|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 13 January 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Jack The Ripper was "one of the highest in the land".:
Archive through 13 January 2002
Author: Scott Weidman
Monday, 24 September 2001 - 08:00 pm |        | "PS Excuse my asking but is Mrs or Mr graziano?"
"When I was in prison for one month quite some years ago, my jail companion was a big black man, very violent and rough.
This has been the only period of my life as a Mrs."
Graziano, that was priceless. Between Tom and yourself, this sort of lighthearted and passive humour is exactly what this casebook needs to offset some of the mindless bickering between a few others over minor details. These message boards are getting better and better all the time.
Joke 'em if they can't take a f**k.
Scott |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 24 September 2001 - 08:59 pm | | Tom - I don't know much about William Bury and the
murder of his wife. The only thing I came across
regarding that tragedy was that James Berry, the
notoriously curious executioner of the period
1883 - 1891, was asked by the authorities to
"subtly" question Mr. Bury to see if he was the
Ripper. All he apparently did was annoy Mr. Bury
in the latter's last hours, causing him to sneer,
"You must think you're mighty clever..." It didn't
settle anything, but Berry had sufficient conceit
to want to believe he hanged the Ripper.
As for the Swedish theory, as I mentioned to a
friend elsewhere, I will be glad to deconstruct
the theory before it takes on a life of its own.
It has no subtance and was simply an exercise to
demonstrate how easy it is to create conspiracy
theories.
Nervously awaiting events,
Jeff |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 25 September 2001 - 12:30 am | | Graziano,
Why do you enjoy defending idiots? Does it give you some heightened sense of self-worth? Why are you talking the smack at Paul? And what's your beef with McCarthy, anyway. You've been condemning him as the anti-Christ for months now. If he was so bad and such an opportunist, then why did he turn down at least TWO substantial offers of money to rent Mary's room out to entreprenuers following her death? Instead he rents it to an old couple for chump change. He clearly didn't wish to capitolize off of her death. And did Bubba really make you his b*tch?
Scott,
Thanks for the compliment. It's not often that I get called 'light-hearted'. 
Jeff,
I agree. Berry's opinion proves nothing. At least he had the scruples not to put a false confession into Bury's mouth after he died.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Tuesday, 25 September 2001 - 05:06 am | | Hi graziano,
one up on you :-))). But can you pay the laundry bill for spilt red wine on white shirt and pale trousers?
Caz:
What does IHMO stand for? Even though I'm english I've spent the last 25 years in Germany and havn't an idea... What topic???? Oh the highest in the land.
1) a mountainclimber
2) a drug addict
3) a pilot
4) Queen Victoria
5) somebody who works in The Tower of London?
I honestly think that IF there is a doubt concerning MJ Kelly's death it would be part of the theory concerning the highest in the land.
See you Philip |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 25 September 2001 - 07:08 am | | Hi Philip,
In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)
6) a soap dodger
7) an astronaut
8) my maternal grandmother (her maiden name was Amy High)
See ya.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Tuesday, 25 September 2001 - 07:23 am | | Hi Caz,
let us write a book :-)))
Love,
Philip |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 25 September 2001 - 12:13 pm | | Oh go on then - you can start. 
(Are you smiling three times, BTW, or have you got a double chin? I promise I won't tell anyone.)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Tuesday, 25 September 2001 - 01:15 pm | | Hi,
have you ever seen the video "The Ballad of Chasey Lain" by The Bloodhound Gang? The guy at the end - that's me!
Love,
Philip
PS What has happend to Thomas? |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 25 September 2001 - 03:02 pm | | I have seen that video Philip - the guy at the end is a grossly disgusting fat guy !!! Is that you ? " Mom and dad this is Chasey / Chasey this is my mom and dad... "  
Sadly Caz , I am wrestling with the double chin problem myself , even when I was thinner I still had it. Note the carefully placed hand in my photo !
I will explain why I think the Liz Stride murder proves there was a carriage involved in the next day or so , but have a guess at the solution if you like : if you want a clue , what can we prove about Berner Street that we can't prove about Buck's Row ?
In trepidation about meeting everyone at Bournemouth ,
Simon |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 25 September 2001 - 06:59 pm | | Hello all,
I believe 'one of the highest in the land' is in reference to Abberline himself. I've seen the movies on the Ripper and know for a FACT that he was an alcoholic and used to get high on opium. This fed into his psychic powers. Come on, people! Where have you been?
Philip,
Most of the people on this board don't even know who Marilyn Manson is (no offense) so they probably have never heard of The Bloodhound Gang. I have, however, and found them amusing. As I avoid MTV like the plague I have not seen that video. That's pretty cool, though. I was in a commercial once with the drummer of Winger (they were big in the old days of '88-'92 when I was in high school). I didn't even know it until my friends saw it on tv and told me! What were you doing in the video?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 25 September 2001 - 09:01 pm | | Tom - you're correct in that the "highest in the land" quote was connected to Abberline. It was put in his mouth by the late Nigel Morland, founder of the magazine "The Criminologist." Morland at one point (I don't have the exact reference to hand, but can find it if anyone questions what I write) remembered going to see Abberline as a young man and pestering him about the Ripper, whereupon the crusty old detective snapped back "Of course, we knew who the Ripper was, one of the highest in the land."
The difficulty with this, as has been pointed out before by greater intellects than my own, is that when Morland came to write this down, he was remembering many years after the fact, and never had anything beyond his own word to prove he ever saw Abberline. As well, the Inspector's comment is at odds with any known view of his on the identity of Saucy Jack. And finally, Morland has been described - by those who knew him - as a man not averse to telling a tall tale if the moment suited him.
Jeff - read William Beadle's "Jack the Ripper: Anatomy of a Myth," which has a very complete case against Bury. Alternatively, you can read his essay "The Real JTR" in "The Mammoth Book of JTR."
Simon - you think you've a double chin, mate? Wait to see mine in Bournemouth - it's why I had to grow a beard. And I would like to hear your explanation for a carriage in Berner Street.
Looking forward to the Conference,
CMD |
Author: Scott Weidman
Tuesday, 25 September 2001 - 09:13 pm | | Hi Tom;
I echo your sentiments in regards to avoiding MTV like the plague. It's not even a music channel anymore.
Kip Winger- aka hairspray and a good dentist. Horrible music though, with the exception of maybe one song ("She's Only 17" was a cool tune I suppose).
The metal scene was slightly different during my '83-'87 high school incarceration. I was an avid fan of bands such as Accept, W.A.S.P., Fates Warning, Queensryche, Anthrax, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Slayer and Metallica (yeah, before they inevitably sold out to MTV). Ah yes, the good 'ol days indeed. Actually, I still follow many of those bands to this very day, along with some newer bands as well (Nevermore, Dream Theater, etc etc). I don't wanna grow up, I'm a rock-n-roll kid.
Chasey Lain... nuff said. Yeah, I still have that Bloodhound Gang tune in my R.I.P. Napster folder.
Okay, I apologize for once again failing to properly contribute to these boards. While I have been a reseacher of the Whitechapel murders for nearly 15 years, I still have yet to adopt a favorite suspect. Each and every time I believe I am in favor of one suspect above all others someone introduces new information (or chameleonic information which only harbors regurgitated facts) and I am back to square one. Until someone produces undisputable proof which leads to the true identity of 'ol Saucy Jacky, I am but an amateur in a maelstrom of amateurs. Some more skilled and insightful than others, of course, but all amateurs nonetheless (and that is no way an insult to anyone, so please take no offense, as I truly envy and appreciate many of your talents). Hunt the Ripper. It's a wonderful ride and I hope it never ends.
Regards,
Scott |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 25 September 2001 - 09:53 pm | | Me too Scott , Napster R.I.P.  |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 25 September 2001 - 10:40 pm | | Simon's got more chins than a Chinese phone book! (or so I've heard)
CM,
Yes, I was aware of Morland's claim. I was just making a joke about Abberline. Thank you for refreshing my mind of the details regarding Morland. Let it not be forgotten, though, that the man who replaced Abberline in charge of the Whitechapel murders DID say that they looked into members of 'nobility' as suspects. However, I am NO royalist.
Scott,
W.A.S.P. Just played in my town a couple of nights ago, but I had to work and didn't have a ride, anyways. Did you know that Dream Theater released their new album to stores on the very day of the WTC bombing, and do you know what they had on the cover? THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON FIRE!!!! How's THAT for timing! Naturally, and at great expense, they pulled it off the racks to have the cover re-done. Also, 150 songs have been temporarily 'banned' from the radio, because they might remind people of the tragedy. Some of them are obvious, like AC/DC's 'I Feel Safe in New York City' and Billy Joel's 'We Didn't Start the Fire' but others require a little thought, like 'Ticket to Ride' (it talks about a girl buying a ticket to travel and a guy gets sad) and 'Walk Like An Egyptian' (it could be said to be glorifying Egyptians, who many people relate to Palestinians and Afganiwhatevers). I hope this isn't the start of a trend.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. I liked Winger's music! |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 26 September 2001 - 03:46 am | | Hello All,
that with the video was a joke!!!!!!! My wife would not have married me if I look like that. Marliyn Manson - live an "experience". MTV - rubbish. You are talking to a pure Rock Fan - The Boss still rules!!
I read the prologue to "Prince Jack" in the bath yesterday and an of the same opinion. 50 (!) years after talking to somebody, he remembers what Abberline said. Rubbish. How old was he when he talked to him - around 20 (?) - makes him at least 70 when he remembers it. If he was younger he was even younger when talking to Abberline.
Imagine you are a ex-inspector and some "kid" comes and asks you about Jack. What would you say? 1) Come in for a cuppa and let me tell you whole story. or 2) p*** off.
Either the statement was meant as a polite p*** off or it is a lie. I don't know which of these is true BUT it is no basis for a theory. I my eyes it was created to sell books and not help us! Move over Eddy!
Yours Philip
PS Eddie rules - The Iron Maiden version :-) |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 26 September 2001 - 11:01 am | | Hi, Tom, CM, et al.:
You are correct of course about the serious question about Morland's memory if he was remembering talking to Abberline after a span of fifty years.
Moreover, as discussed in A to Z, Morland apparently gave two different versions of Abberline's "exact words", i.e.,
1) Evening News, 28 June 1976, Morland is quoted as saying he "remembered distinctly [Abberline's] exact words" which were "'you'd have to look for him [the Ripper] not at the bottom of London society but a long way up.'"
2) Morland's Introduction to Prince Jack by Frank Spiering, published in the United States in 1978, in which he wrote: "I quote [Abberline] exactly: 'I cannot reveal anything except this--of course we knew who [the Ripper] was, one of the highest in the land.'"
Here we have two distinctly different versions of Abberline's supposed "exact" words, one in which we are told that you should look for the Ripper in an upper echelon of London society and the other where he was described as one of the highest in British society. Not the same thing at all. Two different social descriptions, London and the whole country, with the first saying look for the murderer in upper London society and the second that the Ripper definitely was a member of the British upper crust overall.
Additionally, if there is any truth to the story that Abberline in 1903 thought George Chapman (Severin Klosowski) could have been the Ripper, the Morland anecdote goes out of the window. Chapman, a working class immigrant Pole, could hardly have been described as either one of the highest in the land or in the top strata of London society!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 26 September 2001 - 01:30 pm | | Hi Christopher,
you forgot to mention that Morland was around 20 when he talked to Abberline, who himself was around 75.
If the story is true why wait nearly 50 years before publishing it?
The second foundation of our Royal-theory, Stowell, has been proved to be telling lies all along. Here the A to Z gives a good overview.
What does that leave us with? Nothing! Gull was never a suspect, Abberline's quote was a fabrication and Stowell's story full of lies.
Sounds more like a royal c***-up than a royal cover-up! (Excuse my French)
See you Philip |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 26 September 2001 - 03:49 pm | | Hi, Philip:
Presumably Morland waited fifty years to tell the story because the Stowell story came out and he was trying to lend it some veracity with either a true reflection of what Abberline said to him, what he thought Abberline said, or a completely made up conversation of what he would have preferred Abberline to have said. Notably though, Morland himself as discussed here, trashed the Prince Eddy theory so his anecdote was not so much in support of Spiering's "Prince Jack" hypothesis as to contend that the Ripper was some type of upper class type.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Scott Weidman
Wednesday, 26 September 2001 - 08:17 pm | | Hi Tom,
Yeah, what a morbid coincidence. They were wise to immediately pull the cds off the racks. Dream Theater is a solid band, with solid material. And they are magnificent live. If that cd hadn't been recalled they most certainly would be catching hell from multitudinous a metal fan indeed. And that would be after they'd caught hell from the entire general public. Dodged a bullet there.
W.A.S.P. will be in San Francisco at the Maritime Hall on October 5th, and I'd already picked up tickets a few weeks ago. Should be a cool show. And hopefully this time around Blackie won't go postal on the lighting crew and storm off stage over some minor effects errors.
Later.
Scott |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Saturday, 29 September 2001 - 01:26 am | | Inspector Abberline said to Nigel Moreland; "...of course we knew who he was, one of the highest in the land". There is no reason not to believe Nigel Moreland. There is no reason to believe that Nigel Moreland, the publisher of "The Criminologist", with his reputation on the line, would lie in two very public venues;The Evening News of June 28,1976 and in the introduction of Frank Spiering's book Prince Jack(March 13,1978). If he was known as a dishonest man, that's one thing. He was not. He was an honest man. From Nigel Moreland's telling of the story, it seems that in their conversation, Inspector Abberline may have told him that; "you'd have to look for him[the Ripper]not at the bottom of London Society but a long way up". Later in the conversation, Inspector Abberline was more specific and said; "...of course we knew who he was, one of the highest in the land". In 1976, Nigel Moreland may not have been comfortable telling The Evening News the second part, which may implicate Prince Eddy. Or possibly he told The Evening News, and they were not comfortable to print it. By 1978, in the introduction of the book Prince Jack, he was comfortable enough to state the line of Inspector Abberline; "...of course we knew who he was, one of the highest in the land". A line that may implicate Prince Eddy. Though Nigel Moreland was around twenty when Inspector Abberline told him this information, and went public with it years later, I think it's safe to assume that he would never of forgotten Inspector Abberline telling him that Jack the Ripper was an upper-class man.
The reason why what Inspector Abberline said to Nigel Moreland is believable is this. He said it privately and not publicly. There was an official cover-up, and publicly he would not tell the truth. He was caught off-guard, and in a private moment, with a young man, who he had no idea would some day grow up to be a publisher of a magazine, with many opportunities to print the information, he let the truth slip out.
I believe there was an official cover-up involving Prime Minister Salisbury, Home Secretary Henry Mathews, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Charles Warren, Assistant Commissioner of CID Robert Anderson and possibly Chief Inspector Donald Swanson. Inspector Abberline was not in on the cover-up at the beginning. In 1903, Inspector Abberline may or may not have been aware of the cover-up then when he he may have said that he thought Chapman was Jack the Ripper. If he was then aware of the cover-up, he would not have publicly told the truth. If he was not aware yet of the cover-up, then at that time he thought that Chapman was a good suspect. At some point though, Inspector Abberline became aware of the cover-up and the truth, for as he said to Nigel Moreland; "...of course we know who he was, one of the highest in the land". So Inspector Abberline, being caught off-guard, told privately to a young man the truth, the truth which he and a few other officials never would say publicly.
Also, a poster said that it has been proved that Dr. Thomas Stowell was telling lies all along. That is not the truth. That is the farthest thing from the truth. Dr. Thomas Stowell, who was an eminent surgeon, was a very good friend of Dr. Theodore Dyke Acland and his wife Caroline, the daughter of Dr. William Gull. With information he got from Dr. William Gull's private papers and from the Aclands, he wrote an article for The Criminologist. He was a credible man, with important, inside information. He has not been discredited. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Saturday, 29 September 2001 - 05:32 am | | Hi Thomas,
good to have you back. As I am the poster you mention above, allow me to quote the Jack the Ripper A-Z 1st Edition page 304-305 and 437-439:
" Mr Morland, who had an extraordinary large fund of anecdotes to tell about meetings with almost everyone criminous, ..., fondly remembered ... for his rather romantic disposition and excellent imaginative writing"
" ... ( Stowell's geriatric account) contained the following manifest errors: Gull died in 890, not in the early 1930s, ... Stowell, as on of [Acland's] executors and trustees, needed no permission from Caroline Acland to go through his papers - nor could he have obtained it in any case, as she died two years before her husband. Gull's papers could not have referred to Clarence's death, as Gull died two years before the Prince. ... Stephen Knight made the vaid point that these rumours [Gull seen in Whitechapel] are unknown prior to Stowell's article."
Paul Begg, martin Fido and Keith Skinner are better researchers than you, not meant as an insult, so until you can bring forward facts on not "emotional" statements, I will stick with my opinion: Royal cover-up - No!, Gull - No!, Stepehn - good Maybe!
See you around Philip, who will be spending the afternoon thinking and reading John Wilding. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 29 September 2001 - 11:20 pm | | Inspector Henry Moore, who took over the investigation of the Whitechapel murders from Inspector Abberline, was quoted as saying that suspicion had rested on people in every class of society - on club men, doctors and dockers, members of Parliament and members of the nobility, common sailors and learned scientists.
This conversation took place in August 1889.
What do you all make of this?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 29 September 2001 - 11:54 pm | | Tom - it could be a grab bag of types to illustrate Abberline's point, or he might have
seriously hinted at a variety of unknown men who
were actual suspects.
Of course, members of Parliament could refer to
Lord Randolph Churchill, or Sir Charles Dilke,
or Charles Steward Parnell. Doctors could
include Sir William Gull, or Dr. Caleb Charles
Whitfoord. The men of science and aristocrats
are curious. Besides Lord Randolph, the Duke of
Bedford (a relative of Lord Bertram Russell who
committed suicide in 1891) was suspected by some.
As for scientists, if one looks at the old
Dictionary of National Biography at the family
of Professor Lant Carpenter and Dr. Philip H.
Carpenter, several violent deaths including suicide in the early 1890s, which invites some
study...even if it turns out not connected to
the Whitechapel Murders.
Jeff |
Author: R.J.P.
Sunday, 30 September 2001 - 11:32 pm | | Jeff--Hi. Not to put you on the spot, but I vaguely remember Sir William Gull being somehow associated with a well-known Victorian poisoning case. He was one of the physicians consulted by the victim, I believe. Does this ring any bells, or am I imagining things?
Cheers.
PS. This is entirely belated---but I was glad to see that you, too, enjoyed Rupert Gould's books, and had meant to comment. His one crime piece "Abraham Thorton Offers Battle" was one of his best, and it made me wish that he had written more along those lines. I haven't seen it yet, but I hear that Jeremy Irons plays Gould in the movie "Longitude", about the marine chronometer. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 01 October 2001 - 05:29 am | | Dear Everyone,
Hello Tommy,
Nice to have you back - where would you be without you and your ramblings to keep up us all amused. I'm going to start a new competition. How many times can Tommy repeat himself in one posting? I think so far the words 'cover-up' comes first with 'comfortable' coming a close second.
RJP
I think the case you may be referring to is the Bravo case. He was summoned by Charles Bravo's wife to attend her husband. By a strange coincidence Florence the wife who was later suspected of poisioning her elderly husband was suspected of having an affair with another man a Doctor Gully. Hang on a minute. Florence young wife old husband, death by poision, wife having an affair who summoned Dr Gull who was really Jack the Ripper (a la Tommy) who was also James Maybrick who was poisioned by his wife Florence who was also having an affair and was tried by Judge Stephen who's son was J K Stephen who was also JTR (a la Tommy) Tommy I think I've uncovered a conspiracy here. What I say must be true because no one has proved it isn't!
Problem solved!
Bob Hinton |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Monday, 01 October 2001 - 09:21 am | | Hello Bob - greetings, fellow Idiot ;)
Thomas,
The problem with conspiracy theories in general - and this one is no different - is that if you believe that one exists, all evidence to the contrary, becomes (paradoxically) supporting evidence.
How so? Because it is Part Of The Cover Up. All the documentation naming alternative suspects or providing an alibi for one of your favoured candidates was faked... all of the inquests were rigged... all of the named 'suspects' were a smokescreen.
By contrast, the faintest of chinks in the evidential armour is seized on and read as proof of the fallability of the conspirators.
It is undoubtably more exciting to believe in a cabal of vile politicians and corrupt coppers covering up the actions of a mad heir, but if you remove any prior belief in the conspiracy from the equation, the evidence doesn't stack up.
You still haven't asked a question that I first posed about four months ago, and one that any conspiracy fan must answer.
If the Police and the powers-that-be wanted to protect Eddy (or Gull, or Lady Victoria Mimsy etc), why didn't they arrest and prosecute some poor gibbering Jewish madman? Lord alone knows that streets and asylums of London were filled with such creatures.
If the Police were prepared to let the Ripper stalk unmolested by the law, I can't imagine them being squeamish about "fitting up" some poor sod whom no-one is going to believe. They've carried on doing exactly that until pretty recently, if all the miscarriages of justice are anything to go by.
So why? Why all the vague hints? Why not just arrest, try, and execute David Cohen to satisfy popular bloodlust and the reputations of the real killer?
Answer: There was no conspiracy. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Monday, 01 October 2001 - 01:31 pm | | Hi Paul,
the answer is quite simple:
There was a cover-up to cover up the cover-up which covererd up the cover-up to cover up Jack.
No I am not drunk!
Yours, Philip |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 01 October 2001 - 04:55 pm | | Dear Philip,
Makes complete sense to me.
I am drunk!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 08:51 am | | I wish I was !!! |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 02 October 2001 - 09:13 pm | | R.J.P.
Bob was correct, in pinpointing Gull's minor
involvement in the Bravo Poisoning Case of 1876.
However, he was wrong to say that the barrister,
victim, Charles Delauney Turner Bravo, was elderly. He and his wife Florence were in their
late 30s. She did have an elderly ex-lover, Dr.
James Manby Gully (his specialty was the water
cures of the late 19th Century). Given the insane
complications of Whitechapel, it is best to avoid
the hard problems of the Bravo or Balham Mystery
(it occurred at Bravo's home, the "Priory" at
Balham - which like James Maybrick's home, Battersea House, is still standing). Let it just
be said that Bravo either died by misadventure
(of a sinister type) or he was poisoned by one
of three or four definite suspects: his wife
Florence (whose previous husband, a grandson of
the economist David Ricardo, died under odd
circumstances too), Dr. Gully, or Florence's friend Mrs. Jane Cox. The fourth one is a discharged servant. As for Dr. Gull, he was one
of several society doctors who were called to try
to help save Bravo. Unfortunately, Dr. Gull's
bedside manner was not up to par: "You know you
are going to die...we can't help you unless you
inform us what poison you have taken!" As Bravo
may not have known this, the question was somewhat
harsh, and even possibly pointless.
Gull is not the only Ripper person to traipse into
the Bravo case. Bravo's stepfather, a wealthy
Jamaican merchant named Joseph Bravo, had purchased the home of novelist William Makepeace
Thackeray as his own London home. How Joseph
Bravo did this is not well known. Thackeray would
not have cared for the sale, as Joseph Bravo was
of partial African ancestry. However, I managed
to trace a very likely connection.
In 1865-68 England was split over the actions of
Lieutenant Governor Edward John Eyre in quashing
a rebellion in Jamaica. Many in the rebellion
were executed, and there were many in England who
felt Eyre (a famous Australian explorer) had gone
too far and should be tried for murder. The
intelligensia split on this, with men like Thomas
Carlyle and Dickens supporting Eyre, while John
Stuart Mill was against him. Joseph Bravo was one
of Eyre's supporters, and had signed a declaration
thanking him for putting down the rebellion.
Another supporter was the rising legal scholar and
lawyer James Fitzjames Stephen. Originally hired
to build up the case against Eyre, Stephen switched sides. Thus he must have been brought into contact with Joe Bravo. James Fitzjames
Stephen's brother, the literary critic and scholar
Leslie Stephen, was married to Thackeray's daughter, and they were interested in selling the
expensive home the novelist had lived in, so to
split the sales money between all three Thackeray
daughters. My suspicion is this is how Joe Bravo
(ever a social climber) got the house. By the
way, like "the Priory" the Thackeray-Bravo house
is still standing. It is the Israeli embassy in
London.
Re Thornton and Rupert Gould: You are right that
Jeremy Irons played Gould in that series about
Joseph Harrison and his marine chronometers.
And the essay on Thornton was Gould's sole foray
into true crime writing (although he believed
Mary Ashford died in a drowning accident). I think what attracted the story to Gould, besides
the mystery regarding Mary's demise, was the issue
of the last trial by combat offer made in Thornton's case. It was an amusing oddity.
My favorite essays by Gould were on the sinking
of H.M.S. Victoria in 1893, and the mystery of the
disappearance of H.M.S. Erebus and H.M.S. Terror
in 1845-50, and whether the two ships actually were seen on an iceflow off Greenland a few years
later.
Jeff |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 03 October 2001 - 05:10 am | | Hi Jeff,
James Maybrick's house is not Battersea - synonymous with power stations, funfairs and dogs - but Battlecrease, associated with powerful arsenic addiction, extra-marital merry-go-rounds and bitches.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Scott Weidman
Wednesday, 03 October 2001 - 08:08 pm | | Battersea???
Oh, I always thought it was called Battlestar. You know, the 'ol "Starbuck and Apollo having spiked Maybricks ceylon tea with arsenic" theory.
Frack! |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Wednesday, 03 October 2001 - 09:52 pm | | I stand corrected: Battlecrease...
Flo Maybrick...a bitch?
Jeff |
Author: R.J.P.
Thursday, 04 October 2001 - 05:46 am | | | Jeff/Bob--Bravo!(or should I say, "well done?") Thanks for refreshing my memory about Gull's minor appearance in another interesting bit of Victorian crime. The only other trivia I know about Sir Gull is that he allegedly coined the term "anorexia nervosa". That aside, I think Stephen Knight came up with the most damning piece of 'evidence' against Gull: he liked raisins. Never trust anyone that prefers grapes devoid of their best quality. RP |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Thursday, 04 October 2001 - 09:18 pm | | RJP - Slight note on your welcome cheer to Bob and
myself. Dr. James Manby Gully (not, again, Sir
William Gull) was socially harmed by the Bravo
scandal, and the suspicions that some attached
to him about his possible guilt or connection to
the poisoning of Charles Bravo. However, to the
credit of the medical profession he was not struck off the rolls.
Dr. Gully died in 1883. In the early 1890s, the
Liberal Party under Lord Rosebery had to choose
a new Speaker of the House of Commons, and chose
Dr. Gully's son, William Gully, M.P. A rather
nondescript mediocrity, he really did not offend
many members, but the Conservatives liked to
needle him. Whenever he got up to speak in his
role, some Tory would start saying, "Bravo! Bravo!" Everyone, but the embarrased Speaker,
laughed. They knew the actual reference.
Jeff |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 02:31 am | | The large amount of hearsay evidence or allegations that I've been posting, and the eye-witness accounts( as well as the tremendoes similarity between the writing and poems of J.K. Stephen and the Jack the Ripper Letters and the poems attributed to Jack the Ripper, and the suspicious actions of the police at the time of the murders and the suspicious actions of the Mary Jane Kelly Inquest ), points to the probability that Jack the Ripper was either Dr. William Gull or one of Dr. William Gull's patients, Prince Eddy or J.K. Stephen, or both of them together. In my opinion, this evidence and a faithfull reading of the facts of the case, points to the probability that Jack the Ripper was Prince Eddy, either alone, or possibly with a lookout/accomplice( if there was a lookout/accomplice, that lookout/accomplice was probably J.K. Stephen ). I believe J.K. Stephen was a lookout for Prince Eddy, at least for the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catharine Eddowes ( if not for the other murders ), because the Goulston Street Graffito, in my opinion, was probably written by J.K. Stephen ( it was written in a good school-boy hand, the third and fith lines are indented to the right, like poets like J.K. Stephen indent poems that they write, the probably well-educated author of the Goulston Street Graffito ( because the message was written in a good school-boy hand ), phonetically misspelled the word Jews as Juwes ( probably also as a masonic statement but possibly not ), the same way as, in my opinion, the most likely author of all or most of the generally published Jack the Ripper Letters and poems, as well as many of the other Jack the Ripper Letters and poems, J.K. Stephen did when he purposely phonetically misspelled words to appear as a semi-lirate person, when he wrote many of the Jack the Ripper Letters and poems.
As I've said, I believe the evidence points to Prince Eddy being Jack the Ripper, probably with J.K. Stephen as a lookout/accomplice, but possibly alone. I believe Dr. William Gull's obvious involvement in the case was in treating the venereally diseased, violent and deranged Prince Eddy, as well as entering Whitechapel on two or more nights ( in my opinion, probably two nights ), that a murder was committed, to apprehend Prince Eddy. There are two points of evidence which I'd like to put out there that most nearly proves the involvement of Dr. William Gull ( in my opinion, as the physician of Jack the Ripper, who in my opinion, was Prince Eddy ), in the Jack the Ripper crimes. The first is the statement by Dr. Thomas Stowell that Caroline Acland, the daughter of Dr. William Gull, told him the story about a police detective and a medium unanouncedly coming to her home and questioning her father and mother about his involvement in the Jack the Ripper crimes, the same story told by both The Chicago Sunday Times-Herald article of April 28, 1895, and the account told by Robert James Lees. Dr. Thomas Stowell was both an eminent surgeon and a good friend of Caroline Acland. It is unlikely that he would put words in her mouth that she did not say to him. The second point of evidence is The Chicago Sunday Times-Herald article of April 28,1895 itself. Besides the fact Dr. William Gull was the only West End physician of high standing, in fact the only physician at all, who either died or was put in an asylum in the two years after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly, as the article said, there was two very important things the article said. These are the two things I want addressed. These are the two things that most nearly prove that the article is genuine. The article says that the West End physician of high standing had been a student at Guy's Hospital and had been an ardent and enthusiastic vivisectionist. Not only had Dr. William Gull been a student at Guy's Hospital and not another, he was a very strong proponent of vivisection, who gave evidence in support of vivisection before the Royal Commission on Vivisection in 1875, as well as writing a sixteen-page article in 'The Nineteenth Century' in 1882, in support of vivisection. The person that these two points describe is in all likelyhood, if not in all certainty, Dr. William Gull, and no other person. That is why the article is most probably genuine.
If there are any people who want to debate these two points of evidence that I've put out there, the corrobative story of Caroline Acland, the daughter of Dr. William Gull, and the two points in The Chicago Sunday-Times article of April 28, 1895, having been a student at Guy's Hospital, as well as having been an ardent and enthusiastic vivisectionist, that's fine. I personally do not believe they can be successfully rebutted.
One last point. If there are any people out there who agree with me, by honestly and with humility, looking at the two points of evidence that I've put out there, and can say that these two points of evidence, in all likelyhood, most nearly prove that Dr. William Gull was involved in the Jack the Ripper crimes, I'd like to hear from them. |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 04:05 am | | | If the two points of evidence stated above cannot be successfully rebutted, which I don't believe they can, then in all probability, Dr. William Gull was either Jack the Ripper, or what I believe is more probable and what I believe is the truth, is that he was the physician of Jack the Ripper, who was Prince Eddy. In the near future, if these two points of evidence are not successfully rebutted, which I don't believe they can be, then I'd like to hear from some people who admit that the above written statements in this post are probably the truth. |
Author: Chris Jd
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 04:25 am | | Isn't it a fact already that Eddy was definitely out of town ( meaning being in Scotland ) at least on one date of a Whitechapel-murder?
Christian |
Author: Jack Traisson
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 06:22 am | | Prince Eddy was at Danby Lodge, Grosmont, Yorkshire on the night of Nichols' murder.
He was at the Cavalry Barracks in York when Annie Chapman was killed.
On the night of the double event he was in Abergeldie, Scotland, with Queen Victoria -- amongst others.
Finally, he was at Sandringham when Kelly was murdered.
Royalty were maticulous record keepers. Of any suspect involved in the Whitechapel murder, Eddy has the best of alibies. And if you are even going to suggest, Thomas, that these records are forgeries, you have no case.
As for Stephen writing the graffito, would a man of his intelligence and education make a grammatical mistake of a double-negative? Unlikely. The schoolboy hand it was supposedly written in is based on opinion, nothing more. As for the poetic indentation; since we do not have a photographic copy of the graffito this point is pure speculation.
The biggest problem with Gull as the ripper is his age. He matches absolutely none of the descriptions given by eyewitnesses. And with Eddy's alibi, Gull has no motive.
As for the Lees story in the Chicago Times-Herald, many of the facts are wrong about the case, and Gull is never mentioned by name. In R.J.Lees' own diary there are only three entries relating to JTR.
October 2, 1888. Offered services to police to follow up East End murders -- called a fool and a lunatic. Got a trace of man from the spot in Berner Street.
October 3, 1888. Went to City Police again -- called a madman and a fool.
October 4, 1888.Went to Scotland Yard -- same result but promised to write me.
That's it, nothing more from Lees. Also, he claimed to be the medium to Queen Victoria. No Royal researcher has ever found any information to substantiate this.
As for J.K. Stephen: he doesn't match any physical descriptions. Has no ties whatsoever to the East End. And his handwriting does not match the 'Dear Boss', 'Saucy Jack', or 'From Hell' letters. If you have evidence, Thomas, bring it forward. Show me a handwriting comparison, or name any letter that Stephen may have written. Even if can show this, it proves that he was a letter writer, nothing more.
I want facts. Not just the tired rehashing of Stowell, Gorman, Knight, Fairclough, M Harrison, Abrahamsen, Wilding, and any others who have brought these names forward. I need reliable information to be convinced, something more than the Chicago Times-Herald article.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 11:01 am | | Oh don't go trying to talk sense! Don't you guys know that the whole Prince Ed was out of town was hastily invented after the fact to cover up his being the killer? Jeez. All evidence to the contrary doesn't mean a thing when one is theorizing!!
Thomas has been told before that Eddy was out of town. He knows it. No sense in repeating it for him.
Ally |
|
|
|
|
