|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Jack the Myth (AP Wolf, 1993)
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Non-Fiction:
Jack the Myth (AP Wolf, 1993)
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 01:25 am |        | I don't suppose it'd be too much to ask that this thread be limited to discussion of A.P. Wolf's book?
Side conversations about Cornwell can be taken to the Cornwell thread(s), personal attacks can be dispensed with completely, and the taking the nicknames of posters here literally so that you can ask questions about Polish Jewish suspects can go in the A.R. thread or Polish Jew thread or Social Chat thread.
Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: AP. Wolf
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 04:52 am | | I agree with Dan, I feel we are slipping off topic here as well, and there are other more suitable places to fight feuds.
I think Jim has said everything that needs to be said about Cornwell's book.
I would like to think that people come over here for a new view on JtR and not the same old rehashed stuff.
Whatever, it is good to see the emerging book get some attention... at last. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 05:37 am | | Dan, you are getting rather petty.
David (Radka) is equally as interesting to read, and just as witty. Why don't you stop sniping at people, and acting superior, and just concentrate on getting your opinion over.
Rick |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 10:42 am | | Rick,
You must have missed the part where the author of the book this thread was created to discuss asked people to take personal attacks elsewhere. If you insist on throwing insults, go create a new topic for that purpose in the Pub Talk section.
Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See:
http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 10:56 am | | AP Wolf,
I apologize for drifting off-topic, and thank you for your patience.
I'm delighted that your work will be available online, and look forward to reading it in its entirety.
Regards,
Jim |
Author: Monty
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 11:21 am | | AP,
Sorry to harp back to this lead.
A clerk at Kearly & Tonge ?? Am I right in saying that I have seen this connection before.
I must admit, I have not read you work for a few years and my memory is poor. Was it mentioned there ??
Monty
As for the rest of those that feel they can hijack any topic for there own devices it quite simply is bad form. Yes, I know I have been guilty of such an act myself but I have always apologised for it.
Wheres your manners ? We have a guest in the house.
Tut-tut. |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 11:52 am | | Who are the real topic hijackers?
Neither A.P. Wolf nor Dan Norder own these message boards. If they want a message boards system over which they have complete control, they should start one up for themselves and moderate it accordingly. On the present boards, however, posters should not be intimidated from responding directly to what is posted.
If someone posts as Dr. Robert Anderson, then I must assume that means something, and he is inviting questions and comment of a nature related to Anderson's role in the case. I think those who read these posts have a right to participate in these comments, not be misdirected elsewhere in a bullying tone.
This kind of intimidation and phoney exclusivity has flashed in the message boards pan before. Several years ago Mark Warren, who posted as Yazoo, thought his views on the case were so sublime that he and his buddies ought to have their own private setup, so they wouldn't have to be bothered by the bulk of posters here who wern't prepared to "take the case as far as they could," as Warren put it. After they investigated the practical aspects of setting up their own system, they decided the rest of us weren't so bad after all, and decided to stay here.
The above bombast and bluster amounts to the same empty immaturity. I agree with Warwick.
David |
Author: julienonperson
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 12:22 pm | | Dan
I really don't know why you stated that I
attacked you. My opening words were " I am
disappointed". I made a few statements but none
of them attacked you. You are jumping to
conclusions. I merely passed on the fact that I
don't feel there is a need to put the person down,
put the work down but why can't personalties be
spared. As for writings in books by authors ,that
you approve of, critizing these or other authors,
does not mean that that particular author is
actually correct, in statements that he or she
has made. What back-up evidence has that author
provided to you?
I really don't care if you have taken this as an
attack on you, because the evidence clearly shows
that it isn't. If you can't accept constructive
critism, then what gives you the right to give it to others? You can give but not receive. Well I am obviously not in your supposed league of persons with as much knowledge of J the R, and I certainly do want to learn from those who have the years of experience in writing and so on,
however I much prefer to respond to persons like C George and many more who, don't argue little
things, over & over. So if you don't bother me than I sure won't bother you.You have an attitude
problem, and your are an egotist.
julie
julie |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 12:49 pm | | julienonperson,
I agree with you, immediately above. Mr. Norder is playing a game here, with rules entirely of his own making. The way the game works is first he makes a donation to the owners of the website, next he drops a canned support appeal link at the bottom of each of his posts which puts dollar bills in their pockets, and then, thinking he's got them in HIS pocket, he goes ahead and runs the web site in his own arbitrary egoistic interests.
This sort of thing has happened here many times before. The longer you post here, the better you get at recognizing it. It comes, lasts for awhile, then goes.
David |
Author: AP. Wolf
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 01:33 pm | | Monty
yes, your memory serves you well, in 1993 I felt that there was an important connection between the murder sites and the placement of warehouses of the Kearly & Tonge tea empire, for at least three of the victims were found outside premises belonging to Kearly & Tonge, two others were found outside similar commercial premises which I have as yet not been able to identify.
I thought this to be of considerable import when a certain Thomas Hanye Cutbush had been employed as a clerk in the tea trade since the age of fifteen, and after leaving that employ he then canvassed for a trade diretory of the Whitechapel area. At the time I failed to find out if Cutbush had actually been employed by Kearly & Tonge - which would seem likely as they had a virtual monopoly of the tea trade in London at the time -and am now attempting to do so... so far without much success but I am ever hopeful. I also believe that the address of 29 Aldgate High Street will dovetail into this information.
Heavens, I better stop there for I have almost ruined the final chapter.
As I now live in some isolation on a distant island I would be more than grateful for any ideas or possible sources for this vital information. I am looking on the net but maybe I'm not looking in the right place. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 01:37 pm | | Jim
No worries.
Hope you enjoy the ride, gets quite bumpy later on. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 02:08 pm | | Hi David (O'Flaherty),
I wasn't trying to give Cornwell any credit. If, as you suggest, she 'holds fast to her belief' in the guilt of Sickert, despite all and any reasonable evidence to the contrary, we might pity her, or think badly of her for it, but it would still be a belief, a self-deception, rather than a blatant exercise in deceiving the public, by only pretending to believe.
Clearly if, as AP.Wolf has claimed here, 'Cornwell knew before her book was published that her suspect, Sickert, had no connection whatsoever to the Ripper crimes, and so did her publishers', that would be a very different matter. That actually implies that Cornwell has proof that Sickert has a cast-iron alibi, doesn't it? If so, it's a very serious accusation, and a very serious problem for Cornwell if AP.Wolf can support it.
Quite important, I would have thought, to establish whether Cornwell is such a deluder, or simply deluded.
I would rather not depend on hearsay for my own beliefs about her motivation and honesty.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Alegria [Moderator]
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 02:12 pm | | Talk about AP Wolf or shut up. Any further off-topic posts will be deleted. If you must reply to do it on the whine and cheese thread or create your own for carping.
AP Wolf. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 05:23 pm | | | I'd rather that read 'talk to' instead of 'talk about', but hey, I'm just passing through. |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 05:34 pm | | Monty/Wolfy
One thing that always bothered me about Cutbush ...
apart from his name, that is ...
Am I correct in remembering that he was openly named and shamed as 'Jack the Ripper' in a daily newspaper?
Did he not sue?
If he did not sue, then why not?
I believe old 'leather apron' himself Pizer succesfully sued the police for a small sum of money, so why not Cutbush?
Not that I know anything more about Cutbush than that because, like Monty, it has been a while since I have read the works that refer to him.
Take a contemporary parallel, for instance. The five white boys accused of murdering Stephen Lawrence were openly named as his murderers in a tabloid newspaper - yet they didn't sue.
What conclusions would you draw from that?
Enough.
Peter |
Author: AP. Wolf
Friday, 20 December 2002 - 06:13 pm | | Peter
Yes, you are quite right, Cutbush was named in the Sun as JtR, but by the time the reporters interviewed him some years later - which they did - in Broadmoor where he was confined at H.M.'s pleasure, he was in a total catatonic state, whether this was the eventual result of the syphilis he had contracted in about 1888 or the result of his deepening psychosis can only be guessed at. He was not capable of eating a bowl of cornflakes let alone pursuing someone through the courts. His uncle - who had been the forceful influence in his life - was dead through suicide, his father had disappeared years before, and after his arrest I believe his family fled to America, where his mother came from anyway.
Although I haven't tested the situation personally I think you will find that - even today - someone who has been committed to a mental institution for the rest of their natural life by H.M.'s orders has no recourse to legal action of any nature. I might be wrong but I think I'm probably right. If you are sectioned then god help you. |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 01:25 pm | | | The Kearley and Tonge thing needs to be pursued. Disgruntled ex-employee? |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 07:47 am | | Thanks for that A.P.
I'm sure that if the situation happened today it would be handled quite differently.
Take Ian Brady, for instance, he's in some kind of mental institution/hotel that laughingly passes for a prison (is it Broadmoor?) but he's always launching legal actions and, more unbelievably, he gets legal aid to do it.
I wonder if any legal eagles out there could comment on the legal aspect of a mental patient being accused of a crime and what their recourse may be?
Cheers
Peter |
Author: AP. Wolf
Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 11:04 am | | I think the legal aspects depend on the sentencing at the original trial, to be confined to a mental instituition does not necessarily mean you have been sectioned under the appropriate act, even further than that you might be found guilty but insane at proceedings but sentenced to a normal prison. I believe that when you were detained at HM's pleasure it was for life and you were sectioned, which meant no contact with the outside world or your fellow prisoners whatsoever. I am not 100% sure myself, especially in the present prison system.
How the Sun ever obtained permission to interview Cutbush at Broadmoor I don't know - some strings must have been pulled via the police me thinks - as that in itself is highly unusual circumstance.
Not so sure that I go along with you about if the situation happened today it would be handled quite differently. In a forthcoming chapter I actually detail the modern case of a policeman's son who uses his father's high ranking position in the force to commit a series of brutal rapes, an adjoining force that investigates the crimes is met with open hostility from the local police, who lie and destroy evidence in an effort to protect their reputation, but eventually the man is brought to some kind of complicated justice where he is then quickly sentenced to a mental institution for the rest of his life. Thus avoiding a lot of bad publicity for his father's police force.
So, no, disagree. Far too much like the Cutbush story. Nothing has changed. |
Author: Peter Wood
Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 11:41 am | | Surely the point is, if the corruption you allude to was uncovered today then the communications network we have wouldn't allow for it to stay covered up for long.
It's all very well for a corrupt police force to cover up for a colleague's son, but that in itself is an act outside of the law - it's not something that they teach at training college.
When I said it would be handled differently today I was referring to acts within the law, not acts outside of the law.
Regards
Peter |
Author: AP. Wolf
Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 01:10 pm | | Peter, sorry, misunderstood you there.
One hopes that the communication networks we have today would force anything like that into the open, but the case I was talking about was a fairly recent one, and still has never been fully investigated or explained. The father did take early retirement, on a very nice pension thank you very much, but I believe he should have been prosecuted for passing vital information on to his son, who then worked round that information to attack his victims. The father maintained he had done so unwittingly, but even so it should never have happened. I will admit to you that after researching this modern case, I was struck by the similarities between Thomas Cutbush and his uncle, Charles Cutbush - who as you know was a very senior police officer of the time - and found this scenario quite gripping. I am aware that at his death by suicide Charles Cutbush had been reduced to clerical duites at Scotland Yard, but prior to this 'promotion' and the arrest of his nephew he had been an active high ranking serving officer. There are interesting parallels to be drawn between the two cases me thinks. |
Author: Eduardo Zinna
Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 05:57 pm | | Dear AP Wolf,
I seem to be one of the privileged ones who own a copy of the first edition of your book. I have read it, enjoyed it and kept it aside as reference against any further Ripper literature, as, I believe, have most readers interested in the subject. I regret that, in view of your desire to remain anonymous, I could not even think of extending to you an invitation to join the Cloak and Dagger Club at one of its meetings at a Whitechapel venue. I hope, however, that you will take an interest on the activities of the Club and the contents of the Club's magazine - the Ripperologist - and that you might wish to contact the magazine or the Club.
With best wishes,
Eduardo Zinna |
Author: AP. Wolf
Monday, 23 December 2002 - 03:25 am | | Very kind, Eduardo.
It is certainly something to consider when I return from a month's exile in the outback of Australia to which I depart Christmas Eve.
Thank you for your kind comments about the Myth. |
Author: Spryder
Monday, 23 December 2002 - 08:25 am | | | Just a notice that chapters 1-5 of AP's book are now available on the Casebook. |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 24 December 2002 - 07:13 am | | AP,
I hope your work pays off. It does seem a teasing lead doesnt it ?
Peter made an interesting point above.....how long can you keep something like that quiet ??
David,
Yeah, whatever.......my Dads bigger than your Dad and he drives a lorry......mature enough for you ??
Monty
 |
Author: Spryder
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 07:10 pm | | Chapters 6 and 7 have now been added to A.P.'s Jack the Myth on the Casebook at:
http://casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/jackmyth.fulltext.html
Enjoy! |
Author: richard nunweek
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 05:03 am | | Hi Wolf.
I have just read you first seven chapters of Jack The Myth, which was a extremely good read.
However If I may make one comment on your chapter regarding Stride and Michael Kidneys involvement in her murder.
You stated Kidney stormed into the police station on the monday evening ranting and raving, about the police incompedence, and you state how come he knew it was Stride as the police were unaware of her identity at the time.
I feel this is not the case she was identified on the sunday morning by two men who had known her in the lodgings, the only confusion the police had was when Mrs Mary Malcolm viewed the body on the sunday evening ,and again in better light the following morning ,and claimed it was her sister Mrs Elizabeth Watts.
So to sum up the woman was identified on the sunday morning some 36 hours before Kidneys visit to the police station as Long Liz, allowing him to feel sure that his woman was dead.
Regards Richard. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 05:43 am | | Oh dear, without being rude I hope you are not right. I will go and check all that and get back to you. When I originally wrote the script back in the 90's I did check this very carefully but material may have been released since then. As I admitted right at the start I have rusted up a bit with the passing of years, but am playing catch-up as fast as I can.
If I remember correctly there was still considerable confusion about the identity of Stride actually at the first inquest which was Monday 1st October?
Thanks for your kind comments about the work. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 10:15 am | | Richard
I've checked again - quickly - and am so far unable to find the reference to these two men identifying Stride on the Sunday morning. However I do know that when the inquest was opened on Monday 1st October the dead woman had still not been named, and in fact was not named at the inquest until Wednesday. For the entire duration of the inquest Detective Inspector E. Reid was present so I am convinced that he would have named the woman as Stride if she had been identified as so on the Sunday.
I would guess that the two men you refer to may have been taken to see the victim to identify her as the unknown woman they had seen in Berner Street on the night of the murder.
Sorry, I remain convinced that Kidney could not have possessed the knowledge that Stride was dead at that particular time unless he had done the deed himself. |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 10:36 am | | Rather than pore over all the details from scratch here, perhaps the starting point for this one should be the excellent dissertation written by Dave Yost with assistance from Stewart Evans, The Identification of Liz Stride.
Regards, V. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 01:59 pm | | I've done that again Viper - as I did read it some months ago as well - but sorry I'm not convinced by the dissertation, although I will agree with you that it is excellent.
I do know that there was a senior police officer at the inquest right from the start, Reid, and if the police had truly known the identity of the victim then they surely would not have sat on that information for the first day of the inquest.
But there is absolutely no mention of that on the first day.
The dissertation leaves me rather confused, are the authors really saying that the identity of Stride was proved on the very day of her murder, the 30th September, and that it took the police and courts three days to catch up with that information? For that is the date they give.
I still feel that these witness identifications are based on witnesses recognising Stride as the women they saw in Berner Street that night, and not on Stride herself.
But of course I would. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 03:34 pm | | Which only goes to show...
people will believe what they want to believe. |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 05:35 pm | | A. P.,
The salient points are as follows… The Times carried this statement on the morning of Monday, 1st October:-
"Late last night the woman murdered in Berner-street was identified by a sister as Elizabeth Stride, who, it seems, had resided latterly in Flower and Dean-street."
A garbled and confused report, maybe, since the 'sister' referred to must have been Mary Malcolm. But the body had already been identified correctly on the Sunday by at least two people who knew Stride from the lodging-house. They were Catherine Lane and Charles Preston, and though they only referred to her as "Long Liz", somebody had been able to ascertain her full name and the news had leaked out to reporters.
On Tuesday, 2nd October the same paper reported the first day of the inquest, held the previous day. Its account started with:-
"Yesterday, Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, Coroner for the South-Eastern Division of Middlesex, opened an inquiry at the Vestry-hall, Cable-street, St. George's-in-the-East, respecting the death of Elizabeth Stride, who was found murdered in a yard in Berner-street on Sunday morning."
Yet that same article finished with the following exchange:-
"The CORONER. - Is the body identified yet?
Inspector Reid. - Not yet.
The Foreman. - I cannot understand that, as she is called Elizabeth Stride.
The CORONER. - That has not yet been sworn to, but something is known of her. It is known where she lived. You had better leave that point until tomorrow.
At this stage the inquiry was adjourned until this [Tuesday] afternoon."
In other words, the Coroner opened the inquest as an investigation into Liz Stride's death, but during the day the identity of the victim was thrown back into question as Mary Malcolm, having already seen the body once on Sunday, saw it twice more on the Monday and became adamant that it was her sister Elizabeth Stokes, thereby forcing the Coroner to adopt a change of position until all the identification evidence had been heard.
If by Sunday evening it was popularly thought that the victim was Liz Stride, and the papers were able to go to press with that name, then Kidney's drunken trip to the police station on the Monday evening (date and time confirmed by his testimony reported on 4th October) did not require him to have any special "guilty" knowledge.
Regards, V. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 05:39 pm | | Stewart
sorry, but I'm still not convinced. It is not a question of what I do or do not believe, what I believe basically is that the writers of the dissertation may well have mistaken witnesses who identified the victim as a person they had seen the night before in Berner Street as witnesses who could identify the victim as Stride.
Show me Stride's name in a newspaper or police report before the Tuesday and I'll roll over and play dead.
I don't mind being wrong. I just want to know that you are right.
It's a small thing. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 05:50 pm | | Thanks for that viper,
very concise, and better surely than the dissertation, and I just rolled over and am now dead.
I checked your facts and you are dead right.
I've lost Kidney but I dearly hope I can hold onto Cutbush.
This is an excellent game. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 06:27 pm | | A.P.
Re- the dissertation, I don't follow what you are saying. It clearly shows the identification of Stride was published in the Daily Telegraph of Monday 1 October.
Stewart |
Author: richard nunweek
Monday, 10 February 2003 - 09:31 am | | Hi Wolf,
Sorry I opened a can of worms, but I had to make the point.
However although you have not shown that Michael Kidney condemed himself on the monday evening at the police station , it does not completely rule him out of the reckoning, when considering him a likely suspect for the Stride murder, a lot of people on these boards would suspect him , as he does appear an awkward character , and lets face it jealousy is a strong motive for murder.
I wish you sincere good fortune on Cutbush,I have been intrested in Jack for about 46 years , since a ten year old and discussions with my grandmother who remembered the murders as a young woman.
I am sure that one day in the not to distant future, something will emerge that will cast positive light on these crimes, and to repeat the famous Kevin Keegan phrase ;I will love it. LOVE IT.
Regards Richard. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Monday, 10 February 2003 - 09:59 am | | Stewart
the point is moot now, obviously, but all I was doing at the time was dodging well-aimed arrows just before I was hit by the cruise missile that blew me completely out of the water. |
Author: AP. Wolf
Monday, 10 February 2003 - 10:15 am | | Richard
absolutely no need to be sorry about opening this particular can of worms, and more power to your elbow for doing so. For me these message boards are here specifically to do just that, so that any theorists or authors can have their views and opinions cut open and dissected in plain public view, and hence be made answerable, just as I was for my mistaken view that Kidney was definitely guilty of Stride's murder because he had gone to the police station to complain when he couldn't have known the identity of the murdered woman. It is now obvious to one and all that he did indeed possess that prior knowledge, so I must retract as gracefully and artfully as I can. I hope I am not the only one to have learnt from this timely upper cut to the jaw.
Perhaps through this process the eventual truth may be teased out, if it hasn't been already that is.
Just like you I remain convinced that Kidney did most likely kill Stride that night, however I can no longer claim that he absolutely did.
And that, my good fellow is a good thing.
I hope that I am able to convince many of the doubters to take another long and serious look at our young Mister Cutbush, and in that process, which is likely to be a rare treat for all - especially my own good self who will probably end up tarred and feathered - perhaps arrive at some sort of conclusion about him.
Keep up the excellent work! |
Author: Jeff D
Tuesday, 11 February 2003 - 03:09 pm | | Dear AP & all !
I am a real fan of Myth and after first reading your book, I posted numerous messages in support of a number of your conclusions here on message boards, quite some time back. I recall being absolutely bewildered as to why Cutbush was dismissed as a genuine suspect so out-of-hand by just about everyone.
The case far from being proven.... true, but he has to be a more credible suspect than any of 3 I could care to mention, such as say, a liverpool cotton merchant, who's name I can't recall, Sooty, an evil looking glove-puppet, or a well known heir to the British monarchy, for example. The suicide of uncle Chief Supt. Cutbush also adding considerably to the mystery.
I am absolutely thrilled to find that you are posting here and after a considerable absence from these boards myself, I am happy to return to further discuss a pet theory of my own I have been working dilligently on for the past 2-years.
I was wondering, however if you could enlighten me as to who did actually live at No. 29 Aldgate High Street in 1888? :-)
Kind Regards
Jeff D |
Author: AP. Wolf
Tuesday, 11 February 2003 - 05:24 pm | | Ah Jeff,
29 Aldgate High Street has already been the subject of some potent posting here, and I feel that you may well have to do some back tracking on the message boards. I can tell you that the finest minds on these message boards have vexed themselves with this address and we are no further. Without hiding behind a hedge that is so big that you'll never see me again, I can tell you that I felt the address was important as a destination.
This might seem to you to be a 'cop-out' and it is. I offer no apologies, I was sick to the teeth in the 90's with the whole Ripper scene and wanted to throw a bomb into their midst.
Today we wake up in a different world, and my attitude is wholly changed. I am no longer dealing with smug dinosaurs but instead am dealing with a new generation who are just as sharp as Jack the Lad's knife and they have my respect for their honed blades. I have already been cut quite badly but am not sorry about that.
I thank you for your positive comments about me work, and am pleased to tell you that I have managed to flesh out a little more information about mad Thomas Cutbush's mad uncle which I believe has real relevance to the case, and that will be in the next chapter.
Don't pet your theory, get it out here in the open where you live or die. |
|
|
|
|
