these crimes, it is you who will not listen to reason. Your argument that it is not possible for an upper-class person to have committed these crimes is ridiculous and not logical. You are acting like a person with his head in the sand by not admitting that it is possible for a person from any class, including the upper-class, to have committed these crimes.
As I have said, there is very little hard evidence in the whole of the Jack the Ripper Case. There is not sufficient evidence to convict. The police looked at all the evidence and did not arrest anybody.
There has been a lot of accusations and statements made against the four upper-class suspects; Dr. William Gull, J.K. Stephen, Prince Eddy and Randolph Churhill. I believe where there is smoke there is fire. You are being foolish by dismissing the accusations against these suspects by honest people. I believe you should look at these accusations seriously and look for evidence and try to make a case against one of these suspects. The weight of the accusations and statements against these suspects is heavy, far heavier than than the weight of the accusations and statements against any other suspect or collection of suspects. It would be foolish to ignore these accusations and statements.
Jack the Ripper was one of these four men. There are a lot of reasons to believe that. And as I have said, it is possible that Jack the Ripper was an upper-class person, even if you are too foolish to admit it. |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 04:55 am | | "You act as if upper-class people do not commit murder but only middle-class and lower-class people. You are being foolish"
Err... hello? No he didn't!
In fact, he suggested that you are arguing your position not from empirical reasoning, but from belief, hardened into dogma through non-critical reading. I think that the 'flat earth' comparison was lost on you, so I'll try to explain.
You are reading certain statements with your mind already decided, and interpreting what you read in that light. When Leeson says a "certain" doctor, you conclude that he must be talking about Gull (why? Because you know that Gull is the Ripper!)... when Abberline says that "one of the highest in the land" was involved you decide that he must be referring to Eddy... when Monro's son says that the Ripper's identity would be a 'hot potato' he must be hinting at royal involvement (alternative, as example: would a Jewish suspect not have been a 'hot potato' given the inflammatory anti-semitic atmosphere of the time?)
Do you see what you are doing? You are seeing exactly what you want to see. You can see that the seaside home identification could have been flawed (can't deny it) but believe that Stowell's innuendoes are strong enough evidence. Why? The answer is because you start from a position of believing a theory, and all facts are corralled to fit this theory - evidence that runs to the contrary is dismissed as part of a cover-up, or as somehow less valuable as evidence than a reported "oral tradition" or whatever. That's just sloppy, non-rigourous thinking.
Worse still, this is the kind of tactic that you imply that I am using. I don't particularly favour any suspect, and I am certainly not denying any possibility that it could have been one of the Royals. However, I am able to look at the evidence and see that the Royal Conspiracy theory is entirely based on innuendo to date, and evidence to the contrary (such as the fact that Eddy was at Abergeldie, Scotland, where Queen Victoria recorded in her journal that he lunched with her on 30th September whilst the 'double event' was taking place... Gull being a 71 yr old recovering stroke victim), is more impressive than a clutch of rumours.
But I think perhaps the greatest flaw in your thinking in placing equal weight on all evidence. Is Leeson as central to the Ripper case as Abberline, say? Do you place more weight on police reports of the time, or a letter to the Times reporting a family tradition 80 years later? Do you think that Stowell's "rumours" and "it was said"s weigh more, evidentially, than Anderson's 'definitely ascertained fact'? Was Stowell involved in the investigation?
Yes, we can't say who the Ripper is - and, as a corrollary, can't rule anyone out - but we can at least say who is more likely amongst the known suspects. The Royal Conspiracy theory has, to date, has no evidence of any real value to support it. No matter how blue you go in the face and protest otherwise, this is a fact.
Diana,
Your postings keep seeming to get lost under the weight of me and Thomas wrangling over what constitutes reasonable evidence - for which I am sorry. Yes, I think you are right - there is nothing in the Ripper crimes that conclusively rules out any 'blue-blooded' involvement, and we would be foolish to dismiss any candidates on that basis alone. However, a seemingly expert knowledge of the local layout does seem to make it slightly less likely that some Duke or Earl or somesuch was at work during those terrible autumn months. Of course, what seems to be local knowledge could just as well be blind luck...
Cheers,
Carps |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 05:17 am | | Thomas,
I just re-read Jon's post, and then your answer. I suggest you do the same, and see if you can make any sense of your response. You answered a completely different accusation to the one that he levelled at you!
And herein lies the rub...
Carps |
Author: Jon
Monday, 09 July 2001 - 07:33 pm | | Thankyou Paul
Nice to know someone is awake.
Thomas
My flat earth comparison was on the one hand a serious critique, while on the other a little tongue-in-cheek humour.
You are seriously inhibiting your creative juices.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 08:11 am | | Paul
First of all, I replied to Jon's first sentence;
"Your enthusiasm for such a ludicrous theory...",
because that was the only thing he wrote worth responding to. My theory is not ludicrous. My theory is that one of the four upper-class; Dr. William Gull, J.K. Stephen, Prince Eddy or Randolph Churchill was the man who committed the actual Jack the Ripper killings with the help of one or more accomplices. By him stating that my theory ludicrous, he was implying that it was ludicrous that one of these four upper-class suspects could have been Jack the Ripper. I pointed out to him the fact that upper-class suspects do commit murder, not just middle-class and lower-class suspects.
Paul, as for you, you lack a certain amount of intelligence, understanding and discernment. Especially discernment. You keep on insisting that there is some kind of strong evidence pointing to the probability that Jack the Ripper was a middle-class or lower-class person, not an upper-class person. There is no such evidence. There is very little hard evidence and none of the evidence points strongly to either an upper-class, middle-class or lower-class person being Jack the Ripper. A person from any one of the classes could have been Jack the Ripper. You mention the police reports of the time. There is nothing in the police reports of the time that strongly point to Jack the Ripper being either an upper-class, middle-class or lower-class person. You even contradict yourself. You admit that the Kosminski identification could have been flawed and then say that what Anderson and Swanson wrote about the Kosminski identification is strong evidence. It is not. The identification was flawed. If Kosminski had been taken to trial, the identification would not have stood up in court. Many authors, including Philip Sugden, the author of one of the best books written on Jack the Ripper, dismiss Kosminski as a suspect. Smith, Macnaghten and Abberline did not agree with Anderson's and Swanson's opinion on Kosminski.And 'Littlechild, pointedly told George R. Sims in a personal letter of 1913 that Anderson only "thought he knew".' That is on pg.420 of the Sugden book. By you not admitting that there is no strong evidence pointing to Jack the Ripper probably being a middle-class or lower-class person and not being an upper-class person, you are fooling yourself. There is no strong evidence pointing to a person of any one of the classes being Jack the Ripper. You don't have any strong evidence against a middle-class or lower-class suspect. I don't have any strong evidence against an upper-class suspect. But what I do have is a lot of statements and accusations made against the four upper-class suspects by honest people. I believe where there is smoke there is fire. The statements and accusations are not definite strong evidence as of now, but considering the lack of hard evidence in the case, they take on a larger importance. That is why it is more probable that Jack the Ripper was one of the four upper-class suspects.
Paul, you should know what I think of you. Not much is saying it kindly. Go comment on other people's posts. Now, I don't want to hear from you again. Understand? |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 09:20 am | | "Paul, you should know what I think of you. Not much is saying it kindly. Go comment on other people's posts. Now, I don't want to hear from you again. Understand?"
Firstly, this is a public forum and posts are treated as such. By placing your thoughts here, you explicitly invite comment. This is a forum for discussion - not simply a place for you to propagandize your favourite theory. Indeed, as you stated at the top of this thread: "I hope people use this area to talk about the upper-class suspects." Well, talking is a two-way process and like it or not, I want to talk about it.
Secondly, this little tantrum has demonstrated exactly the point both Jon and I were making. Part of what is known as the 'flat earth' mentality is the unwillingess to even engage in rational discourse.
I have never - not once - insisted that the Ripper could not have been from the upper classes. (Incidentally, you are continually stating that there is nothing in the evidence that mitigates against an upper class suspect. However, your theory isn't just that a member of the upper classes was responsible is it? It names names - you are dealing with specific people, not merely a social stratum. We'll leave that point to one side though as it is only likely to further muddy the water.)
So I will spell it out for you clearly. I have no personal favourite theory as to the identitity of the Ripper. It is immaterial to me which social class he belonged to. However, I do feel that there are serious flaws in the 'royal conspiracy' theory that you are advocating. It is your responsibility to defend those claims as you are the one with enthusiasm for them.
You claimed that there was no evidence against any other suspects. I only raised the issue of the seaside home identification, the Littlechild letter etc in order to illustrate that there is evidence that incriminates other candidates. We've wandered off into a bit of a cul-de-sac about whether or not the seaside identification may have been flawed - which has (unintentionally?) diverted us from the main thrust of the argument.
Can we agree that the issue at hand is: "Is the evidence for the Royal Conspiracy better than the evidence to the contrary?"
It is by that test that we evaluate the likelihood of the theory. In my eyes, the evidence that contradicts is stronger than that which supports. In your eyes is isn't.
We've even reached a point in the debate where you partially get what I have been trying to enunciate all along:
"You don't have any strong evidence against a middle-class or lower-class suspect. I don't have any strong evidence against an upper-class suspect" Which was certainly a more succinct way of putting it than I had managed previously.
This is a Good Thing. Now lets start again then on the basis of this mutual understanding.
Evidence doesn't exist in a vacuum it has context and weight. So assuming that you are still willing to actually debate this point with some degree of moderation, respect and intellectual rigour, I suggest that we take a piece of evidence at a time and discuss it rationally and at length. I am willing to be swayed by persuasive use of evidence and reason, so use this opportunity now to discuss (i.e. not just shout the contrary) a single piece of evidence.
Let us begin with Leeson's assertation that "a certain doctor" could shed some some light on the crimes, as this is a repeated sticking point, and where I came in if memory serves. Please try and stick with it because it is a valuable opportunity for both of us to understand each other.
Now, if Leeson worked on the case from day one, and was privy to all the reports from all branches of the investigation, this statement has some good weight as evidence because we can assume that his knowledge of the case was very detailed. By contrast, if Leeson was a beat copper hauled in from another district during the height of the Autumn of Terror simply to bolster police profile in the area and had no access to the thinking of the detectives at the top of the investigation then his words carry less weight.
Hopefully, both you and I can at least agree on this. I am sure you can see what I am trying to find out - i.e. how good a source is Leeson?
So if you do decide to try and discuss this one point, can you tell me what Leeson's role was in the investigation? I would like to know, because if Leeson is an important source then I can't dismiss his words as easily, can I?
Hope that you can find it in yourself to join me in this exercise. It should be instructive for us both if carried out in the right spirit.
Carps |
Author: Alegria
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 09:33 am | | Thomas,
If you do not wish Paul to reply to your posts, stop posting. If you do not wish to converse with him, stop replying to his posts. This is a public forum and you cannot choose who can and cannot post. Your message bordered on threatening and is not a smart way to proceed here.
Ally |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 08:34 pm | | For anyone who is open minded enough to accept the following, here's a snippet on Leeson:
Charles Leeson joined the Met. Police at the age of 18 in 1891, the same month that Coles was murdered in Swallow Gardens, so his knowledge of the previous Ripper crimes were told him 2nd or 3rd hand, by others.
He claimed in his biography to have arrived at Swallow Gdns on hearing a whistle blast. This claim has not been supported by others who were at the scene. Donald Rumbelow referred to Leeson's 'Lost London', as almost entirely untrustworthy.
Leeson may have made a good car salesman (today), but as for being a source of reliable testimony, his claims have not held up to scrutiny.
It is the heresay rumours that entirely make up the 'evidence' against Thomas's four suspects that make the theory ludicrous.
Not the suspects, the so-called 'evidence'.
I read somewhere that Leeson's 'certain Doctor' was suggested to be aimed at Llewellyn by one author, as he lived in Whitechapel Rd.
Bagster Phillips was also in attendance at many of the murders, in fact all the Doctors summoned to the crime scenes lived locally.
Leeson could well have been referring to Tumblety as opposed to Gull.
Leeson's statement taken as provided is meaningless.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 12 July 2001 - 08:58 pm | | | Relative to the issue of a coverup, which is almost de rigeour if you are going to have a blue blooded Jack, I can think of two scenarios. One would involve someone in an official investigative capacity (Warren, Anderson, Abberline) stumbling onto evidence that incontrovertably leads to a solution and deciding or being persuaded to hush it up. The other scenario is an unofficial, highly placed individual somehow discovering the truth and hushing it up (The Queen, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister). A third, unworkable scenario involves some lowly PC discovering the truth (that part is possible) and then keeping quiet about it (I don't think that part is.) The higher you go socioeconomically the more likely it is that a coverup would work. The reason a PC or a lowly vigilance committee member would not be shut up in time is 1) The most likely means by which they would find out the truth and 2) Their lack of any incentive to keep quiet. You would not find such a person wandering around Buckingham Palace or Whitehall looking for clues. They would not be let in. There is no way that they could ever interact with a blue blooded Jack on his home turf. The only place and time where they might cross Jack's path would be in Whitechapel. They would have to catch him in the act. Suppose there is a hypothetical PC Smith who just happens to be wandering down Dorset Street as Jack emerges wild eyed and bloody from Millers Court, clutching a human heart. The whole district is on tenterhooks and has been for weeks. The streets are full of people for the Lord Mayor's Parade. PC Smith grabs Jack causing a scuffle which attracts attention, which attracts a mob. If this same thing happened say at 4:30 AM you would still have PC Smith dragging Jack into the local station. There would be an immediate sensation. Too many beat cops would have seen. You couldn't make them all be quiet. In a rigid class society like Victorian England you would have an "us and them" mentality. PC Smith and his friends would have no sense of identity with the upper classes and no desire to protect them. If a police official discovered blue-blooded Jack there would be three methods by which he could be silenced. 1)bribe 2)threat 3)altruism/patriotism. A bribe is unlikely in Abberline's case. Inducing his silence would have cost a mint and some months back an appeal went out on this board because Abberline's grave didn't have a headstone. The lack was attributed to poverty. I suppose threat or altruism might have worked, but the threat would have to have extended to his family members, otherwise why not a deathbed revelation? That would be true in Anderson and Warren's case too although I don't know if they died poor. Did either of them suddenly get richer in the autumn of 1888? It is possible that one or all of these gentlemen were persuaded that the truth must be suppressed for the good of the country. With regard to a blue blooded Jack being caught by some other blue blood it would most likely happen when he was in his normative milieu. His best friend, duke something or other goes into his room to borrow a cufflink and finds Mary's heart. Duke SOO runs to his uncle whatsis who is pretty tight with the prime minister and when the PM finds out the lid is clamped on. To have a viable blue blooded Jack you have to have a viable coverup. Can we pursue 1) Who got richer 2) who would have been persuaded by altruism 3)Whose moral character would have made him amenable to bribes or threats |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 07:23 am | | Thanks Jon.
I genuinely knew nothing about Leeson when I was writing, so I hope Thomas will read it and start to appreciate what it is we're trying to get to. If not...
Thomas,
In light of Jon's post, do you now see what we are driving at? Remember - we're only dealing with one piece of evidence at a time here, but Leeson's relationship to the Ripper case is very tenuous (to put it mildly). Can you see why the majority of Ripper sleuths put more store in what Abberline, Swanson etc said at the time? They were directly involved in the case and had access to almost all of the information, therefore we take what they say with more seriousness than what a beat copper who joined the force a couple of years later says.
But even if his information is correct (which we can't rule out) - as I said right at the start of this 'discussion', and as Jon has just mentioned - he doesn't even name Gull. So it is absolutely fair to infer he could be referring to any one of the following:
1) Gull
2) Tumblety (also a Dr.)
3) Druitt (who was mistakenly identified by some investigators as being a doctor).
4) Another Doctor whose name we don't know but who was a suspect at the time
We simply can't tell know from what he says. Therefore, we must treat this piece of evidence as what it is - anecdotal, and very probably worthless in our investigation.
If you can accept this, and allow us to move on to another piece of evidence that you have mentioned, let us consider the quote of Abberline's for which you named this thread:
"One of the highest in the land."
Again, following the same style of reasoning that we have used above, will you outline for me when this quote was made, to whom, when it was first recorded, and under what circumstances? From this, we will try to determine how valuable a source this is, and how much credence we can lend to it.
Cheers - and, again, I hope you will join me in discussing this rationally.
Carps |
Author: Mark List
Friday, 13 July 2001 - 04:38 pm | | Am I to understand, correctly, that the last few posts on this board are Thomas arguing with others because they find his "evidence" unsatifactory?
1)Many times have I posted messages on these boards that others have stated they disagree with. Notably, I had posted that the Ripper had ripped on foggy/misty nights. And I received a few messages asking me to "prove" that it was true. I, of course, was mistaken and stated so on these boards.
2)These boards, in my opinion, are for people with open minds. When I first come to the casebook board I was firmly set that Maybrick was the Ripper. After time I opened mind my to other possiblities and now I no longer have a "Favorite" Suspect.
3) I find a few of Thomas's posts to have some merit, and others do as well, although Thomas's "evidence" is Heresay. And, if that won't stand up in court, it won't stand up here. No one (I think) who post messages on this board (Jack was "one of the highest in the land") 100% disagrees with the possibility of Jack being a Blue Blood, only the "evidence" that is presented is not "tangiable", which makes it harder to accept.
4) It appears to me that Thomas doesn't like having people disagree with his theories. So why does he create a mesasage board that says:
"I believe Jack The Ripper was either Sir William Gull, J.K. Stephen, Prince Eddy or Sir Randolph Churchill. I hope people use this area to talk about the upper-class suspects."
But he doesn't allow the debate of his theory without rudeness.
Thomas, I'm not one to make waves on these boards. I enjoy coming here and reading other people's theories and thoughts about the Ripper. But, I become very upset when people start being verbally violent toward others, for any reason.
These boards are here for everyone to use, and I see no reason for you to say:
"Paul, you should know what I think of you. Not much is saying it kindly. Go comment on other people's posts. Now, I don't want to hear from you again. Understand?"
It's rude and inappropriate. If you can't continue your discussions without this kind of attitude, then maybe you shouldn't post here.
I'm interested in your theory and would like to here more about it. But, on the other hand, I find your evidence lacking as well. But I don't want to have a conversation with someone who explodes every time he's asked for stronger evidence to support his theory.
With best wishes
Mark |
|
|
|
|
