Archive through 24 April 2002

** 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 24 April 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: D'Onston Stephenson, Robert: Archive through 24 April 2002

Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 07:53 am
Dear Caroline, Eh, we're cool...:-) :-) neuroathenic schizoaphrenic, Neuroseoa!
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 09:03 am
Yeah Rosy, we're totally cool. Love, Nice oral
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 10:07 am
Hi, Paul, Ivor, Caz, and assorted Ripperites: I have material coming from Melvin from a reputable medical textbook that he has asked me to place on screen and which provides a definition of "neurosthenia." My uncle has just arrived from Poole, Dorset in the UK and my time at my home computer is as a result limited, so please be patient all. If I receive the material by e-mail by tonight, I will, as Melvin has requested, put it on screen so everyone can see Melvin's source for his statement about this medical condition. Best regards Chris George
Author: Ivor Edwards Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 12:32 pm
Hi Tom, Interesting point about Morgan Davies. I can confirm I am relaxed and thanks for the advice.Also I will take up the offer you made. Hi Caroline, I tend to agree with you on the very valid point you made about D'Onston informing the Doc. I cant see a medical man like D'Onston going to another Doctor with a complaint ( alleged or otherwise) without being authoritative on the matter.
Author: Melvin Harris Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 04:35 pm
NEUROSTHENIA-THE FACTS I regret that Begg is misdirected in posting about fashionable ailments. The ailment D'Onston claimed to be suffering from was neurosthenia, which was NOT a fashionable malady, and by no means well-known. It was a state of overactivity. A condition where individuals had too much energy and needed to slow down and relax. Hence the rest cure and the calming influence of a bromide and chloral mixture. The choice of this malady rather than its opposite was practical. Neurasthenia would involve moping around in a listless, apathetic state for 130 odd days. But by feigning neurosthenia D'Onston could remain alert and active whenever it was opportune. A slothful demeanour at night would be an ideal cover. Now neurosthenia is by no means mentioned as much as its opposite, neurasthenia, but IT IS dealt with in Victorian medical literature. I sent one such entry to Chris George some time back, but to that you can add the entry in W. A. Newman Dorland's 'AMERICAN ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY' It was first published in 1900, but its 'Neurosthenia (Nerve Strength)' entry was still in place in its 20th edition of 1944.
Author: Christopher T George Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 09:50 pm
Hi, all: I apparently have mislaid the photocopy entry on the medical condition "neurosthenia" that Melvin apparently sent me some time back from a medical text. I have asked him to send it again. It may take a day or two to get it on screen. I ask you all to be patient. Thanks! Chris
Author: Tom Wescott Friday, 30 March 2001 - 12:15 am
Hello all, I just want to throw in my worthless two cents on the Stephenson theory...The whole case rests on the story of a couple of lesbians steeped in the occult. I won't even mention Aleister Crowley. The Ripper killed 5 or 6 victims in his Whitechapel reign, carried away organs from only 2 or 3 of them (depending on whether you accept Kelly's heart as having been taken), yet Stephenson had a fat stack of bloody ties. It doesn't add up. My bet is Stephenson was a messy eater. That's all. Yours truly, Tom Wescott P.S. I loved Melvin's 'True Face of..." book, though. I like the way the man writes.
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 30 March 2001 - 03:30 am
Er, Chris observed that it didn't really matter what Donston was diagnosed with because it is Melvin's contention that Donston was faking it whatever it was he was supposed to have. I observed that he would indeed probably have been faking it if it was neurasthenia because it was a fashionable illness that almost became an epidemic and that many sufferers therefore must have faked it. I'm not sure what Melvin means by "I regret that Begg is misdirected in posting about fashionable ailments."
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 30 March 2001 - 04:38 am
Hi All, So what, if it can be shown that neurosthenia was a recognised condition with recognisable symptoms of overactivity? All this means is that it would then be possible to carry on speculating that the doctor understood and accepted this to be the diagnosis when he recorded it, as a result of D'Onston faking the appropriate symptoms. Not a lot to go on is there? - as the cops said when a thief made off with all the public lavatories... Love, Caz
Author: Paul Begg Friday, 30 March 2001 - 05:52 am
Hi Caz It doesn't much matter what Donston was diagnosed with if he was faking it. It's just that I was putting an erratum from Chris George into Ripperologist and just checked to see if I could find a reference to neurosthenia. I couldn't. Neither could Chris, nor Jon. I just wanted a source before publishing an erratum which might itself have been in error.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 30 March 2001 - 07:48 am
Absolutely Paul, I do understand precisely why it's important in terms of whether or not to publish an erratum. I was simply wondering about the importance in the longer term of the D'Onston theory generally. Love, Caz
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 09:07 pm
Caz - Given all of our ability to disagree on how many beans make five, I await (though not avidly) the earnest question of what proof there is that Donston was faking his illness. In which case, how low it laid him if it were genuine will become a serious question. My own impression of 'neurasthenia' is much like that given in one of Paul Begg's earlier postings: that it became pretty much of a late-Victorian catch-all term for goodness knows how many conditions of 'nerves'. I'd never heard of 'neurosthenia' till this discussion arose: or, rather, Melvin's original definition and distinction between the two didn't catch my attention and lodge in that dreadful sieve, my memory. A 1944 reprint of a 1900 work would suggest a 'disease' that might be as unilluminating today as 'dementia praecox' found in a 1900 work. But John O has traced more recent references to neurosthenia. I hope that anyone who proceeds to do further work in the Wellcome Institute may be able to establish for us whether there is a valid continuous thread between the two usages, and what the symptoms really were. Depression seems to be a strange yokefellow for overactivity. And by the way, for some of our posters who are new to research, the Wellcome is not an intimidating institution restricted to graduates and published authors. It is an absolutely splendid reference library open to the public with its books on open shelves, so that you don't have hours (or even, literally, days) to wait while the staff fetch up what you want from the stacks. It is in Euston Road, toward the Gower Street end. Ivor - in addition to thanks for a lot of useful information and comment, especial thanks for acknowledging the fact when posting Melvin's first comment. Even those who think his headline ungracious or pompous rather than witty are not going to quarrel with you over it. And the Scourge of Hypocrisy and Paragon of Integrity himself would presumably be happier if his subsequent quick slash at Paul Begg had been posted by somebody who didn't prefer to seem to have nothing to do with it should he ever encounter Paul. Thanks, too, to Chris for offering to post Melvin's piece. The input of his knowledge of Donston is obviously valuable. Martin F
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 03:44 am
Hi Martin, I do agree about the beans. There was a delightfully batty little girl at my primary school (she must have been all of seven years old at the time) who would reply, "A bean, a bean, a half, a half, a bean, a bean" to that question. My mother heard her one day and laughed, asking her if she was sure, to which the wonderful reply came flying back, "How can I be sure when I haven't got a sure to be sure with?" Well, quite. Something for us all to think about, perhaps. (I often wonder what became of that kid. Sadly, I can't recall her name, just what she used to say.) Love, Caz
Author: Ivor Edwards Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 07:31 pm
Hi Martin.I am awaiting information from Mr R J Evans,London Hospital, for more information on Neurosthenia.Did you see my piece on J Merrick and his complaint. Mr Evans cant be sure that D'Onston had Neurosthenia even if he was diagnosed with it.According to Mr Evans It would appear that the diagnosis of patients was a 'hit and miss' affair in 1888.This is not a satisfactory state of affairs because this can apply to any suspect who spent time in medical custody. It can be applied to anyone at Colney Hatch or any other Hospital for that matter.Your question, 'what evidence is there that D'Onston was faking his illness.Melvin has covered this aspect of the case in his book and I have reached the same conclusions.The evidence is circumstancial and knowing the case it makes very good sense.Neurosthenia or suchlike would not place D'Onston in a position where he was incapable of committing murder. Did you read my piece I placed on the board, 'was D'Onston too old, or sick to commit murder'. Ivor.
Author: Martin Fido Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 08:09 pm
Hi Ivor, Your posting noted. I may have read and forgotten details of your piece. Will use search engine to hunt tomorrow. At present, after sitting on a plane in front of a ruddy woman who appeared to by dying noisily of TB for 10 hours, and generously barking her tubercle all over the place to share with her fellow passengers, I feel that I am about to emulate Mme Sosostris, famous clairvoyant, and go down with a bad cold. So it's a hot whisky and water and early bed for this Space Monkey. Martin
Author: Martin Fido Friday, 06 April 2001 - 07:44 am
Hi Ivor again, I've tried various combinations of +D'Onston and +old and +sick, but they haven't identified the piece to which you refer. I've tried Ivor Edwards, but that only gives all the references to you (and a few refs to the horrid Mr Estion) in other people's postings. Sorry about that. Martin
Author: Ivor Edwards Friday, 06 April 2001 - 03:55 pm
Hi Martin, I have found it, go to:Ripper suspects,General Discussion,Can we end the hunt for the 'profile' of the ripper.It starts, was D'onston fit enough to commit murder.Sat March 24th, 2001.
Author: Yazoo Saturday, 07 April 2001 - 01:00 pm
Hey All: Still discussin' old Stephenson, eh?A couple of observations, if I may? The difference between neuro and neura is a bit of minutiae. The real importance is that Stephenson arranged to have himself transferred close to the seen of the JtR events. Can anyone prove premeditation in this? Can anyone prove that he was genuinely suffering from the stated disease (or any other variant)? Can they prove he was faking his disease? Can it be shown, either in Stephenson's case directly or by inference from other sources related to hospitalization practices of the 1888 era, that he could or could not have come and gone from the hosptal as he pleased -- providing a further potential proximity to the crime scenes? (Long ago, Paul raised this issue. It seems subject to proof, either direct or anecdotal. I think enforced confinement to hospital wards for even ambulatory, non-infectious patients is a fairly modern phenomenon.) Can it be proven that any real or faked disease requires us to believe Stephenson to be 1) a murderer, and 2) specifically JtR? Melvin's arguments rely heavily on interpretation of events, actions, descriptions, observations that cannot be proven or disproved. For example: 1) Stephenson murdered his wife. She disappears from the records but does that inevitably mean she died, and worse, that Stephenson killed her? 2) Stephenson was predisposed to murder which was exacerbated by his participation in Garibaldi's Italian war. 3) Stephenson was faking his illness; Stephenson at various times either lied, told the truth, or hinted (darkly) at the truth according to guidelines that would make him JtR. The methodology of assessing Stephenson's veracity all too often is predetermined by a conviction he was JtR -- little or no alternatives, no matter how viable or reasonable are ever entertained. The list goes on, but there are more important questions concerning Stephenson's eligibility to be JtR than what was his London Hospital admitting diagnosis (since neither the neuro or neura definitions includes indisputable evidence of murderousness, depravity, etc. in the sufferer). This is a long note so you know it must be from, Your old pal, Yazoo P.S. Who nicked me userID? Or have I just forgotten my old registration info?
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 07 April 2001 - 01:22 pm
Hi Yazoo!! Nice to see you back! I just discovered your comments on the Boards about neuro- and neura- the other day. Yep, the point is a minor one and only arose because Chris George was placing an errata and I sought a little clarification, so looked up neuro-and couldn't find it. Your message of many, many moons ago gave many symptoms of neura- and I now wonder whether there ever really was any real and meaningful distinction. But we'll no doubt find out. Nice to see you back. Cheers Paul
Author: Martin Fido Monday, 09 April 2001 - 07:20 am
Hallo, Ivor, Sorry about the delay in responding. As mentioned on another board, I've been suffering a quartern ague or something, and am only now fit enough to read and reply to posts. I agree that the Ripper didn't require remarkable strength to commit the crimes. But I am advised that successfully cutting a throat with one slash requires either considerable muscular power or practised expertise (and of course, skill with a knife recorded by all post mortem doctors is, I'm aware, part of the Donston case). I can, I suppose, envisage illnesses that might handicap Donston, but I certainly wouldn't want to press the point, which would be more argumentative imagination on my part than serious history. What I really doubt is whether some one who was habitually drunk could easily have got away from the murder sites pretty well undetected every time. Hence, in part, my query whether 'neurosthenia' might be a polite cover-up for d/ts. But it's been hospital security far more than Donston's health that has worried me ever since Stephen Willment pointed to the dates of Donston's hospitalization. I know you have referred to piece on a surburban hospital where patients could come and go at night, but I wonder what is the context of the newspaper article? Is it passing an aside on the fact as something so normal as to be barely worth mentioning, or is it actually the topic of the article, and therefore something possibly controversial or even scandalous? (I fear I'm being Rosa Dartle again, but I intend no malice at all in 'only asking for information'. I didn't raise the point when you mentioned it before because I wanted at all costs to avoid getting into a long debate with you that might seem to turn quarrelsome, especially as you will have your book coming out for which you may reasonably wish to reserve some new information rather than fire it off in debate on the boards). All the best, Martin
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 09 April 2001 - 06:22 pm
Hi Martin,Topic is hospital security.How do I know that D'Onston could come and go at night without this being a problem? J Merrick was in the London Hospital at the same time as D'Onston. A controvsial incident occured while Merrick was in the Hospital.Many people were getting into the hospital during the dark hours after it was closed. Their intention was to catch a glimpse of Merrick and if possible to meet him.This became a problem for the hospital staff.Bars had to be placed on Merricks windows.This was not done to stop Merrick from leaving but to stop all the intruders from gaining access into his basement flat. Security could not stop intruders from gaining access into the hospital grounds but security could stop unwelcome visiters from gaining access into his flat, hence the bars.I have a photo of the basement flat with the bars in place. So we know that lots of people were getting in and out of the hospital over a period of time at night. So it stands to reason that D'Onston would have no problem in doing the same. In fact this problem with Merrick was highlighted in the film 'The Elephant Man'.But I have other evidence to support this. I even go into greater depths on this subject in my book.
Author: Yazoo Monday, 09 April 2001 - 07:29 pm
Hey All: A easier proof might simply be to ask at various hospitals, medical societies, etc. exactly when patients were no longer permitted to leave ANY hospital's premises. My bet is the date would be well within the 20th century. Another avenue to explore is legal statutes, the basis for lawsuits. But this would only bring you close to a time period when hospitals might be held liable for a patient's welfare during hospitalization. I grew up near a hospital and my feeble memory nags me that plenty of patients were strolling the neighborhoods...causing no harm to themselves or others. Merrick's case could be argued as an anomoly due to his 'celebrity.' Merrick's case, however, does cast doubt on what I remember Melvin writing in regards to conditions within the hospital. Stephenson wasn't exactly walking into a hell hole (his sacrifice of balmy Brighton for dismal London Hospital attributable to his nefarious purposes, of course). Yaz
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 09 April 2001 - 08:21 pm
It would not be an easier proof to check with other hospitals it is not that simple. I have been informed that Patients were not permitted to leave the London Hospital in 1888.You cant go asking one hospital such questions about another because they differ in many aspects. Prisons for example in the UK have and can be run in many different ways dependant on the Governer. Different hospitals can use varying guidelines.Merricks status has nothing to do with people getting in and out of the hospital when they shouldnt.If I need certain information about the London Hospital it is no good if I go to the Royal Surrey Hospital for that information.My task was to find if people could get in and out of the London hospital when they shouldnt. The answer to that is yes they could and with impunity.
Author: Yazoo Monday, 09 April 2001 - 09:31 pm
Hey Ivor: Okay then... The ultimate point you're trying to prove is whether or not Stephenson had the opportunity to walk out of the hospital and kill, correct? If it was easy to leave, he simply left. If it wasn't so easy, he'd have had to work at it but you demonstrated that, under Merrick's special case at least, people could come and go. There is no evidence S was chained to his bed or was under 24 hour observation. He had opportunity to go out and kill if he so wished. Fine. Whether I concede that Stephenson had the opportunity to kill or you or Melvin have proven the same...so what? Stephenson joins the ranks of millions with exactly the same opportunity. We're back to square one: what makes Stephenson, out of all those millions, the one to be JtR? The answer must lie in the proofs Melvin gives up to the point Stephenson arrives at the hospital and any incriminating evidence that Melvin found about Stephenson after he leaves the hospital. Melvin's arguments are weak in both instances. If Melvin wants to know exactly where I think his arguments are weak, I'd simply reply as Delphically as he: "Look harder." Do weaknesses in Melvin's arguments mean Stephenson is definitely NOT JtR. Certainly not; simply Melvin hasn't quite provided the proof that I, for one, need for my own satisfaction. People who don't want to believe S was JtR, or simply can't believe it, might wish to stop the discussion at the earliest chance. Unfortunately, with regards to whether any suspect -- let alone Stephenson -- had opportunity to kill those women, it's next to impossible to prove or disprove and the number of people with opportunity makes this qualification negligible although necessary. What do I mean by negligible but necessary? Only in cases where independent, contemporary sources can place a suspect so far away from one or all of the murders can this argument ALONE prove decisive. But again, opportunity is the weakest argument to make FOR any suspect, including Stephenson. Yaz
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 09 April 2001 - 10:44 pm
Yaz,Stephenson has a lot more going for him as a suspect than many that have been placed in the frame on this site.Since Melvin wrote his book more evidence has come to light about Stephenson.You talk of proof. What do you want a photo of Jack killing a victim ?In law cases have been built by circumstancial evidence alone.And if such evidence is overwhelming then a conviction can be obtained. I know people that have been found guilty on such evidence. If enough circumstancial evidence can be brought to bear then the case can be proven and that is a fact. Many people have read, The True Face by Melvin Harris yet the number of people that make silly mistakes in relation to it, or do not digest it amuse me. We know that Melvin cannot prove D'Onston was the Ripper.But with the evidence I have the case againest D'Onston increases twofold.I am not on this site to instill my will on others.Neither do I intend to lead horses to water so to speak. I have given a great deal of information out on this site.How people wish to view that information is a matter for them, not me.When my work is out this year the same can be said. I am not trying to sell D'Onston as the Ripper. My game is to give out as much factual information as possible ie, circumstancial evidence. Of course I will get doubting Thomas's stating this, that, and the other.It is in the interests of many that they do not agree with me. They have their own books and named suspects.Even those that have not written on the subject will not agree with with me for various reasons. When I gave certain distances out on the site some people cried, "coincidence" while others said nothing. Yet Professor C Henry informed me that it showed that the murders were planned in advance on a map and that a great deal of care went into the planning of the murders. Now who do I take notice of? Well I dont have to take notice of anyone because I did all the work and if anyone should know, I should. You are not aware of all the evidence I have, so that places me in a better position to put foward D'Onston as the killer.Even Melvin told me that I had taken this further than him. You will have to wait until my work is published before this can go further. Then is the time for comments on whether or not D'Onston was the ripper.One more thing it would please many people that this case was never solved but more on that later.Also take it from me that this case will never be solved by one person alone, me included. I am not that stupid to think otherwise.By the way would I be correct in thinking you are in the States?.
Author: Yazoo Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 12:35 am
Hey Ivor: Slow down. I'm not knocking you or Melvin. If you read my previous posts and my review of Melvin's book you'd realize I have an open mind regarding Stephenson. But you have me at a disadvantage. You are in possession of information I do not have, that goes beyond where Melvin went -- a point I suggested was that he needed further development of his thesis, by the way -- you say this evidence increases the circumstantial evidence against S two-fold. Okay. I'll wait. But how can you blame me for stating my opinions based on what is currently known? I understand that others may know more than I about what you have (via personal chats, C&D meetings, whatever). I'm not privy to that. You're assuming I should know 'facts' not currently presented as evidence. Hints and partial disclosures do your cause more harm than good, I think, at least with those who are also in my position. I'll bow out of this topic now and wait for your book. Believe me, I have no ax to grind or suspect to defend. I'll give you a fair reading, but also an honest one. True, many circumstantial cases have been won, but they've also been lost in probably at least equal numbers. One warning or piece of advice, when (not if!) history looks back on cases built from circumstantial evidence and find a miscarriage of justice (either the guilty go free or the innocent punished), the person(s) who assumed responsibility for making the case will have done someone a grave personal injustice but also set back our common understanding... perhaps for a very long time. Good luck to you and I'm sorry I didn't understand your position. Yaz
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 03:24 am
Yaz, I know that you are not knocking Melvin or myself and I certainly dont blame you for stating opinions on what is currently known.And as you correctly state they are opinions, nothing more and nothing less. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.I did place a post explaining my position some time ago but as you have been off the boards you must have missed it.I would be interested to know your views on the murders,for example who do you feel is a likely suspect, and why.Also what do you believe was the motive for the murders? Best wishes.
Author: Martin Fido Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 06:16 am
Yaz - 'What makes Stephenson, out of all those millions, the one to be JtR?' With any suspect there has to be a starting point: in Stephenson's case initially, surely, it was Vittoria Cremers' story. As long as this stood on its own and everyone believed that Stephenson was a self-inflating liar with no medical qualifications; no Risorgimento experience; the un- or half-educated son of a factory worker, then everybody (including explicitly and in print, Melvin Harris,) believed him to be a stupid hoaxer using some dirtied-up neckties to win prestige with a pair of silly women. So for years nobody bothered to look at his opportunity at all. Then, when seriously researching Ripper hoaxers for 'The Bloody Truth' (book, not silly posting), Melvin made the remarkable discoveries that Stephenson was a factory owner's son with genuine medical training at Heidelberg; a genuine Garibaldino; and a man with sufficient education to write 'The Patristic Gospels'. Since this further led Melvin to conclude from the test of his quasi-profile that Stephenson was, of all the suspects known to him, the most likely to be the Ripper, Dr R D'O came back into the frame for investigation, and it therefore behoves us all to examine his opportunities. Ivor has now, I think, given higher prominence to the contemporary suspicions of W.T.Stead as the prime reason for singling out Stephenson from the millions with opportunity. It's a perfectly sensible historical approach (quite different from sitting in an armchair and thinking, 'Well, now, Rudyard Kipling was alive in 1888 and I've always thought he was a nasty piece of work. Let me see whether he could have been in Whitechapel....') And he is absolutely right to keep looking at challenges put up against Stephenson's opportunity, and answering them. He knows as well as anybody else that if we suddenly found Stephenson's booking for a 10-day jaunt to Deauville starting 2nd November 1888, together with used steamer tickets and the good doctor's signatures all over hotel registers and casino books until his departure from France on 11 November, then he'd be absolutely cleared. He's quite right, then to show why it was still possible for Stephenson to have got out at night past any hospital security, and he isn't claiming that this proves he did the murders: only that it disproves the suggestion that he couldn't have done them. And long may all who hold differing opinions continue to put them forward clearly but inoffensively as is happening on this board! All the best Martin
Author: Yazoo Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 08:09 am
Hey Ivor and Martin: First, Ivor. I have no suspect or any favorites among those so-far proposed. I don't sufficiently understand what JtR was and what he did to make that next leap as to who or why. (I'll also try to find your previous post, but I'd still withold comment until your ideas are presented as a whole, in a book). Lastly, Martin. At this last date, opportunity for a suspect is only decisive if, as your message hints, something tangible eliminates him. Of course, if Stephenson biographical facts are wrong that MAY also disqualify him. However, in the discussion on neuro/neura, whether the diagnosis masks DTs, and finally London Hospital regulations regarding patient's ability to come and go did and still do not seem to me fruitful avenues to test the validity of Stephenson as a JtR suspect. There are plenty of other areas in Melvin's book(s) that, IMHO, cannot stand up to scrutiny. Also, I believe that if Melvin's arguments aren't quite as strong as I'd wish, I felt obliged to state that better, stronger research/reasoning could POSSIBLY rectify the holes/gaps/faulty logic/etc. When dealing with a specific suspect, I can only assess the whole case...not bits and pieces, nor hints or promised future revelations. So I feel I stepped in the muck piping in here not knowing why the discussion had taken the course it had or what exactly was at stake amongst the participants. Any suspect, once identified, has already been "prosecuted" in a sense by the writer(s)/researcher(s) and reader(s). I personally feel obliged, no matter if I truly believe the "prosecutor" or not, to supply the suspect with the best defense I can. I've done so before, I will do so again when Ivor (or other authors with suspects) publishes his book. Again, best to you all, Yaz
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 05:25 pm
Martin, Thanks for bringing up such interesting points. It is imperative that we all understand that at this juncture the chances of finding some absolute, hard evidence that ANYONE is the Ripper are very slim. The most any one of any sense can hope for is that we find the most suitable candidate from all the sources available to us. For years I have been hearing that D'Onston is an unlikely candidate because it is unlikely he could get out of the hospital. If we can show that he could, in fact, come and go with some degree of fact then another hurdle has been breached on his behalf. I did not go into the Ripper research to name the killer.I was simply interested in the how and why. D'Onston just so happens to fit all the criteria, he had the opportunity and the ability. In response to your post I am glad to see you have a full understanding of the situation and I could not have stated the case better myself. Many thanks.
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 06:38 am
Hi, Yaz, Of course in a broad sense I agree with you. (In fact, re-reading you it's possible that I agree with you entirely. I'm not absolutely sure whether all your negatives are intended). If I thought Melvin had made a case for Stephenson's being a more likely Ripper than David Cohen or 'the Polish Jew' I'd have said so years ago and pushed the Polish Jew theory down the scale of my priorities. But everybody knows my position on that, and it's only reasonable for me to suppose that Ivor has taken it into account and weighed it in coming to his own conclusions about Stephenson. I'd be the most crashing bore if I jumped in on everybody with a new theory and said, "You're wrong! I"ve considered your general case and I think MINE is better!" I will certainly say words to that effect if I'm suddenly challenged, or informed that some new theory has exploded mine whereas my own examination of it doesn't lead me to agree. I shall say what I think robustly if challenged robustly and rudely if challenged rudely. But I would myself think it very rude to trot out my old argumentative opinions against everyone propounding a new theory, especially when their essential fresh evidence hasn't yet been published, but isn't being withheld in such a way as to make one suspect that there's something phoney about it. So I can agree in principle with your general conclusions about Donstonism, and agree that every case should be subjected to the most rigorous critical examination, but still want to see Ivor get a fair crack of the whip and a proper hearing for the points he's made. And unless I spy factual errors, or he or his supporters make some definite challenge to me, I have no wish to start throwing spanners at his works. His theory, once fully explicated, can stand quietly alongside mine in the dock and await the judgement of history without either needing our screaming advocacy unless the court requests it. (This posting, in fact, is a rspectful response to what I take to be a question from the bench. For you yourself, Yaz, m'lud, are a significant part of the final judgement which will outweigh all of us who tout theories). All the best, Martin
Author: Martin Fido Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 12:37 am
A great while ago Oracle asked why the A-Z listed Stephenson as a 'non-contemporaneous alleged suspect' (one proposed by a theorist in the early part of the twentieth century) rather than an 'alleged suspect' (one proposed at or around the time of the murders by under-informed or irresponsible speculation). The answer is that we simply didn't rate complete non-starters, like General Sir Sam Browne or Sergeant Thick - (both accused in letters to the police) - as suspects at all. And Stephenson, only named as a suspect by his drinking partner Marsh in 1888, seemed to fall into that category until the Cremers story emerged. In fact, this pair of lushes turning up with their accusations against Dr Davies as well as Marsh's suspicion of Stephenson didn't seem likely to have interested the police for one moment, even if their stories had to be checked out as a formality (as the allegation against Browne was). The claim that Inspector Roots was an old friend of Stephenson's and therefore inclined to downplay Marsh's story appears to rest on his saying he had known the man for 20 years, by which measure Sergeant Thick was 'an old friend' of John Pizer! Still, on reflection I think Oracle may be right that we drew the 'alleged suspect' category too narrowly. We happen not to give General Sir Sam an entry, but we don't seem to have given ourselves a category to include him. Corresponding enlargement of the 'alleged suspect' list would have the odd effect of letting Stephenson into the 1888 suspect category under the weakest evidence against him - Marsh's - and not the strongest - Stead's. For Stead's suspicion was not revealed until some years later by which time he had decided it was wrong. And while we are, collectively and individually, at pains to acknowledge unpublished theorists who have preceded us or other known researchers (like Mr Goffe who found Ostrog before Paul and Keith, or Martin Howells who noted and then dismissed from his mind the likelihood that Anderson's Polish Jew was Macnaghten's Kosminsky) we can only do so if like Mr Goffe or Bruce Paley they have clear proof of their prior thinking, or like Martin H they are known to us to be people of impeccable honesty. Otherwise the world would be flooded with people claiming, 'I thought of that first' whenever a new theory was proposed and then an important part of it proved. And we can't label someone a suspect in 1888 just because somebody else thought he was without telling anyone. With all good wishes, Martin Fido
Author: R.J.P. Saturday, 29 September 2001 - 02:18 pm
Dear D'Onsonites--Have you any information, hunches, or educated guesses when D'Onston might have been in California [as he once claimed]? It is unclear from the Cremers' memoirs whether this took place before or after the Whitechapel crimes. Thanks--RP
Author: david rhea Tuesday, 09 April 2002 - 02:48 pm
Dear Ivor;I found something intresting about Tau tria Delta (Pentalpha) in Ginzberg's 'Legends of the Jews' Vol. 4 p150-51.It seems when Solomon was building the Temple some demon was stealing the money and the food from one of his favorite pages.Solomon was unable to catch him and asked for God's help.His prayer was answered when the archangel Michael came and gave him a small ring which had an engraved stone in it.He said:Take, O Solomon this gift from God."With it thou shalt lock up all the demons of the earth,male and female; and with their help thou shalt build up Jerusalem. But thou must wear this seal of God; and this engraving of the seal of the ring sent thee is a PENTALPHA". Armed with it Solomon called up all the demons before him and asked each of them his or her bame as well as ther star or constellation or zodiacle sign and of the particular angel to the influence of which each is subject.One after another the spirits were vanquished, and were compelled by Solomon to aid in the construction of the Temple. Ornias, the vampire spirit who had mistreated Solomon's servant was the first demon to appear and he was set to the task of cutting stones for the Temple.And Solomon bade Ornias come, and he gave him the SEAL saying:"Hither Solomon calls thee"--and in this manner all the demons had to appear because of the Seal.Even the Beelzeboul and Asmodeus were compelled to do what Solomon desired.When all the demons were forced to appear before him he made them build the Temple.Not quite the Masonic story is it Hiram Abiff and all. Thought this might be of interest regarding the Talisman Tau Tria Delta.
Author: david rhea Monday, 22 April 2002 - 09:28 pm
Dear Ivor; Here is a quote regarding PANTALPHA (TAUTRIADELTA-3 crossed triangles )From 'Witches and Witchcraft' by Rosemary Guiley p260-261-"Magician's pentacle. The magician's pentacle is a round disk or circle inscribed with a 5 point star. It is called the Pentacle of Solomon and is a powerful magical symbol of divine power.According to various interpretations it represents God or man and the 4 elements of nature; the 5 senses;the 5 woundss of Christ on the cross; the 5 points of man in an outstretched position;head, arms and legs.The magician embroiders pentacles on his robes and inscribes them inside and outside magic circles.Pentacles are engraved on rings. As an amulet the pentacle protects the magician against attack from demons and spirits; as a talisman it enables him to conjure and command them---'(The pentacle does not have to be in the form of a star, but the Tautriadelta is.)'The pentalpha was also a sign of recognition used by Pythagoras and his disciples.From "Eliphas Levi Master of Occultism" by Thomas A. Williams pp135-136--"THE Pentacles. Constant defined the pentacles(sometimes written pantacle) as any sign related to a basic doctrinal truth and used by magicians in his various operations. The pentacles's chief function is to focus attention and energy and amplify the force of will just as a lens magnifies the sun's rays. In themselves the magical pentacles are devoid of power.It is the Word or active will of the magus that charges them with energy and acts through them> Pentacles are necessary instruments for the education of the will. They serve to bind together in action all the power of the human soulo and to augment the creative force of the imagination.The pentacle is the gymnastic of thought striving toward actualization--The pentagram is a 5 pointed star and is the best and most widely used of the magic pentacles.It expresses the dominion of spirit over the elements; through its use one enchains the demons of the air, the spirits of fire, the specters of water, and the phantoms of earth.--The pentagram symbolizes the domination of the astral light by intellegence and will.It is as old as history itself>It was a heavenly pentacle that led the Magi to the birthplace of Christ.The pentagram represents man as the microcosm and his potential lordship over the created world.It is the figure of the human body with 4 members and a single point representing the head. Wtith the single point turned downwards the pentegram reverses significations representing intellectual subversion, disorder, and folly'. To call himself Tautriadelta implies a confidence of control over most everything.It is a sign of tremendous self confidence and determination. Hope this helps
Author: david rhea Monday, 22 April 2002 - 09:56 pm
Ivor; Another quote from A. E. Waites' "New Encyclopedia of Freemasonry" Vol 2 p 109Pentalpha--'This great and antique symbol has been described variously in Masonic handbooks: 1-A geometrical figure formed by 5 lines crossing each other, terminating in 5 points at equal distances from the center, and equally distant one from the other all round the center;2-A triple triangle; 3-a figure containing containing 5 double triangles with 5 acute angles within and 5 obtuse angles without.--Eliphaz Levi affirms that 1-The pentegram is the sign of the microcosm 2 that it represents what the Kabalists of the Zohar term MICROPROSOPUS 3-Its complete comprension is the key of the 2 worlds 4-It is absolute natural philosophy and natural science 5 It expresses the mind's domination over the elementss 6 It is the star of the Magi, the Blazing Star of the Gnostic Schools, the sign of intellectual omnipotence and autocracy---In another context there is a more Christian interpretation-The pentegram is a symbol of Christhood, the Spirit of God ruling over the 4 parts of our natural personality. It is not therefore intellectual omnipotence but the ruling and over-ruling power of the Grace of God in the soul--theocratic rule and not autocracy"---I think you can discount Stevenson's definition as fitting the Christian one. I think that he had complete confidence in himself and his powers.He really believed himself to be a Magus. I guess another word for it would be magnanimity perverted into an overweening pride in himself and his abilities. I don't think it too far fetched to believe that HE BELIEVED his rites made him invisible.
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 02:33 pm
Hi David, Many thanks for that information which is most helpful. I am going on a trip through Europe this week to Italy to spend some time in Rome,Pompeii, and the Island of Capri among other places so I will be out of touch for a while. I want to do some "hands on" field research into my favourite subject of archaeology.Will be in touch when I get back.Very best wishes, Ivor.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 06:52 pm
Dear David Rhea, I must remind you that this is a Web Site for research on Jack the Ripper. Rosey :-)
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 07:49 pm
Hi David, Dont take any notice of the dappy sap just ignore her. If she had half a brain she would be dangerous.At least you are contributing which is something she has never attemtped to do.
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 03:14 am
Hello Ivor & Emily, Have a good time and safe journey. The boards will still be here when you return. Andy & Sue