|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Greg James
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 2:36 pm: | 
|
In the 1991 hardback edition of “The Jack the Ripper A to Z” it states quite clearly under the entry for Joseph Sickert that the Yorshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe, had allegedly harassed and threatened the life of the artist. Of course it was Joseph Sickert who claimed to have been the illegitimate son of the artist Walter Sickert and who also alleged that an illegal marriage had occurred between his grandmother and Prince Albert Victor. Ironically Walter Sickert himself has now also been identified as a possible Ripper suspect.
I also note that the 1996 paperback edition of the same work does not mention the Sutcliffe harassment allegation. But was there any substance at all to the story? If there was I find it difficult to imagine how such a situation could have occurred. For example had Sutcliffe also been inspired by ‘Jack the Ripper’ rather as Peter Kürten, the ‘Monster of Düsseldorf’ had apparently been?
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 367
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Hi Greg,
This meeting between Joseph [Gorman] Sickert and Peter Sutcliffe is covered more fully in Melvyn Faircloughs book, "The Ripper and the Royals" [Duckworth London 1991]. However we only have Joseph's word for it, and he is not considered
reliable.
Best to read the book and make up your own mind.
Rgds
John |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3408
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 7:58 pm: |
|
I have read somewhere that Joseph Sickert claimed that Sutcliffe once had been his driver. True or not, is this story connected to the alleged threats?
Al the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 368
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 8:38 am: |
|
Hi Glen,
According to the account in Fairclough's book, Sutcliffe was the driver of a car that once tried to run Joseph over.
Rgds
John |
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 19
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Hi Greg
According to Sickert's interview with the News of The World 13th May 1984, Peter Sutcliffe had been stalking him for six years, dating from the time of the BBC documentary of Walter Sickert's Jack The Ripper story, on one occasion banging on his daughter's door late at night.
According to the newspaper report Sutcliffe harrassed Sickert with phonecalls and letters ( 3 of which he claimed to have passed on to the Yorkshire Police after becoming suspicious that Sutcliffe was the Yorkshire Ripper)
The two supposedly met in a cafe and Sutcliffe wanted to talk about the Yorkshire Ripper crimes.
Sickert then alleged that Sutcliffe tried to run him down with his car, whilst there was a passenger present.
As regards influencing Peter Sutcliffe,I don't know what truth there is in any of the story, but interesting that according to Sickert Sutcliffe's obsession started after the documentary in 1973 and Peter Sutcliffe's first acknowledged victim was in 1976.
Debra
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 369
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 2:37 am: |
|
I have serious doubts as to whether there is ANY truth in Joe Gorman/Sickert's story.
The "Sutcliffe tried to run me down" story seems a re-embroidery of the Netley tried to run down Alice Margaret story Knight took from Gorman!!
If you read Fairclough (Chapter 11) there is more.
Gorman claimed masons were out to "get" Stephen Knight and that the brain tumour that killed him was "chemically induced".
There is supposed to be a typewritten agreement between gorman and knight, sent on the day the latter died - if true this could be produced, I assume.
"Friends" of Gorman were supposed to have found the first draft of Fairclough's book seditious (!!) and sent it to the crown prosecution Service who visited Gorman's home on 10 May 1986 and took away some documents (what is not revealed) leaving a receipt. A facsimile (interestingly NOT a photograph) is provided - its validity and authenticity could now be checked out under the UK's Freedom of Information Act.
Two days after the CPS, Special Branch visited to ask about the book which might be "treasonable". They took away more photos and letters.
These visits are reportedly revealed on the front page of a local paper - and could be further checked out.
Personally, I find the whole concoction unbelievable.
Can anyone recall the last prosecution for "treason" in the UK - which is what sedition is? It is frankly not credible that the authorities would act in such a way. There is no record of the authorities taking any sort of interest in Knight's book or the earlier Barlow/Watt BBC series.
We know that the so-called Abberline diaries are crude fakes - presumably perpetrated by Gorman. I suggest that the rest of the stories and the evidence (such as the receipt) probably - almost certainly in my view - come from a similar source.
Phil |
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 7:46 pm: |
|
I have neither wit nor energy to deal with this old caperer at this time of night.
|
Greg James
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 11:19 am: |
|
I think it is unfair to simply pass Sickert off as being unreliable in this respect. Yes it is true he had admitted to having embellished his story concerning the Whitechapel murderer but this is hardly surprising under the circumstances. The story in question was entirely based upon hearsay and as a result of this would inevitably have been prone to factual inaccuracy and even exaggeration. However relatives of Joseph Sickert have been able to confirm that such stories referred to had actually been in circulation within his family and this must count for at least something.
To suggest that Sickert had also made up his Sutcliffe story is little short of accusing him of being a pathological liar. Indeed such a position is somewhat risky for what if conmen or other such rogues were to further victimize Sickert? (If he were still living I'm not fully up to date) He wouldn't be able to ask for help because no one would believe him. Indeed such a point of view is both unfounded and, in my opinion, slightly dangerous. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 371
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Hi Greg,
First of all Joseph Sickert died a couple of years ago, details were posted on these boards at the time.
The big problem, to me at least, with Joe's story is that there is no independent proof of his claims; one either belives him or not.
Some time ago I tried to investigate the claim he made that Mary Kelly was sent to Cleveland Street by solicitor Edmund Bellord, whom Joe claimed was a partner in a firm called Perkins and Bellord. I did eventually find this company and found that they did not commence business until about the 1920's, and the Bellord mentioned was in fact the nephew of Edmund. However Edmund Bellord did have a brother who was an estate agent in the Cleveland Street area in the 1880's.
That is always the problem with Joseph Sickert, things can never be proved!
Rgds
John |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 407
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 2:02 am: |
|
There are also question about things like the "Abberline Diaries" (complete with errors) which appear to have been fabricated.
The danger with Joe Gorman is that theorists pick up bits of his various stories that suit them, and then try to justify it. He is an unreliable witness (in legal terms - I'm not implying he was around in 1888!) and should be treated as such.
IMHO NOTHING that Joe ever said should be used unless it can be independently and reliably confirmed.
Phil |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 159
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 3:12 am: |
|
Phil,
Phil Phil Phil Phil Phil.
Laughing out loud Phil.
Phil.
Phil.
I really feel for you Phil.
Phil.
Remember this day Phil.
Phil Phil Phil Phil.
Remember the day when it was so obviously pointed out that you were duped.
Phil.
Phil.
Good work. Great job in your police work and intuitive approach. Everything Joseph Gorman said is a lie. Just remember this day Phil.
Good work Phil.
I hope you recover from all this Phil. After you figure it all out finally, or after its over Phil.
Phil Phil Phil Phil.
Good luck. You'll need it.
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 410
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
I shall certainly remember it as the day I received an insane and inappropriate post.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2303
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 8:42 am: |
|
Phil,
I think you offended Stan or something!
Jenni |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 411
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
Did I??
He probably needs to be able to quote Joe Gorman for some pet theory he has!!
Phil |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2310
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
Phil,
I don't know about that.
Still, I wouldn't have thought Mr Gorman the most reliable of sources myself.
But what do I know?
Jenni
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 160
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Phil,
Insane? Sure. I was drunk when I posted that.
Inappropriate? I don't see how.
Offended? No. I don;t have a personal stake in this case. I do find it funny that someone like Phil, who posts such lengthy and thorough posts about other topics, would just dismiss Joseph Gorman as a liar, and leave it at that. It's really thorough.
See the difference between me and you Phil is that simply because Joseph Gorman has lied in the past, I don't feel some need to end my research there. And dont feel like you're the only one who has missed this simple explanation.
Isn't it possible that Joseph Gorman has done nothing but lie about the murders, but on purpose?
That one flew right by you Phil, didnt it? Again, dont feel bad, it has flown by most people. Mainly because they have some personal stake in the case and find Jospeh Gorman's lies upsetting, so they dismiss everything he says. It's incredibly thorough, if you ask me. And that was sarcasm, if you didn't catch it.
From your last post it's obvious you have a personal stake in this, or else you wouldn;t have stated that I NEED to be able to quote Gorman for some pet theory. It's as if you are hoping I NEED to, to make yourself feel better when I am wrong, because no one could possibly use Gorman within a theory, right? To do so would be upsetting to most.
That is unless you were the one who didn't fall for his lies. Lies made specifically to make him appear as if he were not credible, along with his own ideas on the case.
And thats the difference between you and I Phil. You see a man who has lied and disregard everything he says. I see a man who has lied and investigate further, to see why he lied. What purpose would his lies serve? And then it becomes clear.
But you keep making those abrupt conclusions. It is solid and thorough research.
As far as inappropriate, to return to that ridiculous comment you made Phil, what are we three years old here? Perhaps less etiquette and more common sense. I'm not here to serve tea to the Queen, but to challenge ridiculous posts like yours about dismissing things without taking the time to ask why. One thing you, like most, never understood, it's just as important as to why the murders took place as it is to find out who committed them.
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 161
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 2:53 pm: |
|
And here's a little extra for you Phil,
Jeez, what would make Joseph Gorman even seem less credible? Any idea? Any?
Perhaps concocting a story where he was actually stalked by the Yorkshire Ripper without any proof? Would that do it? Would something so absurd, having nothing to do with the 'JTR' case, make Gorman seem even less credible?
So if someone wanted to make themselves seem less credible, this story would do it huh?
But you'll probably dismiss this also. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you'll read this and actually take a moment to think about it. I could be wrong though. You might simply dismiss it because to actually entertain the thought means you were Royally duped, no pun intended. You can't have that now can you Phil?
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 413
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Stan - leaving your extraordinary rant to one side - I'll just say I don't place much faith either in drunks or habitual liars.
Actually, now you're sober, you might care to re-read my earlier post. the last line actually reads, "IMHO NOTHING that Joe ever said should be used unless it can be independently and reliably confirmed.
So I didn't dismiss anything, Stan. That said, if you want to waste your time on pursuing the matter that is up to you, frankly I have other and better things to do.
Gorman has demonstrably lied twice - once to knight by his own admission; and clearly in regard to the worthless "Abberline Diaries" - I am afraid that is enough to me.
Only a conspiracy theorist will twist that in the way you are doing, with absolutely no basis other than your own wish. You give none, I backed up my statements with evidence as I see it, you might do the same - though of course, you cannot.
As I mentioned in a previous post, some of the evidence Gorman claims in regard to Sutcliffe and "officials" is actually mentioned in Fairclough's book - have you read that? But the evidence is not convincing - write to the publishersd and ask to see it. You can, as I stated above, check with official sources under the UK Freedom of Information Act (you don't have to live in the UK to do so). The authorities have, at the very least to confirm or deny that they hold the information even if there is an exemption. If they do not, you might have grounds for some suspicion as it would be a rare case. Check with Criwn Prosecution Service, MI5, the Met - or anyone else you deem likely to be involved.
But as I have said, your "rant" was mis-judged. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether I am right or wrong in absolute terms. In evaluating the evidence critically, judiciously and on balance, as any historian is trained to do, one makes judgements. I made mine. As i said, if confirmation were to emerge from an independent and reliable source (NOT you by the way, Stan) but someone like AP, Chris Scott or a reputable author, I would look at my decision again.
By the way, precisely what criteria do YOU use when evaluating evidence? How does Joe Gorman meet that criteria?
Phil
However
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 162
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
Phil,
I love the fact that by having an alternate opinion than yours and a different approach to research I become a non-credible source and not a reputable author.
It must be great to live in your world, where you run things and those that differ or disagree with King Phil are less worthy of analyzing evidence.
It's also obvious you're not capable of understanding my point. You say that Gorman demonstrably lied twice. You have no clue how far off you are on that. By actually studying the case and Gorman, who is now involved in the periphery of the case, I place the lies at a much higher number than 2. But you didn't care to look into it.
As you said - "I couldn't care less whether I am right or wrong in absolute terms"
So my question is - What the hell are you doing here if you don't care about being right or wrong?
When you want to learn something you obviously missed let me know. This unreputable, unreliable man will give you one free lesson.
Why do I know you are too vain to take me up on that offer King Phil?
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 163
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Phil,
One time offer. Want to play the learning game? I'll ask you a question and you give the answer. You might actually learn something?
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 418
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Not from you Stan, you might not be sober at the time.
Please note: This is the LAST post of yours to which I will reply, since you have nothing to say and your rudeness is calculated. Also since you didn't answer my direct questions, why should I respond to yours?
The twice Gorman can be shown to have lied, relates to the two occasions on which he did so - Knight's and Fairclough's books - I certainly couldn't be bothered to ennumerate the individual untruths. Why should anyone waste their time doing so?
While I am writing, get this straight:
I love the fact that by having an alternate opinion than yours and a different approach to research I become a non-credible source and not a reputable author.
You misunderstand. You are a non-credible source because you yourself stated you posted when drunk!!! How unreliable can you get?
...where you run things and those that differ or disagree with King Phil are less worthy of analyzing evidence.
I neither said nor implied that. I simply stated my approach. I make my own mind up, I do not simply follow the conclusions of other's blindly. You are entitled to your approach, but if it is less than rigorous and thorough and open to challenge by your peers - as mine always are - then they will be challenged and critiqued by me, if not by others. If i stand for anything, it is some sort of standards in evaluating evidence, since thinking such as you demonstrate in the posts above is largely what has made Ripper-studies such a laughing stock.
It's also obvious you're not capable of understanding my point.
Which was? or is it that I disagree with it, NOT misunderstand?
By actually studying the case and Gorman, who is now involved in the periphery of the case, I place the lies at a much higher number than 2.
Gorman is not now involved in the case, he's dead. Do you infer by the same logic that Barnardo and Carroll should be regarded as suspects in the same degree as Druitt and Tumblety, since their names have been mentioned in connection with the case.
I would also point out that, in studying the case, you might note that Gorman's first colleague (Knight) deliberately and knowingly concealed and misused evidence.
But you didn't care to look into it. Look into what?
As you said - "I couldn't care less whether I am right or wrong in absolute terms" ... So my question is - What the hell are you doing here if you don't care about being right or wrong?
The remark related to weighing evidence. I can only evaluate what we have, and so my conclusions may be wrong if fresh evidence or new thinking emerges. That's common sense nothing more. In legal terms, a verdict can be challenged if new evidence emerges and a re-trial takes place. intellectually, that is the approach I take.
But I never theorise about JtR. the evidence is simply too unreliable.
This unreputable, unreliable man will give you one free lesson. Just one lesson - in what? drinking? Or writing banal and pointless posts?
Why do I know you are too vain to take me up on that offer King Phil?
Not too vain, just lacking in time to play childish games with vexatious and boring correspondents.
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 164
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Phil,
Well I'm glad we got that straight. You're the best and I'm nothing. Now the case can move on.
You are a sad sad little man. Heavens forbid that you actually learn something from a jackass like myself. What would happen to your world if that occurred?
You still don't get the point. So here it is again for ya'.
Yes Joseph Gorman lied. Yes he lied on more than one occasion. Yes this can be proven. Why is that where the research into Gorman stops. Why can't those lies be calculated like my apparent rudeness? And if they are calculated and purposeful, then theres more to look into, rather than just throwing in the towel Phil. Like you have done with Gorman. As far as you're concerned anything having to do with Gorman and the 'JTR' case is garbage and wrong. Thats real thorough. But then again you keep bringing up legal issues, as if by some reasoning you want to take the murderer to court. Newsflash - 'JTR' is dead. There won't be a trial.
Here's some info for you to ignore, being the thorough researcher that you are.
Gorman claims to have possession of the Abberline Diaries.
Fairclough claimed to have seen them but not read them in full.
Gorman has cited material from within them based upon a 1989 article by Neal Sheldon.
This has led us to the obvious conclusion that they are fake, and Gorman is lying again.
So - what do you learn from this?
Gorman is a liar and don't trust or even look into anything he says.
What do I learn from this?
If Gorman uses erroneous information from a 1989 article by Neal Sheldon, stating that this information came from within the Abberline Diaries -
WAIT FOR IT
WAIT FOR IT
WAIT FOR IT
How on Earth does Gorman announce the existence of the Abberline Diaries to the public on April 21st, 1988? If they are supposed to contain information from an article that hasn't been written yet?
DO YOU FOLLOW YET?
Its not the credible nature of Gorman that's important. It's actually his uncredible nature that is what is important.
By not throwing in the towel I've discovered this great discrepency. You missed it, not wholly because you threw in the towel on Gormon's crediblility, but because you are not a thorough researcher, and despite the amount of evidence you regurgitate on these boards from the work of others, you will never be a good researcher, because you don't care whether you are right or wrong, only whether or not you look like you might know something, by regurgitating others' work.
So there is just a little snippet of the information I know because I didn't give up on Gorman when it was shown he was a liar. The same way I didn't give up on Donald McCormick when it was shown he was a liar, which I proved in my book, by eliminating 2 suspects who never existed.
Where you stop, that's where I kick it into high gear. What I know on the case would shock you. Not because it's 10x more than what you've read and spat back out to make yourself appear knowledgeable, but because its something that totally escaped you, because of your admittedly weak research methods.
So keep up that good work Phil. And yes I do drink. I guess that makes everything I've ever said wrong and not credible. I wonder? Does it rain ignorance on your world?
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 165
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
To all,
Since Phil will not respond to the above post we will just have to wait until my theory is published and the entirety is revealed. Then and only then will we hear from Phil on the subject, who will be spatting out the information that others have researched and hypothesized.
Why I am using him, in case anyone wonders, is not because he has upset me Jenni, but because I just don't particularly like those with superiority complexes, especially when it is not warranted.
Unlike other authors I will call a spade a spade, rather than just not dealing with the obvious narcissism displayed by those who feel their opinion and ideas are the only true ones. People like that just need to be knocked down a peg or two. Unfortunately the board has such an abundance of them that they can join forces to reinforce their own ineptitude.
That only makes me want to show them that truth more.
So anyone who would like to ask me a question about the case, or any suspect, or even throw some opinions around and discuss them please feel free to e-mail me at JSDUKER@AOL.COM
I shall now give the boards back to the purveyors of stagnancy and ask them to keep up the good work. The case is going nowhere in your hands fellas. Well done.
SJR |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 652
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 12:30 am: |
|
And here I was going to come right out and call Gorman a pathological liar instead of only insinuating it...
"the obvious narcissism displayed by those who feel their opinion and ideas are the only true ones [...] only makes me want to show them that truth more."
Nuh?
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 423
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 1:26 am: |
|
Quod erat demonstrandum - I don't think anymore needs to be said.
Sad really.
P |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 166
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 1:42 am: |
|
Yes it is. You'll never know how sad it really is though. Keep piggybacking off the work of others. It's working for you.
SJR |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 914
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 6:26 am: |
|
Stan,
You know, I am the reigning irrational shrew on the boards and I really don't like it when people challenge my throne. I am starting to feel competitive.
|
AAR
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 2:52 am: |
|
Phil, I have to agree with you. Don't you find it amazing how some people write a 'Ripper book' then seem to believe that they are a leading authority on the case? That, of course, does not follow. |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 167
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 1:51 am: |
|
AAR,
Excellent post. You are absolutely right. Those who gather enough information to have a book published, especially a reference book on a specific topic of the case, really shouldnt believe they know anything. I mean, that's just silly.
That would be as if someone, who just stated the information that others have discovered and actually formed an opinion of to make some contribution to the case, appear as if they really knew the case versus just repeating what they had read on a website.
Keep up the good work AAR. We're all counting on you.
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 432
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 2:15 am: |
|
NO AAR, I don't agree.
Someone who writes a book on the Ripper case probably can be regarded, at least to some degree, as an authority given the sustained research and thought that would be involved. Putting words on paper isn't that easy. I have never written a Ripper 9or any other) book and I take my hat off to those who have.
Now, whether I have respect for the theory promoted is another matter. But the fact that I don't agree with Philip Sugden's choice as suspect, doesn't mean that I don't think his book is the best ever on JtR, superbly crafted, researched and thought-through.
What I have absolute contempt for are those who believe that reference books on the Ripper or specific aspects of the case and their authors are worthless.
I have deep admiration for Sugden, Begg, Fido and the authors of the A-Z and other reference works, that make it possible to check facts easily and relatively reliably.
At least that way most of us don't go around making ridiculous statements about bruising that isn't there, and mis-stating sources. Such things simply shouldn't happen these days, and those who perpetrate such mistakes show themselves up.
Sorry not to be able to agree, AAR,
Phil
|
AAR
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 2:32 am: |
|
Fine, but please note I did say 'leading authority'. I was not aware that Sugden chose a suspect, he merely said that Chapman was the best of a bad bunch but made it clear that he did not think he was the Ripper. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 439
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Then why spend 25% of his book writing about him?? |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 168
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
There's actually an answer for that, which I know. Not sure anyone cares to hear though.
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 443
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
I assume it is to mislead us all because the establishment is into a massive cover-up to spite you Stan. That it?
And the answer is no, I don't care to hear it. |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 170
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Then I'd turn away Phil, cause some people might care to hear it.
Sugden was forced into including the chapter on a suspect he was to push by the publisher. He really doesn't, or didn't believe 'JTR' was Severin Klosowski, but rather when forced to include a suspect he chose the suspect he believed was mistakenly endorsed by Abberline. It was more of a backing of Abberline, than a backing of Klosowski, who wasn't endorsed by Abberline until March of 1903.
And it's nice to see you're still as disrespectful as ever Phil, even after an apology, praise for an earlier post to AAR and an attempt to move forward. Good to see your short sightedness extends past the case.
And keep thinking that because one conspiracy is wrong with regards to the case that that means every and all conspiracies have to be wrong. By that logic, you disrespectful uppity waste of space, since one suspect is innocent all suspects are innocent. But I don't suppose you'd understand the implications of your own bullshit Phil.
Now I'm through with you. You may go.
SJR |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 7:47 pm: |
|
Hello,
Is nastiness really needed to make a point? I am seeing this more and more on these boards of late.
Why is everybody so cranky? If it is not a problem with language, it's subject matter etc. Nobody seems to get along. I am finding it harder and harder to post, because I am afraid I'll get graded on my post, or will get torn appart(should I have said ripped?)
I agree we all need serious research, based on fact and logic. As Phil has posted on another thread there are several on this board who have and are spending many hours bringing information to us. They know who they are. They have NEVER talked down to me and have always treated even my stupid questions seriously. Not once have they ever said anything to me degrading or making me feel like I am a stupid person. Lord, knows they could!
I just don't feel this board is the place for petty bickering back and forth, sorry just my humble opinion.
Carolyn 
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 342
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 9:14 pm: |
|
Stan Russo hears a strange noise in the woods, it must be Bigfoot.
Stan Russo sees a light in the sky, it must be aliens.
Joseph Gorman talks. We see a patent lie, Stan Russo sees a hidden truth.
Those who speak against Stan Russo are merely narrowminded.
Stephen King killed John Lennon.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 171
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 9:23 pm: |
|
Tom,
Thanks for proving my point. If someone sees one conspiracy, oh I don't know, something like a fake assassination attempt on Arthur Balfour with a connection to 'JTR', for which we of course have no independant confirmation for (SARCASM SARCASM SARCASM BECAUSE WE DO), then they must see Bigfoot in the woods, right?
Point proven so nicely for me Tom. Good job. I think you know Phil.
SJR |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 343
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 12:36 am: |
|
Stan's totally pissed at me. He said I turned a friend (him) into an adversary. And it was because of the last post I made. Apparently, Stan doesn't believe in Bigfoot. My bad. I take that back. However, I still don't see the connection between Balfour and a man who wasn't alive in 1888 and who's only connection to the Whitechapel murders is that he CLAIMS to be the son of a man who WAS alive at the time of the murders but (drum roll) also has no connection to the crimes. One thing that is often overlooked is that Joseph Gorman is just as likely NOT to have been Walter Sickert's son as he is TO have been his son. Therefore, the burden of proof must FIRST be PROVING that he was Sickert's son, because there is a measure of doubt. Then, and only then, should anything he say that supposedly came from Walter Sickert be given a serious listen.
There's my screwed up backwards logic regarding this matter. Moriarty (think Stan) will now have the chance to - right in front of your very eyes! - explode my unsounds logic, exposing me for the fool that I am, a feat that I've spent 30 years making rather easy for him.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Hello, Phil, I don't believe we've met. Are you an adversary of Stan's? |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 172
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:35 am: |
|
Tom,
Of course you can't see the connection, because it would take a degree of understanding that you do not possess. But for the rest here it is.
As is known, MacNaghten once held a belief that 'JTR' was connected to an assassination plot against Arthur Balfour. This was proven from documentation made public in 1956 by Raplh Strauss and Douglas Browne in their book. Now, as we all know, there was no attempt on Balfour's life, despite this statement by MacNaghten, documents seen by Browne and Strauss, memoirs of Monro that back it up which state that the Fenians attempted "to inaguarate a system of assassinations of eminet persons, Mr. Balfour especially" and most importantly knowledge from numerous books on the Fenians and the IRA that within the Fenian organizations during 1888 there was so much in-fighting that no terrorist campaigns were being undertaken.
Take all that together - MacNaghten sees something to link 'JTR' with a Fenian assassination of Balfour, Monro's memoirs show that there were threats of assassination against prominent people, especially Balfour, Douglas Browne and Ralph Strauss verifying it, no terrorist plots being uindertaken against England during 1888 according to high ranking Fenians, recorded in numerous history books on that subject which all say the in-fighting among clashing Fenian factions basically halted the terrorist campaigns against England in the late 1880's - and then understand that no assassination attempt was made against Balfour, no Fenian was planning any attempt, letters were sent to the Special Branch indicating that there was a planned assassination, MacNaghten seeing these letters, of which he made the connection between the false assassination and 'JTR', and the fact that in the MacNaghten Memorandum of 1894 no mention of this Fenian suspect is ever made.
That's a conspiracy TOM. When more than one person conspires to commit an act against a person or a group, in this case falsely making the Special Branch, a governmental group, believe the Fenians were planning an assassination attempt against Balfour, which they were decidely not, while also connecting it to the 'JTR' murders, which MacNaghten saw documents of, verified by Strauss and Browne, which had no real connection to it. Conspiracy. Someone, or more than one, sent letters to the Special Branch claiming assassinations attempts were to be made against Balfour, and in some way linked this to the 'JTR' murders. Backed up documented facts. Now if that isn't a conspiracy to commit a false act against a governmental group, perhaps in order to do whatever, as it surely had a purpose, then I don't know what is.
So there's your link. If you'd bothered to study the case past Robert Donston Stephenson and his obvious guilt in your eyes, of which you've never shown any proof, evidence, indications of wrongdoing or even theory, you might have been able to notice these problems.
So everything isn't as neat and tidy as you believe it Tom. And it doesn't have to be as big as the JFK assassination to be a conspiracy.
Why I am pissed at you I have explained to you, which you can feel free to reveal.
What you don't get, and never will TOM, along with some others, is that it really doesn't matter if Joseph Gorman was Sickert's son, or whether he was stalked by Peter Sutcliffe. that garbage doesn't matter. Personally I don't believe either one, which goes along with my idea that Gorman was a liar. But unlike you I won't stop there. I won't throw in the research towel. I'll ask why did he lie? What purpose does it serve? And I'll look into it. Your logic is that Joseph Gorman is such a bad person, cause he is an obvious liar, which is proven and we all agree on, but he's not bad enough to have lied about these things on purpose, to maybe make himself look ridiculous and uncredible. That would be impossible. Great logic. Bad man and liar, but not bad man enough to lie for a reason. Backwards logic. Show me how it is not.
More backwards logic provided by Tom - We have to prove Joseph Gorman is Sickert's son before we can believe his lies? That's what you are asking. What Gorman is saying Sickert told him, are lies. PROVED LIES. But before we are supposed to believe his lies, which is not what I am professing, I have to prove he was the son of a man who was most likely impotent, and sixty-five when Joseph Gorman was born? Let me restate this - I must prove he was someone's son, which is a lie, before I can believe his other lies, which are proved lies. More backwards logic. Some would call it bass ackwards. I would agree.
What you fail to realize is that its not Gorman's credibility that should be called into question, its actually his lies that are more revealing, and are what I researched, discovering some interesting problems. Some of which I listed, but no one cared to comment on. Why?
Here's why. Because when the real ardent (SARCASTIC) researchers like yourself Tom, Phil Hill and others hear the name Joseph Gorman or Joseph Sickert they immediately have a reaction - can't trust a word he says. Well no ship(t) Sherlock. Gorman was a liar, but what if he was a deliberate liar? Never thought of that, because your research habits are weak, and your logic is all backwards, which is why you will miss things, that others may hypothesize, which of course produces sidetracks to the case such as comparisons to Bigfoot or NASA moon landings.
So continue with your smarmy comments about Bigfoot, etc, to make me out as a loon. To you, as well as Phil Hill, all conspiracies are on equal footing, as you proved in your post, and he proves every time he challenges an alternative opinion to his own. The conspiracy committed by Charles Keating in the 1980's with junk bonds is the equivalent of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster to you, because you have no ability to see past your own ego, that others might actually have discovered something, or might actually have an original thought on the case.
SJR
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 445
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:47 am: |
|
No I'm NOT an adversary of Stan's, Tom, or of anyone on these boards.
Stan is Stan.
He's actually like a little child, who doesn't relate in an adult way to others and has tantrums. Try to understand him, Tom.
The truth HE can't face is that there is no need to hypothesise a conspiracy in the Ripper case. Nor is there any convincing evidence of one.
As for the "fake assassination attempt on Arthur Balfour with a connection to 'JTR', for which we of course have no independant confirmation ...(SARCASM ...BECAUSE WE DO)" - it is for STan to cite his evidence so we can all test it out and confirm its accuracy.
I regret that big Stan (the way he likes to see himself) has a reputation for carelessness inaccuracy and mendacity (whichever word fits best) when it comes to evidence.
There was something about bruising on Eddowes body that Stan claimed was referenced in Browns's post mortem report. It turned out that there was no such reference to bruising at all. Stan's much vaunted theory was based on nothing except his own bravado and fantasies.
Stan is a busted flush I regret. All hot air and no substance. Shame.
By the way, don't be bullied by him or afraid of him, he cannot hurt anyone.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 446
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:52 am: |
|
(I posted my last piece before seeing Stan's rant about the evidence he purports to relate to the "Balfour conspiracy".
Given Stan's previous form, I strongly suggest everyone tests out his claims.
As for Joe Gorman, the probable reasons he lied are - he liked or couldn't help lying; and/or he was a fantasist. There is no credible reason to suppose anything else.
phil |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 173
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 200 |
| | | |
