|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 December 29, 1998
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
D'Onston Stephenson, Robert:
Archive through December 29, 1998
Author: Laura Pennington
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:02 pm |        | I have been doing further reading and have discovered that there is a convincing case for one Roslyn (Robert) D'onsten, in a post diary book by Melvin Harris, one of those who studied the Maybrick Diary and who has printed some report on that in the book.
It seems that,as one would expect, D'onston even had the suspicions of people he knew raised at the time of the murder, the memoirs of Vittoria C___ state that she was strongly convinced of it, and that the woman in his Life KNEW, Harris has done more research on this, and puts forward a convincing case. Does Anyone know any more about this man? Have also done more research into JK and his case is equally convincing, although I understand he was originally put forward as a "joke" candidate!!!" |
Author: Paul Begg
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:03 pm | | | Melvin Harris first proposed Donston in Jack the Ripper: The Bloody Truth, then in The Ripper File, and finally in The True Face of Jack the Ripper. His theory was never offered as a joke, though has sometimes been treated as one. It has not proved persuasive to any established student of Ripper studies. |
Author: John Williams Berger
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 02:05 pm | | One minor police suspect fits the character of the writer of the Ripper letters. Dr. Roslyn Donston was formerly a military doctor now employed as a journalist and was known to be a Satanist. He would hang around the police station to see what was brought in, and was well-known to the constables. He would have been in a perfect position to know about the missing kidney and the other details of the deaths. Further, as a worshipper of Satan, he would have been enraptured at such handiwork. Although I cannot prove that Donston was the writer who coined the phrase "Jack the Ripper", he does qualify on all counts.
Donston was a publicity seeker, not a loner. He was educated as a medical man as well as a writer. The references to Hell and the "Devle" in the letters certainly point an accusing finger his way. Furthermore, after the search was called off in December, 1888, upon the discovery of Montague Druitt's body in the Thames, Donston changed his ways and renounced the Devil as his Lord, as if he had had enough.
If Donston were the killer, as Melvin Harris insists, it is most certainly he would have brought the daughters of sin to his flat for a sacrificial death, and kept souvenirs (bones, jewellry, an ovary) to show his followers. If Stephen Knight's tale of the Royal Family hiring a coachman to silence the strumpets, the ladies would have been killed in a more discrete manner.
----
I am a Questioned Document Examiner, a freelance writer, and former editor of a local magazine. My interest started in August 1987, when the Calgary Sun published a feature article on the identity of Jack the Ripper and included one letter supposedly written by the him. I wondered if a handwriting examiner could decipher the script and uncover clues to the personality and vocation of the Ripper. After training in both graphology and QDE, I became the handwriting expert. I gathered all information possible from the Chief Medical Examiner's office and through the Mensa society, as well as books at both the public and university libraries. My summary is based largely upon information from an FBI handbook studied at the Chief Medical Examiner's office.
In the analysis, I concluded that the murderer neither wrote the two letters attributed to the Ripper, nor did he write any of the other letters. Furthermore, I pointed out how the injury to some victims suggested the killer was neither a mercenary nor a weakling.
I was interested in finding out more about a Dr. Roslyn D'Onston Stephenson; that is why your book was perfect for me. You see, D'Onston's character fits nicely with my findings. I was looking for someone who is a braggart, has inside knowledge of the crimes, some medical education, identified with Jack the Ripper, lived in or near Whitechapel, is a Satanist, and a professional writer. No, they are not clues to a ripper; they are the telltales of a rodomontade.
The two letters which I focused my attention upon have distinctive handwriting and content that set them apart from the rest. One, mailed with half a kidney, opens with 'From Hell' and ends with 'Catch me when you can Mishter Lusk'; the other begins with 'Old Boss' and carries the signature 'Jack the Ripper'. Although the police dismissed all letters, I consider these two important.
I expected to see misspellings; I was not expecting to see any made intentionally. I saw the writer slowing his hand as he fought the habit of correctness. I was at first puzzled by the odd renditions of kidney (kidne, kidny) and knife (knif, nife) and wondered what the writer may be hiding. With the pages magnified, I saw the writing slow and the words draw out. The author took his time misspelling kidney and knife! I looked again; the misspelled words are written slower than the rest of the passage. Was he trying to dupe the police into looking for an illiterate person? Was he hiding the fact he was a professional writer? Perhaps. He slips up near the end in his ditty about the microscope and spells kidney correctly! When people disguise their writing they habitually revert to their natural hand as they hurry to end their message. I think this is what happened here. The content is interesting. The letters seem well composed with balanced margins, polite conversation, and some integrity of thought. I have seen letters written by sufferers of schizophrenia and this is not like them. The Old Boss script reminds me of an intelligent writer deteriorated from a drug high -- the text is one rambling sentence with the last line drooping, and the post script verse has no meter.
The writer tries to forecast the killer's next action and take credit for it. For example, '... will send you another bit of innerds' and 'I may send you the bloody knif ...'. This is congruent with someone seeking publicity. It works like this: If the prediction comes true, the letters will be declared extremely important; if not, nobody will notice.
One final observance of the author of these two letters: he was likely educated in England. The formation of the pronoun I with its small upper loop contrasts with the Canadian and American fashion of making that loop much fuller. The "Old Boss" letter shows the pronoun as a lower case i, typical of a person with low self-esteem. Since this writing is heavily disguised, I cannot say that it represents the writer's true character. People who write taunting letters to police and heads of vigilante groups are after notoriety. They identify with the criminal more for their misfit in society than their lust for misdeed; they enjoy the victory of the underdog over the police. Real murderers who write such letters speak of why they kill and mention almost nothing of their victim. The letter author had inside knowledge of the homicides. If he were not the actual murderer (or an accomplice) then he was talking to the police during the investigation. Look at the missing kidney. When a piece of such an organ turned up in the mail, many thought a mad surgeon rampaged in Mitre Square that night. Consider this: If the murderer was not the writer, then where did the kidney come from? I think either the organ was scooped off the street after the killer dropped it, or scoffed from a medical laboratory to which the writer had access. We're not even sure if the posted kidney came from Eddowes' body or not. Dr Openshaw examined the organ at the request of the police and declared it to be a portion of a "ginny kidney" belonging to a woman of about 45 years of age and had been removed from a body within the past three weeks. Dr. Sedgwick Saunders, the City analyst, did not acept Openshaw's conclusions. Saunders states there is no difference between a male and a female human kidney. Furthermore, he was at the post mortem of Eddowes and saw the right kidney was in a healthy condition and questioned why the left one could be diseased.
Calgary's Chief Medical Examiner at the time, Dr. John Butt (a graduate of the London Medical School), informed me that it is nearly impossible for a surgeon to properly remove a kidney on a cold October night with no light and only a few minutes of time. He explained that as the abdominal area opens, much fluid spills out ... then there are fat and flesh to cut away before reaching the kidney. Apparently the killer was less skilled in surgery than many think and that perhaps he just slashed and cut until he got something, without realising or caring which organ it was.
Melvin Harris mentioned how D'Onston prated he was the Jack.
Interestingly, he neither bragged about murdering strumpets nor gave reason why their wretched souls were dispatched prematurely. That suggests to me that he be the Jack who wrote those nasty letters, and not the Jack who hacked women. The motive is lacking.
Both letters contain references to the underworld. One letter purports to be 'From Hell' and cites a 'bloody knif', while the other mentions 'O have you seen the devle with his mikerscope ...'. This suggests familiarity with the subjects and implies the writer is a devil worshipper who has a microscope. His medical experience reflects in his familiarity with the microscope, as seen in the phrase: '... with his mikerscope and scalpul a lookin at a kidney with a slide cocked up'. Notice too that he used the term scalpel instead of knife, again showing a writer with some medical or science training.
D'Onston has all the traits of the letter writer: A satanic connection, professional writing ability, a bent for bluster, familiarity with police, home in Whitechapel, misfit in London society, and a knack for trickery. His dissimilarity with the killer is just as strong.
The man who annulled the ladies was not after publicity or notoriety; he was satisfying an emotional rage toward hookers. "Murderers have a connection," says the FBI manual, "they have something in common with their victims." In the Whitechapel slaughter, I suspect the killer had a relationship with a prostitute. It could have been his mother, his wife, or another caregiver. I uncovered more information that may be relevant to the discovery of the author:
Were the killings ritualistic?
No. Any ritual killing would not be a ritual unless done in the place of worship. There is no evidence to support the ritual killing notion with the exception of one: At the feet of Annie Chapman's body were two brass rings and two new farthings.
Did the killer use any military skills?
There is nothing to suggest murder by military method. Although an eyewitness had left prostitute Martha Tabrum with a soldier of the Grenadier Guard hours before her death, police say she was not a Ripper victim. Were the victims cut by a surgeon?
The destruction of Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly suggests a madman, someone combining physical strength and emotional energy with a good knife. The conjecture of old doctors being used as hirelings, as Stephen Knight et al suggest, simply does not work.
Was D'Onston a letter writer?
Yes. He wrote regularly to the press and even used such pseudonyms as "Doctor Death" and "Tautriadelta". His letters attracted the attention of the police more for their outrageous claims than their real clues. He once argued the Ripper was an innocent doctor by the name of Morgan Davies. Davies' only misdeed was to imitate the Ripper's behaviour for the amusement of others. D'Onston figured Davies knew too many details of the crimes and told this to the coppers. The police never listened to the drugged D'Onston again, and never placed Davies on their list of suspects.
D'Onston was too old and weak from drug and alcohol abuse to do any physical destruction. He was the type of person to bring the women to his place for ritual slaying, if he slew at all. Further, ritual slaying symbolises the power of the killer over the life of the victim; therefore, the offering would have to have some standing in society. His black magic interests attracted the attentions of several higher classed people who could have easily fallen victim and once dead, made much greater news headlines than the death of any east end drab.
D'Onston's notoriety reached new heights even after he converted to Christian beliefs. In 1912, Aleister Crowley released several tales of D'Onston's deeds as Jack the Ripper, based upon the flimsy feelings of Vittoria Cremers and some bloodstained ties she had once found under his bed.
People of any wit about them saw D'Onston as a rambling braggart who confused his fantasies with reality. I can only conclude the story of Dr. Roslyn D'Onston Stephenson being Jack the Ripper belongs on the bookshelf labelled Complete Fiction. |
Author: Melvin Harris
Friday, 20 November 1998 - 09:03 am | | ROSLYN D'ONSTON: FACTS PLEASE!
A Mr J.W. Berger calling himself a "handwriting expert" has chosen to show himself up as a vapouriser who simply doesn't know his subject. This is neither good for him nor for any newcomer who reads his words and imagines that those words have substance. But they are worthless.
There are three documents in existence written by and signed by Roslyn D'Onston in 1888. One is a lengthy piece, five pages in fact. But Mr Berger has never even bothered to examine these. Despite this he is prepared to theorise about D'Onston being responsible for some of the Ripper letters. Ye Gods!
Why is Mr Berger bothering to write at all? He obviously hasn't read the basic books. He repeats the old nonsense that "two brass rings and two new farthings" were found at Annie Chapman's feet. And he tells us that D'Onston "would hang around the police station to see what was brought in" and that "He wrote regularly to the press and even used such pseudonyms as 'Doctor Death' and 'Tautriadelta'. His letters attracted the attention of the police more for their outrageous claims than their real clues."
THESE CLAIMS ARE PURE INVENTION. D'Onston's only known visit to a police station in 1888 took place AFTER the murders, on December 27th. As for those regular letters to the press, well, THERE WEREN'T ANY. Not a single letter to the press came from D'Onston at any time. And he never once wrote anything under the name "Doctor Death", while the pseudonym "Tautriadelta" was first used by him in November 1890, two years after the end of the murders, in an article commissioned by the paper 'Lucifer.'
Mr Berger obviously hasn't read the only up-to-date and full-length book on D'Onston, which is my TRUE FACE OF JACK THE RIPPER published in 1994. No one reading that book would ever fall into the error of stating that in 1912 "Aleister Crowley released several tales of D'Onston's deeds as Jack the Ripper..." Crowley never knew D'Onston. He was a schoolboy at the time of the murders and the fiction he wrote about D'Onston did not appear in print until 1969.
Finally, though Mr Berger styles himself a handwriting expert, I note that he is a graphologist, which to my mind is on a par with phrenology and palmistry. If anyone thinks that unfair then I advise them to read the most exhaustive study of the question, which can be found in "THE WRITE STUFF" a series of evaluations edited by Dr Barry Beyerstein and Dale Beyerstein. (Prometheus Press 1992)
FOOTNOTE: I am not interested in converting or convincing anyone. I have stated my position fairly and there is still more to unfold. Until then, please refer to my TRUE FACE if you want to know more. The observation, though, that my theory "has not proved persuasive to any established student of Ripper studies", is a pretty empty one. Begg believes it was Kosminski; Fido believes it was David Cohen; Skinner believes it was Druitt. If persuasion was so simple then the three would be speaking with one voice. But fixed ideas are hard to dislodge.
Melvin Harris |
Author: cbeekman
Monday, 21 December 1998 - 07:07 pm | | I believe I posted my comments regarding Roslyn d'Onston to the wrong page! I hope repeating some of my observations from my original post to the "True Face" Message Board is allowed
My question is rather simply, What is the contradictory evidence against RDOS as the Ripper? I understand that several points from "Bloody Truth" were dismissed as inventions of RDOS' own mind until substantiated in "True Face", but the lack of attention paid to RDOS is interesting to me.
Is it the occult motive? Surely Manson, the Nightstalker, and Zodiac have shown that occult motives are downright common, at least as the rationale of the serial killers themselves. The late 1800s were rife with occult organizations and beliefs somewhat comparable to the post-Vietnam era and the many serial killers that appear to have come out of that more recent period.
Is it the apparent premeditation assigned to RDOS, and the selection of the victims based upon their location? Again, Zodiac is an example - check out the Zodiac webpage outlining recent findings on that serial killer (also never caught) - and he himself described the geometry behind the placement of at least one of his victims.
My question is simply, what is it that has led to RDOS being largely passed over as a serious candidate?
Harris may not have convinced people, but I sure wouldn't like to have had the job of prosecutor at Charles Manson's trial and had to explain the concept of Helter-Skelter. |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 21 December 1998 - 09:25 pm | | Hey, cbeekman,
Your posts and this suspect interest me, mainly because of the relation to the late 19th century subculture of eccentric "religious" beliefs. I've only recently heard about this suspect. And while I don't have Harris' book yet, I will soon. But I think I have a few reasons why Satanism is a difficult motif to spot in just about any words or deeds where it isn't explicitly pointed out by the person performing the deed or speaking the words.
I don't find anything inherently too bizarre in Satanism to trash it as a consideration. However, the issues involved in Satanism are complex, esoteric, and largely shrouded in mystery/hokum/secrecy. Anybody who's ever tried to read the crap that Crowley, his precursors, and his descendents wrote will understand how complicated (and personal) Satanic symbolism can get.
Satanism has no orthodox beliefs and rituals the way Christians, Jews, and Muslims do. So how can anyone prove or disprove that something in the JtR case (for instance, the traditional number of victims -- 5 for a pentagram -- or the placement of bodies on a map -- to form a cross) is related to Satanism and cannot be related to ANYTHING else...even coincidence?
What the lack of an orthodoxy means is that the ritual believed in and supposedly used by the Ripper has to be shown to follow either, 1) a suspect's understanding and consistent use of an explicit, personal Satanic symbol/ritual, or 2) some generally-accepted understanding of Satanic symbol/ritual. It has to be consistent in its application. The pattern must be explicitly Satanic and nothing else...not even coincidence.
Since Satanism has no orthodoxy, just about any action, word, pattern, or whatever can be assigned a Satanic meaning where perhaps none existed, and even the opposite was intended. The pattern of the cross, for example, must be an upside-down cross -- it must be that and nothing else or it is not Satanic. For instance, a medieval cathedral is laid out in the shape of a cross -- someone so inclined could claim the builders were really worshipping Satan because the orientation (to his/her perspective) shows an upside-down cross!
That bodies fell in certain places, and that lines can be drawn to show a symbol, means nothing in itself. Those four bodies could just as easily make the four corners of a square or parallelogram to the geometrically-inclined.
If you ever read any of Anton La Vey's modern apologetics for Satanism, you'll know that he and his followers distance themselves from murderers and sexual deviants/perverts like "Zodiac", "The Night Stalker", and such human trash (I'll give the late La Vey and his crew the benefit of the doubt on their evolutionary status). So the mere establishment of someone being a Satanic worshipper need not cast automatic certainty that they are bloodthirsty, savage, deviant, murderous psychopaths.
Even in 1888, it is difficult to reconcile Theosophy (to which, I believe, D'Onston also adhered -- followed later by a Christian conversion; he wasn't very steadfast in any of his beliefs, was he?) and Satanism. Yeats and Annie Besant were Theosophists!! Crowley is the jerk who murked the two together (along with his own herbs and seasonings) -- and he only comes into his "splendor" after 1888.
So there must be something else needed to qualify D'Onston as a Ripper suspect (and I believe Harris provides further -- non-Satanic -- info). Satanism alone is no automatic qualification. And since Satanic symbolism and ritual are so personalized and complex in their manifestations -- not to mention the distastefulness or ridiculuousness it holds for many people -- it is nearly impossible to apply it where the criminal himself does not make the connection for us.
I'll read Mr. Harris' book when it arrives in the mail...or around that time, anyway (grins). But that's my long-winded take on your question about the difficulties of considering a Satanic motif to JtR.
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 01:25 am | | Hey,
One correction to Melvin's post of November 20. He says: "Mr Berger obviously hasn't read the only up-to-date and full-length book on D'Onston, which is my TRUE FACE OF JACK THE RIPPER published in 1994. No one reading that book would ever fall into the error of stating that in 1912 "Aleister Crowley released several tales of D'Onston's deeds as Jack the Ripper..." Crowley never knew D'Onston. He was a schoolboy at the time of the murders and the fiction he wrote about D'Onston did not appear in print until 1969. "
Crowley was born in 1875. He would have been 13 at the time of the murders. He died in 1947. Stephenson published a book, The Patristic Fathers in 1904; Crowley would have been 29. It was perfectly possible for Crowley to have known Stephenson. Since Crowley was dead by 1947, he obviously wrote whatever he did about Stephenson before then. Crowley's bibliography is a complete mess, so what these "tales" are and when they were written cannot be ascertained with the info provided. As anyone who knows anything about Crowley, any claims he makes to "knowing" somebody or something should be held in considerable doubt.
In Crowley's autobiography, begun in 1925 and partially published in 1929, was called (in the foreshortened title given by his literary executor, John Symonds), The Confessions of Aleister Crowley he tells a story about Jack the Ripper, a part of which I quote: "At this time London was agog with the exploits of Jack the Ripper. One theory of the motive of the murderer was that he was performing an Operation to obtain the Supreme Black Magical Power. The seven women had to be killed so that their seven bodies formed a 'Calvary cross of seven points' with its head to the west..." Crowley babbles on, but this may be where the origins of a Satanic motive come from.
Bracketed between the explicit reference to JtR is the following. From pages 690-92 of this same miserable tome, Crowley tells a story of a lady he corresponded with in New York. The lady's name was Vittoria Cremers. Crowley mentions that in 1912 she was in her fifties (is this the source of the date for Crowley's "tale" of Jack the Ripper?). Crowley says Vittoria "boasted of her virginity and of the intimacy of her relations with Mabel Collins, with whom she lived a long time." Supposedly, Mabel: "divided her favors with a very strange man whose career had been extraordinary. He had been an officer in a calvary regiment, a doctor, and I know not how many other things in his time. He was now in desperate poverty and depended entirely on Mabel Collins for his daily bread. This man claimed to be an advanced Magician, boasting of many mysterious powers and even demonstrating the same."
To make a tedious story short, the man is never named but claims intimate knowledge of how JtR did the murders, and how he'd hide his bloodied shirt and dress tie with the collar of his coat. The two ladies one day break into a "tin uniform case" to retrieve some of Mabel's compromising letters to the gentleman. What they found, in Crowley's words: "There were no letters; there was nothing in the box, but seven white evening ties, all stiff and black with clotted blood!"
Remember now, this is Crowley writing...so you're warned right there. But he is writing in 1925-29. He does mention 1912 in this confused little set-piece about Vittoria, Mabel, and their unnamed gentleman friend with the collection of bloody neckties and a theory of how JtR dined on parts of his victims and how he "accomplished his task without arousing the suspicion of his victims until the last moment." From the entry in JtR; A-Z, this sounds like Stephenson.
Crowley is one of the lowest forms of cultural parasites of the early 20th century. He stole from the Egyptians and the ancient Chinese philosophers, and God knows who else. But his autobiography (Crowley calls it an autohagiography!!!!) has points that might be the source of these "tales" about Stephenson...and the black magic/cross pattern involving the victims. Also note all the mistakes Crowley makes about the number of victims and acts of cannibalism against each victim.
Here I am, it's 1:30 a.m., and I'm left with insomnia and Aleister Crowley!!!! Gack!!!!!!!!!!!
Yaz |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 04:03 am | | Hi Yaz
A small point, but there is a distinction between 'written' and 'published'. When Melvin Harris wrote that Crowley's "fiction...about D'Onston did not appear in print until 1969" I think he was referring to the John Symonds's edition. If this was indeed the first appearance in print of the Cremers/ties story then Mr Harris would be correct in what he said. If, however, that story appeared in the autobiography 'partially published in 1929', then, as you say, he would be wrong. Of course, although Crowley's own version may not have seen print until the 1960s, the story was in circulation in the late 1920s, having been told to Bernard O'Donnell by Cremers herself. A version also appeared in the East Anglian Daily Times in 1929, the author, Pierre Girouard, ascribing it to Cremers.
Happy festivities... |
Author: Edana
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 09:10 am | | Greetings and Blessed be. Poor Yaz, Crowley strikes again, this time from the grave. Ok, so he was a kook, but he had seriously studied the occult and was a member of The Golden Dawn until he decided to leave that group and publish their secrets. They weren't exactly pleased with this, as you can imagine. At the risk of being labeled a kook myself, I must interject that the occult sciences were considered a serious study then and even now. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle studied the occult...and I have delved into it myself, studying the mythology and symbolism of the Tarot. It's true that those who practise alone have their own rituals and ceremonies, but there were (and are) standard rituals and ceremonies..prayers and spells which are followed by many groups who study the occult. This is not meant to be an apology for Crowley, but the study of the occult is not something to be cast aside. It was a serious part of some people's lives in 1888, just as it is today. Let's not dismiss the subject outright.
Of course, having said all that, the pickings are slim (IMO) as far as the Whitechapel murders relation to the occult goes...no black cocks slaughtered at midnight, or pentagrams etched in chalk on the cobblestones. Satanists are typically (I believe) very theatrical...just look at Marilyn Manson.
Oops, I'm rambling again.
Edana |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 09:17 am | | For anyone who may be interested, I happened on his while doing a small update on the A to Z and thought it worth posting. You can read the whole thing (which actually highlights Cremers' untrustworthiness, at http://www.itlink.se/oto/personer/aleister/confess/chapter71.html
From Crowley's confessions:
"Laylah had spent some weeks in New York with Two Little Brides. I had given her introductions to various correspondents of mine in the city; people interested in my work. One of these demands attention, both for her own sake as one of the most remarkable characters I have ever known and for the influence of her intervention on my affairs.Her name was Vittoria Cremers. She claimed to be the bastard of a wealthy English Jew and to have married a knavish Austrian baron. She was an intimate friend of Mabel Collins, authoress of The Blossom and the Fruit, the novel which has left so deep a mark upon my early ideas about Magick. In 1912 she was in her fifties. Her face was stern and square, with terribly intense eyes from which glared an expression of indescribably pain and hopeless horror. Her hair was bobbed and dirty white, her dress severely{690}masculine save the single concession of a short straight skirt. Her figure was sturdy and her gait determined though awkward. Laylah found her in a miserable room on 176th Street or thereabouts. Pitifully poor, she had not been able to buy Liber 777 and had therefore worked week after week copying in the Astor Library. She impressed Laylah as an ernest seeker and a practical business woman. She professed the utmost devotion to me and proposed to come to England and put the work of the Order on a sound basis. I thought the idea was excellent, paid her passage to England and established her as a manageress.Technically, I digress; but I cannot refrain from telling her favourite story. She boasted of her virginity and of the intimacy of her relations with Mabel Collins, with whom she lived a long time. Mabel had however divided her favours with a very strange man whose career had been extraordinary. He had been an officer in a cavalry regiment, a doctor, and I know not how many other things in his time. He was now in desperate poverty and depended entirely on Mabel Collins for his daily bread. This man claimed to be an advanced Magician, boasting of many mysterious powers and even occasionally demonstrating the same.At this time London was agog with the exploits of Jack the Ripper. One theory of the motive of the murderer was that he was performing an Operation to obtain the Supreme Black Magical Power. The seven women had to be killed so that their seven bodies formed a "Calvary cross of seven points" with its head to the west. The theory was that after killing the third or the fourth, I forget which, the murderer acquired the power of invisibility, and this was confirmed by the fact that in one case a policeman heard the shrieks of the dying woman and reached her before life was extinct, yet she lay in a cul-de-sac, with no possible exit save to the street; and the policeman saw no signs of the assassin, thought he was patrolling outside, expressly on the lookout.Miss Collins' friend took great interest in these murders. He discussed them with her and Cremers on several occasions. He gave them imitations of how the murderer might have accomplished his task without arousing the suspicion of his victims until the last moment. Cremers objected that his escape must have been a risky matter, because of his habit of devouring certain portions of the ladies before leaving them. What about the blood on his collar and shirt? The lecturer demonstrated that any gentleman in evening dress had merely to turn up the collar of a light overcoat to conceal any traces of his supper.Time passed! Mabel tired of her friend, but did not dare to get rid of him because he had a packet of compromising letters written by her. Cremers offered to steal these from him. In the man's bedroom was a tin uniform case which he kept under the bed to which he attached it by cords. Neither of the{691}women had ever seen this open and Cremers suspected that he kept these letters in it. She got him out of the way for a day by a forged telegram, entered the room, untied the cords and drew the box from under the bed. To her surprise it was very light, as if empty. She proceeded nevertheless to pick the lock and open it. There were no letters; there was nothing in the box, but seven white evening dress ties, all stiff and black with clotted blood!" |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 09:31 am | | Hey, Paul,
The trouble with Crowley's bibliography is that no one seems able to say for sure when and where anything he wrote was first "published." His writings appeared in multiple forms -- his own magazine called The Equinox (which began publication in 1910 or 1911), pamphlets, copied manuscripts, vanity presses, what-have-you, as well as books put out by publishers. There is every possibility that all or parts of his autobiography were distributed using one of these methods. Symonds tells the story of his own urging of Crowley to gather together the scattered autohagiography to publish in book form...but making someone else do what he wanted done himself is pure Crowley. And, according to Symonds, Crowley didn't start writing his Confessions until 1923 or 1925 -- the passage is unclear as to the precise start date -- so it cannot be the source of a 1912 Crowley/JtR story. Mr. Berger needs to specify what his source is for that claim to the dating, but it is not strictly-speaking an impossible one -- I can't automatically accuse Mr. Berger of being wrong without this info.
Also, Crowley never mentions the gentleman's name in the story told in the Confessions. Stephenson or D'Onston does not even appear in the Index for the entire book. How Crowley got the story is a question whose answer I wouldn't take at Crowley's word -- i.e., that he got it from Vittoria Cremers. How the gentlemen came to be associated with Stephenson cannot be discerned from the autohagiography either -- if the Confessions is indeed the source of Mr. Berger's assertion of "In 1912, Aleister Crowley released several tales of D'Onston's deeds as Jack the Ripper, based upon the flimsy feelings of Vittoria Cremers and some bloodstained ties she had once found under his bed." The focus of the Confessions' brief story is Mabel Collins and her realtionship with the unnamed gentleman, NOT Vittoria Cremers who acted only as an accomplice to her 'friend's' attempted theft of letters.
I am not trying to prove Melvin or Mr. Berger wrong about anything, but I do think any definitive statement on the Crowley point by either man needs careful consideration -- not because of them but strictly because of who and what Crowley was! Nothing can be so certain about the slithering path of Mr. Aleister Crowley, where it wended and what other paths it might have crossed.
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 22 December 1998 - 09:41 am | | Geez, Edana and Paul,
Are you two graduates of the Mavis Beacon school of typing? Sorry to have missed your points while I was writing my own electronic epistle.
And no, Edana, I don't disparage studying the Occult...after all, Jung did, and he took the I Ching very seriously on its own terms. So you're in good company. Trouble is the riff-raff represented by Crowley. You don't seem to defend him so I won't attack him further...but his scholarship, writings, even the genuineness of his interest in Eastern philosophy and divination (e.g., the tarot), they're all questionable.
Yaz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 04:19 am | | Hi Yaz
You are certainly aware of this, but I just stumbled across it: Crowley, Aleister, The Confessions of Aleister Crowley, 2 vols. London: Mandrake Press, 1929. I gather it is rare and can get an asking price in excess of $1000! But does it contain the Cremmers story?
Paul |
Author: Oracle
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 05:38 am | | One odd point regarding R. D'O Stephenson has struck me, and that is the story of the bloodstained ties in his possession. Regarding this the following appears in the latest paperback edition of the 'A-Z' (Begg, Fido and Skinner), page 429 -
'On one occasion, Cremers told journalist Bernard O'Donnell in the late 1920's, she went into Stephenson's room and found several blood-encrusted ties in a black enamelled deed-box. Stephenson, unaware of this discovery, subsequently told her that the Ripper concealed the organs he stole under his neckties.'
A fuller version of the story, may be found in Mr. Harris's Book, The True Face of Jack the Ripper, page 81, which is a repetition of the story written in O'Donnell's manuscript. But is it accurate or is it merely O'Donnell telling the story in a more acceptable way for a general readership in the between wars era? True, it is a bloodthirsty idea that he hid stolen organs under his tie. But it is also a ludicrous idea. Indeed, it is a point used by many to disparage the whole story as ridiculous. But, was the story as actually recounted even more horrendous? I believe it was. The indications are that the original story was that he ate the organs raw at the scenes of his crimes. O'Donnell would, I believe, have felt that he needed to tone that story down a little for a general readership.
In the Crowley essay, pp 146-152 in the Harris book, a rather different rendering of the story is given -
'It is hardly necessary to go into the cannabilistic details, but it is quite obvious that a person who is devouring considerable chunks of raw flesh, cut from a living body, can hardly do so without copious evidence on his chest.
One evening Donston had just come in from the theatre - in those days everyone dressed whether they liked it or not - and he found the women [Cremers and Collins] discussing this point. He gave a slight laugh, went into the passage, and returned in the opera cloak which he had been wearing to the theatre. He turned up the collar and pulled the cape across his shirtfront, made a slight gesture as if to say: 'You see how simple it is';...'
This is followed, at the end of the piece, by the story of the discovery of the incriminating ties, thus -
'To return to this long explanatory digression, it was necessary in order to give the fair Cremers time to extricate the uniform case from its complex ropes, the knots being carefully memorised, and to pick the locks.
During this process her mind had been far from at ease; first of all, there seemed to be no weight. Surely a trunk so carefully treasured could not be empty; but if there were a packet of letters more or less loose, there should have been some response to the process of shaking. Her curiosity rose to fever pitch; at last the lock yielded to her persuasive touch; she lifted the lid. The trunk was empty [sic], but its contents, although few, were striking.
Five white dress ties soaked in blood.'
Mr. Harris' follows this by saying, 'This fantasy by Crowley resulted from two events. In 1925 Bernard O'Donnell acted as 'ghost-writer' for a series of newspaper articles based on the autobiographical memories of Betty-May...' Mr. Harris then explains how 'Bett-May' was wont to invent stories and describes how the fantasy was developed. She gave her rendering of the 'bloody ties' story which made no mention of the hiding of organs behind the ties but stated merely that they were 'stiff and stained with something...' and that Crowley had told her that, 'Jack the Ripper was a well-known surgeon of his day. Whenever was going to commit a new crime he put on a new tie. Those are his ties, every one of which was steeped in the blood of his victims.'
So we can see that the whole story is a crass invention culled from diverse sources. It never happened and Mr Harris makes this clear.
The story appeared in the press in 1925 [World's Pictorial News] and in Betty May's 1929 book, Tiger Woman. It is also interesting to note that the story made a more modern appearance in a published book in 1965, the year of publication of the two Ripper books by Cullen and Odell. This was in The Magical Dilemma of Victor Neuburg by Jean Overton Fuller, W.H. Allen, 1965. On pp 166-168 in which she writes [inter alia] -
'Mabel Collins, Crowley averred, introduced Cremers to a doctor who was, in fact her lover. The appalling murders were on everybody's tongue and on one occasion, Mabel Collins, Cremers and the doctor spoke of them. Cremers wondered what the Ripper did with the parts of the women he carried away. The doctor said he ate them. Cremers protested that in that case his collar and tie and shirt would be stained with blood and he could not escape from the scene without being detected. For answer, the doctor put on his great coat and turned up the collar, demonstrating that when it was buttoned nothing showed underneath.'
And on the next page -
'The doctor went. Cremers then entered his room and searched everywhere for Mabel Collins's letters. She pulled from under his bed what proved to be a Cavalryman's tin uniform-box. Opening it she found ties, stiff and black with dried blood.'
Again, with minor variations, it tells a similar story, but indicates that it was not that the organs had been hidden under the ties, but that he had devoured them at the scenes of his crimes, thus spilling blood down his front.
I hope that this has not been too boring, and for the full and detailed story I can do nothing more than recommend Mr. Harris's excellent book. |
Author: Edana
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 08:26 am | | Not boring at all, Oracle. Fascinating! Thankyou.
Edana |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 09:28 am | | Hey, All,
Paul, I don't know the answer for sure but I would guess the Mandrake edition does not contain the story. Symonds writes that Mandrake only published 2 of the total of 6 parts to the Confessions. Each Mandrake volume presumably contained what Symonds' complete edition called a Part. The Cremer story appears in Part 5 of Symonds' edition.
So if Crowley or Symonds didn't alter the contents between Mandrake's edition and the complete manuscript Crowley gave Symonds before his death (subsequently published in 1969?), the answer would be no.
HOWEVER, Symonds admits that he did do editing and cutting. He writes: "This is the text of all six volumes, after some redundancies have been removed: Crowley dictated the work to the Ape of Thoth while under the influence of heroin, which made him at times a little verbose." (The Ape of Thoth was the name with which Crowley anointed his amanuesis, Leah Hirsig)
You'll have to pay $1000 to be certain, I guess. Or try to find Symonds (is he still alive?) and ask him. Another option is to contact Kenneth Grant, Symonds co-editor and annotator. Be forewarned that Grant studied under Crowley and is a believer in Crowley's hoodoo nonsense.
Symonds also reports that "Mandrake Press also brought out a small volume of three of Crowley's stories. The Stratagem, and his magical novel, Moonchild." I have no idea what the stories were about, but maybe that's where Berger got the correlation between "tales" and JtR? You'd have to check what the contents of "The Stratagem" were and the publication date.
Oracle, I don't get what point you're making. It seems the more I look at this business about the ties-story, the more versions appear. Fuller is/was a sycophant of Crowley's; Crowley's "first" biographer. His story doesn't differ greatly from the one in Crowley's Confessions -- except Mabel Collins seems to have been lost in the shuffle!
We have to be careful in regard to origins of this tie story connected to Crowley. Crowley's book contains one version: it is a recounting of Vittoria Cremers' favorite story; so while it appeared in Crowley, the original source is Cremers. Cremers seems to have told this story to several people -- it being her favorite and all.
Is your point that the tie-story NEVER happened at all? It seems not; you credit O'Donnell's version with being a toned-down version of the truth(?). Or are you clarifying the confusion over whether organs were hidden under ties or the ties were simply blood-stained?
As shown, Crowley never mentions that the ties were used to HIDE organs, merely that in eating them the ties would become soiled. And since no one knows of any organs being eaten -- on the spot or otherwise -- the whole theory is questionable, no matter who originated the idea. And Crowley/Cremers version ahs seven victims -- we can't even agree to the traditional five victims...where did the other two come from (and it ain't necessarily Crowley) and where did they go in later (acceptable?) versions of this story?
Who the heck is "Betty-May"? And why is she so certainly one or the only source of "Crowley's fantasy"? Why is it inevitably Crowley's fantasy and not Cremers'? I certainly couldn't make such a declarative, definitive statement about Crowley or Cremers or Mabel Collins or "Betty-May" or O'Donnell or Fuller...or even the Ape of Thoth!!!! (grins)
So which is your point: 1) That NO box of ties were ever discovered, and it is all a fantasy? 2) You are explaining the supposed Crowley fantasy/discrepency (which is no discrepency, as Crowley never mentions hiding organs under ties) about how blood got onto real ties, that actually existed, and were found by Cremers and Collins? 3) That the ties existed, but "Betty-May" found them? 4) None of the above? 5) All of the above?
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 12:33 pm | | I'm going to try to "reconstruct" this story about these bloody ties (I hope the British appreciate the pun!). In what I say, I want people like Edana to understand that I am not disparaging "legitimate" study of the Occult/Spiritualism/Theosophy/Transcendentalism/Westernized versions of Eastern Philosophy/whatever. Crowley came from a long tradition, and if Stephenson was a magician (and/or Satanist -- the two are NOT necessarily synonymous), then a brief study of someone like Crowley would contain elements applicable to others like him...including a Stephenson.
Crowley, first and foremost, was interested in Magick (his quaint spelling). The goal of his studies was the obtaining of power. He was one of many magicians who were much more in the forefont of society than such people are now. He was connected to like-minded people around the world (J.K. Huysman, the author of "A Rebours" wrote a trilogy that contained magical/Satanic elements, based on his personal experience with a French magician...who supposedly was a "foe" of Crowley's later on -- they fought "magickal" battles against each other across the Channel!).
There are historical, traditional knowledge and practices used especially by the late 19th century magicians like Crowley (rituals, grimoires (books of spells), alchemical experiments, gematria -- stolen from the Jewish Kabbalah; this is a complex letter/number schema where the name of God can be permutated into numbers/names to induce states of mystical conciousness -- "ordinary" numerology, astrology, etc.) Another item in a magician's list of "weaponry" are objects. A pentagram, circle, or complex astrological/geometric figure written on paper/floors/walls; also "ordinary" objects like food, blood, semen -- Crowley may have combined these objects into his version of a "Mass" and "Eucharist".
As Crowley's JtR/Cremers story in the Confessions shows, other more unusual objects can be used by magicians to obtain power -- personal items from your potential victim (think of voodoo-type practices here); objects associated to great evil (the dirt from a murderer's grave or the dirt recovered under the body of a hanged murderer who is still swinging from the gibbet). The list is endless and can grow depending on the imaginitive resources of the "magician." I don't think I need demonstrate how far-fetched this can get, or how "authentic" (more likely, fraudulent -- who's gonna have or check the provenance of a piece of dirt or whatever?) any of all of these objects can be.
What does this have to do with bloody ties? Any magician of the Crowley-crowd variety would place great power in these objects due to their (supposed) association to evil: Evil as a Nietzschean act of Will that flaunts all other Powers (civil and religious); Evil as a demonstration of practical power. They can be used in spells and what-not against one's enemies or to work one's Will in the world.
Crowley, Cremers, Mabel Collins, and -- if he was a magician and/or Satanist -- Stephenson would be very interested in the bloody neckties of Jack the Ripper. Need these neckties be genuine -- that is, proven, with a provenance? Yes, they must. But Crowley (and any other magician NOT in possession of these bloody ties) would be sceptical of their genuineness -- not because the story around them is ridiculous...simply because THEY don't possess these powerful objects. So other magicians disparaged their rivals' "power objects." This may be what Crowley is up to in repeating the Cremers story and in the details of how he tells it -- he wouldn't have been so subtly dismissive if HE owned those bloody ties!
How can a magician/Satanist like a Crowley establish the authenticity or provence of their powerful magical objects? The easiest, quickest, and hardest to refute is to claim yourself as the originator -- a man or woman of some bloody, evil, or powerful deed with a souvenir to prove it and to use later. You can imagine the amount of (further) chicanery that can go into "creating" these objects. The point is that you tell a good enough story, have the reputation/standing to make the evil act plausible, and get others to believe it.
If Stephenson was a magician, it is not ridiculous or impossible for him to be carrying around these bloody neckties. You must think in the context of the magician's world. If he had the ties (not impossible or improbable to a believer in this sh**), does that mean the stuff on them was actually blood? Again, not impossible or improbable. If it is blood, is it human blood? The trouble begins here -- but let's give our little magician the benfit of the doubt and merely say it is possible. Is it the blood of someone murdered? We begin a steep descent into improbability. Is it the blood of seven women killed in Whitechapel in 1888? We have fallen off the topographical map of Reason into the magician's illusionary thinking/delusions. How can the possessor "prove" that his artifacts of power are "genuine"? Hey, presto-chango, the magician IS the killer of seven women in Whitechapel in 1888 -- and who in HIS world is gonna prove he's wrong? Does that mean WE have to believe he killed them? I don't think so!
There is no patent impossibility to the above statements or to Cremer, Collins, O'Donnell, Crowley, or anybody else saying a slappy, troubled man -- who once or still did believe in the type of magick and power that the Crowley-crowd did -- possessed a tin/enamel box of bloody ties. What is absurd to us is most definitely not absurd to the believer. Talismanic objects like JtR's bloody ties would have been too great a temptation for a Crowley-type to scrutinize too closely (unless he or she didn't own them, thus lacking their "power") -- or NOT TO CREATE THEM.
Stephenson, as Crowley-type, may have possessed seven bloody ties in a box under his bed that Cremers -- and Collins? -- found and later told about as her "favorite story." Nobody involved in the telling of this story HAS to be lying for those ties to be both a "fact" and "false."
If only my buddy, Alex C., were around to remind us about the elusive natures of "facts."
Yaz |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 01:16 pm | | Hi Yaz
"Who the heck is "Betty-May"?"
Betty May was the author of Tiger Woman: My Story(London: Duckworth, 1929)- or rather the book was ghosted by Bernard O'Donnell. Originally for a series of articles for the World's Pictorial News in 1925. It recites the ties story, saying that Crowley had them and that the Ripper was a surgeon-magician. Alexander Kelly and David Sharp in their Jack the Ripper: A Bibliography and Review of the Literatureobserve that O'Donnell attributes the source of the ties story to both Vittoria Cremmers andBetty May.
I am not sure, but I think the quote from Crowley's autobiography that I posted earlier must be the 1929 version - wouldn't Symonds' edition pubished in 1969 still be within copyright? - in which case the story of the ties waspublished at that time. |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 02:26 pm | | Hey, Paul,
Thanks for the info on Betty May, though what connection she has to Crowley, Cremers, or whoever, baffles me still.
Just because the Confessions are online doesn't mean there is no copyright issue. Your posting from the Confessions worried me exactly because of possible copyright infringements (from Symonds' publishers at least)...but I won't tell if you won't. Crowley's followers don't care a hoot about copyrights. Somewhere -- probably in unrelated places -- every scribble he ever wrote with his crayons is probably online; it doesn't make its presence there legal. My Arkana copy of the Confessions has a copyright date of 1969 and 1979, held by John Symonds and Kenneth Grant. So be careful.
Again though, it seems Crowley had much or all of his "hagiography written around 1929 but only the first two volumes were published; he "fought" with Mandrake while the third was in the proof/galley stage, then everything stopped. All or parts might have been "published" in any number/kinds of sources previous to Symonds "authorized(?)" version.
Crowley's bibliography is far too complicated and involved for me to unravel, and unfortunately, the best sources for this information are:
1) Symonds, Crowley's literary executor. He's written one, maybe two books on Crowley -- "King of the Shadow Realm" and "Beast 666" -- they might be the same book under different titles. And he is NOT a believer in Crowley, so fear not, oh intrepid researcher! Or the publisher of the Confessions, Penguin Books, the Arkana division.
2) Crowley's living followers and organizations (like the O.T.O). You can look online for Crowley or the O.T.O. and avoid direct contact with disciples. (If you do deal with them, make sure someone knows where you are and can call the police if you aren't back in a reasonable time. I'm just kidding...but they seem rather slappy and may not like connecting Crowley to JtR. But then again, you might make their day!)
Yaz |
Author: Oracle
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 03:08 pm | | Betty May, a former sculptor's model, was married to a young Oxford undergraduate, Raoul Loveday. Loveday fell under the influence of Crowley and went to live at his 'Abbey of Thelma'in Sicily. He there became a high priest. During the ceremonial slaughter of a cat he drank some of its blood and died as a result of enteritis.
Betty May returned to England and determined to expose Crowley. She gave interviews to the Sunday Express, stressing the sinister aspects of the rituals held by Crowley. The end result was her book, ghosted by O'Donnell. Crowley then took action for libel.
(The above extracted from 'The True Face of Jack the Ripper' by Melvin Harris) |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 03:41 pm | | Thanks, Oracle.
If people are continuing to show interest in the slimy Crowley and his connections (or lack thereof) to JtR, I do have Symonds "King of the Shadow Realm" on backorder. Symonds is not a believer in Thelema...to Kenneth Grant's chagrin...and is supposed to be very objective about Crowley (not good news for the late mage!) How Crowley picked him as his literary executor may show just how mercenary and canny our old bird, Crowley, actually was...and what he thought about his sycophants and followers.
I'll keep you posted, if you all are still interested. And of course I'll look for any mention Symonds makes to the names brought out here...especially Stephenson.
Yaz |
Author: Oracle
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 04:36 pm | | | The Autobiography of Crowley was published in six parts. The first two, in 1929 were Towards the Golden Dawn and The Mystical Adventure and had no mention of the Ripper/D'Onston story in them. The last four volumes were edited up by Symonds in 1968/9 and published. They contained the Ripper story, the content being different to that of the earlier two volumes. |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 05:24 pm | | Hey, Oracle,
I'll keep a watch for the name, D'Onston, too. Do you also know if D'Onston Stephenson ever had a "magician" name or psuedonym while he was involved in the occult? Most of the practicing magicians and Satanists of that time had fanciful titles and alternative names...Crowley had a few dozen of them, as occasion (or various law enforcement agencies) caused him to adopt. I could look up those as well.
Yaz |
Author: D. Radka
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 09:14 pm | | The above notion of "Evil as a Nietzschean act of Will that flaunts all other Powers (civil and religious)" is a popular travestation of Nietzsche. He takes no such position anywhere in his works.
I deem this important to the case before us, because Nietzsche's works were just beginning to become available abroad in translation at the time of the Whitechapel murders, and conceivably could have been read by the murderer. Nietzsche's stance toward existing moral and ethical notions essentially was that they might serve as a lever by which a unique person might assert his idiosycratic self, by overcoming them within himself. At no point does he say that Evil is an act of Will, or that Evil, or anything else, should supplant civil and religious Powers, or, for heaven's sake, that anarchy should reign and lust rule. He is basically talking in context about the character development of great people, robust ones who have the ability to bestow a new code of ethics on the rest of us.
No one reading these boards should consider Nietzsche a party, directly or indirectly, to the Whitechapel murders. I fear the above posting could contribute to confusion of this nature.
David |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 23 December 1998 - 11:19 pm | | Hi, Hi, Hi, Simply Hi, David!
From the Oxford Companion to Philosophy edited by Ted Honderich (Oxford University Press, 1995); from the entry on Nietzsche, page 620:
"He returned to problems repeatedly, in one work after another, approaching them from many different angles; and it is only if account is taken of his many diverse reflections on them that anything approaching justice to his thinking about any of them can be done. Even then he can be -- and has been, and no doubt will continue to be -- interpeted in quite different ways."
From page 621:
"Unlike most philosophers of importance before him, Nietzsche was openly and profoundly hostile to most forms of morality and religious thought. He declared 'war' upon them, on the grounds that they not only are indefensible and untenable, but moreover feed upon and foster weakness, life-weariness, and ressentiment, poisoning the well-springs of human vitality in the process by 'devaluing' all 'naturalistic' values."
As a Philosophy major, I'm surprised at you, David. How can you read my sentence as saying that a Nietzschean act of Will is Evil? The sentence is explicitly saying the opposite: that many men and women (who you, Ted Honderich, and I all condemn), from Crowley to the Nazis, justify and interpret their evil, selfish actions as Nietzsche's "will to power" that goes beyond traditional ideas of Good and Evil, that is a higher value that such ordinary concepts like "good/evil" that us ordinary mortals follow. That ain't Nietzsche's problem and it ain't mine either -- take your philosophical indignation up with the abusive parties. Okay?
What have I been saying about Crowley all along here? He steals ideas, twists and manipulates them to suit himself, and in the process it is men like Crowley who first introduce legitimate philosphies like Taoism, Zen, Buddhism, (and Glory Be, mebbe some Nietzsche!!!) to a whole generation (Led Zeppelin fans, awaken!). You're upset as a philosophy major at Crowley's utter abuse of terms like "Will" and "Good" and "Evil" and "Power" and "Free Will." Think how a Taoist must feel to see a Crowley translation of Lao Tzu when Crowley did not speak or read a single character of Chinese! And the sum total of Crowley's message comes down to this: "Do what thou wilt shall be the Whole of the Law." Crowley is a cultural vandal and thief. You got a problem with him? Take a ticket and stand in line. Okay?
We aren't arguing or discussing the merits or meanings of Nietzsche here, David. And no one is accusing Nietzsche of being involved directly or indirectly with the Whitechapel Murders -- except maybe YOU! If you think Jack the Ripper read Nietzsche, say it and say who JtR is...maybe we can go check his library card. Marx and Engels were also becoming influential. Did JtR read Marx too? Suppose he did. What were the prevelent interpretations of Nietzsche and Marx in 1888? What did it mean to JtR? Did JtR understand Nietzsche "correctly?" I'm fighting off ideas of Satanism in the JtR killings and now you want me to interpret something like Mary Kelly's death in modern, 20th century Nietzschean terms? JtR as the 19th century Leopold and Loeb...something like that...killing for intellectual jollies?
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 24 December 1998 - 01:04 pm | | Hey, All!
I received Melvin's book yesterday and am now halfway through it, and my fears about D'Onston are being realized. First let me say I have no reason to believe Vittoria Cremers was lying or mistaken in what she saw and heard. Harris seems to have the primary documents ("memoirs", or fragmentary notes written by Cremers for O'Donnell); any variant to the story, from O'Donnell, another journalist, or our dear little Mr. Crowley, are all beside the point. Cremers testimony has primacy.
I have no reason to disbelieve Cremers or doubt that D'Onston said and acted in the way that he did in front of Cremers. But from the testimony given in Cremers "memoirs", it seems that Cremers came to believe in D'Onston being JtR primarily on D'Onston's own words and actions, Mabel Collins' same reaction to D'Onston's words and actions, and the finding of "evidence" -- the ties in D'Onston's box located in the back room where he lived at the offices of the Pompadour Cosmetique Company.
D'Onston unfortunately is playing the same game countless other 19th century 'magicians' played at the same time -- and before and after him. He tells mysterious stories about deaths, killings, sometimes which he implies he committed them (first off, the wife whose throat he demonstrates was cut when Cremers asks what happened to her) and others where he says his accomplice did the deed (the killing of the Chinese gold prospector, for example). D'Onston's telling Cremers (and presumably Collins, first) of his meeting JtR in the murderer's daily job of surgeon at a local hospital is vague and mytserious...it leads Cremers and presumably Collins to believe D'Onston is lying and is himself JtR. D'Onston demonstrates on Cremers how JtR cut his victims' throats; how he carried off the missing organs -- and yes, D'Onston claims the murderer carried the organs between his tie (presumably the wide, scarf-like things of yesteryear, NOT our skinny modern equivalents) and his shirt. He even provides a theory on how the uteri is used in magickal rites, providing a "logical" motive for their removal.
Here are my problems with all this:
1) As I explained before, magicians of that time held very strange ideas, partly from English traditions on spells. witchcraft, sorcery, Satanism and partly from the ideas flowing in from Eastern Philosophy -- which was grossly misunderstood and abused. A magician's power lies partly or completely in his ability to control, use, or face Evil. JtR was the epitome of evil at that time. he was also never caught, thus making him mysterious. JtR was fertile ground for the seeds of a 'magician's' imagination. D'Onston explicitly tells Cremers he is in possession of the mysterious, powerful, evil murderer's secrets -- typical magician hokum. The problem lies in Cremers and Collins jumping to the conclusion that D'Onston's knowledge isn't second-hand but first-hand...D'Onston is the Ripper, they firmly believe. All the better to the magician if his listeners jump to that conclusion -- the result is a boost in his reputation in Evil, greatly aiding his "career" as a magician (and no serious inquiry could find evidence that he actually was the murderer -- this fact, only HE KNOWS, ensuring his safety if the police ever do hear the story told in the magician's circle of friends and 'audience').
2) D'Onston's reconstructions of how the victims were attacked (from behind) and how their throats were cut (while still standing, but from behind) is not born-out from 1888 forensic evidence. I cite item two from Bond's report to Anderson: "All the circumstances surrounding the murders lead me to form the opinion that the women must have been lying down when murdered and in every case the throat was first cut." Now, a bunch of people want to throw Bond (and Phillips and the other doctors/medical examiners) out of the case -- either substituting their own "expertise" or calling on modern forensic specialists 110 years after the events. This won't do; I'm sorry. They were there and saw the bodies and the crime scene, could talk to one another, review police testimony, etc. Phillips and Bond et al hold primacy in the area of forensic conclusions. Where they differ, we must attempt a synthesis/reconciliation...NOT a wholesale dismissal, or even worse: a selective choice of which evidence by which doctor that just happens to support a thesis or shoots down an 'uncomfortable' one! The conclusion? D'Onston shows NO special knowledge of the murders, how they were set-up or carried out. He is proven wrong back in 1888 by Phillips and Bond et al. As to how the victims were subdued to the ground, we have Schwartz's testimony -- and Melvin, as I do, accepts Stride as a Ripper victim. Stride's attacker does not attack from behind but straight-on, pulling her one way, then another, until he throws her to the ground where the killing wound is made to her throat. Again, Schwartz's testimony refutes D'Onston's reconstruction, and Schwartz's testimony was known to everyone in 1888 -- except Cremers, who admits she paid no attention to the Ripper press reports; and possibly Collins as well -- D'Onston is safe from a serious police inquiry while he continues to dupe his (uninformed or distraught or willing-ro-believe audience).
3) D'Onston is obsessed with triangular patterns...Solomon's Triangle, maybe? The upside down triangle, anyway. When Cremers first sees him ostentatiously making this sign on the door to the Pompadour offices, she asks "Why are you making triangles?" She does not specify upside down triangles (the base appearing at the 'top' while the point/pinnacle appears pointing downward). It is D'Onston who has to point out to her that he is specifically making upside down triangles, and then he has to explain the significance of this to her. It is a magician's orchestrated performance to dupe his audience into believing in his eccentricity, secret knowledge, and supposed powers. To anybody else, D'Onston's actions could be seen as a man drawing imaginary doodles on a door while thinking/waiting -- the magician MUST provide the sinister context and meaning that otherwise would never exist in his audience's mind.. Again, typical of Crowley and the magician crowds of that era.
4) Using D'Onston's triangular-magical performance, he uses it to introduce more forensic "evidence" on the pattern of mutilations to the victims' abdomen's. D'Onston states this is how his doctor (aka JtR) performed the mutilations...once again, D'Onston's power is in his special knowledge of Evil. Cremers draws the conclusion -- without the necessary evidence (unless you count the suspicious ties -- and they are suspicious in more ways than Cremers takes them) -- that D'Onston is demonstrating HIS techinque because he is JtR. Again, all the better to our ambitious magician. And never you mind that it makes better sense -- both practically as a carrying mechanism and also as a means to hide evidence -- that a coat pocket is a better choice for carrying these organs. How can a magician draw your attention to the inside lining of his coat pocket??!!! No, no -- this "evidence" must be visible to all, in spite of any impracticalities. Never mind the ties for now. We go back to Phillips and Bond et al (with the same caveats regarding the throat wound testimony), and there is no evidence of a triangular pattern to the wounds...there is even evidence that in Eddowes' case, the cut that opened her abdomen was made in an UPWARD direction...the opposite direction from D'Onston's obsessive upside down triangles. D'Onston emphasizes the downward direction, obsessively. In Nichols' case, we have evidence of much shallower cuts to the abdomen (compared to the others in the series), and that the murderer cut both up/down but also across (left/right). That in no way is a triangular pattern.
That's my thoughts so far. Otherwise I'm enjoying this book. Well-written, shows some restraint (even respect?) for the contemporary press' reaction/handling of the JtR story, seems to hold Bond in the same regard as I do, respects the police's methodical approach but draws the same dismissive conclusions I do as to what were their final summaries.
One thing I'd like to note, and Melvin comes perilously close to pointing it out: I've often wondered what caused the fire in Kelly's room to be so fierce (and clothes as a fuel don't seem to pack the potential, to me). Every organ and piece of flesh from Kelly was accounted for except the heart. Bond is shown sifting through the ashes of the fire, looking for what we don't know. The spout on the kettle is blackened, scorched. I have often wondered if the murderer did not use a portion of Kelly's body to stoke that fire, perhaps even using the kettle to melt the substance. Kelly is described as being fashionably plump (for lack of a better term). Without knowing Kelly's exact weight before her death and what was left of her after, who can say whether the murderer did not use Kelly's subcutaneous fat -- either wrapping it in a piece of cloth or melting it first in the kettle -- and using for fuel for that raging fire? Or if he was practicing some cannibalism (only evidence being the Lusk letter), did he consume any POSSIBLY missing fat from Kelly's body? D'Onston/Harris elude to this potentiality...and here I thought I was so smart! (grins)
Yaz |
Author: Edana
Thursday, 24 December 1998 - 03:47 pm | | The upside down triangle is the symbol for the element water, if that helps any. It also represents the female. It is used in lots of primitive artworks to represent the female genitalia area....something JTR was, I believe, a bit obsessed with.
Edana |
Author: Oracle
Thursday, 24 December 1998 - 06:22 pm | | One query I have for the authors of the 'A-Z' regarding Robert Stephenson is was he -
a. 'An alleged suspect' or
b. 'A non-contemporaneously alleged suspect'?
The reason I ask this is because in the entry on him on page 428 of the latest edition of their book he is referred to as the latter. However, if you look at page xvii, 'Note on Terms,' of the book he actually fits the requirements for being described as the former. An error? |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 24 December 1998 - 09:10 pm | | Hey, Edana,
Yeah, the upside triangle means those things too. That's the trouble with "Magick"...which meaning do you choose? It could also mean the Christian Trinity turned upside down -- thus calling on Satanic protection?
The question is, can we tell what the sign meant to D'Onston?
What was D'Onston's purpose in making that sign? In Cremers' story (and Melvin seems to go along with her understanding -- which is reasonable to me), he's afraid of what he calls the "Presence" and he says, "...I learned how to guard against its intrusion by making the sign of the triangle on the door of my room before entering." D'Onston's (perhaps idiosyncratic) use of the inverted triangle is a spell of containment.
The Triangle of Solomon is a "right-side-up" triangle and is used to capture or confine Evil Spirits while you make them do what you want...and that's the WHITE Magic version!
It's use in spells is found in...get ready for a lot of titles...The Goetia or The Lesser Key of Solomon the King -- or Clavicula Salomonis Regis. From the edition I have (Samuel Weiser, revised and corrected second printing, 1997), the back cover describes the purpose of this manual: "...Goetia has meant 'low' magic as distinct from the high magic of theurgy. It is 'applied' rather than 'pure' magic, addressing practical human concerns -- from obtaining advancement and wealth to finding love and knowledge." The editor, the man who commissioned the translation from Samueal Liddell MacGregor Mathers, and wrote the Introduction is our dear little friend, Aleister Crowley.
Since D'Onston was something of a magician, and he says he's writing the symbol against the "Presence" that Cremers claims was a real fear for him, how likely is it that he'd draw that symbol as a sign for the female genitalia or water or anything NOT related to "magickal" protection?
Unless either or both of these meanings has some "magickal" protective power to D'Onston (or ANY magician) that I don't know, he must be using it in the inverted/Black Magic sign of Solomon's Triangle.
Does the inversion carry over to the sign's purpose? That is, if Solomon's Triangle confines Evil Spirits, does its inversion releases them? Or is the inversion the Black-Magic-super-charged version of a spell of containment, as Cremers seems to believe?
I go back to what I said to cbeekman: Unless the person making the sign/symbol explains what the meaning is for him or her, it is almost impossible for anyone else to know what he or she means when the sign/symbol is used.
Later on, this inverted triangle symbology is mentioned by Melvin as conscious or unconscious female genital symbolism by D'Onston. That's reasonable enough, but is it consistent with D'Onston's use of the sign as a spell against the Presence? I don't think so -- unless D'Onston's story about the Presence is more hokum that he's feeding to Cremers.
So we are not sure what the inverted triangle symbol means (to us or to D'Onston -- we're pretty sure what Cremers figured it to mean) and he is not consistent in his use of it: 1) as a spell of containment that has nothing to do with water or any genitalia, and, 2) a symbol of female genitalia (a supposed source of JtR's interest), 3) some other symbolic meaning, such as water, that we don't know about.
If WE have to decide if it's one or the other, both or neither, I'm afraid the symbol/sign's use in pointing to a Satanic element in the JtR murders takes on the same qualities of a supposed geographical element (positions of the bodies as some symbol -- the crucifix...a desecration of the cross; points of a pentagram).
Sort of like those line drawings on the Nazca plain, only not as clearly defined -- grins!
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 25 December 1998 - 11:35 am | | Merry Christmas, All,
I have now reached the point in Melvin's book where we get into the non-Cremers material. I have problems with the "evidence" presented.
1) D'Onston lack of Affect -- emotional expression -- which appears in Cremers' narrative and which is assigned by both her and Melvin as sinister. D'Onston was a medical student when he went to war with Garibaldi's army. He was both a soldier and a surgeon; he both killed and tried to saved lives. Melvin makes D'Onston's participation in Garibaldi's idealistic campaign to unite Italy into a sinister bloodlust, which he abruptly has to abandon at the end of the conflict, and which he continues to harbor for the rest of his life. What is the evidence that D'Onston acted out of bloodlust instead of idealism? None is provided, only deductive reasoning is applied -- 1) since D'Onston IS the murderer he must have antecedent character traits; 2) since he was in a war as soldier and doctor, the reason for participation must be a kind of bloodlust NOT idealism. None of Cremers story about what D'Onston tells her supports this. And since millions of men, both before and after Garibaldi, have joined wars and NOT become homicidal maniacs -- veterans of WWI and II being prime examples -- participation need not be construed as showing motivation due to the character traits of a serial killer. In fact, D'Onston's lack of Affect may be the exact opposite of sinister. Acting as both soldier and surgeon, D'Onston experienced incredible pressures from both activities -- mutually exclusive occupations!! -- and having fought in the battle and then having to work on the wounded would surely have exhausted him. War exhausts enough the most bloodthirsty man, especially after a battle. D'Onston could not rest. He treated the wounded and the state of medicine -- especially military field medicine (the American Civil War cost thousands of men arms, legs, hands, in brutal amputations because there was no other known treatment) -- would create more brutality...to D'Onston, physically and emotionally. Exposure to war ALONE brings on stress, insomnia, nervous disorders, and lack of Affect. We'll pick this thread up again when we talk about neurasthenia.
2) D'Onston's wife as a possible first victim for D'Onston. Married in 1876 and gone from historical records in 1886, Melvin takes this and the discovery of a dismembered woman in the Thames as evidence that D'Onston either did or might have killed his wife. But who knows when the couple separated? We know just from the research on the victims that some women and men just walked away from one another -- never to be seen or heard from by their partner again. Were they all murdered? Simple disappearance from the extant records is not even grounds for suspicion of any foul play, let alone specific accusations against the spouse, in this case D'Onston. As to the torso, since it was never identified, no one can say where the woman came from, how she got into various parts of the Thames, maybe even when she was killed and dumped, etc etc. The lack of information on the body leaves EVERYONE who is missing a female friend or relations in 1887 POTENTIALLY guilty of homicide. Nothing exclusively points to D'Onston (and his wife as victim) except the suspicion that he was Jack the Ripper.
3) The motive. Ada or Louise the prostitute from Hull. A curious story. Supposedly, D'Onston and she are both in love. D'Onston forsakes her for the sake of a daughter of a wealthy family who are friends of D'Onston's family. She kills herself. D'Onston has already lost the heiress or soon will. He later marries his mother's maid! What is this all about? I admit there is a big social distinction between one's mother's maid and a prostitute, but if D'Onston didn't care for his family's feelings about marrying the maid, why would he care about their feelings over Ada? And why is Ada's death the motive for the Jack the Ripper killings? D'Onston loves Ada the prostitute and she loves him. Prostitution or prostitutes did not come between the lovers, D'Onston's concern for his family, the heiress, or money came between the two. There is no direct or indirect link or causal relationship between Ada, her suicide, and a motive for killing prostitutes.
4) D'Onston's proximity to Whitechapel at the time of the killings. D'Onston has a kind of nervous breakdown and goes to Brighton for a cure. He transfers to London Hospital in July of 1888. He complains of neurasthenia. Melvin makes much about the difference between neuro-sthenia and neura-sthenia, warning us that the two diseases have opposite symptomology. One problem, there is no such disease as neurosthenia (no citation in Encyclopedia Britannica; none in the Oxford English Dictionary; none in The Discovery of the Unconscious: The History and Evolution of Dynamic Psychology by Henri F. Ellenberger). Neur-A-sthenia is combined from the root words "neuro" and "asthenia." Neurasthenia has the following symptoms: anxiety (which can and is displayed as acute excitabilty -- such as, panic attacks at the extreme; restless pacing as a norm), headaches, neuralgias, a morbid hypersensitivity to weather, noise, light, the presence of other people, and any kind of sensory or mental stimuli, sleeplessness, loss of appetite, on and on. The symptomology comes from George M. Beard who described neurasthenia in 1869. So not only is there no neur-O-sthenia -- all the symptoms of neur-A-sthenia would fit D'Onston's complaints. They would fit a man who had been traumatized by his participation as both soldier and surgeon in a bloody war. They would also explain why he would leave noisy, bubbly, seaside Brighton (with all its painful stimuli) for the quiet of a hospital. And why London Hospital would have any worse reputation than another city/urban hospital...well, the doctors who sheltered John Merrick -- the "Elephant Man" -- would probably put up a dispute with Melvin on how he describes their hospital.
5) D'Onston's supposed cleverness in writing his letter explaining the Goulston Street graffito to the police. Once again, the only reason to suspect a sinister motive in D'Onston's action is if you already think him guilty. Melvin says D'Onston is clever because he first says in the letter that he's going to write a newspapaer article about the murders -- that this is some kind of cover story cooked-up by D'Onston. Unless the letter in the book on page 111-112 (paperback edition) is incomplete, D'Onston makes no mention of any future newspaper article HE's writing -- he mentions that he's READ a newspaper article. And the theory he offers is sensible enough. And his hint of the uses for the uterus that he's discovered in a French book is consistent with what he later tells Cremers. So not only is D'Onston NOT being very clever by throwing off suspicion from himself -- he provides the same motive for the murders in 1888 that he later provides Cremers and, presumably, Collins. He also offers to meet with the police to discuss the matter of the French book. D'Onston employs euphemism in his letter regarding the uteri, thus giving further credence to his wanting to elucidate upon his theory in a PRIVATE setting (Victorian discretion being what is was...or supposedly was). And was D'Onston alone or part of a few, lonely, warped souls who wrote to the police? No. Hundreds, maybe thousands wrote to the police -- or came to their local stations. Why is D'Onston's letter a sign of his guilt -- the act of a serial killer who must insert himself into the investigation? Even as a medical man or a pseudo-scientific man, does he differ greatly from the much more persistent -- and less than helpful -- Dr. Winslow or Robert Lees? Only if you are already convinced of D'Onston's guilt.
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 25 December 1998 - 12:47 pm | | Since "I don't believe in no ghosts", demons, devils, Satan, magick, or anything to do with Theosophy/Spiritualism/Satanism/Black (or White) Magic(k), it has always troubled me why very talented, creative, intelligent people do believe in these things...especially in that late 19th century period.
Take for instance, D'Onston's claim to Cremers that he felt a Presence (Evil presence) always behind whatever door he was about to enter. Where does this come from? I believe D'Onston, like so many veterans of war -- and so many involved in medical care (the impersonality of doctors toward their patients needs no demonstration, I believe) -- suffered "shell-shock" or "post-traumatic stress disorder" from his experiences in Garibaldi's campaigns. He shows all the life-long signs of such a psychological disorder -- which does NOT imply that the sufferer is deranged, homicidal, or even especially violent. (Robert Ressler and others have pretty conclusively put that phony criminal defense "theory" out of our misery). What lies behind every door, for D'Onston, is no Demon or Satanic Presence, but his memories of a traumatic and horrifying war.
D'Onston obsessively uses the inverted triangle to ward off the evil presence that haunts him. It would be interesting to see if Garibaldi, his army units, or his Cause/supporters ever used an inverted triangle in any of their symbology -- in flags, unit insignia, propoganda, logos, whatever. IF they did, and D'Onston was exposed to the Garibaldi Cause's use of the inverted triangle, you would have pretty good cause to connect it to his later "magickal" use of the symbol -- and in a context that directly relates to the psychological state of ONE traumatized war veteran.
Melvin argues for an almost direct cause and effect relationship between D'Onston the soldier-surgeon and the homicidal Jack the Ripper. I would argue for a direct cause and effect between D'Onston's experiences in the war and his later psychological state (which provides NO evidence of homicide). We have only D'Onston's own stories to tell against him, which I've already shown could have their origin in establishing his "magickal" (i.e., evil wizard/mage) credentials; a ruse like Crowley often uses, in other words. The origin of that inverted triangle COULD further cement a relationship such as I propose about D'Onston, his war experiences, and his affectless, troubled psychological state later in life.
Any Garibaldi students in our audience?
|
Author: avala
Friday, 25 December 1998 - 12:58 pm | | I say!D'Onston sounds sinister enough to be ,indeed, the dastardly ripper?
I say!Let us hang the vermin!
Merriest of Christmases
avala |
Author: Anonymous
Saturday, 26 December 1998 - 04:24 pm | | HELLO ALL!
WHAT I AM ABOUT TO SAY MAY SOUND STUPID OR YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY HEARD ABOUT THIS, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I HAVE READ YOUR DISCUSSIONS. THERE IS A BOOK CALLED "RIPPER" BY MICHAEL SLADE AND ALTHOUGH I REALISE THAT THE BOOK IS FICTION, IT DOES CONTAIN SOME RATHER INTERESTING THEORIES ON D'ONSTON AS WELL AS A BIBLIOGRAPHY AT THE END(JUST IN CASE THERE IS A BOOK THERE THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE MISSED). |
Author: Edana
Monday, 28 December 1998 - 10:09 am | | Well Yaz. You are certainly very well read in the study of the occult sciences. You're puzzled why intelligent people believe this stuff? I would like to try and give a shot at an answer to that, since many of my literary heroes were involved in the occult at times in their lives...Doyle, Huysmann, Wilde, Rimbaud, to name a few. It offers a way to make sense of things in a sensual way. Images, symbols, sounds, smells... the occult sciences are an attempt to deal with these things and how they spark memory. I have a feeling I'm not going to be able to express myself very well....too bad you're not psychic, then I could just think it to you (bad joke). I am one of the first people to roll my eyes when someone announces to me that they are psychic. It implies some sort of otherwordly sense...a sixth sense. This, I do not believe. I think those who are 'psychic' are actually very intuitive and sensitive to those images, sounds, smells, etc that make up the occult toolkit. When I read the tarot (ok, roll your eyes!) for instance, I never take the literal meanings of the cards, but let the images on them trigger the thoughts I have and conclusions I make. Symbols are powerful...as powerful as names. Just look how powerful the name 'Jack The Ripper' has become. I was not going to continue on this vein, and I won't stick my neck out again on the subject. Me (and people like me, whatever that means) believe there is something to this stuff...not something unknown or mysterious, just something very human. Ok, back to the subject we're here to discuss.....take it away!
Edana
(How many occultists can be wrong?) |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 28 December 1998 - 01:12 pm | | Hey, Edana!
I always try to keep you in mind when I "question" the professed or alleged occultism of the Crowleys (and maybe the D'Onstons) of the world. As I said before, there is some psychological validity to some of these ancient practices. American pharmacies are flooded with herb pills and homeopathic remedies that would have been cause for suspicion of witchcraft in Cotton Mathers' day. And the Tarot and the I Ching has been investigated by Jung, and he found it to be very useful -- both professionally and in his personal spiritual life. Did you know he either built a small "temple" or used some building on his property to paint the walls with his personal mandalas (and I assume you know what a mandala is)?
But there are the Crowley's of this area. He wasn't necessarily a charlatan in the sense that he didn't believe the crap he said, wrote, and demonstrated. But he was a charlatan in using other people's legimitate spiritual longings and their half-understanding of older traditions, Eastern Philosophy, and mysticism for his own gain -- both monetarily and for his aggrandizement.
And while those literary personalities (who I also like and who started my investigations into the ideas of that era) were more or less innocents and/or playing-out the roles assigned to them by their "adepts" or "masters" -- possibly deriving some personal spiritual fulfilment -- I am concerned about the lesser known figures...and Crowley is the epitome of this type. I know a bit of what they claimed, and what they might have done, but I have no objective resource to evaluate how far they went in their beliefs and practices. Could a 19th century magician have killed another person in a mistaken "act of Power"? Or is it all hokum? If we knew more of D'Onston's involvement in the "Black Arts" and had independent, objective sources (i.e., non-Right Wing Christian writers making hysterical, hyperbolic accusations), we'd be in a better position to judge D'Onston.
Forgive the ramble, but I wanted to make clear my deep respect for people's personal spiritual quests, the instruments used (Torah, Talmud, Kabbalah, Christian Bible, Qu'ran, Tarot, I Ching, etc) in their pursuit, also their methods/rituals. And to divorce them from the more sinsiter (possibly criminal) hokum but definite misappropriate uses of those traditions by the likes of Crowley.
Oh, and by the way, whoever you are...thanks for the tip on Michael Slade's "Ripper." I do plan on reading it. Maybe we'll pick up this thread again if Slade spurs any new thoughts on my part at least.
Yaz |
Author: Shelly Lindley
Monday, 28 December 1998 - 03:54 pm | | Yaz:
Your welcome for the tip on "Ripper". As you can see, I not only read fact, I read fiction. It is a very good book that is set in todays times but has tie-ins to JtR, Crowley, and D'Onston. I'm very sorry if you thought that my comments on yesterday's boards were made toward you, because they weren't. I was just trying to make that point that on these boards a person could be 5 or 105 and that if they want to say that they are something else, we have no way to stop them. I found it admirable that Caz told us how old she was right away, but all the attacks were uncalled for. Well, I would love to discuss D'Onston with you all, but I'm afraid that until I found this casebook, I thought D'Onston was made up by Slade. I apparently missed the books discussing him, so I must go back to my research.
Shelly |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 28 December 1998 - 06:10 pm | | Hey, Shelly!
What on earth makes you think you need apologize? Whether "aimed" or not, your viewpoint hit this target, fairly and squarely. God Bless, Litle Caz -- let's see if the Bruisers try to treat her in the same way they insist on treating everyone else!
My comments on age were brought on by the evident frustration of Nikki, who felt (and I believe rightly so) that some people were belittling her and her "lack of experience", so-called. At that point, ANY decent human being should have backed off and realized that they had hurt Nikki -- but they did not do that. Paul's attempt to turn the discussion was, as usual in that topic board, turned against him -- and I've been down that road before with anonymous postings of a mean, nasty, personal nature! A little after that...well, you read what happened.
I just wrote to a friend today that it is a character flaw in me that I CANNOT walk away from someone being violent...either verbally or physically. I tried for several days to ignore what was going on in that topic, but once that reaction starts in me -- even if I'm isolated from the person(s) who caused my emotional response -- it eats away at me. It sickens me and it turns me into a creature that is less than human, the same sort of violent person who supposedly sparked my reaction. I regret what I say or do after-the-fact but it in no way excuses me. Thankfully, in most instances, people have seen some justification in my reaction or let me off with a warning. But there is no "angel of my better nature" in me...I cling to the goodness in you, Paul, Nikki, Little and Senior Cazes, and all the others here to help me stay on the straight-and-narrow...in this place. I know what I can too easily become NOT to be grateful to someone who brings me back...I'm rambling. I don't know. I'm just trying to warn people that I'm this way and not to speak or act like me or God help them they may end up like me.
You've been making your points about qualifications and so-called experience under that CERTAIN topic very well -- I've been following for a while to ensure all is well; as it seems to be now. I hope Nikki comes back. And I will miss Little Caz, so tell her "Hey!" for me if she's around. But one thing you do NOT ever need to do is apologize to me for putting me on the old straight-and-narrow -- even if you didn't think you meant me as well as some others. You'd make a good mentor for Little Caz if she really stays the course on JtR.
Sorry for babbling on,
Yaz |
Author: Caz Senior
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 02:50 am | | I hear and am grateful on behalf of my still-abed little gal (I seem to be turning American too!).
I'm off to read the Ripper Letters boards now with a view of adding my little contribution as I prefer the ins and outs of the English language to the weighty subject of that ultimate weirdo, Crowley!
I don't think Caz Junior will be put off now but she has to have something half-useful to add otherwise her age will crash down about her ears again by the reactions of certain stalwarts. We older persons get away with "puerile" waffle much more!
See ya, Caz S. |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 04:51 am | | Hey, Caz Senior,
I don't want to even hint that I would want Caz Junior (I still like Little Caz) to post anything either you or she don't want to, but I can't see where anything she said was close to being only "half-useful" or "puerile." She can stick to the argument and the issue a whole lot better than I've seen some folks accomplish. If simply asking questions is all she ever does, that's useful -- some people might be dying to ask the same questions but lack the courage of an 11-year-old. And as to her age being a factor...it's only a factor in the areas that Edana outlined in her post under that certain topic we won't mention right now -- grins! The photo of Mary Kelly's bedroom and any discussion that might center on it would make me extremely uneasy to talk about in the presence of an 11-year-old -- but you and she are the better judge of what Caz Junior can tolerate.
As Shelly has been pointing out, age and experience are different in quantity ONLY, and NOT in quality...meaning, someone (I'm sorry to say) could spend 40 or 50 years and thousands of dollars on study and not have one original or even mediocre thought. It's a bogus, self-congratulatory, and (probably unconsciously) condescending argument that says more about the person who makes it...their sense of self-esteem and confidence...than it has relevance to the conversation that takes place here.
We have to learn to talk to one another here...especially under a certain topic I won't etc etc. And if they cannot learn to talk to Caz Junior, I'm sorry but they aren't civil or respectful enough to share in any conversation here, period! So no more about "usefulness", okay? How "useful" was ANYTHING I said in that topic? Nothing -- not a word. Caz Junior already has me beat. Her mere presence on that board would be "useful" -- that's my opinion. And if you're patient and so is your daughter, you'll quickly see the likes of Shelly, Edana, Paul Begg, and many others come to her rescue IF anybody is so dense as to disrespect her. I'm too extreme about these things to immediately jump in, but if it goes on and reason is no longer the language spoken...then I will be there to speak the kind of language some people only understand. That's unfortunately the only contribution I'm able to make.
Please don't worry about "usefulness" -- if you feel comfortable with it, let Little Caz speak. And let some of THEM do the learning for a change. You know that old saying, "Out of the mouths of babes..."
Yaz |
Author: Edana
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 01:25 pm | | Howdy folks!
No, Yaz, I'm not surprised that Jung kept a temple on his property with mandalas. Yes, I know what a mandala is, anybody who lived through the '60's knows that..um the 1960's, not the 1860's..although....who knows? Jung wrote a book which is one of my major reference tools in the study of the Tarot....Tarot Revelations. And recently, there was a play in London about Jung and his affair with one of his patients...an extremely young woman named Sabina. (Oops, rambling again...I just happen to be a fan of Paul McGann) So far my research on Garibaldi has found nothing relating to the downward pointing triangle.
Edana |
Author: Edana
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 01:37 pm | | EEks! Sorry about the multiple posting. I don't know what happened.
Edana |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 02:28 pm | | Hey, Edana!
On the multiple postings, maybe our discussion has "unnerved" the restless spirits of the Other World -- grins.
I did find this item relating to Helena P. Blavatsky which I found interesting. According to Peter Washington in his book Madame Blavatsky's Baboon, Blavatsky's tales of her life include an episode of "fighting with Garibaldi's army in the Battle of Mentana (1867), when she was wounded by both sabre-blows and bullets..."
What a coincidence that both D'Onston and Blavatsky (or so she claimed, at least) were both involved in fighting with Garibaldi...and then later meeting up in London at the Theosophical Society.
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 03:24 pm | | Hello Yaz and Edana:
With due deference to Melvin Harris, who has written an intriguing book in "The True Face of Jack the Ripper," I would like to know what the proof is that Robert D'Onston Stephenson fought with Garibaldi?
Mr. Harris makes a great deal about Stephenson killing with Garibaldi (pp. 94-95, Michael O'Mara Books paperback edition of "The True Face. . . ").
He goes so far as to quote a British mercenary who fought with the Croats in the recent Bosnian conflict in an epigraph and again on pp. 94-95:
"I've always wanted to kill legally. . . I have that feeling to take people out. I've always wondered what were going through, like, Yorkshire Ripper. . . Black Panther's mind. These had no compassion. They had no feeling. I want this feeling. . . it's like higher than any drug can get you. . ."
This quote is all very well if D'Onston did indeed fight with Garibaldi. But what if he did not?
It seems to me that this man D'Onston was a self-aggrandizer, the son of a Yorkshire seed-mill owner born apparently Robert Donston Stephenson who gave himself the more exotic name D'Onston. Are we to believe this man's own possibly faked biography and build a case that he was Jack the Ripper on that?
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 04:47 pm | | Hey, Chris!
First, good chattin' with you again. Second, I discounted the quote from the British mercenary among the Croats (and silently hoped the British government took the man's name for future reference)...a mercenary is not the same thing thing as a Byron fighting with the Greeks or the Americans who joined the Canadian Air Force, the British RAF, the Italians (WWI only) and French in WWI and WWII.
Your main point, whether or not we can prove D'Onston was with Garibaldi, is problematical, I agree. But I don't see any reason to doubt the story except that Melvin uses it to draw a cause-and-effect relationship between D'Onston's service and Melvin's claim (based on his own belief, Cremers', and Mabel Collins' -- but definitely NOT any self-proclamation from D'Onston) that D'Onston was JtR. I think I stated I believe that relationship to be prejudicial, discriminatory to all veterans, and inferential (at best). If you put aside Melvin's causal relationship, why would we doubt D'Onston on his service with Garibaldi? If reflects nothing about his later claims to knowing JtR or his slipping into Satanism and Black Magick, or establishing his "reputation" among an unsavory crowd of fellow "magicians."
More work needs to be done on D'Onston. The case for suspecting him does not rest on his service with Garibaldi (to me anyway) but his later magickal career. I would emphasize this later career and his ties to any real or purported violence done by that esoteric underworld. But by no means should his early claims about Garibaldi be taken for granted since it might also show why he seemed so odd and emotionally frigid, and maybe why he fell into Theosophy, then Black Magic, then conventional Christianity.
The trouble is that Harris may have a strong suspect, and he provides enough information (specifically on the Satanism stuff) to provide credibility or interest in his claim, but his research does not go far enough to support his claims. That's why I said in my review that I don't know D'Onston is the "true face of JtR", but I can't exclude him. The information Harris needs is hard to find and the sources are dubious, so I don't blame him for that...he needs help from people who may know more on the more esoteric topics and the (to me, at least) little known campaigns of Garibaldi.
But people shouldn't dismiss D'Onston without this work being done, or brush aside Harris' suspect because Melvin asserts more than what his current research can support (a point I also tried to make clear here). At the very least, further research would illuminate an area of Victorian history that fascinates people like Edana and myself.
Yaz |
Author: avala
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 05:21 pm | | yaz,my prolific friend!what can i say that you have not already covered in at least a couple of guises?still,we are, the richer for you!
Garibaldi/D'onston ,nee Donston, question has been directed to italian researchers.we should have a take shortly.
A tip o'the th'op 'at to mess. CGeorge and cmd for their ever honest and ever incisive views. |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 05:47 pm | | Yikes!
I came back to add to Chris' point on the Garibaldi issue and what do I find...? "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
Avala, I swear I am only one (admittedly very verbose) person. And thanks for looking into Garibaldi.
When I mentioned Madame Blavatsky's claim to having been with Garibaldi it was to raise the question in any reader's mind of which/who came first: Did D'Onston have the actual experiences with Garibaldi that he claims (and which I tend to believe)? Did Madame B. have the same type of experiences (which I tend not to believe...admittedly with no evidence to doubt her)? Did one of them pick up a genuine experience-story from the other and claim it as also their own? And if neither of them are telling the truth about Garibaldi, who was the first to make up the story? All legitimate questions, I think, and go to Chris' appropriate suspicions.
Yaz |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 07:43 pm | | Yazoo, Chris
Did D'Onston fight with Garibaldi for the unification of Italy? No good asking me, but I would refer you both to the Casebook Interview with Andy Aliffe. Regards. V |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 29 December 1998 - 09:53 pm | | Thanks, Viper!
I don't recall anything as specific as what Aliffe says being in the book, and I couldn't find the right reference page, but I was pretty sure Harris provided a contemporary account or something from British volunteers for Garibaldi. I think it would be a stretch-too-far to claim that D'Onston lied or faked those records...so he was in Garibaldi's army, Chris. (Madame B. is another story...for another website.)
As paradoxical as it may be, I think you're right to be suspicious of D'Onston as a suspect, Chris...but I also think Melvin Harris is equally right to be suspicious of D'Onston for his own reasons. He lays the groundwork for suspecting D'Onston but leaned too heavily on what I think is the wrong interpretation of his war experiences, his lack of affect, his obsessive ritual against the "Presence."
We'll see if anybody comes up with something on the inverted triangle symbol in Garibaldi's army. I still think that part of Melvin's argument could easily describe a traumatized soldier-surgeon. But the key to D'Onston is a long hard look at how he slipped into Satanic Magick and what-all such activity might have exposed him to -- especially if he was in a weakened emotional/mental state from his stint with Garibaldi's war...and was looking for ANY sort of relief or protection from his memories, his past.
Yaz |
|
|
|
|
