|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 06 October 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Gull, Sir William Withey:
Archive through 06 October 2001
Author: Thomas Neagle
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 09:39 pm |        | | Inspector Aberline, in his retirement, 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".This was in the introduction of the Spiering book. Nigel Moreland is very reputable. Unless you can refute that, then all the Kosminski and the Chapman and the unknown, low-life suspects are thrown out the window.I think Jack The Ripper was Gull or J.K. Stephen or both of them working together. J.K. Stephen was a patient of Gull's during the Jack The Ripper murders. And I think that J.K. Stephen, either as Jack The Ripper or not as Jack The Ripper but for his own ego's sake, wrote many of the Jack The Ripper letters; the "Dear Boss" letter in my opinion being the most certain of his work. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 11:03 pm | | Unfortunately, the final musings of retired Officials connected with the case are less than lucid, rather inaccurate and never taken from contemporary notes.
Read the appalling track record of Anderson, Smith and Macnaghten to name a few.
It will take more than a passing remark to crack this case.
Regards, Jon
(Oops, O.K., 'appalling' doesn't apply to Anderson)
:-) |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 06:08 am | | When I brought this up last year , the official consensus was that Moreland was not as reputable a source as you might believe.
Simon |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 09:41 am | | Hi Thomas:
You might also consider that Abberline is alleged to have said, "You've caught Jack the Ripper at last!" when George Chapman was arrested. Chapman (Severin Klosowski), an East End barber, was certainly not one of the highest in the land. No, as Jon has indicated, the later pronouncements of former policemen should be treated with skepticism, particularly those that can not be proven to be written by them and are only remarks attributed to them.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 10:10 am | | Just to add a footnote.....
What we may be dealing with here, assuming the Abberline - Moreland exchange to be true, is one of those nuances of English humour. That is to say, when someone (reporter?) is annoying you with questions, give them an answer that is utterly stupid, its a sign of indifference and dirision.
It may help if we knew Abberline's sense of humour.
What is actually written by Moreland is this:
'I (finally) cornered my quarry, ex-Inspector Frederick G. Abberline, working in his front garden. He was not pleased to see me, and refused to answer any questions about the Ripper......(eventually).....he relented a little. Finally he answered only one question about the Ripper's identity, and I quote exactly: "I cannot reveal anything except this - of course we knew who he was, one of the highest in the land."
He then went into his house and slammed the door firmly.'
Make of that what you will.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Sunday, 10 June 2001 - 09:30 pm | | I believe Jack The Ripper was either Gull or J.K. Stephen or both of them working together with J.K. Stephen writing many of the Jack The Ripper letters. On the subject of J.K. Stephen, there are a lot more reasons for him being Jack The Ripper than any other suspect, with the possible exception of Gull. They are:
1. Inspector Aberline, 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". That only leaves a few possible suspects, the upper-crust ones.
2. What suspect was insane? J.K. Stephen.
3. What suspect hated women so much that in his writings even said that women should be "killed or ploughed". J.K. Stephen. That is in the Harrison book.
3. What suspect had the prose and poetical writing ability and the tortured ego to write the "Dear Boss" letter as well as many other Jack The Ripper Letters. J.K. Stephen
4. Most of the suspects seen by witnesses were around 30. J.K. Stephen was 29.
5. Most of the suspects seen by witnesses were stout. J.K. Stephen was stout.
6. The suspect seen closest to the time of a body being found, was the suspect seen by Lawande talking to Katherine Eddowes around 5 minutes before her body was found. That suspect was around 30, 5'9", with a fair complexion and a fair mustache. That is the way J.K. Stephen looked.
7.What suspect loved his pipe (ie. The Pipe Man) so much that he even wrote a poem about it. J.K. Stephen. That is in the Harrison book.
8. What suspect died in 1892, the same year that the Jack The Ripper case was closed. J.K. Stephen.
The most important point is the first one. That only leaves a few possible suspects, the upper-crust ones, such as Gull, J.K. Stephen, Prince Eddy and Randolph Churchill. And as I said earlier, the suspect with the most possible reasons for him to be Jack The Ripper is J.K. Stephen, with the possible exception of Gull. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 02:46 pm | | Having examined the asylum records of J.K. Stephen's last confinement , I would argue that JK seemed to be particularly lucid in mind and behaviour in his last days , despite refusing to take food. He was not insane in the way that Kosminski was insane , maybe more emotionally disturbed or manic depressive.
Furthermore , there is doubt that JK hated women - the poems such as ' In the Backs ' might be more expressive of a grumpy , misanthropic nature as a whole than portraying any particular hatred for one sex in particular. There is no evidence that he ' walked it like he talked it ' , in other words such sentiments do not make him a murderer.
Your points 3 , 4 , and 6 might equally apply to Walter Sickert ! And Sickert was also a smoker too.
But I do believe JK was involved , although the death of Prince Eddy was more likely to be the reason for the closure of the investigation rather than the death of Stephen.
Simon |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 03:10 pm | | Hi, Simon and Thomas:
Of course, confusing the artist with their creations is a commonplace when one considers writers and their written works. Was Edgar Allan Poe like the people in his stories? Is Stephen King like the characters in his novels and stories? There is no doubt that any writer, be he or she a poet or novelist, creates a persona through which they write and that the persona does not necessarily match the real life person who wrote the works.
As for the point about J. K. Stephen being a pipe smoker, of course, a large proportion of the male population, in all strata of society, smoked pipes in those days, including many of the police officers in the Metropolitan and City Police forces. 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 09:08 pm | | I believe Jack The Ripper was Gull. There are more reasons or statements pointing to Gull as Jack The Ripper than any other suspect, with the possible exception of J.K. Stephen. They are:
1. 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." That only leaves a few possible suspects, the upper-crust ones.
2. The Chicago Sunday Times-Herald article of April 28, 1895. Dr. Benjamin Howard told a reporter that a lunacy commission of 12 Doctors was held for a high standing West End physician for being Jack The Ripper. This West End physician had been a student at Guy's Hospital and was ardent and enthusiastic vivisectionist. Gull had been a student at Guy's Hospital and was an ardent vivisectionist. That the unstated physician had been a student at Guy's Hospital cuts down the possibilies a lot. Being an ardent vivisectionist cuts down the possibilities also. Vivisection is the act of cutting into or dissecting the body of a living animal. Gull could coldly and calmly do this. Gull spoke before the Royal Commission on vivisection in 1875. Also, in 1882, he wrote a sixteen page article titled 'The Nineteenth Century' in support of vivisetion. No other West End physician died or was put away for the two years after 1888 except for Gull. Thus, Gull was Jack The Ripper. This is in the Knight book.
3. Police-man Benjamin Leeson in his memoirs 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. This is in the Sugden book.
4. Dr. Thomas Stowell, a good friend of Dr. Theordore Dyke Ackland who was the son-in-law to Gull and to Mrs. Caroline Dyke Acland, who was Gull's daughter, made some incriminating statements, though not meaning to, implicating Gull as the ripper. He thought the ripper was Prince Eddy. One statement was that Gull was seen in Whitechapel on at least a few nights that the ripper struck. Stowell was probably told this by Caroline Dyke Acland. He also went through Gull,s papers.
5. The medium Robert James Lees account of his meeting with a high standing West End physician tallies with the information Thomas Stowell got from Theordore and Caroline Dyke Acland and Gull's papers. The wife said at this meeting that she thought her husband was of un-sound mind, and that he was away from home on the nights of the murders. The physician admitted that he had found blood on his shirt and scratches on his face.
6. Joseph Sickert, with information told to him by his father Walter Sickert the painter, implicated Gull as the ripper. Also, Joseph Sickert said that Elizabeth Stride would not go into the carriage when asked. She said; 'Not tonight,some other night'. The man she said that to I think was J.K. Stephen or Frederico Albericci. Sickert said that Gull told Netly to kill stride. Walter Sickert was the look-out. Sickert said that Gull and the carriage was parked a certain amount away from Berner Street. The description of the two men seen by Israel Schwartz at the time of the assault on Elizabeth Sride were: the first man; age about 30, height 5 ft. 5 in., complextion fair, hair dark, small brown mustache, full face, broad shoulderd; dress, dark jacket & trousers, black cap with peak, had nothing in his hands. The second man; age 35, height 5 ft. 11 in.,complexion fresh, hair light brown, mustache brown; dress, dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand. These are the exact descriptions of Netly and Walter Sickert. Just like Joseph Sickert said. Think about it people. This fact is staring you right in the face.
7. The London Times of Tuesday, Oct.2,1888. An article talks about conversations people had 'with 2 or 3 suspicious-looking men an hour or so before the crimes were committed...for the belief is now generally entertained in official quarters that no one person alone is attributable the series of crimes which in the last few weeks have horrified and alarmed the public'. That is in The Ultimate Guide to Jack The Ripper.
8. Florence Pash, a friend of a relative of author Jean Fuller in her book Sickert and The Ripper, corroborates Joseph Sickert. Florence Pash, a friend of Walter Sickert, corroborated the royal connection, the Annie Crook/Prince Eddy connection.
9. Andy and Sue Parlour, Andy being a relative of Polly Nichols, in Kevin O'Donnel's book Jack The Ripper and the Whitechapel Murders, say that an old oral tradition says a royal doctor or the Queens' son was Jack The Ripper.
The elusiveness, the lack of blood, the anatomical knowledge, the probable Masonic connotations to the mutalations all point to the probability that Gull did the murders in a carriage.
There was a large, public, police cover-up. With all their man-power, work and effort they would most probably have found Jack The Ripper. The only reason why Scotland Yard would have allowed its reputation to be sullied by not naming Jack The Ripper was if he was one of the upper-crust like Gull. Or if there was a connection to the thrown by way of Prince Eddy.
Gull was probably the ripper with a royal connection though possibly he did it without the royal connection but because he was insane, with or without a slight stroke in 1887.
Reread the first 3 points. They are the most important. They are reliable statements that point to Gull as being Jack The Ripper. |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 12:15 pm | | I like your style Thomas ( ! ) unfortunately not many people would agree with you !
I'm afraid the Chicago newspaper article is most probably a hoax.
You forgot one point though : in the 1921 version of Sickert's painting ' Ennui ' a gull appears perched on Queen Victoria's shoulder ; this doesn't appear in the preliminary sketches or the earlier version of the painting. Sickert did say he was going to paint clues into his paintings around this time , it seems he was at least pointing the finger at Dr Gull for something , even if he was not the Ripper himself he may well have been involved in some sort of Royal Conspiracy.
Simon |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 08:26 pm | | | The Chicago Sunday Times-Herald article is true and I'll tell you why. If it were not true, it would be a huge coincedence that the hospital the physician studied at was Guy's Hospital and that he was an ardent and enthusiastic vivisectionist. Hoaxers could have said he was a renowned researcher of blood diseases or many other things. And as I showed earlier, Gull was known as an ardent and enthusiastic vivisectionist. Also hoaxers could have said that the physician studied at many other hospitals besides Guy's Hospital. Think about it logically. It is too much of a coincidence. Especially the second point about the physician being an ardent and enthusiastic vivisectionist. The only logical way that possibly it was a hoax was if Gull was at the time publically being talked about being the Ripper. Then hoaxers could have put information in the article that described Gull. This situation is unlikely. So as I said, it would be much too much of a coincidence for the article to say that the physician studied at Guy's Hospital and was an ardent and enthusiastic vivisectionist, not to be true. Think about it. |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 09:40 pm | | An important point I want to make. Mary Jane Kelly's murder was extremely brutal, gross, and sick. The person who committed it probably had his mind go totally unhinged after it. The only possible results would have been that the person was put in a mental institution or in jail or died. One could say that maybe he left the country like Tumblety but the increased ferociousness and sickness of the Stride and Kelly murders, especially the ferociousness and sickness of the Kelly murder could only lead to that person for awhile continuing to commit ferocious and sick Kelly-like murders or as I said being put in a mental instituion or a jail or dying. None of these happened to Tumblety.
Only two suspects were either put away in an asylum or died or disappeared from sight soon after Mary Jane Kelly's death. They were Gull and Druitt. In my opinion Druitt didn't have the personality to carve up and mutilate women like Jack The Ripper did. That leaves Gull. He disappeared from sight soon after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. People were probably covering up that he was Jack The Ripper all of 1889 untill they announced that he had died in January of 1890. He may have had a worse stroke or been put in an asylum or died anytime after the death of Mary Jane Kelly in 1888 or 1889. They had to leave a year between the murder of Mary Jane Kelly and the announced death of Gull in January of 1890, so that Gull, being a physician, and physicians being widely suspected at the time to be Jack The Ripper, would not implicated or accused of being Jack The Ripper, which he probably was. Think about it. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 10:55 pm | | Thomas
Think about the facts, forget the fantasy.
Jon |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 09:52 am | | | You would probably love the Michael Caine movie "Jack the Ripper". it was what got me hooked although I now disagree with a lot of what is in it. |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 10:06 am | | | A question i would have about the Gull theory is "Why no near misses?" Jack went out trolling for victims and we have several accounts of women who claim narrow escapes. Maybe one or two of them actually were Jack escapees. Not one of these women says anything about a carriage. Unless Dr. Gull was successful every single time then I have to wonder why we don't have at least one terrified nearly killed woman telling us that, "'e tried to get me in 'is carriage but I bit 'is 'and and 'e let me go." or some such thing. The Whitechapel Prostitutes communicated very well with each other about a possible threat in a leather apron. If such a thing had happened with a coach or carriage it would have been all over Whitechapel. In the cases where there were witnesses (Mrs. Long, Lawende, etc.) not one of them said anything about spotting a carriage. |
Author: LillyScones
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 08:14 pm | | Hi All,
I just realized something today after looking at Sir William Gull's photo. I believe he was my
most recent hairdresser.
With Charisma,
Lilly |
Author: Millard Duckey
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 08:33 pm | | | Gull certainly had the sugical skill and medical knowledge necessary to perform the mutilations, but one wonders how vigorous a 72 year old man who had recently had a stroke would have been. Improbable at best. |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 06:04 pm | | | Diana, if the "Royal Conspiracy" is true, and there is a strong possibility that it is, Gull and the accomplisses were looking only for a few certain women, and as Walter Sickert said through Joseph Sickert, Elizabeth Stride would not be persuaded to accept a carriage ride. The carriage was parked far and Gull told Netly to kill Stride and Walter Sickert acted as a look-out. The short and tall Netly and Sickert were the exact same height that the two men Israel Schwartz saw were, which were 5'5" and 5'11". |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Sunday, 24 June 2001 - 10:35 pm | | I want to make a point that basically proves that Gull was either Jack The Ripper or so closely associated with Jack The Ripper as to be mistaken for him. If he wasn't Jack The Ripper, but only mistaken for Jack The Ripper,it was because one of his patients was Jack The Ripper; either J.K. Stephen or Prince Eddy, probably J.K. Stephen.
The point is the corroboration of the story involving a police inspector and a medium meeting with a West End physician of high standing and his wife and the after affects of that meeting, by Dr. Thomas Stowell. Both a Chicago Sunday Times-Herald article of April 28,1895 and an account given by Robert James Lees say that a West End physician of high standing was committed to a private asylum under a false name after a sham death and burial by a group of 12 doctors (probably as a court of medical inquiry and as a commission in lunacy), for being Jack The Ripper. Dr. Thomas Stowell corroborates this by saying that Gull's daughter, Mrs. Caroline Dyke Acland told him that at the time of the Ripper murders, her father and mother had an unappointed meeting with a police officer and a medium. She said her mother answered their questions with non-committal replies such as 'I do not know,' I cannot tell you that,' I am afraid I cannot answer that question.' She said her father came down and in answer to the questions said he occasionlly suffered from 'lapses of memory since he had a slight stroke in 1887'; he said that he once had discovered blood on his shirt. This is obviously the same situation mentioned in the Chicago Sunday Times-Herald article and the account told by Robert James Lees.
Dr. Thomas Stowell was an eminent surgeon and he had studied under Dr. Theodore Dyke Acland, son-in-law of Gull. Dr. Stowell was very good friends of Dr. Theodore Dyke Acland and his wife Caroline, the daughter of Gull. Dr. Stowell was such a good friend of Dr. Theodore Dyke Acland, that he directed Stowell to be appointed one of his trustees and executors, and left him a valuable Pre-Raphaelite painting. Dr. Stowell told the truth. That can be hardly argued. So, as I've shown, Dr. Stowell corroborated The Chicago Sunday Times-Herald article and the account told by Robert James Lees of the committal of a West End physician of high standing, for being Jack The Ripper. Dr. Stowell's corroboration proves that that physician was Gull. If you doubters out there will only be honest with yourselves, you will admit that this is the truth, a fact, and hard to argue with.
In terms of Gull possibly being mistaken as Jack The Ripper and being committed to a private asylum, it is possible that this situation happened if he was not Jack The Ripper but closely associated with Jack The Ripper who was one of his patients; either J.K. Stephen or Prince Eddy, probably J.K. Stephen. He may have mentioned information, told to him by J. K. Stephen as his patient, to the police inspector and to Robert James Lees, that only Jack The Ripper would know. Also, there may have been some incriminating evidence, such as blood or a knife that J.K. Stephen left with Gull that the police inspector found. Gull also may have been going insane at the time. He may also have had a bad stroke at that time. With information and possibly evidence that only Jack The Ripper would know or have, the panel of 12 doctors committed the insane Gull to a private asylum as Jack The Ripper.
As I've said in earlier posts, I believe Jack The Ripper was Gull, probably in some kind of royal conspiracy. It is possible, but less so, that Gull was Jack The Ripper without some kind of royal conspiracy. Also, as I've said in earlier posts, if Gull wasn't Jack The Ripper, than J.K. Stephen was. And if it was Gull as Jack The Ripper in some kind of royal conspiracy as I've said I believe is the most likely, J.K. Stephen was one of the accomplices. And J.K. Stephen, regardless if he was Jack The Ripper or one of the accomplices of Gull's, wrote many of the Jack The Ripper Letters; the "Dear boss" letter being the most certain of his work.
Dr. Stowell's corroboration points to either Gull or someone closely associated with Gull, as Jack The Ripper. Dr. Stowell proves it. And as I've shown, what Dr. Stowell said is very hard to argue with. Remember, Dr. Stowell was a very reputable man and he had a close friendship with Theodore Dyke Acland and his wife Caroline, the daughter of Gull. Their friendship was too close for him to lie. He was telling the truth. |
Author: Kevin Braun
Monday, 10 September 2001 - 10:57 am | | Could someone please tell how Dr. Thomas Stowell died? Did the family ever explain why they destroyed Gull's notes so soon after Dr. Stowell's death? Thanks.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: not
Friday, 28 September 2001 - 04:18 pm | | Hello all. I'm new to this board.
I've read Stephen Knight's poweful account, as well as his book on the Freemasons. I've read a lot about Freemasons, and I still haven't read all of my books - some just plain crap - on Masonry that I possess.
I found Knight's tale just too convincing and well constructed to not at least be going in the right direction. But I think that Martin Short's reasonable cautions should be heeded. And Knight was only human, after all.
Short notes that if, as a Masonic historian (John Hammill), three of Knight's main protagonists, who Knight said were Masons, weren't. Hamill, who I haven't examined yet, said that Gull, Anderson and Hamill weren't Masons. Actually, offhand, I would have to say that it stretches credibility to be told that none of those characters were Masons, at a time when Masons were indeed powerful and everywhere among the powerful.
Was Gull a Mason? What's the best evidence for that, for those who say he was? Salisbury?
Later... |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 05 October 2001 - 05:00 am | | Dear not,
Hold the following firmly in mind:
(i) Knight's entire thesis derives from the tale told by Joe Sickert. No part of that has been substantiated by subsequent research, and parts that Knight accepted or thought he had proved (e.g. Sickert's account of Annie Elizabeth Crook's religion, her supposed presence lodging in Cleveland Street, her removal to an asylum) have been definitely disproved.
(ii) Joe Sickert is a self-confessed liar. Among his more massive porkies, his claim to be Walter Sickert's son (disbelieved by all serious students of Walter Sickert); his claim to have been given Inspector Abberline's journal (a transparent forgery which doesn't even get the inspector's forenames in the right order); his claim that Peter Sutcliffe the Yorkshire Ripper came to London and tried to assassinate him (a wild filler story when nobody wnted to pay any more attention to his silly fabrications about his own royal descent and Jack the Ripper.
(iii) Nothing Joe Sickert says can be accepted unless it is corroborated by reliable evidence or bears instant signs of probability. This is completely untrue of his Ripper fantasy.
(I entered the arena again because I have to comment on the Johnny Depp film shortly for Court TV; was horrified to learn that the tv producers had been sold the idea that this did something new in naming the Ripper, and that Moore's 'From Hell' on which it is based, represents a serious and scholarly historical examination of the case. They were quite unaware that anything resting so flatly on Knight simply overlooks all the serious work done since the 1970s, and that Tumblety, Kosminsky, Bury, Cohen, Barnett and Kidney all merit far more serious consideration, with only Druitt seriously remaining in the picture from the earlier suspect lists, and the how/when/why of the creation of the Maybrick diary taking up more of the time and energy of present-day enthusiasts. (Bad sentence! Gull and the Freemasons don't merit any consideration at all!) So I wanted to see what was being said. To all friends with whom I have not been exchanging thoughts for some months - apologies for my long and soon-to-be-resumed silence. I've returned to full-time teaching - am loving it, and am supremely happy - but find it consumes too much time for me to play the boards. I do, however, hope to get to the Baltimore conference as it is now certain that I shall be staying in America for at least that length of time).
All the best to all,
Martin F |
Author: Ally
Friday, 05 October 2001 - 06:29 am | | Hey there Martin,
Since you enjoy teaching so much, I have generously decided to give you my classes. No, no..I insist. Really. Take them.
Ally |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 05 October 2001 - 06:48 am | | Hi, Martin:
Very nice to see you back here. We missed you in Bournemouth. I see you are telling us exactly what I feared would happen, that the thesis of the "From Hell" movie is being accepted as fact and as contributing some new knowledge. The Hughes brothers appeared in the chat room on a number of occasions when their film was in the works and my argument to them was that they could have taken a different candidate such as Tumblety, Kosminsky, Bury, Cohen, or poor old Joe Barnett and made a much more interesting film than following the tired old Royal conspiracy line.
I am also delighted that you have confirmed my suspicions about the emptiness of anything said by Joseph Sickert. I am then glad that I missed the final session in Bournemouth with Joe Sickert but chose instead to chill out in the lounge than once again climb the stairs to the stuffy third floor conference room.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Kevin Braun
Friday, 05 October 2001 - 12:34 pm | | Mr. Fido,
When will your Court TV appearance be aired?
Is the movie based on the Alan Moore 'From Hell', or the Bob Hinton 'From Hell'?
A devoted fan,
Kevin |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 05 October 2001 - 02:26 pm | | Kevin,
It's based on Moore's graphic novel...Hinton's book puts forth the much more likely Hutchinson and avoids the royal conspiracy entirely.
Martin,
I'm glad to hear that you're having a great time teaching again. Where in America will you be? Your presence on the board has been and will continue to be missed, but It's good to hear that you're 'supremely happy'. Tell me, what's the secret? |
Author: Kevin Braun
Friday, 05 October 2001 - 02:49 pm | | Thanks Tom,
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 05 October 2001 - 03:09 pm | | I'm saying nothing (!!!) 
No seriously , I repect Martin as an eminent Ripperologist but this seems to be a very personal attack on Joseph ( I'm sure he loves you too Martin ! ) especially point (iii) which implies Joe is a pathological liar , when nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact Joseph didn't want anyone to know about his descent or story at all originally ; it was Knight and Paul Bonner who were led to HIM by Scotland Yard. He has given clear reasons for saying what he did at various times.
Without going into great detail about Martin's points , let me say that his point (i) is a load of rubbish , his point (ii) is his opinion but not necessarily that of others , and his point (iii) is quite frankly insulting. And I am suprised that Martin considers Tumblety , an incredibly poor suspect ranking alongside Dr Cream and Lewis Carroll , as being more likely to have been the Ripper than Doctor Gull ; it simply defies belief.
It is a shame that Mr Fido feels he has to make such a vitriolic posting as his comeback to the boards.
Simon |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 05 October 2001 - 07:55 pm | | Simon, Convention is over!!, it's back to the Casebook,
Rick |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 05 October 2001 - 08:50 pm | | | Joe Sickert being aware of telling lies and twisting the truth!!!! I think not. Simply because he is not aware of what the truth is. I once asked him and he thought it was something the cat dragged in. He should get a full time job in a pork pie factory. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 05 October 2001 - 09:30 pm | | Simon,
Not only would Tumblety make a better suspect than Gull, but so would Burgho and Barnaby! Are you a Wiccan or something? As for Martin's 'vitriolic posting', that's what he does. He's poetically vicious. In this case, he also happens to be correct. Simon, what book have you been reading that says 70+ year-olds make good serial killers? Hell, maybe Joseph Sickert is one! He's ripe for the slaying.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 05 October 2001 - 10:47 pm | | | Tom, My granny would make a better suspect than most who have been placed in the frame. You could be right about Joe the hobgoblin that was a vicious looking cane he was seen to hobble about on at the conference. Looked more like a murder weapon.He also had that glint in his eye when he caught sight of me. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 03:23 am | | He had a glint in his eye when he caught sight of me too, Ivor. Bit of an old devil, I'd say. I'll fight you for him, shall I?
Anyone who missed the audience with Joseph missed a treat - I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Simon should think about translating the talk for us here so I can grasp what it was really all about.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 08:17 am | | Hello everyone,
I think that some of you are being a bit hard on Mr.(Gorman)Sickert,and may I say that I have a great deal of respect for him...and people like Rowan Atkinson,Steve martin,Emo Philips etc..
Err..William Gull? Too old,too feeble and too royal!
Mick. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 09:11 am | | | Caz, I can believe he had a glint in his eye when he saw you.But I feel that he had something different in mind for me, at least I hope so!!!! |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 05:46 pm | | | Martin Fido stated, 'Joe Sickert is a self-confessed liar.Among his more massive porkies etc'. Then I made the remark that Joe Sickert should get a job in a pork pie factory.It has been brought to my attention that such comments have confused our friends in the USA so I will explain the meaning of 'porkies' and 'pork pie'. To tell a 'porkie' or 'pork pie' means to tell a lie. It is English slang. Hence Sickert would feel at home if he were to get a job in a pork pie factory simply because of the amount of 'porkies' or 'pork pies' he tells. I hope this has cleared up any confusion. |
Author: John Omlor
Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 05:53 pm | | Ivor,
Here, it's a hat.
--John
(See relevant composition by Charles Mingus and later vocal version by Joni Mitchell) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 06:17 pm | | Cheers for that John. Maybe it is a composition of the two which is responsible for that English comment
I WILL EAT MY HAT !!! Ha. |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 07:06 pm | | Does anyone seriously think that Tumblety was Jack the Ripper ? Come on guys ! No way - only people like Zippity believe that ! 
I have known Joseph since May 2000 , and it was lovely to make his acquaintance again at the Conference , I feel I am priviledged to know such a unique person and to call him a friend. Maybe it is because we are both artists that we get along. Anyway , when Keith gets round to writing the book all will become clear.
Dr Gull IS a poor subject , unless you believe that he played a part in a royal conspiracy - in which case he would the ideal man for the job.
I simply felt Martin went a bit over the top.
Simon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 06 October 2001 - 08:39 pm | | Dear Simon,
It appears that Jack the Ripper is a publisher's lucrative nightmare. I take it that you refer to Keith Skinner?
Rosey:-) |
|
|
|
|
