|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 11 June 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
Jack The Ripper 'was one of the highest in the land'. :
Archive through 11 June 2002
Author: Thomas Neagle
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 07:01 am |        | Was Dr. Thomas Stowell lying or mistaken?
Was Caroline Dyke Acland, the daughter of Dr. William Gull( by way of Dr. Thomas Stowell ) lying or mistaken?
Was Nigel Morland lying or mistaken?
Was Inspector Abberline( when speaking to Nigel Morland ) lying or mistaken?
Was Freda Thomson lying or mistaken?
Was Mrs. Marny Hallam lying or mistaken?
Was The Chicago Sunday Times-Herald article of April 28, 1895 lying or mistaken?
Was Robert James Lees lying or mistaken?
Was author Phillippe Jullien, in his 1962 book 'Edouard the Seventh'( stating that it had long been rumored that Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper, this a full eight years before Dr. Thomas Stowell's 'Criminologist' article of 1970 ) lying or mistaken?
Were the residents of Thorpe-le-Soken lying or mistaken?
It is safe to assume that all or most of these people are not lying or mistaken, but telling the truth. To believe otherwise is ridiculous.
This is important evidence, hearsay evidence not withstanding. This hearsay evidence, or accusations and statements, made by a lot of honest people, are the most important evidence in the case. There is a paucity of evidence pointing in any other direction, or to any other suspect or suspects, compared to what I have been posting on this board. This paucity of evidence is nearly meaningless because of two reasons;
1. The police evidence did not lead the police to arrest any of their "publically" named suspects.
2. It is possible that there was an official cover-up. I am certain of it. Now, if there was an official cover-up, which there may very well have been, you can't and shouldn't so easily believe what was officially said and written by the authorities. To do so is not only naive, it is stupid.
To ignore these accusations and statements, this strong hearsay evidence, the strongest and most meaningfull evidence in the case, is stupid.
One of these four aristocratic men; Prince Eddy, J.K. Stephen, Randolph Churchill or Dr. William Gull, was Jack the Ripper.
Adding in the eyewitness accounts which basically points to a dark-complexioned man, having a small, dark mustache, pointed up at the ends, usually wearing a dearstalker hat and a long, dark, navy serge coat, and around 5:7in to 5:9in in height. This was Prince Eddy.
As well as the broad-shouldered, stout, educated sounding man, who looked like a young clerk. This was probably J.K. Stephen, but possibly not.
There is a strong liklihood that journalist and poet J.K. Stephen wrote The "Dear Boss" Letter, as well as many of the other Jack the Ripper letters and poems.
Then there is the suspicious actions of the police at the time of the murders, as well as the suspicious actions of the Mary Jane Kelly Inquest
Putting all this evidence together, what is most probable, and what I believe is the truth, is Prince Eddy was Jack the Ripper, probably with J.K. Stephen as his lookout, but possibly alone. Prince Eddy may only have informed his friend of the crimes.
To ignore all of this evidence, especially the strong hearsay evidence, by a lot of honest people of the general public, would be stupid. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 07:39 am | | Are these people lying or mistaken, Mr Neagle? Well, let's take a look at them.
Stowell - definitely either lying in his accusation or lying in his claim that his suspect was not Prince Albert Victor. Probably mistaken (wildly guessing on inadequate evidence) in the first case, but definitely lying in the second.
Caroline Acland - only reported by Stowell as having given any opinion, so her supposed evidence comes from an unreliable witness.
Nigel Morland - definitely lying.
Abberline, allegedly speaking to Morland and only reported by Morland - evidence via a completely mendacious source with a vested interest in piling up mystery - Abberline never said it.
Freda Thomson - Let's just take one sentence of hers: "He said that blood and water were running in th gutter all round the court". Have you seen Mitre Square? It's impossible. The 'three toffs' her grandfather knew were in the royal court - how did he know? He was never on palace duty. He might, however, have seen A Division men in plain clothes on royalty protection duty in Prince AV's entourage when he came to Whitechapel to open the art gallery, and wrongly assumed they were courtiers. He might have seen them again in the Square. He certainly couldn't have come to the square as some sort of first person before it was fully examined. Her story is, frankly, full of holes and dependent on too many ancient memories and passings-on.
What does Marny Hallam's evidence amount to? A broad generalisation (which could mean Monro had told her great-grandfather he had a good theory, or Anderson could have told him he knew a definitely ascertained fact, or Macnaghten could have reported the results of his long and careful deliberation, or Littlechild could have told him who was, to his mind a very good suspect, or Sir Charles Warren or Basil Thomson could have told him what they knew to be believed in Scotland Yard) adding up to no information of any use, and filtered through three generations.
The Chicago Sun-Times was, according to Melvin Harris, lying and producing the story devised by a member or members of a local 'lying club' such as rejoiced in placing false information in the papers.
Robert James Lees's daughter was lying to boost his standing (this has been gone into on earlier boards). He himnself probably told the truth in his journal, saying he offered help and was treated as a lunatic by the police - but not saying he ever had any evidence or suspicions.
Phillipe Jullien's books falls into the category Melvin Harris has reasonably described as falling within the time-frame that we know Stowell was pushing his theory by word of mouth. I believe Melvin has found no verifiable evidence of 'royal' suspicions being recorded prior to Stowell's devising his theory in the 1950s.
The residents of Thorpe-le-Soken could have been lying, mistaken or misreported. I have had completely unconnected alleys in the East End pointed out to me as 'Ripper's Alley', with circumstantial stories about how he was seen escaping there. I have been a country urchin, and know the joy with which we greet any occasion on which outsiders are given completely erroneous and fatuous information in their search for folk lore or history. ("That d'be the devil's poker and the piskies d'dance around 'un on midsummer' as Ann Treneere's brother told the researcher asking about the pigs' grubbing stone, and he rewarded Ann with a penny for inventing, "I've zeed the piskies!")
It is not safe to base any conclusions on sources such as these.
But welcome to the boards if you're new - (I don't recall seeing your name before) - and many thanks for opening up an opportunity to look at how sources have to be assessed.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Ally
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 08:07 am | | Martin,
You are a doll but I have to tell you, trying to reason with Thomas is like...well I am still taking flu meds so I can't come up with an analogy futile enough. You may mercifully have missed his past posts, but trust me, you don't want to go here. It will just be endless repetitions of Eddy was the Ripper, well if he wasn't then it was probably Gull but if it wasn't Gull then it was Stephens but for some reason it couldn't have been Stephens it had to be Eddy. On and on and on. It is very entertaining to watch but trying to actually discourse with him is like beating your head against a wall which is fun if you like that kind of thing. Going to sleep now.
Bye bye,
Ally |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 10:37 am | | Ally,
You amaze me.
The other day,you threatned to ban a poster for insulting another poster.
Challenging a persons theory is one thing but openly belittling them,as you just did,is another.
I'm sorry to diasapoint you Ally, but I wouldn't have thought that Martin Fido was impressed either
Mick |
Author: Ally
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 10:59 am | | Arfa,
Get a grip. Get several. And then check your facts. I have never threatened to ban any poster for insulting someone. I have threatened to ban a poster for creating a phony account for the sole purpose of insulting another poster and to hide their real identity.
How's this for openly belittling someone..
nah...it would be too easy.
Ally |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 11:20 am | | Ally,
In my books, an insult is an insult,no matter how it is delivered.
Any credibility your posts contain is mostly diminished by such muture comments as:
"How's this for openly belittling someone..
nah...it would be too easy."
Have a nice day,
Mick |
Author: Ally
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 11:47 am | | Arfa,
You are quite right. An insult is an insult. Here are some insults you have posted concerning other's theories:
Hello Ed,
In an earlier post you seemed puzzled as to why Wolf Vanderlinden continued to read your posts.
Surely all of us, irrespective of the topic being discussed,require a little comic relief from time to time.
Dear Mr.Tennant,
I think Your theory and musical ideas are,at best feeble.
Simon,
Pamela Ball probably found out Annie Chapman's date of birth by gazing into her crystal ball.
It's a scrying shame!
I can't believe you would belittle people that way. For shame.
Regards,
Ally |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 12:16 pm | | Ally,
Yes, I thought you might do that.Exactly what I expected.
Only I don't see any belittling going on in any of my comments.
A challenge and a light hearted joke or two but nothing insulting.Whereas your comments directed towards Thomas Neagle were a blatently cheap,feeble and childish attempt to impress Mr.Fido at Thomas'expense.
So "ALL POWERFULL ALLY"
have another rake through my archive,i'm sure it will give you an even greater thrill.
I've decided to leave the playground now,I'm going to talk to the adults.
Mick |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 12:37 pm | | Incidentally,Ally
"Mr.Neil Tennant" alias Jamie Anderson,is a good friend of mine and we set up the whole exchange for a laugh.
Mick |
Author: Ally
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 01:07 pm | | Arfa,
Exactly what I expected. When you call Ed's theory a joke, that's all well and good, but my doing the same to Thomas is belittling. If all the adults you like to play with are characterized by the same hypocrisy you display, I'll stay on the playground.
And I'm sure that Mr. Fido will attest, that the last thing I would ever attempt to do would be to impress him or anyone else for that matter.
Bye sweetheart,
Ally |
Author: John Hacker
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 01:46 pm | | Arfa,
I fail to see any problem with Ally's post. Mr. Neagle asserts in his post that anyone who doesn't follow his interpertations is "rediculous" and "stupid". If there is anyone to be called to task it's Mr. Neagle.
Ally merely pointed out that in her view trying to reason with him is futile. A perspective that anyone who has tried discussing the case with him would likely agree with.
Regards,
John Hacker
P.S. I wish I had had such a warning. I want my wasted time back. |
Author: jennifer pegg
Monday, 10 June 2002 - 01:49 pm | | returning to the point, as thomas neagle wants to know who was lying and mistaken let me help him out.
the chicago article - as Mr Fido points out melvin harris shows evidence this was a lie (and if that is too harsh i will stick my neck out and say they were "mistaken").
rj Lees - in my experience was neither lying nor mistaken (see the above) it was others who were mistaken for him,
jennifer |
|
|
|
|
