Archive through May 27, 1999

** 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 May 27, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Gull, Sir William Withey: Archive through May 27, 1999

Author: Jim DiPalma Sunday, 07 March 1999 - 10:16 pm
Hi All, Richie: It is safe to say that there is no known evidence that irrefutably proves the identity(ies) of JTR. Many of the police files have gone missing, there are holes in our knowledge of the events of 1888. That's a big reason why there is so much speculation and theorizing on the case. Some theories are demonstrably improbable, and in my opinion the royal conspiracy theory falls squarely into that category. You've raised the point of why "nobody saw or heard a thing". I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that no one saw or heard anything. There were several eyewitness sightings of a man with one of the victims shortly before the body was discovered, Cadoche was a sort of earwitness, and two people in Miller's Court reported hearing a cry of "Murder" the night Mary Kelly was killed. As to Warren's actions, my understanding was that cordoning off the area was not a viable option, as there were already a number of people on the street even at that early hour. There was also more at stake than just the reputation of the Jewish community. I believe Sir Charles made it clear in his letter to the Home Office that there was a genuine possibility of full-scale rioting against the Jews, with great loss of life and property. I don't read conspiracy into his actions, I read a conscientious public official who choose to err on the side of public safety. Nothing sinister about it. I'm not a Mason, but I thought others had pointed out that "juwes" is not a Masonic word. Can anyone set us straight? My own theory on the Ripper agrees in many respects with CM's, a local man, probably interviewed during the house-to-house inquiry, member of the working poor class, utterly unremarkable in every respect. If he were otherwise, that is a powerful, prestigous, famous person like Sir William or Prince Eddy, then he would be unique from every other known serial killer in history. Such a person would have left little or no paper trail, and so I think the chance we will ever put a name to him is very slim. One man's opinion, FWIW. Hope that's not too depressing, Jim
Author: richie u.s.a. Monday, 08 March 1999 - 01:06 am
can anyone set us straight is a good question. one book says mary kelly's heart was removed, another says it wasn't. crook was a catholic, or she was a protestant. one witness even told abberline that she saw mary kelly the morning after she was supposed to have been murdered. as for a conspiracy, i have no proof. but there are several strange occurances that make me ask 'why?'. i find it ood that the tumblety (hope i spelled that right) letter should turn up. it was only a question of time before yet another piece of 'evidence' turns up. evidence from scotland yard vanishes, then years later turns up somehow. your'e right-there is no paper trail. then again, if this was a planned act by some very powerful people, i woud'nt expect to find one. i do have a deep interest in walter sickert. as i understand it, he may have been indirectly involved-and then proceeded to paint portraits of people and places that left clues about a conspiracy. i have a copy of one called 'ennui', where, in the background hangs a drawing of queen victoria with a gull sitting on her shoulder. maybe something, maybe nothing. but iv'e also read that his surviving family has not allowed some of his paintings to be shown to the puplic. i only ask why. john netley-one book says he drowned in the thames after he tried to run a little girl over, then another book says he died after falling in front of his own carriage and was crushed to death.i also read somewhere that the forth victim [can't remember her name] was known to use the alias 'mary kelly'. i think it was eddows. if mary kelly was the original target then they might have thought the job was done. it was over a month when they finally got to kelly. or did they? the body they found was literally disassembled, body parts everywhere. i'll say it for you-there is no proof of any of this, although abberline did in fact talk to a woman who claims to have seen kelly the morning after she was supposedly murdered. all i have to show for all this is a series of shadows and echoes. one last incident to talk about- in1970 a dr. thomas stowell claimed in a periodical called the criminoligist that he had actually seen gull's notes from the time of the murders and made the claim that prince eddy might have been involved in the crimes. stowell recanted his story almost immediatly. he supposedely destroyed all his notes, and then he died. of what, i don't know. gull's notes seemed to have vanished. shadows and echoes.
Author: D. Radka Monday, 08 March 1999 - 02:19 pm
Richie, Just touching on one of your many points-- There was no way Sir Charles could have cordoned off the graffito, since the Wentworth Building was a large apartment house in a densely-populated area, and as soon as the sun came up a great many people would have to pass through that vestibule to begin their day's activities. Remember, the crimes took place in a teeming metropolis, and what the police can possibly do under such circumstances to isolate a piece of evidence left in a public place from people is more limited than what they might be able to do in the country. By the way, these conditions are a point in favor of the graffito being genuine, since its anti-semitic nature would certainly have aroused the public had it been placed there the previous day--it just about had to have been written either by the murderer himself, or by someone other only a few hours before. The way you write indicates a strong interest in the case, which is the requirement for learning something. The more questions you ask, however, the more I think you will find that there are answers for just about all of them, and those answers don't necessarily point to any one person as the murderer. If there ever was a valley of dead-ends, I think Ripperology must be it. If this is where you chose to walk, good luck to you. David
Author: Christopher T. George Monday, 08 March 1999 - 06:41 pm
Richie: I join David Radka in welcoming you to the confused world of Jack the Ripper. As David said, there are a lot of dead ends in Ripperology which have led nowhere, but it is wrong to think that a conspiracy must be involved just because things don't add up. The facts did not add up in 1888 and they do not add up now. Also, please do not accept everything you read in books. There have been and continue to be authors who bend the truth or marshal their "facts" to fit a bogus theory or a theory that the facts cannot substantiate. One of these theories is the Prince Albert Victor -- Sir William Gull -- Sickert -- Annie Crook conspiracy that you have mentioned. The so-called notes of Sir William Gull supposedly deposited in New York Academy of Medicine, according to Frank Spiering in his 1978 book "Prince Jack," are a good example of such questionable supporting "evidence." No researcher has been able to find these notes since Spiering said he saw them. If you want to read an author who demolishes these half-baked theories in a spectacular fashion, you ought to read the works of Melvin Harris. Although I am not entirely convinced by the suspect that Harris advances, Dr. Robert D'Onston Stephenson, you will find that he is indefatigable in exposing sham Ripper theories, including the Royal conspiracy. Seek out either Harris's "Jack the Ripper: The Bloody Truth" (1987) or his more recent "The True Face of Jack the Ripper" (1994), available in an affordable paperback from Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble for $4.95. In "The Bloody Truth" (p. 135), Harris quotes a November 26, 1986, letter to him from Brett A. Kirkpatrick, Libarian at the New York Academy of Medicine, about the Gull notes supposedly in their possession: "To the best of our knowledge, the Library does not contain a portfolio with notes of Sir William Gull referring to the Whitechapel murderer. All of the material in our collection which is available to researchers is cataloged. None of the entries in our catalog for works by or about Sir William Gull contains the material referred to by Mr. Spiering. "In a library the size and age of ours, it is possible that a set of notes bound with a larger work or other works could have gone unnoticed by our catalogers, but it is highly unlikely. Mr. Spiering was never able to remember or reconstruct the catalog entry he submitted for retrieval from our stacks and in which he allegedly found the notes by Gull. Thorough searches by staff also proved fruitless." Chris George
Author: Jhon Amendola Tuesday, 09 March 1999 - 06:46 pm
Yo idiot it wasn't Mr. Gull it was James Maybrick DUHHHHHH only a smart person would know that read "The Diairy of Jack the Ripper"
Author: Anonymous Tuesday, 09 March 1999 - 09:21 pm
yo slick, the book's been read. and disproven.
Author: Anonymous Thursday, 11 March 1999 - 10:53 am
The reason why I don't believe it was Dr. Gull, is because I don't think anyone would resort to a physician to "erase files", let alone a 74 year old one. Not even at Victoria's time. We could even believe it in Anne Brook's case, after all she was sent to a hospital, perfect place for a doctor to commit a crime. If Dr. Gull did it,which I don't believe, it was because he was insane, and not as a favor to the queen. If you want to believe it was a royal conspiracy,fine, but the murderer wasn't Dr. Gull. Actually, in most serial killers' cases, the perpretrator is usually some unknown guy, who nobody suspects... until he makes a mistake!
Author: Blackebyrd Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 11:58 pm
Hello! As a New Comer to the area, I am intruiged by the entire ordeal. However, I do have some criticism of your theories. Though I myself am by no means an expert, upon examination of the handwriting in the several credited "Ripper Letters", one discovers that the scripts vary in steepness, letter formation and formatting. If indeed many of the letters were planted or were hoaxes initiated to illuminate publicity, who'd to tell which of the letters were valid and which were not? To simply credit some due to similar gramtics is to discredit many others which may haol critical clues to the solving of the mystery. I am interested to know why the letters, both credited and not, are not published in their entirety and have not been examined by pherizics (pardon the approximation of spelling) officials and script annallysis officers. I also wonder whether the writing samples have been compared to those of the suspects. And why is it presumed that the murderer, who ever he OR SHE might be, was of political, royal or influential standing within the community? It seems more reasonable to assume that the murderer was a poorer citizen, the activities of which would not be closely monitered. Though the citizens of the era were not technologically sophisticated, they were not fools. I am also interested to know how the case is hoped to be solved with so little undisputed evidense. Esentially speaking, there are: 5 85% possitively identified victims 9 suggested victims apprx. 10 suggested suspects hundreds of hoax letters apprx. 6 70% possitively identified letters with unrelated hand writings and correlative grammer common to all British citizens of the era I agree that the murders may have been commited by a group of conspirators and that the placement of the victims was no mere coincedince, However, why has cult activity not been seriously considered? Why have the possibilities of mental illness or built up sexual tension not been considered? Recently in the news appeared the story of a man who repeatedly murdered prostitutes due to his resentment towards his mother, who had once been a "working girl" herself. Why has this mscenario never been considered? There are so many questions and so little evidence. The killer was so meticulous, so careful, but he made so many mistakes. How was he never caught? I feel that he may have wanted to be captured, wanted and craved the recognition. PLEASE CONTACT ME WITH LINKS AND JTR INFO.
Author: Blackebyrd Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 10:58 pm
Hey. It's me again. I was thinking about Jack and his possible motivations. Did he seem to want sex, or just to want death? Maybe he was an extreme sadist. Any opinions or responses???
Author: Christopher-Michael Thursday, 18 March 1999 - 03:21 pm
Hullo, Blackbyrd - Most of what you've asked in your last posting has been addressed by various posters over the last few months, and you might wish to poke about in the "General Discussion" files for thoughts on the Ripper's motivations. As far as the letters are concerned, current thought holds that only 3 are likely to have any provenance to the murders; they are known as the "Dear Boss" letter (dated September 25, 1888, and the first to carry the name "Jack the Ripper), the "Saucy Jacky" postcard (undated, but received on October 1 and generally assumed to be by the same hand) and the "From Hell" or "Lusk" letter (also undated, and in handwriting unconnected to the other two). Other missives from people signing themselves "Jack the Ripper" are occasionally given credence, as are uncredited bits of doggerel, but most authorities on the case have concentrated their studies on these communications. Why, you ask, have forensic scientists not been allowed to study the letters, and why have they never been published in full? I can't give you a definite answer to the first, but having spent some time plowing through the PRO Ripper files that have "Ripper letters" in them, I can assure you that they are mind-numbingly repetitive, with endless variations on "boss" and "red stuff" and all the other nonsense first seen in the original letter. I sincerely doubt any publishing house would sink the money into what would be - even for confirmed Ripperphiles - a dreary read. However, trying to answer the first, I should say that the sheer Herculean effort of comparing the script of every extant letter to the available handwriting samples of all the suspects who could write would be terribly daunting and extraordinarily expensive. And what would be proven at the end of it all? It would be impossible to compare the handwriting of every suspect to the available letters (and some of the letters, of course, vanished from the files years ago and have not been seen since), and I can't say it would be more likely than other methods to give us the name of the Ripper. Find a suspect, and put him (or her) within 100 yards and 10 minutes before or after any of the canonical murders, and you have a better chance of finding the Ripper than spending long hours comparing ink jottles. But, as I always say when spreading myself a bit on the boards - Only My Opinion. Christopher-Michael
Author: J W Jackson Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 02:53 pm
Hello All, I've only recently stumbled upon this site and I have been rather intrigued, nay fascinated, by the opinions expressed within. D Radkas metaphor of a �valley of dead ends� seems particularly apt for a subject in which so much supposition, assumption and hypothesis are disguised as fact. Anyhoo, until such times as I can think of something stimulating to post, I�d like to leave you with a correction concerning the Scottish Legal System. Scotland, unlike any other major country, has three permissible verdicts. The usual pair, guilty and not guilty, and the more controversial �not proven� which is completely separate and distinct from �not guilty�. See what I mean about assumptions? Regards
Author: Leanne Monday, 10 May 1999 - 03:23 am
G'day everyone, I've posted this: http://www.jamesmdeem.com/espstory.htm several times on other boards, and no one's commented. Maybe it doesn't work, so I'll tell ya what it is. 'JACK THE RIPPER AND ESP'. On the 'Timeline', it says how clairvoyant Robert James Lees went to the police 5 times, claiming to know who Jack was. 'Casebook' does not say who his suspect was and police at the time ignored him as an idiot. Maybe they deliberately ignored him! His suspect was SIR WILLIAM GULL!!! This was in 1888! I first favoured James Maybrick, because the first book I read was the 'Diary', then I gave Tumblety a 'Floggin', then it was Joseph Barnett's turn and now I favour a 'Royal Conspiracy'! AND I BELIEVE THE POLICE KNEW! LEANNE!
Author: Ashling Monday, 10 May 1999 - 04:27 am
Hi y'all. LEANNE: Many of us are familiar with this Lees info. Stephen Ryder has provided a very helpful tool here on the Casebook. If you haven't already tried it - go to Main Menu & click on "Search the Casebook." Type in just "Lees" - you'll see at least 10 listings - where you can learn more about Lees from several different people. Getting several perspectives on a topic allows me an objective view, which helps me achieve an informed opinion or belief - instead of being lead by one author's convictions down what can sometimes turn out to be a blind alley. Keep posting, your enthusiasm is contagious. Take care, Ashling
Author: Leanne Monday, 10 May 1999 - 06:08 am
G'day Ashling, Thanks. LEANNE!
Author: ambrose Tuesday, 25 May 1999 - 12:04 am
the conspiracy theory a romantic theory. then again, there are two facts that baffle me. first, the actions of commisioner warren. he gets up in the middle of the night and personally sees to it that the goulston street grafitti is erased. he coud have at least waited for some light so a picture could be taken. i'm aware that he gave an explaition for his actions. but where is it written that he was incapable of fabrication? it doesn't matter how busy the area becomes in the morning-this was perhaps the only clue left by the culprit[s], and he makes sure it is wiped out. as such, he shoud've gotten as many cops as he needed to cordon off the area. let the people suffer for a little while, at least for a photograph to be taken. is it possible that he was hiding something? does the word 'juwes' carry more significance than one might think? i believe it does, and no, i can't prove it. warren made for some very strange behavior for a police comissioner. at least i feel so. the second fact has to do with a woman named maxwell. she insisted that she saw mary kelly the morning AFTER she was suposedly murdered, which makes the scene even more complicated. warren's actions, bizarre. maxwell's sighting of kelly, intruiging[can't spell]. a conspiracy? perhaps. i'd love to hear opinions on all this.
Author: tanka Tuesday, 25 May 1999 - 11:42 pm
To All Ripperologists The Diary of James Maybrick has proven in most cases to be false-a perfect hoax-I have my own theory and it involves a secret society that is still in existance today-Every person involved in the case, I believe was involved with this society in one form or the other-The murders were done in a particular fashion accustomed to the levels of membership in this society-at least a100 years ago-The male members of the Royal Family were/are members even today-If one member is threatened,other members will do what is necessary-Each degree has a symbolic murder or punishment-Example: removing the kidney,cutting the throat-disembowelment occur on different levels of this organization-This society has been arouond and was started during the days of King Solomon-Harem A bif-The HEaad of Scotland yard and the London police at the time of the murders were members-The Society Of Free Masons!!!!!!
Author: ambrose Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 12:24 am
hello, tanka. for what it's worth, i happen to agree with you. and if you believe the masons were involved, you have a conspiracy. if you have a conspiracy, it's almost certain there was a motive. it's here that knight's book 'the final solution' and fairclough's 'the ripper and the royals' comes into play. it amazes me how much contempt both authors and so-called 'ripperoligists' hold for the masonic connection, and how quickly both books are dismissed. i feel that, in their minds, if you don't have any 'iron-clad' evidence, there is no validity whatsoever for the conspiracy theory in general, and the masonic connection inparticuler.
Author: Julian Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 01:34 am
G'day guys, I have a question about the Mason conspiracy thing. What would Masons of considerably high standing in society have to do with the lower standing lives of women of the street of the lowest part of England? And what possible crimes could these women have perpetrated against these men. After all, these men supposedly went looking for these women, not visa versa. If you argue that these women could have exposed these men for who they were, I will counter-argue that these men would not have put themselves in a situation where they could have been compromised. Masons and other secretive groups keep to themselves and do not go around exposing themselves (well maybe some of them did) to 'foreigners'. I'm a little bit brain fuddled at the moment, but I hope that makes sense. Jules
Author: Wolf Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 05:55 pm
Hey everyone, There is absolutly no connection between Masonic ritual and the psychotic serial killing spree of the Ripper. Labeled the first serial murderer, the Ripper is a classic and text book case of the woman hating, knife wielding "ripper" killer. Unless the highest strata of British society was capable of duplicating the mind, actions and methods of what,up until that point in time, was a brand new form of killer, then we have to believe that the Whitechapel murders were the work of a single, deeply disterbed individual. If you still want to theorize about the masonic angle, you would have to explain why members of the Royal family, the Government and other high officials would stoop to murdering these five woman and leave their bodies lying strewn around the East End. If they wanted them dead or even just off the streets, than they had the power to make them disappear forever into prisons, workhouses or more likely, asylums. Of course the argument was that they had to be killed using masonic ritual and left as a warning and proof of the power of the Masons. Unfortunatly the power of the Masons within society was already well known and joining the masons was seen as a form of guaranteeing advancement. The real question behind a Masonic link to the murders was why would they use obscure and secret ritual to kill these women. Who, besides other Masons, would recognize the killings as being Masonic in origin? Why kill non Masons in such a way that displays power only to other Masons who didn't need the display of power or the warning of what happens to those who cross the Masons. Wolf.
Author: ambrose Thursday, 27 May 1999 - 12:51 am
i don't remember what book i got this phrase from, but it sticks in my mind--'staggering arogance'. but first, let's talk about the practical aproach of putting these women in asylums and work houses. if there was in fact an atempt by four or five women to blackmail the royals, the first thing the powers that be would do is to suppres[still can't spell] the infomation. however, putting these women in such places might,and i stress MIGHT cause a problem. having one person screaming scandal is one thing. but if four or five women are telling the same story, is it really too far a stretch of the imagination to think that somebody might see a pattern and possibly persue it? back to the phrase 'staggering arrogance'. if the word 'juwes' does, in fact, have masonic significance, it stands to reason that the message was intended for other masons to see what was going on. granted, there were probably few[if any] masons who resided in the east end. the poor dregs whe lived there would have no idea that these murders may have had a motive other than that of a lunatic. the arrogance- these women weren't simply killed. four of the five victims were gutted, entrails draped over their dead bodies, organs taken from their carcasses. seen in one way, it's as if the powers that be were not only crushing a percieved threat-they also wanted their own to see that they rule over all. as i said-the conspiracy along with masonic involvement is a romantic theory. there's virtually nothing to support it. then again...