A Question About The Lighting at the Slaughter Sites

** 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 **

A Question About The Lighting at the Slaughter Sites

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Ripper Victims: A Question About The Lighting at the Slaughter Sites

Author: Howard Brown Tuesday, 02 July 2002 - 08:20 pm
Dear Friends: Would anyone care to share their information on the degree of light available to the killer to perform his dissections at the Nichols/Eddowes/Chapman murder sites? I know that at 2 AM here in Philly,if I drop my car keys on some streets in my neighborhood,I will be pressed to find them CASUALLY . Likewise,I would like any input on the Stride murder and its lighting scenario. Even a Dr.T would need a source of light to remove the uteruses,eh? To me,it would seem that IF the Ripper was NOT just a psychopath lusting to kill and simply leave,if there was sufficient lighting,then maybe HE lured them to THAT spot.Your ideas? HB
Author: Jon Saturday, 06 July 2002 - 10:42 am
Howard. The next time you are out groping on your hands and knees in the dark for your keys it might be well to remember that if you are comparing the time of night with the occurances of the Ripper murders you must also take lattitude and season into account. You just cannot do it from Philly (just joking with you) PS. a Doctor would not need so much light, he would have enough knowledge to do it mostly by touch, however, the killer is said to only have had 'some anatomical knowledge' but not 'surgical knowledge'. I don't think it was a Doctor......hmm, but then, neither was Tumblety. Regards, Jon
Author: Martin Fido Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 06:19 am
Hi Howard! I think there was more discussion of the light/ing in the Mitre Square murder than any other. Different reports, unfortunately, seem to contradict one another. One paper had it that PC Watkins shone his lantern into the darkest corner of the square and found the body; another talks about a light on a corner which gave sufficient illumination. And somewhere it is stated that Lawende saw his man and women at Church Passage in the moonlight. Gas street lighting was very dim compared with the sodium lamps now commonly used, or even the earlier electric lights which meant (for example) that when I travelled the west-east length of England by night as recently as 1959, London was the only city visible as a red glow in the distance. Now almost any little town gives the same effect which I, hitch-hiking up for the boat race, thought must be a fire, to the great amusement of the van driver carrying me. If (as I should think was common in Whitechapel) the mantles of the gas lamps were broken, then they would not cast any light at all except immediately underneath them. You would just see a long thin flame. I have seen this effect in an alley off The Strand when taking a Hallowe'en walking tour there for the 'ghostly' effect, familiar to tour guides even when the mantles are not broken. It must be significant that one of the primary demands of people like Mr Lusk ws always that the street lighting be improved. All the best, Martin F
Author: Howard Brown Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 09:54 am
Dear Mr.Fido: Thank you very much for your response to my question. I can only imagine how eerie London must have looked like in the 1880's.Thanks again.Your admirer.Howard
Author: Howard Brown Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 10:31 am
A real quick question to anyone: Yesterday,on the "Travel" channel,here in Philly(cable TV),I saw a show about "Haunted Tours of London"....It showed Mr.Rumbelow and his tours and some other material. However,they had Mr.John Ross of London's Black Museum(?).ONCE AGAIN he stated his belief that Aaron Kosminski was his "most likely" suspect....Just from skimming the CASEBOOK,I learned that Kosminski was put away in 1892....using the police presence reduction after MjK's murder( not until months later )as the basis for his claim,my question is this: WHY does Mr.Ross continue saying that? No offense,but it appears Mr.Ross doesn't CARE about facts. Its very annoying....
Author: Martin Fido Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 04:51 pm
Hi Howard! The people who think Kosminsky was the Ripper - (and I have never been one since the date of his incarceration was established, along with some notes on his case) - are persuaded by the historical argument that: (i) A careful check of the contemporaries who named suspects indicates that only Anderson went further and expressed certainty. (ii) A study of Anderson shows him to have been a man of integrity who was in, perhaps, the best position to know. (iii) His is the only case in which any evidence is adduced to support the suspicion: i.e. the identification he says took place - a fact that is supported (with some puzzling details) by Swanson, and may be getting garbled support from Macnaghten's reference to Kosminsky's appearance being like that described by a witness. (iv) The very mundane nature of his alleged perpetrator - just a poor, mad, local immigrant - makes him far more plausible than the toffs and doctors and black magicians and suicidal barrister-cum-disgraced-schoolmasters and Cambridge Apostles (first-class philosophers elected to a very exclusive discussion group) libellously described as an Oxbridge society for homosexuals, and royal princes and their slaveringly misogynist tutors who make Whitechapel seem more like an exotic ballet scene than a Victorian slum. (v) For all the problems associated with Kosminsky's medical and incarceration history, and the curious contradictions of fact contained in Swanson's notes, the name Kosminsky, given by both Swanson and Macnaghten, is the only one attached by ANY contemporary to Anderson's "poor Polish Jew". Therefore, until EITHER it is proved conclusively that Kosminsky was NOT the Ripper, OR some positive evidence emerges to link David Cohen with the Ripper over and above the fact that he is the pauper lunatic who best fits Anderson's description and part of Swanson's - until such time, Kosminsky has, regretfully, to be retained as the most likely suspect. It should be noted that this was the position taken by John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood after they had drawn up the FBI profile, and John Ross has certainly been in touch with John Douglas. JD, however, had not heard the David Cohen data when he worked on the Ripper originally, and has now abandoned the Kosminsky team, preferring Cohen. All the best, Martin F
Author: Howard Brown Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 05:01 pm
Thank you Mr.Fido..Its also good to hear that the profiler,Douglas,now has his facts straight.
Author: Stewart P Evans Sunday, 07 July 2002 - 05:08 pm
Please note that in the above post Martin is stating his own opinion - not fact. Ergo, when he states that "Kosminsky [sic] has, regretfully, to be retained as the most likely suspect", that is his opinion, an opinion which is not shared with too many other Ripper authorities. Douglas hasn't quite got all his facts straight, there are some factual errors in the Ripper piece in his book The Cases That Haunt Us.
Author: Martin Fido Monday, 08 July 2002 - 12:09 pm
Hi Stewart! Take a look again at the opening sentence of that posting. I am not stating my opinions as facts or theories anywhere in the posting until the last paragraph. The whole of the rest of it is an explanation to Howard of the reasoning behind people like John Ross's thinking that Kosminski is the prime suspect. So it is all postulated thinking, and, of course, I am quit ready to be shot down by any dedicated Kosminskyite who wants to say, "You're wrong! You're wrong! I don't think that at all!" The opinion which you actually cite as mine is one I definitely do not hold - as I explicitly state in the parenthesis in the first sentence. Can you identify the particular factual errors made by John Douglas which vitiate his argument for thinking that the Ripper was either David Cohen or some one very like him? All the best, Martin
Author: Stewart P Evans Monday, 08 July 2002 - 01:43 pm
Martin, I am fully aware of your thinking as regards the 'best' suspect, I should think that all who read these boards are also familiar with your 'Cohen' theory. All I cite is your quote about 'Kosminsky' and your 'regretful' conclusion as regards him. The statement is yours and can be read above. I have already pointed out the factual errors in the Douglas book and my comment was about him getting his facts straight, not about the conclusion he reaches. However, with regard to his conclusion as to most likely suspect, as I said before, it was reached using your work so there can be little doubt how he got there. He even quotes some of your own words. We are all aware how 'the uninformed' can be influenced (even 'led') as regards a suspect by whatever books they read. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Martin Fido Monday, 08 July 2002 - 06:18 pm
Dear Stewart, Let's get straight to your second paragraph first! I have said before on the boards, (but maybe you hadn't read it), that I had never met or corresponded with John Douglas or Mark Olshaker before they had completed their chapter on the Ripper, at which time they contacted me. They had already reached all their conclusions, and made all their flattering remarks about my work. They wanted me to read their chapter and see if there was anything I thought needed correcting. I was astonished by the compliment they paid me, and was extremely careful not to add to or alter their arguments in any way. Except that I removed one argument favourable to the Cohen case which I felt went too far. I left untouched, and have never commented to them on conclusions they reached with which I disagree: the Rumbelow proposed method of killing from behiond, for example, and the possible genuineness of the Lusk letter. All I corrected were a number of detailed points of fact that had no bearing on the argument, and a number of points of style and grammar of the kind which easily slip a writer's notice. When, after publication, other readers picked up slips I had missed, I apologised to them, and it is really I who should be reprimanded fort them. But, as you apparently concede, they don't make any difference to Douglas's overall conclusions. The suggestion that I influenced their work would be quite understandable if I had been an "expert" they consulted when writing. But I was not. Every single thing they say about the Cohen theory and the way they feel it compares with other theories derives from their own unguided and uninfluenced reading and examination of printed work in the public domain, together with whatever Cosgrove-Muerer may have given John back in 1988. Now to the "regretful conclusion". Really Stewart! Did you go back and look at the posting as I asked? Can you not see that in sentence one I state that I am about to outline an argument in which I have never believed, for the benefit of Howard who asked whether John Ross is a fool? Can you not see that the "regretful conclusion" is that reached by Kosminskyites - and as you observe in your second paragraph, I am NOT a Kosminskyite and never have been. I am a Cohenite. What in heaven's name makes you imagine that I would put my name to a conclusion that Kosminsky is the most likely suspect, when, as you rightly observe, I have been screaming from the rooftops for years that I don't believe he is! Of course the words are "my words". The words "I am determined to prove a villain" are Shakespeare's. Do you imagine they represent something he felt about himself? They characterize Richard III, as I was trying to characterize, for Howard's benefit, the thinking of people like John Ross and (I think) Paul Begg. But your error is a beautiful illustration of the general truth behind John Douglas's mistakes and my overlooking them when proofing for him and Mark. We all make mistakes and misread, as you have done in representing me as claiming that Kosminsky is the best suspect. As long as our slips and errors are not germane to our central arguments, they are not especially important. They will be corrected sooner or later, and are, with any luck, not going to lead other readers down garden paths we ourselves have not noticed. All the best, Martin
Author: Joseph P. Matthews Monday, 08 July 2002 - 07:29 pm
Hello everyone, Frist of all, I just wanted to comment that I thought Mr. Fido's response to Howard's question was well-written and went a long way in clearing up his confusion. Second. Mr. Evans, you state that Douglas' chapter on the Ripper in The Crimes That Haunt Us was based on Mr. Fido's work. From what I've read, that seems to be your primary objection. With all due respect, sir, I wonder if you would object to Douglas' conclusions if they were reached using YOUR own highly regarded research. It is obvious that Mr. Fido does not support Kosminsky as a suspect, so I am confused why you even chose to post your comments on the matter. Mr. Evans, you also mention how the "uninformed" can be led by the books they read. I agree that is definately a problem in many ways. Many of the old myths surrounding the case are still believed to be fact by a great number of people. But, I try to be optimistic about it. New information may come to light in the future, unearthed by curious researchers who were "led" down a different path than the one you took to draw your conclusions in this case. In other words, correcting mistakes is a good thing, but I do not think the comments of a respected researcher such as Mr. Fido should be brushed off simply because you do not agree with his "Cohen" theory of Jack the Ripper. Respectfully, Joe
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 01:15 am
Martin, I was referring to your last sentence: "Therefore, until EITHER it is proved conclusively that Kosminsky [sic] was NOT the Ripper, OR some positive evidence emerges to link David Cohen with the Ripper over and above the fact that he is the pauper lunatic who best fits Anderson's description and part of Swanson's - until such time, Kosminsky has, regretfully, to be retained as the most likely suspect." That is your opinion, which is what I stated. I know that you think that the convoluted Cohen theory is the best, and that you are not a 'Kosminskyite' (why do you always spell it with a 'y' by the way?), I did not say you were. I did not say that you were putting your 'name to a conclusion that Kosminsky is the most likely suspect'. Maybe we are misreading each other. As to the Douglas/Olshaker book - please tell me where I stated that you had met or corresponded with them, before they completed the chapter. I do not suggest that you influenced their work personally. I pointed out the fact that they had obviously used your published work in writing their chapter, and that they were influenced by that. Which they obviously were. They should have drawn their own conclusions by researching prime sources or totally objective works, not by reading a book presenting the case for a specific suspect. Such a book presents a subjective view of the case and stresses that author's own opinion. Can you not see that? You are fond of quoting Douglas/Olshaker in support of your theory, hence the point has to be made that they do not appear to have used any primary sources and have made some errors attributable to the writing of others. Mr. Matthews, to which of my books do you refer? Do you imagine that I am so crass that I am objecting because Douglas used Martin's book and not mine? If you mean my first book, presenting the case for Dr. Tumblety, then yes, I would object to Douglas using it to arrive at his own conclusion regarding a suspect, if that suspect was Tumblety and the book had influenced him. However, if he had used The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook/Companion, then no, I would not object, as it is a sourcebook containing raw prime source material and has no suspect bias. However, I do appreciate that this book was probably not available when Douglas wrote his chapter. Again, I repeat, I do not suggest that Martin supports Kosminski, I know that he never has. I have known Martin personally for fourteen years and I am fully aware of his theory. What I was illustrating (obviously not very successfully) was the fact that Martin's opinions come across as stated facts, and not merely opinion. You agree with the fact that the casual reader (that sounds better than 'the uninformed') can be led by books that present a certain suspect, this is obvious. Hence there are thousands who believe some really fantastic theories as we see from these boards. However, you make the point about the discovery of new information 'unearthed by curious researchers who were "led" down a different path' than the one I took. Again, I think you are missing the point. I do not criticise others who support different suspects, what I object to is opinion being stated as fact and reference works that contain 'suspect bias'. Anyone who knows me will tell you I am happy to assist anyone with their work, no matter what their suspect preference may be. My last three books, and the PRO document pack, are intended, primarily, as reference works and as such are free from suspect bias. So, I am not 'brushing off' Martin's comments, I am pointing out that they are coming across as facts when they should be seen as opinion. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Martin Fido Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 08:01 am
Hi Stewart, I really wonder whether any response is necessary, since exactly what I said and meant was perfectly clear to Joe and the only confusion about anything appears to be either in your mind or in some failure to express what you mean. You write: "I was referring to your last sentence: 'Therefore, until EITHER it is proved conclusively that Kosminsky [sic] was NOT the Ripper, OR some positive evidence emerges to link David Cohen with the Ripper over and above the fact that he is the pauper lunatic who best fits Anderson's description and part of Swanson's - until such time, Kosminsky has, regretfully, to be retained as the most likely suspect.' That is your opinion, which is what I stated." But as I have said, and Joe understood perfectly, that is NOT my opinion. That is the final conclusion of an argument, postulated by me, as one by which rational people, though not myself, may believe Kosminski to be the suspect. You insist you never said I put my name to the conclusion that Kosminski must, however regretfully, be accepted as the prime suspect. Could you explain, then, exactly how you expect anybody to read the following two statements? "Please note that in the above post Martin is stating his own opinion - not fact. Ergo, when he states that 'Kosminsky [sic] has, regretfully, to be retained as the most likely suspect', that is his opinion, an opinion which is not shared with too many other Ripper authorities." and "The statement is yours [i.e. Martin's] and can be read above." What on earth does it matter if Kosminski is rejected outright by every authority on earth except John Ross (who was accused of being senseless for accepting him) provided my postulation of how John might reach such a conclusion rationally does not radically distort what he actually thinks? Are you suggesting that your words above are meant to carry the elaborate weight of saying that I am stating as a fact that John Ross and others reached such a conclusion? And that this should be reduced back to "In my opinion some people have concluded that..."? If so, then I have to concur that you are not making yourself clear, and to add that I don't really think it necessary to go back and consult everybody to see whether John Ross and A.N.Y.Others are still living and breathing Kosminskyites before outlining the process by which a Kosminskian conclusion may be reached. (By the way, I write 'Kosminskyite' because it is more elegant that 'Kosminskiite'. I write Kosminsky or Kosminki pretty indifferently on the boards, usually influenced by the feeling that it would be a little condescending or discourteous to convey an implicit correction of casual readers or posters who have derived their information from a knowledge of Macnaghten and thos books which only cite him. It's a bit like Edward VII supposedly drinking his finger bowl when he saw that the Shah of Persia had just drunk his. And conveying corrections on such petty points always reminds me of Stephen Knight scolding some other author for writing 'Bucks' rather than 'Buck's' Row. Stephen Knight!!! Talk about straining at the fly after swallowing the camel! While I don't think you in any way resemble the consciously deceptive Knight, I actually do think that your pointing out small factual errors in John Douglas's book in a context that might suggest to other people that they vitiate his conclusions, is a sort of parallel procedure.) But let no one imagine I think myself perfect, for once again I have given an example of my own capacity to misread. You did not, indeed, suggest that I had influenced Douglas and Olshaker by giving them advice: you criticized Douglas for being persuaded by my book. I do apologise for carelessly misreading you: I am, I admit, very touchy about the suggestion made by others that Douglas and Olshaker's thanks to me in their acknowledgements indicate that I led them to write what they did by personal persuasion and not by the bare arguments they found in print. On the looser question of their trusting books that reach conclusions, which you seem to decry universally as "suspect-biassed books", you seem to me to go way beyond the proper demands of scholarship, and to overlook the importance of theory, which must be stated and then be tested, to arrive at fact. A simple example: evolution by natural selection was a theory when Darwin proposed it, albeit an enormously persuasive one. Today, pace the "Creationist" nay-sayers, sufficiently overwhelming additional evidence has come in to confirm that Darwin's one-time theory must now be accepted as fact. Since Douglas was writing a book in which his purpose was to present his own conclusions on certain cases, it necessarily behoved him to read all the theories that had been proposed and, (unless he found them all flawed and saw the evidence as pointing in a different direction), he was bound to endorse the one he found most persuasive, giving his reasons. This is not unscholarly. It is an appropriate proceeding at certain points in a discussion. In any case, he certainly did not endorse the ringing conclusion I gave to my book, and which I now regret: "Jack the Ripper has been found". Douglas concludes that the Ripper was either David Cohen "or some one very like him": a rider of tentativeness which he also attached to Kosminski in the days when his profile put Kosminski forward as the likeliest suspect. You, Keith, and I have all got our names on books whose conclusions we now feel are much too positive. ("The Lodger", "The Ripper Legacy" and "The Crimes, Detection and Death"). I'm not going to postulate how you or Keith would like to rephrase your conclusions. I would only restate that I wish mine were what I originally proposed in the outline I originally sent to the publishers: "the most plausible suspect ever named". I, certainly, was aware that my publishers wished to see a conclusion reached. You must be aware that such pressures are brought to bear on writers, as you once held the opinion that such pressure must be the reason why Phil Sugden included his tentative Chapmanite conclusion. I have always admired Shirley Harrison for resisting such pressure from her publisher to the extent that he had to write his own conclusion to her book to make the impassioned (and commercially useful) case she refused. But however overstated conclusions may be, the books which arrive at them are necessary tools for the researcher who wants to know what theories exist and why. The Source Book is invaluable as a reference work and a corrective to certain theories based on erroneous facts. But nobody could sensibly deduce fom it why Tumbletonians exist in preference to Maybrickians. The fact that we may wish our own books had been a little more tentative doesn't mean that they are worthless. Readers can go through them, and agree or disagree with our lines of thought; conclude that we are dead wrong, or pointing usefully in the right direction. And there is nothing unscholarly about this. Pure reference books should, of course, be free of bias. One way of achieving this is to avoid any opinions whatsoever. This is easily done if you are simply compiling sources: you are not required to comment on them. But equally, there is no reason why you shouldn't do so. If your Source Book had been able to be completely comprehensive, it would have had to include the Maybrick and Abberline diaries. In my opinion it would mislead readers if there were no editorial information that these are certainly forgeries, despite the tiny handful of people who still believe in the Maybrick diary. Equally, I think it perfectly proper to indicate in another sort of reference work that Tumblety is a more plausible suspect than Stephenson, as he rests on the more reliable source of a disinterested police officer who was probably involved in the case, and certainly knew all the senior officers who were. I am sure that in lambasting 'suspect-bias' you have the A-Z in mind much more than the books which, perfectly properly, declare their intention of showing why one suspect is preferred to another. So may I point out that, to avoid any suggestion of deliberate bias in favour of my own work, I actually composed the words about Cohen, "This has not seemed persuasive to other researchers", and about Kaminsky, "This theory has proved totally unpersuasive to all other researchers.... The general opinion would be that the 'Cohen' theory fell as soon as the Swanson marginalia unequivocally indentified Anderson's suspect as Kosminski". In the light of the Douglas-Olshaker conclusions, I would now say that I went a great deal too far in denigrating myself to avoid the appearance of bias: I certainly should have pointed out that the theory convinced Bill Eckert, a weighty proponent indeed! But I guess Joe's intervention shows that we are providing stimulating food for thought for other readers, and I look forward to your response. All the best, Martin
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 11:48 am
Martin, It really does seem, sometimes, to be a total waste of time arguing with you. I know that it was perfectly clear that you do not favour Kosminsky, but what I was saying was that it is your opinion, not a fact, that Kosminski has to be retained as the most likely suspect, albeit not by yourself. This is slightly different to what you are now saying you said, i.e. that 'rational people, though not yourself, may believe Kosminski to be the suspect.' You have modified what you originally posted, for the initial statement means that although you don't agree with it yourself, 'Kosminsky has to be retained as the most likely suspect' by those who do not accept your arguments. Or in other words, to anyone not accepting the Cohen theory, Kosminski remains the best alternative. And that is your opinion, which is all I meant and I stick by it. In my opinion there is no way that Kosminski can be accepted as the most likely suspect on the strength of the known facts. As for David Cohen, he was not a suspect at all. As the basic source for the name Kosminski is Macnaghten in 1894, and as he spells it with an 'i' and not a 'y', then we have to accept this as the preferred spelling. And Macnaghten's Kosminski has never been positively identified. In relation to the Douglas book, if it is your opinion that 'small factual errors' are: two farthings found near Chapman's body 'kept secret by the police to help qualify suspects' and, in relation to Stride, '...unlike in the previous murders, defense wounds on the victim's hands indicated a struggle', then it is an opinion I simply cannot agree with. For, if true, these would be important points. I do not 'universally decry' books that reach conclusions, I have written one myself, but I do decry the failure to use prime source material when writing a scholarly book that others may use for reference. Your own book was one of the better centenary offerings and provided (and still does provide) excellent insight into the political background and influences missing from nearly all other books on suspects. Whatever conclusions Douglas reaches are, of course, merely his own opinion and they are not shared by all ex-FBI men. He was influenced by information 'fed' to him back in 1988 and, in my opinion, he has been influenced again. Although, as you say, to his credit he does qualify the identification of Cohen. It is fairly obvious that in your own mind you have reached the final answer as to the identitiy of the killer. This has resulted in a certain mindset that others find very difficult, especially as your voice is influential in this area of study. In no way has your theory 'been tested, to arrive at fact.' Although you seem to believe it has. I do not propose to enter into debate on named suspects, an ever contentious subject, my book on Tumblety was written seven years ago and I have moved on to the wider and more objective area of study that I have always been interested in. Both Druitt and Kosminski were past preferred suspects of mine, and I remain open to accepting any new evidence that may emerge. Yes, my publishers, like yours, wished to see a conclusion reached, I don't deny this influence when you write a book on a specific suspect. I was instrumental in 'toning down' or excising one or two extravagant statements in the original manuscript. However, to return to my original point, I feel that all so-called Ripper authorities owe it to their readership to make it very clear when they are stating opinion and their own conclusions. It is fair to support that opinion with known facts, but not to make a bald, unqualified statement as if that opinion was factual. I do not agree with your comments about the source book. It was intended to make the raw prime source official material available to those interested and at an affordable price, I spent well over one thousand pounds obtaining hard copy of all the reports. To have included the 'Maybrick and Abberline diaries' would have devalued its worth as a reference, and there was no way that such rubbish would have been allowed into it. Those with sense enough to use primary sources would know how to find the information they required and to apply it to whatever theory they may be interested in. The book was over a quarter of a million words without trying to include all the rubbish that contaminates this subject. The book is, indeed, complementary to other works that do address these fantastic theories, such as the A-Z, Melvin Harris's books and Phil Sugden's excellent study. As for the A-Z, well my copy is well-worn from constant use as it is an excellent ready reference for many aspects of the case. I am aware of the authorial bias it contains and it does not affect me. The book is irreplaceable and I shall continue to use it. As I say, it admirably complements the sourcebook. I agree Martin, at least we provide food for thought for others in this very contentious field. And, as ever, there are certain things that we will have to agree to disagree about. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Joseph P. Matthews Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 12:09 pm
Hello everyone, First of all, I continue to be amazed at how far off subject these discussions stray. I believe this thread is about "lighting at the slaughter sites," yet we are now debating numerous other points. This happens quite frequently, and the different directions taken are often very interesting. Mr. Evans, in my previous post I did imply that your objection stemmed, primarily, from the fact that John Douglas used Mr. Fido's book and not yours (I was referring to your work on Dr. T). I can see now that my statement was a bit harsh, and I do apologize for that. Initially, I was just annoyed at your comments because this is not the first time I've seen this happen. Many times here at the message boards, a simple question or comment turns into a heated debate about who has the better theory and who has all the facts straight. This discussion is healthy in some ways, but forgive me, many times it seems to me that it winds up being a battle to determine who has the largest ego. That may seem harsh, but it is the only way I can think of to articulate my feelings on the matter. Still, disagreements are necessary in this type of scholarship and they do provide some wonderful food for thought. After reading the portion of your last post directed at me, I do understand that you object to "opinion being stated as fact and reference works that contain 'suspect bias'." Your book, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook/Companion, is very valuable and you stated that you would not have objected if Douglas would have used it to arrive at his conclusions. I agree, if the book had been available at that time, it would have been a valuable source of information to him. However, I do not have a problem with him reading the "suspect-biassed" books to arrive at his conclusions. I think that an experienced investigator such as Douglas would understand the bias he was reading and then by using his own profiling techniques, pick the theory he deemed most plausible. I hope so, anyway. To both Mr. Evans and Mr. Fido, your debates/discussions are always interesting and I hope I have not offended either of you or caused any additional confusion. You are both very well respected and have a great deal of knowledge to share with all of us here. I look forward to discussing many aspects of this case with both of you here in the future. Forgive me, I had a few other things I wanted to say, but I just got home from work and I am very tired. I apologize if my post is rambling and incoherent. Respectfully, Joe
Author: Paul Begg Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 12:50 pm
Hi Stewart, Having been away from the Boards and just scanning the above posts, when Martin wrote: 'Therefore, until EITHER it is proved conclusively that Kosminsky was NOT the Ripper, OR some positive evidence emerges to link David Cohen with the Ripper over and above the fact that he is the pauper lunatic who best fits Anderson's description and part of Swanson's - until such time, Kosminsky has, regretfully, to be retained as the most likely suspect.' wasn't he simply saying that of the two advanced suspects, Kosminski and Cohen', Kosminski must remain the most likely until such time as the caveats stated by Martin (it is proved conclusively that Kosminsky was NOT the Ripper, for example) are met? Martin was not saying that Kosminski is the most likely suspect per se, and being a Cohenite obviously wouldn't say that, but was simply saying that as things stand at present Cohen comes below Kosminski in whatever pecking order one chooses. That this is to be regretted is Martin's opinion, though not one worth commenting on, but otherwise Martin was making a statement of fact, Cohen does come below Kosminski in the pecking order. This is distinct from saying that Kosminski is the primary, main, no. 1 suspect. He is of course :-) but Martin wasn't saying that. But maybe I haven't read enough or slowely enough and have missed something. Cheers Paul
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 03:33 pm
The discussion had strayed 'off subject' before I arrived, with Mr. Brown, the originator of this thread, being himself responsible. He queried a statement made by John Ross in a TV show he had seen, and Martin answered him. Mr Matthews, you must not 'get annoyed' at things you read on these boards, you may end up saying something you later regret. Thank you for the apology anyway. There are many niggling errors in the Douglas/Olshaker book and this is to be regretted. Many who read it may not realise this. The debate does not concern 'who has a better theory', it concerns accuracy and making your opinion known to be just that. There will never be a consensus of opinion and I think that we all accept that. That is why so much of the debate on suspects is abortive and is never really resolved. As for being a 'battle to determine who has the largest ego', I take exception to this comment. I think that anyone working in this field will be judged by the work they have done. Ego has nothing to do with these exchanges with Martin, I simply strongly disagree with some of the things he says. Of course, in determining what suspect best fits modern profiling techniques (something I have little faith in), the arguments must be subjective and, in the end, boil down to personal opinion. Cohen never was a police suspect for the murders. To accept him as the killer you have to accept that he was 23 years old, a violent lunatic, suicidal, of dirty habits, threatened others, and spoke little but German. How many known serial killers fit this description? Added to this you are asked to accept Martin's 'mistaken names' scenario, I'm sorry but I don't. Paul, No I don't agree that what Martin was saying was merely in respect of the two advanced suspects, Kosminski and Cohen. It came across as a general statement that, for those who do not accept Cohen, Kosminski remained 'the most likely suspect' of all. He will probably deny this and then I will be accused of 'postulating the thought processes of others'. As for Kosminski, whoever he was, I am simply not going to rise to the bait that you have dangled :-) All the best, Stewart
Author: Joseph P. Matthews Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 04:48 pm
Mr. Evans, Once again, I extend to you my apology for what I said earlier. I would just like to clear up that my comments about "ego" were not directed specifically at any one person in my last post. I was simply stating an observation and I am sorry you took exception to that. I know full well that you have done some great work in this field and many "casual readers" such as myself have benefitted from it. I have seen your name cited in many places and I know you are always willing to help others in their own research. I was not meaning to insult you in anyway, and since it appears I have, I am sorry. I extend that apology to Mr. Fido as well if I have insulted him in my effort to clarify some confusion that stemmed from his answer to Mr. Browns' question. Moving on... Since this thread is about "lighting at the slaughter sites," I do have some questions about that. Forgive me if my statements are incorrect as I do not have my notes or any books in front of me right now, but I seem to recall reading that during the Miller's Court murder, the killer used the fireplace in the room. I also recall reading a report (I think from Dr. Bond) that stated the heart was absent from the body. Now, what is known about that? Obviously, the killer used the fire to see what he was doing, but could it have played another role? Was there any evidence to suggest that the Ripper disposed of human remains in the fire? Could he have burned the heart? Or is it suspected that he took it away from the scene with him? Also, were there any other organs missing from the scene? Of course, this is all speculation, but if the Ripper removed organs from other victims at sites where the lighting was probably not as good (Chapman, Eddowes), why didn't he take more here where he could clearly see what he was doing? I know there are many questions up there and some of my info may be wrong. I'm interested in hearing what anyone has to say or offer. Respectully, Joe
Author: Martin Fido Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 05:47 pm
Dear Stewart, I have changed nothing whatsoever in my position. My original posting, answering Howard's honest question: - was John Ross out of his senses to say he thought Kosminski was the primary suspect? - ran thus: "The people who think Kosminsky was the Ripper - (and I have never been one since the date of his incarceration was established, along with some notes on his case) - are persuaded by the historical argument that....until EITHER it is proved conclusively that Kosminsky was NOT the Ripper, OR some positive evidence emerges to link David Cohen with the Ripper over and above the fact that he is the pauper lunatic who best fits Anderson's description and part of Swanson's - until such time, Kosminsky has, regretfully, to be retained as the most likely suspect." The subject of that first paragraph does not change from beginning to end, and there is no syntactical point at which it could rationally be assumed that it did. It is certainly fact, and no mere opinion of mine, that John Douglas and Roy Hazelwood came to that conclusion when they drew up the FBI profile. I see no reason to challenge Howards's observation and express any doubt that it is a fact that John Ross has recently said (or been shown saying in a recording on television) that he thinks Kosminski is the most likely suspect. Where does my opinion come in? Only in suggesting that there is a chain of reasoning proposing Kosminski as the prime suspect which I do not find unreasonable. If you disagree, why should it matter to me, as I don't agree that the chain outweighs another possible chain in any case. Is it your opinion that the thinking of John Ross is entirely unreasonable? If so, take it up with him. I shall continue to think that people can disagree with me without being inherently irrational, and will defend their rationality if I find that their conclusions are presented without the line of argument behind them, as a supposed proof that they are senseless. If someone declared that your current agnostic position is pusillanimous, or your earlier Tumbletonian convictions were stupid, and you were in no position to respond, I should write a defence of you, putting your positions as fairly as I could. And I think I should be quite right in declaring it as a fact, and not just my opinion, that you have never reached your conclusions as a result of intellectual timidity or stupidity. And your next statement which presents what you presume to be my opinion as fact is, actually, completely incorrect. I think that the best historical starting point for trying to determine the Ripper's identity is that which leads to Cohen or Kosminski. But far from thinking he is the second best alternative, I think Kosminski is absolutely in the clear. If the police thought he was the Ripper, they were dead wrong, and the second best position for a modern historian would be the almost completely agnostic one of saying "We shall probably never know". Though I would retain an interest in investigating Druitt, Bury, Tumblety, Barnett, Kidney - even, in a bow to Garry Wroe, possibly Hutchinson, - as people who are not ipso facto eliminated from having committed one or more of the murders. As far as I can remember, I think all other named suspects are. Kosminski's mental history and the date of his confinement, coupled with the unquestionable confusion of the two people who named him, rule him as far out of court as Prince Albert Victor, as far as I'm concerned. And always have done. What do you think Paul Begg and I argued about so long and furiously in Cattolica and for years after our return to England? And, Stewart - in implying that it could be made more comprehensive I was not for one moment suggesting that the Source Book is inadequate. I fully understand why you could not admit every newspaper report on the Ripper; every theory; every piece of data. I don't doubt that you have spent generously in putting vital information before other people. Scholarship, I have always said, is a rich man's game. Academics can only pursue it because their salaries continue to provide them with bread and butter while they carry out research in the vacations. I have always regretted that I simply did not have the time or money to do more than put in eight months of intense work on my own book, living frugally on savings; and I am extremely grateful that I lived in London at the time, and so had easy access to the main libraries. I don't for one moment suggest that the A-Z is more complete than the Source Book: this would obviously be silly. I merely point out that while the Source Book could reasonably stick to the essential sources that the serious historian wants, the A-Z, following the example of Don's book, decided to cover a great deal of other material, including films, theories, and even (in the first edition) a good deal of local topography. So we had to describe a good deal of what you (rightly, in my opinion) call rubbish. And, rightly or wrongly, we came to the conclusion that we should indicate to our readers that Joseph "Sickert" was not to be trusted, and Donald McCormick was not a reliable source. As for your observation that you have always been aware of the book's authorial bias, I should like to think that means you feel I leaned over too far backwards in discounting my own opinions - but I fear this is probably not the case. But thank you for your kind words about it, and may I say that the Source Book is FAR more than merely "complementary" to the A-Z and other books you name. Joe - no offence at all: why should there be? Paul - Alas, on the guilt of Kosminski we are as far apart as ever. But let me admit to the world as I have done to you that the most difficult question ever put to me about my work was yours. Namely, "If, Martin, you had come across Kosminski in the asylum as soon as you looked for him, what would you have done?" Obviously you knew that I would certainly not have gone looking for an alternative suspect: that would have been a quite improper proceeding given the reasoning that had led to the search for Kosminski. The only reason I ever did look back at other incarcerated Jewish lunatics was because I had satisfied myself (wrongly) that there was no Kosminski in any asylum (having found none between 1888 and 1890) and I knew that Anderson had always been my primary source for thinking this was where the solution lay; and he didn't name his man. I had made the guess that Kaminsky was probably the man in question - and then I realized that Kaminsky's age was identical with Cohen's, and Cohen's case notes and time of admission made him far and away the likeliest candidate for Anderson's poor Polish Jew. And so he remained, in my opinion, when I found Kosminski, with Swanson's subsequently published notes only confirming my view that the two were confused. But your question ruled all that line of thinking out. Suppose the asylum register I examined had extended to 1892 and I had found Kosminski immediately? I should have had no doubt whatsoever (as there can still be no doubt whatsoever) that this is the Kosminski referred to by Macnaghten and Swanson: he matches in name, race, parish of residence, and incarceration in a named asylum: far too many details to be mere coincidence. So should I then, - with my publishers keenly saying, "Obviously your historical reasoning is impeccable - find him and bring him back to us!" - should I then have tried to persuade myself that Kosminski might somehow fit? I don't know. I simply don't know. I've never been able to assess just how I would have confronted the necessiity of going back and saying, "Oh well, I've found him, and they were wrong!" It would be what I ought to have done if I'd found Kosminski before finding the man I take to be Anderson's real suspect. But would I have done what I ought, given that eight months work would probably be thrown away, as the publishers would probably have declared the manuscript unpublishable? Would I have declared myself the founding Kosminskyite? That, and not a lot of tosh about my finding Kosminski, deciding he was unsuitable, and looking for someone else is where I could really be challenged. Stewart mk 2: You have stated as a fact, "Cohen never was a police suspect for the murders." This, I fear, is an opinion. The file/s of serious suspects have never been discovered. We don't know what lies in them, and can only infer it from external evidence. You infer that, because the name Cohen never appears in the surviving writings of any police officer, Cohen was never a suspect. You infer that what Swanson says about Kosminski must be closely or absolutely what Anderson thought. And since what Swanson says is obviously unhistorical nonsense (e.g. Kosmninski lived fior decades afer his confinement in Colney Hatch), you infer (I presume) that this line of enquiry may be dismissed. You also infer from one or two details of Anderson's life that he was devious, and so you see no reason to believe his statement that (in his view) the Ripper's identity was positively ascertained. I, by contrast, infer fom my examination of a range of Anderson's writings that he could not possibly have made such a claim in the place and way he did without absolutely believing it. I infer, from the place and way in which Swanson recorded his views that these must have been his genuine recollections or understanding of the events of 1888 and after. Since we know that some of these views are absolutely wrong, we are entitled to ask why. My explanation of the confusion rests far more heavily on the two police forces involved than on the confusion of names - (I make no insistence on Kaminsky). And, in the absence of the police files it is my inference that we might well find that the Met's Polish suspect, who indeed they might have thought really was "Leather Apron" at last, had gone into Colney Hatch Asylum just after the termination of the murders and died there with nobody being sure of his name (since he was raving and spoke no English when arrested). Of course it is only deduction and therefore opinion. But so is your deduction that Cohen could never have been a suspect. His not being mentioned by name doesn't prove a thing: you must be aware that in cases like this it is impossible to prove a negative? As for the suggestion that Cohen was filthy and squalid and so an improbable serial killer, what abouty Henry Lee Lewis and Ottis Toole? That he was raving from the time he was arrested? What about Jeffrey Dahmer (for whom tranquilisers were subsequently available). That he spoke litle or no English - why should a lunatic in a raving state retain any grasp of a recently learned second language? I don't say your opinions are necessarily invalid. Only that they, too, are opinions which you are stating as facts. (Goodness, aren't we offering a debate on methodolgy!) All the best, Martin
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 06:18 pm
Joe, Thank you for that, I am sure that your intention was not to insult, and I did not feel insulted, merely that your words were inappropriate. I am sure there is no reason for Martin to take offence, and I am sure that he hasn't. Thank you for your kind words. I have exited these boards in the past as I do not like to become involved in pointless or circular argument, certainly about suspects. However, Martin is very knowledgeable and, usually, something constructive emerges from our exchanges. I have been actively reading about and researching the case since 1965, and my interest stretches back even further. So, I guess, I am a bit of a dinosaur, although I do try to keep up with all the latest developments. With regard to Mary Kelly's heart and the fire in the room, we have the surviving reports and statements. Bond stated that "The Pericardium was open below and the Heart absent." This statement is ambiguous in that it could mean that the heart was absent from the thorax, but not the room, or it could mean that the heart had not been found at all and was believed to have been taken away by the killer. The fact that the location of the other organs removed (on the bed) are given, but not the heart, may be an indicator that it had indeed been taken away. If, as is possible, the heart had been burnt (for whatever reason), and there was no trace of it, then this could lead to a false assumption that the killer had taken it away. That being the case we will never know for certain. Some support for the killer having taken the heart away is provided in the 1894 volume A System of Legal Medicine by Allan McLane Hamilton, M.D. and Lawrence Godkin, Esq., New York, E.B. Treat. In a section on 'Death In Its Medico-Legal Aspects', pp. 57-137, Francis A. Harris, M.D. uses reports on the Whitechapel murders victims, supplied by Dr. Hebbert, Dr. Bond's assistant. In the report on the Kelly murder he states, "In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room [sic]..." Like many issues in this case, this is another that may never be satisfactorily resolved. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 06:52 pm
Martin, We obviously posted at the same time. I do not propose to continue the debate about your unlikely theory any longer, I think we have both made our point of view clear. You are correct on the point about Cohen never having been a police suspect. I should have worded it thus, "There is no evidence whatsoever that Cohen was ever a police suspect, and the surviving records militate against this idea." By the same token it may be argued that just about any sustainable candidate was a police suspect but the records have not survived. You in fact argue your case presuming he was a police suspect. An atom of support for this presumption would have been nice. No, you cannot prove a negative in a case such as this, but I certainly would not feel happy building a totally contrived scenario without an iota of supporting evidence. Assuming that you will have the last word, I will make this my last on this subject. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Howard Brown Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 07:36 pm
I want to thank Mr.Evans and Mr.Fido for the tutorial.I learned a lot about how much the JtR case means to both of you. Everyone should have the passion and analytical( not to mention dialectical) skill you two display. I mean it. Maybe I can get another free one with this comment: In Slavic nations,the overwhelming majority of people who,unless they change their names for personal reasons,have names that end in "ski" are of the Christian faith. Curiously,Aaron Kosminski has such an appendage. I'm only kidding about another tutorial. I'd like to also add that the biggest reason that I admire both Mr.Fido and Mr.Evans are that they have never given up( along with the numerous other writers on this site ) their search for truth where others would have called it quits. I feel a little responsible/embarrassed to have set you gentleman slightly at odds. For that I am sorry....However,thanks again for the tutorial !
Author: Joseph P. Matthews Wednesday, 10 July 2002 - 12:14 am
Hello everyone, Mr. Evans - I am glad you were not insulted and that all of that has been cleared up. Also, thank you for your response to my question about Mary Kelly's murder. As you have said, the fate of her heart is probably something that may never be resolved, but I do find Dr. Hebbert's report interesting. It does seem to support the fact that the Ripper took it away with him. I still find it interesting that the killer did not take more organs with him given the time and the amount of light he had to work with. In previous murders with significantly less light and time, he took things away with him. Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the killer remove the uterus and kidney from Eddowes and the uterus from Chapman? Did he remove anything else that the reports indicate? The fact that he did not remove any organs from Nichols could indicate he did not have time. Perhaps he was disturbed by one of the approaching workers and had to flee. But, in the case of Mary Kelly, he had plenty of time and light. Perhaps the heart was his trophy, but if it was not, what do you think about this? Would the extensive amount of mutilations to the body be enough to quench the killer's desire to take a trophy from the scene? Perhaps I'm making this issue much too complicated, and a great deal of speculation on your part may be necessary to answer my questions, but I am interested in hearing your thoughts. Mr. Fido - I am glad to hear that I have not offended you in any way. If you have any opinions or information dealing with my questions about Mary Kelly in this or my previous post, I would very much like to hear about it. Respectfully, Joe
Author: Tom Wescott Wednesday, 10 July 2002 - 12:19 am
Stewart, Martin, Robert, et al, I think it important to interject something here regarding the researches of Douglas/Olshaker. In the author's notes of the book in question, they thank the following two people for these reasons: Ann Hennigan, dauntless and intrepid Mindhunters research coordinator, who makes sure we know what we need to. Katherine Johnston Ramsland, Ph.D., accomplished author in her own right, who researched and worked up these cases for us and then played the role of local law enforcement agency to John's mindhunting. With Ann 'making sure they know what they need to know' and Katherine 'researching and working up the cases for them', I see nothing to suggest that either Douglas or Olshaker did any exhaustive research of their own, but instead depended upon what was given to them by others. While I consider Douglas' insights in the Ramsey case, which he was personally involved, invaluable, and his work on Borden, of which there is not the Labyrinth of info to pour through as there is with the Ripper, to be the best concise overview of the case I've ever read, I must say that his treatment of the Ripper case, as well as the Zodiac case, are neither impressive nor convincing. I dare say that Douglas is less familiar with the details of the Ripper case and Victoriana ingeneral than are most of us. Martin, You wrote to Stewart: 'As for your observation that you have always been aware of the book's authorial bias, I should like to think that means you feel I leaned over too far backwards in discounting my own opinions - but I fear this is probably not the case.' It's only a guess, but I imagine that Stewart was politely referring to your write-up of his & Paul Gainey's book 'The Lodger' in A-Z where it states 'the author's reveal a slight tendency to use source material selectively in order to support their arguments and to give incautious weight to possible or manifest misreporting'. You also wrote: 'Pure reference books should, of course, be free of bias'. Is A-Z not to be considered a reference book, then? In the Introduction to the 3rd edition of A-Z, it states: 'we have tried to curb some of our tendency to stringent criticism of others'. Does this not apply to Stewart? Had I not gotten to know Stewart and his work before I became fully aware of your treatment of his book, your write-up may have given me serious doubts about his motives and methods, doubts which I now know would have been unfounded. Also, in an above post, you wrote: 'You, Keith, and I have all got our names on books whose conclusions we now feel are much too positive. ("The Lodger", "The Ripper Legacy" and "The Crimes, Detection and Death"). I'm not going to postulate how you or Keith would like to rephrase your conclusions. I would only restate that I wish mine were what I originally proposed in the outline I originally sent to the publishers: "the most plausible suspect ever named". I, certainly, was aware that my publishers wished to see a conclusion reached. You must be aware that such pressures are brought to bear on writers, as you once held the opinion that such pressure must be the reason why Phil Sugden included his tentative Chapmanite conclusion.' Nobody can doubt the pressures put upon authors as you describe here, and your plea for understanding does not fall on deaf ears. However, where was that understanding when you were describing Stewart's methods as 'selective' and 'incautious'? And if it is true that you wish the conclusion of your own book had been less decisive and more like the original outline, then why did you not sieze the opportunity in the entry of your book for A-Z to inform the readers of this? Martin, if my post comes off as abrasive, it is unintentional. You're obviously a very educated, very experienced, and very successful author, a good guy, and horribly entertaining to watch on t.v.. But the way you played coy to Stewart's observation of authorial bias when you knew exactly what he was talking about, and that he is too much of a gentleman to spell it out in public, was inappropriate. Please understand that I am NOT attempting to speak for Stewart P. Evans. The observations above are purely my own, but they speak for themselves. Only very recently did I happen to read the entry for 'The Lodger' in A-Z (since I own the book I haven't paid entry much heed), and in the many dozens of emails Stewart and I have shared over the past couple of years not once did he attempt to turn my attention to it, which to me says a lot. To reiterate, I have no ill feelings towards you at all. In fact, I enjoy your presence on the boards immensely and am grateful for the advice you've given me in the past, and I hope this discussion won't hinder your feelings (whatever they are) toward me. I consider A-Z to be the second most essential book in my collection, and my copy, like Stewart's, is well-worn. But I thought it should be made clear to Casebook readers such as Mr. Matthews that Stewart is, by far, not the only person to have come to his own conclusion that the A-Z, and its readers, would benefit from less personal bias. I also wanted to voice my opinion that I fail to find Stewart's approach to be 'selective' or 'incautious', although he is human and capable (I think) of making mistakes. Now that I have ably succeeded in sticking my nose in where it probably doesn't belong, I will call it a night, and hope that there are no hard feelings. Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Divia deBrevier Wednesday, 10 July 2002 - 02:51 am
Greetings all! I am new to the message board, though I have been reading the posts here for a while. When I realized that many of the posters were more than casual readers, I was mainly afraid of making comments that would be considered erroneous, silly, etc. to those that are far more knowledgeable than I. Therefore, I ask for forgiveness in advance if I may post something that is old news, answered in previous posts, or without merit. Moving on - Thank you to Mr. Fido, Mr. Evans, Mr. Wescott, and others for your informative exchange here. I have found this more entertaining and enlightening than watching the Discovery Channel! Mr. Matthews - In response to your question about the removal of organs, I have been working on a kind of graph to match the similarities between the canonical victims. You are correct about the removal of organs from Eddowes and Chapman: Mary Ann Nichols: None noted in the inquest testimony printed in The Times. Lighting of the scene: Stated in Casebook - "Bucks Row is ten minutes walk from Osborn Street. The only illumination is from a single gas lamp at the far end of the street." I am uncertain of the origin of this information, but I take it that it is accurate. Annie Chapman: Noted in the inquest testimony of Dr. George Baxter Phillips � "The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri.". Lighting of the scene: As this was a back yard, where the privy was, I would think that the lighting of the area would have been minimal. From Casebook "4:45 AM: Mr. John Richardson enters the backyard of 29 Hanbury St. on his way to work, and sits down on the steps to remove a piece of leather which was protruding from his boot. Although it was QUITE DARK at the time, he was sitting no more than a yard away from where the head of Annie Chapman would have been had she already been killed. He later testified to have seen nothing of extraordinary nature." This indicates that the natural lighting of the scene was minimal. Again, I am not certain to the actual source of this information, but I accept it as accurate. Elizabeth Stride: None noted in the post mortem by Dr. George Baxter Phillips. Lighting of the scene: From Casebook - "1:00 AM: Louis Diemschutz, a salesman of jewelry, entered Dutfield's Yard driving his cart and pony. Immediately at the entrace, his pony shied and refused to proceed -- Diemschutz suspected something was in the way but could not see since the yard was UTTERLY PITCH BLACK. He probed forward with his whip and came into contact with a body, whom he initially believed to be either drunk or asleep. He entered the Workingman's Club to get some help in rousing the woman, and upon returning to the yard with Isaac Kozebrodsky and Morris Eagle, the three discover that she was dead, her throat cut.". Catherine Eddowes: Noted in the post mortem by Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown - The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The lining membrane over the uterus was cut through. The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments. The vagina and cervix of the womb was uninjured. Lighting of the scene: From Casebook - "On the right of the broad entry coming of Mitre Street are three unoccupied cottages forming a blind corner with a high fence sealing off the yard between the school and the square. The body lay in the square in front of the empty cottages.". From the drawings of the scene (no gas lamps appear in the drawings), and taking into account that the body was discovered in a blind corner, one might come to the conclusion that the lighting was minimal. Mary Kelly: Noted in the post mortem by Dr. Thomas Bond - The pericardium was open below and the heart absent. The lighting of the scene: Testimony of Abberline in the inquest - "There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off. We have since gone through the ashes in the fireplace; there were remnants of clothing, a portion of a brim of a hat, and a skirt, and it appeared as if a large quantity of women's clothing had been burnt. [Coroner] Can you give any reason why they were burnt ? - I can only imagine that it was to make a light for the man to see what he was doing. There was only one small candle in the room, on the top of a broken wine-glass.". One might come to the conclusion that there was sufficient lighting at the scene. As to the death of Nichols, I am not certain that we can determine that no organs were removed. I may be wrong, but as I understand, the only report we have is on the inquest testimony as reported by The Times. This information may have been omitted (intentionally or otherwise is unknown), or it could mean that no organs were removed or missing. If the information I have provided is incorrect, I am certain that someone will correct me, and I will appreciate it. In the death of Stride, there is some question as to whether or not she was a Ripper victim, or if the Ripper did not have adequate time to mutilate her in the same manner as the others. After assembling this small bit of information in a cognizant manner, I tip my hat to those that have devoted so much time to write their books! And now I am off to bed... Warm regards, Divia
Author: Stewart P Evans Wednesday, 10 July 2002 - 03:04 am
Joe, The killer's habit of removing organs was probably subject to many variables and you are probably right when you surmise, in the case of Nichols, that he was probably disturbed by the approach of Cross and fled from the scene. In the case of Chapman the parts missing were described as "part of belly wall including navel; the womb, the upper part of vagina & greater part of bladder". In the case of Eddowes, apropos the missing parts, Dr. Brown stated, "The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed - the left renal artery was cut through - I should say that some one who knew the position of the kidney must have done it. The lining membrane over the uterus was cut through. The womb was cut through horizontally leaving leaving a stump of three-quarters of an inch, the rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments." The details of the injuries, as described by the doctors, are given in several of the standard Ripper books. Whatever the motive was for taking the items, certainly the womb appeared to be the main target in the cases of Nichols (location of the wounds), Chapman and Eddowes. However, motive must remain the subject of speculation. The uterus, we know, was not taken away in the case of Kelly, which would seem to be a factor to support the argument, proposed by some, that Kelly may not have been a victim of the same killer. I am not too happy to speculate to any great degree here, for it would be opinion only and may involve me in lengthy discussion and theorising about aspects for which the true answers will probably never be known. Tom, Thank you for your kind post. I do not wish to get into a debate about where I find authorial bias in the A-Z, for where it does appear it seems fairly obvious to me, and to others I have discussed the matter with. Readers will have to make up their own minds on this point. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 10 July 2002 - 09:00 am
Dear All, Apologies for not joining the discussions on topics other than that I'm embarked on with Stewart. From Stewart's final posting, to sort it into categories as we need to: "your unlikely theory": Opinion, unfortunately put in a way that might seem intentionally offensive. "You in fact argue your case presuming he was a police suspect. An atom of support for this presumption would have been nice": Question begging, put in aggressive terms that claim a false victory. I argue my case from the position that Anderson must have been writing the truth as he saw and remembered it, and that there must almost certainly therefore have been such a poor Polish Jew as he describes. This is a great deal more than "an atom" of historical evidence. "and the surviving records militate against this idea": Reasonable opinion, though as the next sentence shows, there is a degree of selectivity in it, as the word "records" may be taken to exclude Anderson's remarks which provide a line of historical inquiry that leads to Cohen. "By the same token it may be argued that just about any sustainable candidate was a police suspect but the records have not survived": Quite true. For this reason I don't go round slapping down people who are following up figures like Bury, Hutchinson or Barnett. "a totally contrived scenario without an iota of supporting evidence": I'm sorry that this, which you say will be your last word on the subject, is a complete distortion of my work, phrased in terms which you either intended to be offensive, or which show that you are sadly insensitive to the tone of language. If the latter, it might explain why you imagine that Anderson's words and Swanson's notes can be dismissed as if they were lies or distortions and not a central part of the Ripper story. If you imagine that an attempt to explain them by following up the information they give, or purport to give, is creating "a totally contrived scenario", then you reveal an unfortunate incomprehension of the ways of historical research. It does not and cannot consist exclusively of collecting data and hoping that the unchallengeable facts that emerge are the truth and the whole truth. Some people wrongly imagine that restricting it in this way is "scientific". They are wrong. Any competent scientist would tell you that many, if not most, new discoveries emerge from the postulation of theories which are then tested in the search for supporting facts. Some would also be able to point out to you that some strikingly successful predictive theories were originally formed on a basis of supposed facts that were in themselves subsequently proved to be false. This has never meant that the predictors were denied credit for perceiving the basic relationship they observed. From your kind words about my work in the asylum registers, and your rude words about my theoretical work, I have to conclude that you have never really appreciated how history is put together from an incomplete record. This might explain the critical words about "The Lodger" in A-Z which I had entirely forgotten, and have never imagined were either the cause of your challenging A-Z's objectivity, or the principle example to stick in your mind. I take it that your objection is to the weight given to the Anderson evidence and the importance of Kosminski. Well, you hold a perfectly justifiable position in wishing that the book were less determined to point out the route that we felt must appeal to historians (which may explain why a trained historian who disagrees with the conclusion must devote so much time to looking for data to disprove it: I am here disagreeing with the "Ripperologist" reviewer who suggested that Phil Sugden seemed obsessed with Anderson. I think Phil was quite rightly challenging the line of enquiry which stands most firmly in opposition to a purely agnostic or mildly Chapmanian position. If you want to disprove Darwinianism, it's no good trying to ignore the fossil record as though it didn't exist or matter. You must go the whole hog like Philip Gosse and say the misleading record was created by God to test man's faith, or show it to be arguably false in some other way). In defence, I would only say that we were reasonably careful to shove in the words, "in the authors' opinion" or the like to show that we were not offering truth from Mt Sinai on tablets of stone. All of this in no way detracts from your splendid work in providing an accurate and detailed publication of as much of the existing records as possible. And in bringing the Littlechild letter to public notice as quickly as possible, with a plausible scenario to explain how Littlechild's ideas might have been valid. Enough, enough. Tom - I do not believe that Stewart took up the cudgels against the A-Z out of personal pique about the entry on "The Lodger". Although he says he once thought Kosminski the likeliest suspect, I think he decided against the Andersonian historical approach long before he found the Littlechild letter. I think he may have felt indignation over what we wrote about Melvin Harris, as we are all more likely to jump to the defence of our friends that ourselves. But I think it most likely that, having decided against the 'Polish Jew' theory, he was understandably annoyed that something he hoped would be sufficiently objective to allow him a wide range of disagreement had steered him in a direction he quite permissibly wanted to reject. He has never replied to the question whether such objectivity should go so far as to allow that the MAybrick diary might not be a forgery. As for my own revised conclusion - have you looked at the dismissive words I wrote about the David Cohen theory in A-Z? Wouldn't it be far more culpably using a reference work to push my own opinions if I'd said he was the most plausible suspect eve proposed? All the best, Martin F
Author: Joseph P. Matthews Wednesday, 10 July 2002 - 10:09 am
Hello everyone, Tom - Thank you for posting details on The Crimes That Haunt Us. I suppose I was giving the two FBI men too much credit in assuming they did their own research. I find it disappointing that in writing this book and formulating their conclusions that they did not. As for the issue of authorial bias, your writings on this subject interest me. I will definately be more aware of this in the future. Thank you. Mr. Evans - Thank you for answering my questions, and I understand that you do not wish to speculate or theorise here. I know the motive for removing organs can never be proved, but I do find it fascinating to think about. Is there any literature that you know of that covers this aspect of the case in more detail? Divia - Your information is good and I appreciate the effort. Thank you very much. Mr. Fido - Any thoughts from you on this subject? Respectfully, Joe
Author: Divia deBrevier Wednesday, 10 July 2002 - 10:58 am
Dear Joe: Thank you for the nod! curtsy Warm regards, Divia
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 10 July 2002 - 01:05 pm
Dear Joe, As one who has visited the homes and seen the libraries and some of the research materials of both Mark Olshaker and John Douglas, and talked with both of them about a number of cases they have investigated, I can assure you that they both do their own research; they check their conclusions against each other's; and they then call in other people to double check for them. Mark goes way beyond the mere stylistic scrivening of a collaborating author putting a 'celebrity's' notes and memories into appropriate style, and is as knowledgeable about the Ripper case as most people who contribute to these boards. Although he is not primarily a true crime writer, his collection of true crime books is far supeior to mine. If it was necessary for one of the other people they consulted, like Dr Ramsden, to do her own work to find out enough about the case to challenge them from a different perspective, then she was indeed doing research "for them" - but not, as you imagine, in place of them. And a research co-ordinator making sure they have used all the appropriate resources? - To suggest that she did the work for them is like suggesting that the continuity girl does the film director's work for him! These loose and more or less mildly denigratory interpretations of what is meant by things other people have said is very dangerous, and may lead to serious misrepresentation. That is why I took such pains to make clear that it was misreading my posting to claim that I ever suggested that Kosminski was either the best or the second best suspect: a correction for which Paul has privately thanked me with an apology for misreading, and which one assumes from his silence Stewart also consents to. (Just as you may assume from my silence that I have checked back Macnaghten, Swanson and Farson, and find that there is no justification whatsoever for my having used the spelling 'Kosminsky'!) All the best, Martin F
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 10 July 2002 - 01:11 pm
Dear Joe and Divia, This is one of those new areas of discussion for which I was offering apologies for not putting forward any thoughts. If I'm to hunt out and get down the list of incarcerated lunatics for Scott, (as well as prparing next term's teaching; completing my records of last term's; preparing for summer visitors; and spending a certain amount of time on my wife's and my geriatric health problems) I can't pursue more than one discussion on the boards. This is not intended as a rebuff or a suggesting that your interest is immaterial: just a genuine apology that you asked me at a time when I can't really take up a new argument. All the best, Martin F
Author: Joseph P. Matthews Wednesday, 10 July 2002 - 01:37 pm
Dear Mr. Fido, Thank you for posting those details about John Douglas and Mark Olshaker. I must admit I am relieved to hear of your first hand experiences with them and the amount of research they complete. Having read some of Douglas' books other than The Crimes That Haunt Us, I have always respected him. Tom's post was disheartening in many ways. I was confused in my mind trying to grapple the idea that these two experienced investigators would not do their own research and simply rely on information provided to them. I suppose, I am guilty of that in this case. I can see that I have probably read too much into Tom's post, and I am sorry for that. Thank you again for clearing that up for me, and I assure you, I meant no disrespect. Respectfully, Joe PS I understand that you cannot take up a new argument right now. I do, however, look forward to discussing the case with you on these boards when you have some time.
Author: Divia deBrevier Thursday, 11 July 2002 - 12:36 am
Dear Mr. Fido: Thank you for your kind note. I understand that you are very busy, and probably have better things to do than to have in-depth debates and discussions with those of us that are less informed. It is such a joy for me to read your posts (and indeed, others'); I learn so much and gives me more "brain food" to digest. The more I read about Jack the Ripper, the more I want to know. I have a great respect for both you and your work; I fervently hope that my posts have not implied otherwise, because that was certainly not the case. My intent was to go back to the original topic in this discussion string, which was something that I wanted to investigate more in-depth, and did not expect you to do my research for me. My own research has been satisfying and stimulating. It is also Tinker Toys compared to yours and has only reinforced my respect for those such as yourself who have devoted much more time than I. Good on you, sir! I look forward to reading future posts (sponge that I am, I enjoy absorbing large quantities of information) when you have time to comment. Warm regards, Divia
Author: Martin Fido Thursday, 11 July 2002 - 05:04 am
Dear Joe and Divia, Don't mench; you're welc, for the kind words. Divia, I haven't seen you say a thing I found offensive. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing profoundly with my opinions. All the best, Martin F
Author: Billy Markland Wednesday, 02 October 2002 - 02:27 am
(I flipped a coin and Mr. Evans won) Mr. Evans and Mr. Fido, Thank you so very much for the demonstration of civility and debating skills contained within this thread! Even in the small time I have been subscribed to this message board, it is like a breath of fresh air! In the Introduction to the 3rd Edition of A-Z, the authors, writing of Whittington-Egan, Rumbelow, & Wilson, stated that they, "...cheerfully tolerated and encouraged new theorists, however controversial their ideas." Perhaps the contributors on the board may emulate the above gentlemen and use as an example the posts of Messrs. Fido & Evans within this thread as a template for rational disagreement. This is off topic but has the theory of Arbie La Bruckman, from your knowledge, any legs to run with? Based upon my limited knowledge this person had the opportunity to be in London at the right time and with, supposedly, the "right" attitude. Best of wishes, Billy

Add a Message