|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 680
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 9:57 am: | 
|
"It's hard to imagine someone as down and out as,say, Annie Chapman turning away anyone with the price of a go."
We know Stride did.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4292
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
As for the story about the dinner party and the collection of uteri, fact remains that Colonel Dunham’s story is uncorroborated and has not been verified by any other source, which in science and investigations pretty much is a demand if you are going to give it any larger credit, especially if the only source is known to be dubious. And even if Tumblety really DID have a collection of uteri, what does that prove? That he was a serial killer? Absolutely not. Only that he was an eccentric collector and believe me, those were not uncommon in Victorian times.
No, we are certainly not looking for someone like Dr Tumblety. What the known evidence tells us about the Ripper is that he didn’t appear to have the same kind of personality as the very attention-seeking Tumblety. There is no indication on that the Ripper did his crimes in order to be recognised in the same way as Tumblety who wrote pamphlets and articles involving himself in all different kind of affairs. So far to our knowledge no true communication from the killer can be confirmed or any other attempt. Furthermore, Tumblety doesn’t fit any of the known witness descriptions (knowing , though, that witness descriptions always are difficult to use as validation of anything) and there is no evidence of that he ever was violent to anyone. Hateful against women and anti-social – probably yes. But so far no evidence of anything beyond that, that would make him a credible serial killer. Tumblety was named by Littlechild, but Littlechild had very little, if anything at all, to do with the Ripper investigation and was detached to the Special Branch, which makes his words naming a Ripper suspect as less valuable as those who actually worked with the investigation in question. Everyone in every department in Scotland Yard probably had their own ‘favourites’. As Sir Robert says, the Ripper was not someone who stood out on appearance like ´Tumblety did, but more importantly: judging from his behaviour and psychological profile, Tumblety is as far from a serial killer as one can possibly come, and in my mind a very bad suspect.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 836
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 2:50 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
It has always been my opinion, based on study of other similar serial murder cases, that the Ripper was probably on the prowl on many nights when no murder took place. I feel the attacks occurred only when he felt totally comfortable with the situation.
That said, whether or not he actually approached women on those occasions depends very much on how sexually competent he was. If he approached a prostitute, went off with her, and then decided not to kill, that would mean that he would either have to make an excuse or go through with the sexual act, and the former course would seem to me more likely to draw attention to himself than the latter. Undoubtedly many of the girls did talk, and a man who made a habit of propositioning girls and then not going through with the transaction would likely be a piece of information that passed around quickly.
Regarding Tumblety's accent, with all the various different nationalities, languages and accents going on in the East End at that time, I don't think an American accent would have drawn any particular attention at all. His bizarre appearance is a whole other matter though.
"The sun machine is coming down, and we're gonna have a party."
Visit my website - http://www.alansharp.34sp.com/weblog/
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 681
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 22, 2005 - 3:49 pm: |
|
"Regarding Tumblety's accent, with all the various different nationalities, languages and accents going on in the East End at that time, I don't think an American accent would have drawn any particular attention at all. His bizarre appearance is a whole other matter though."
Hi Alan - Of course, no argument on the appearance angle. That alone, IMHO, is enough to strike Tumblety from the Suspects list...And I'm certain you are correct in saying that the East End was a hodgepodge of accents from all over.
But I can't help but think that even if a whore didn't get a decent look at him, or was too befuddled by drink to see straight, that the accent would have provoked comment.
At some point, the police were probably asking every whore in Whitechapel a simple question: "Has anyone out of the ordinary approached you?"
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1727
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 2:35 pm: |
|
Hi Alan
I am one with you about the thought that the Ripper probably was on the prowl many nights without finding a victim. I do part company from you though about whether a man who failed to go through with the act would have provoked comment. Rather I think that it was probably a pretty common occurrence that a "john" was unable to fulfill the act, either through too much drink, nervousness, or whatever reason. Besides which, if the most important point in regard to the work of these women, as it must have been, was whether they got paid, they probably would not tell on a customer who, while he did not go through with the act, still paid them.
Best regards
Chris George
(Message edited by Chrisg on December 23, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 150
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 2:50 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I have to disagree with you on this one. These women were pretty much at the bottom of the social ladder and they had to take a lot of abuse from men. I can envision them telling "war stories" over a few pints and laughing at the men who couldn't rise to the occasion (so to speak). Descriptions of the men would most certainly have been exchanged. It would be their way of getting even.
c.d. |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 151
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
You know, when you think about it,prostitution in Whitechapel doesn't sound particularly appealing. Both parties probably drunk, smelling badly and having to perform in some garbage strewn alley without benefit of foreplay or any interaction prior to the act itself. It does not sound like a highly erotic experience. Still, I imagine that those involved did what needed to be done to achieve the desired end. Fortunately, I myself have never had to pay for a lady's favors. Of course, I am not counting the money spent on drinks, dinner, flowers, movies, plays, symphonies, sporting events, occasional cab rides etc. etc.
c.d. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1261
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
I'd tend to agree with Chris George on the part of impotence being more common than we may percieve it being back then.
Most of the men more than likely were intoxicated prior to approaching a prostitute. Alcohol does cause performance problems,in addition to the men having less than savory [ by our standard ] diets. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1728
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Hi c.d.
Okay, yes I am sure the women did share "war stories" with fellow prostitutes, but, if you note, my point was that not being able to fulfill the act was probably a pretty common occurrence, so why would the killer not being able to "get it up" provoke a response that would be different from any other customer not being able to "rise to the occasion," as you put it? 
I do think that, as I have said before, possibly the Ripper either was an innocuous looking person or else had something about him that set the women at ease, so in which case, again, why would they make particular note of such a man not being able to fulfill the act?
Chris
(Message edited by Chrisg on December 23, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Spiro
Detective Sergeant
Username: Auspirograph
Post Number: 51
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Well Tumblety doesn't appear to have got it up either...attracting police attention instead. |
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 152
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I think the Ripper would have been very agitated and nervous trying to decide if the situation was safe enough for him to proceed with his intentions. I don't think that he ever would have gotten to the point where sex could be deemed to be taking place. Therefore, no performance issue would have come up (so to speak). I think that he would have backed out of the "deal" way before then and that any excuse that he offered for doing so would have been unusual in the woman's experience and it is that that would have been talked about.
c.d. |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 839
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 7:12 pm: |
|
cd
That's exactly the point I was trying to make, that if he knew that he didn't want to go through with the deal, he would likely have backed out before any money changed hands, and this would have been likely to gain him a reputation as a punter to avoid.
"The sun machine is coming down, and we're gonna have a party."
Visit my website - http://www.alansharp.34sp.com/weblog/
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 264
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Donald Soudan,
Thank you Donald, threats have no place on the board is my point.
regards
Julie
|
Andrew Spallek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 2:31 pm: |
|
It has always been my opinion, based on study of other similar serial murder cases, that the Ripper was probably on the prowl on many nights when no murder took place. I feel the attacks occurred only when he felt totally comfortable with the situation
The difficulty with this view is the pattern of dates on which the murders took place. It could, of course, be coincidence but it certainly looks like a predetermined pattern. If the Ripper were out on fruitless prowls it would likely have been on about October 9-10 and about October 31-Nov 1 and possibly at the end of November. I have always thought our questions should center on what might have prevented or deterred the killer from striking at those times.
Personally, I think Tumblety would be an exceptional suspect except for the fact that his appearance would have made him stand out and be noticed.
Andy S. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 1029
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 9:15 pm: |
|
Hi Andy,
I have only been reviewing the remarks on this thread from December 22nd to tonight. I happen to agree that the problem of the Ripper's whereabouts (particularly the missing month of October 1888) is a matter worth discussing and unravelling. Unfortunately it looks like the sort of question which would have material that would only surface after a good suspect with documentation of movements surfaces.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Andrew Spallek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 1041
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 9:59 pm: |
|
True, Jeff.
I've started a new thread called "The Missing Dates" in the General Discussion area to cover this.
Andy S. |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 266
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Andrew Spallek,
Andrew,
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on the ripper and his possible fruitless prowls.
I too think that if not for Tumblety's showy appearance and personality, I think he was somewhat of a chauvanist, otherwise he would make a very viable suspect.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 267
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Howard Brown,
Howard
I do not know whether or not you happened to be following the discussion concerning David Radka's comment to me re I don't know what's good for me etc.
This of course had nothing to do with the thread Tumblety the best suspect.
It had to do with my suggesting that david's name calling had no place on the board etc, etc,
You and I go back a ways and I would appreciate your unbiased opinion as to whether or not I over reacted or was David's comment such that he should be put in his place by the site management,or better still banned for making what I consider a threat.
I apologize for involving you, however your opinion does indeed mean a great deal to me.
Thanks, have a wonderful holiday season, with your beautiful princesses.
luv
Julie
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 925
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Julie,
Thanks for your comments. David Radka, like most bullies, can dish it out but can't take it so he probably will never answer whether he intended to threaten you or simply can't write his way out of a paper bag. In either case, he isn't worth worrying about.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1281
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 8:14 pm: |
|
Julie:
I don't believe Dave was making any threat, to be totally honest,Julie. Things can be misconstrued.
I'd just let it go. For Christmas' sake.
Your pal,How |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 926
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 8:33 pm: |
|
Howard,
Granted, Julie asked for your opinion, but that it was not a threat really is for David to say. He made several posters feel uncomfortable, whether he intended that or not, and he should be man enough to make clear what he meant.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
c.d.
Inspector
Username: Cd
Post Number: 153
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 9:07 pm: |
|
Hey Alan,
Yes, you did make the same point before I did. Sorry, didn't mean to steal your thunder. At least we are in agreement.
c.d. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1284
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 9:11 pm: |
|
Don:
You're probably right,my man. I've got thick skin and skull...so yeah...if I was Julie or someone else,it might bother me. |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 268
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 4:00 pm: |
|
Donald Souden,
Don
Thanks. I know he isn't worth worrying about, however what infuriates me is the fact that he was not chastised by those in charge of the board.
best regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 269
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Howard Brown
Thanks for the comment.I will let it go, however I hope it doesn't happen again to me or anyone else on this board.
all the best
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 270
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 4:15 pm: |
|
Donald Souden
Hi Don
I asked for Howard's opinion because I truly feel that he would be totally honest with me.
I do agree with you however, that David should explain what he meant. If he had posted to my attention that he did not mean his comment as a threat, all would have been forgotten by me.
Misunderstandings happen,however they can only be considered as misunderstandings when the original poster clarifies them as such.
Thank you
Julie
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 498
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 1:18 am: |
|
Julie,
As creepy as his post was, I sincerely don't believe David was threatening you physically or in any other way. I think that was just his way of saying you lack sense and know not of what you speak. Keep in mind that David is certain of two things: 1) He's a genius, and 2) The rest of us are the products of inbreeding. He thinks we're all beneath him, particularly women. He once called me a jew then turned around and accused me of anti-semitism. He has to take meds and some days are better than others. It's important, though, to remember that no person is all bad, just as no person (other than Howard Brown, of course) is all good. In fact, David has quite a soft side. He has the largest collection of Barbara Steisand and show tunes that I've ever seen. When he puts on the leathers and heads down to the Blue Oyster, he cuts a rug like nobody's business. Or at least that's what Stephen Nelson and Mephisto tell me. David makes them hold his spurs and hum Frankie Goes to Hollywood songs for him to dance to. So, you see, there's a completely different side to the disturbingly sociopathic David Radka that we all know and love so well.
Howard Brown, on the other hand, is a smooth-talking pimp daddy 24/7/365.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. Dan Norder keeps my shower mold-free! |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 930
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 10:19 am: |
|
Tom,
Since Julie wants to move on, I will not belabor the topic but -- again -- it is not for you or anyone but Radka to clarify what he posted.
Julie (and several others) initially felt threatened and any decent person would have immediately posted back that it was not meant as a threat. Or, if it was, a real man would have owned up to that. Radka, being neither, has said nothing. No surprise there.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Maria Giordano
Chief Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 538
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Don is right but then Don is a civilized and educated person and a gentleman to boot.
That said, Julie, I'd let it go if I were you. I'm on my soapbox again that the only way to deal with childish behavior on boards is to ignore it.Don't give him what he wants- he's the Black Hole of Attention and as I learned in Child Psych there's no such thing as bad attention.
Mags
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3392
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
And of course, whether we intend it or not,
particularly if not
we all would agree it is best to apologise
"Yo, don't believe the hype"
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 271
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 30, 2005 - 9:26 pm: |
|
Tom Wescott
Your post was a little confusing, however if David thinks that I lack sense and know not what I say, he is wrong and his opinion no longer matters to me, nor the opinions of those who support him.
Don & Maria
Thanks for your support, but I do intend to move on and ignore posters who seem to have a greater than thou attitude.
I post and read other posts to enhance my knowledge of Jack,and I know I cannot pick up new or valuable info by reading continuous posts that only attack other posters.
Intelligent persons do not need to constantly sling mud.
I will still enjoy Casebook and refuse to let a few egotists deny me of that enjoyment.
Now I am going back to the main topic "JACK"
regards
Julie
|
W. VdLinden
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 6:52 pm: |
|
Mr. Palmer.
In your post of 16 December you stated that my two part article, On the trail of Tumblety, Inspector Andrews’ trip to Toronto, which appeared in issues 23 and 24 of Ripper Notes Magazine, contained “inaccuracies and drew false conclusions based on partial information. You then went on to state that I “misquoted Dunham (leaving out two qualifying words) and then compounded his error by misinterpreting (sic) the subtle meaning of the statement, and then finished-off by throwing in a completely undocumented and uncited 'fact'...that was, in reality, untrue. I asked you to explain what the Hell you were talking about. You’ve done that and you’ve got to be kidding, right? This is some kind of joke, has to be. Did you even read my article or is the problem that you didn’t understand it?
First off I’m glad that you explained your little personal bias against me. Not only are you attempting to discredit any information which is contrary to Tumblety’s candidacy as the Ripper, because of the book that you are writing, but you also want some measure of revenge against something that happened “a few years ago” (vindictive much?) to a friend of yours. So, no illusion that you are either unbiased or objective here. You are on a witch hunt with both a vested interest to protect and an axe to grind. So be it.
You stated “I think Mr. V has never been very keen on Tumblety as a suspect, and, if my memory serves me correctly, he once even compared him to a Groucho Marx duck-walk. …Yet, it appears to me that when Vanderlinden finally realized who Charles Dunham was, he smelled blood. Dunham was the shadiest of all characters possible, and now he could "debunk" both Tumblety and the uteri story once and for all.”
This appears to be an attempt to portray me as avidly anti Tumblety. I guess the reason for pulling up something I said 5, 6 or 7 years ago, is to make me look biased and so throw doubt onto my objectivity (something you would know all about). Apparently the fact that I dared to expose problems with the case against Tumblety leads you to believe that I “smelled blood” rather than, as a researcher, that I saw the need to publish new information about the Tumblety case. You seem to feel that any new information which sheds light on the case should be withheld if it conflicts with your personal beliefs and anyone who publishes this information must be rabidly against you and your pet suspect. This shows me more about you than anything else.
Truth be told, I didn’t even write about all the information that has surfaced against Tumblety. I purposely left out information pointed out by Paul Begg in his book The Facts regarding Batty Street and its blood stained lodger and how this man was definitely not Tumblety. You might also have notice that I did not say that I had “debunked” (your word) the case against Tumblety, or that I had demolished the case against Tumblety etc. but instead I very purposely used the header ‘Cracks in the Case Against Tumblety.” Fairly mild to anyone who had an once of objectivity I would have thought.
You start your screed against my article by stating “To begin with, he made the odd decision to quote Michael F. Kauffman, a man who mentions Tumblety in passing in a fairly recent study of John Wilkes Booth. Odd, I say, because Kauffman has shown no evidence of having ever done any original research on either Tumblety or the Whitechapel Murders… why he should be considered an authority on the matter at hand is beyond me. Yet, Vanderlinden quotes Kauffman: ” You go on to post the quote then add “It never ceases to amaze me that a man (or woman) can study the Whitechapel Murder case for 3 years, 8 years, 15 years, or 35 years, and still quickly accept the opinions of a non-specialist….”
This absolutely floored me. Are you kidding? I mean, how could you have so misread the point here? How could you so misunderstand the importance of Kauffman’s words? It seems incredible to me. But you go on! “By what stretch of the imagination is Kauffman's claim true? The press had mentioned Tumblety's arrest and odd proclivities 2 weeks before Dunham clouded the issue. Claims about Tumblety's dislike for women came from a number of credible sources, including Littlechild and even Tumblety's own companion, Martin McGarry. This part of Kauffman's claim doesn't even remotely stand up to scrutiny and it was ill-advised to quote it.” Incredible!
I find it interesting that you don’t mention Carman Cummings at this point. I have to wonder why. What I had written in my article was this “A surprising and more damaging bit of information about Tumblety has come from two non-Ripper related sources: Michael W. Kauffman’s American Brutus and Carman Cummings’ Devil’s game. Both these books shed new light on an important interview that introduced some key facts about Tumblety’s life…”
Kauffman, according to the dust jacket of his book, is “a political historian…who has studied the Lincoln assassination for more than thirty years.” Cummings was a reporter and a professor of journalism at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. As I expressly pointed out they are non-Ripper related sources. That is important. They have no interest in Francis Tumblety, Jack the Ripper or the Whitechapel murders as far as I know. That is part of the point: they are unbiased historians with no axe to grind, no suspect to protect and no reason to either attack or support Tumblety as a Ripper suspect. Instead they both share some expertise on one man: CHARLES DUNHAM.
That is the point which you, amazingly, miss: they are experts on the character, history and life of Dunham - Kauffman through is years of study of the Lincoln assassination and Cummings as Dunham’s biographer. What is important here, and what you cannot seem to grasp, is that these experts on Dunham state that his “interview” with the New York World (2 December, 1888) isn’t worth the paper it was printed on. Dunham is a liar and cannot be trusted. What did Cummings say about this “interview” (I noticed you failed to discuss this for some reason)? “Evans and Garney (sic) say nothing of Dunham’s inventive talents, although the ‘interview’ sounds more like a written account and was probably, like most of Dunham’s work, and act of imagination offered for profit.” This from the man who wrote Dunham’s biography; who knows more about Dunham than anyone else living; who after years of research into Dunham’s character and reliability offers us the benefit of his studies and who has absolutely no interest in attacking you or Tumblety.
Oh, sure, Mr. Palmer, you make a half hearted attempt at claiming that you know that Dunham was a conman and pathological liar but you then turn around and attempt to actually defend his words. To you, obviously, the veracity of the source is unimportant. Liar, conman, perjurer, swindler, forger who two separate historians have stated cannot be trusted, this is meaningless to you. The source may be highly dubious and untrustworthy but at least he supports your view, eh Mr. Palmer? You cling to the content of this worthless “interview” like a drowning man to a log. The fact that you do so tells us an incredible amount about your bias. The blinders are firmly in place.
You then start cherry picking statements from my article, taking them out of context then manipulating them to attempt to make your point that Dunham is in fact a reliable source.
You begin by attempting to show that I was wrong when I pointed out that the time line offered in Dunham’s “interview” and the known events don’t match. You state “In fact, Dunham was all over the place in 1860-63. He was in New York, Canada, Washington D.C., Virginia, and the deep south. He is often operating under assumed names and even his biographer Carmen Cumming has great difficulty following his obscure movements. … In reality, Dunham's own biographer writes:
‘Dunham is known to have visited the capital at least three times in 1861 -- in July, August, and November.’ (Devil's Game, Carmen Cumming, p. 29) Cumming further states that the year Spring 1862-Spring 1863 was the "most hidden" of Dunham's career. He doesn't know where the hell he was!”
Once again, Mr. Palmer, you are disregarding not only what I wrote but also what Dunham himself wrote. First, Dunham states that he first met Tumblety in Washington shortly after the battle of Bull Run (21 July, 1861) yet there is no evidence that suggests that Tumblety was in Washington at this time, is there? This inconsistency with the known facts you just shrug off. Remember, Dunham may be a pathological liar but according to Palmer he’s telling the truth this time. Second, Dunham mentions that “although a young man at the time I held a colonel’s commission in the army…” which is also a lie but is connected to the next point. Third, Dunham then goes on and talks about going to dinner at Tumblety’s office/rooms on H Street this way: “One day my Lieutenant-Colonel and myself accepted the ‘doctor’s’ invitation to a late dinner symposium, he called it – at his rooms….several of the guests, all in the military service, were persons with whom we were already acquainted…”
The impression here is that Colonel Dunham along with his Lieutenant-Colonel and their brother officers were at Tumblety’s dinner party. The problem, which I went into in greater detail in my article, was that Dunham was not a real colonel in an actual regiment but was instead a fake colonel in a fake regiment. This was all an attempt to con the US government into repaying non-existent expenditures supposedly accrued when raising his non-existent regiment. This con ran from near the start of the war till near the end of October, 1861. A new version of this con was then half heartedly attempted but it petered out by late November, 1861. It was only during this brief period that Dunham and his crony and fellow conman, Charles W. Bishop, visited Washington as “Colonel Dunham” and “Lieutenant-Colonel Bishop” (if Bishop actually ever did so.) After this period of time Dunham returned to Washington but only as Sanford Conover not as Colonel Dunham. In fact how could he? It was a time of war. He had promised to raise a regiment but never really attempted it. Worse, he had submitted invoices for expenditures which never existed in an attempt to defraud the Government. After November, 1861 he had no connection with any regiment at all and couldn’t use the rank of colonel. Moreover, how could he move around Washington in a uniform with the insignia of the non-existent Cameron Legion (or Sarsfield Rifles, take your pick) and have no one notice? How is it that no one, including the other officers, whom Dunham claims he knew, at Tumblety’s party didn’t twig to the fact that Dunham’s rank and regiment were fake? How could “Colonel” Dunham gain the requisite papers and military orders which allowed him to travel to Washington and back to New York? Also, how come no one clued into the fact that Sanford Conover and “Colonel” Dunham were one and the same man if both of them were moving around Washington in the same circles and at the same time as you suggest?
No. You are wrong on this point. The dinner must, therefore, have taken place sometime between April and November, 1861. As Cummings points out Dunham only seems to have been in Washington in July, August and November during this period and Bishop, according to Cummings, was back in New York when Dunham made the trip in August so that narrows down the possible time even more. Why does this blow a large hole in Dunham’s story? There is no concrete evidence to prove that Tumblety was in Washington during this time period. Dunham is either lying about the whole thing or he is lying about the circumstances surrounding the supposed dinner.
It is also very interesting that Tumblety writes about “Sandford Conover” in his pamphlet of 1872 and not his friend “Colonel” Dunham. Why is this if, as Dunham claims, he and Tumblety were such good acquaintances? It is “Colonel” Dunham who his invited to Tumblety’s rooms with his “Lieutenant-Colonel.” It is in “Colonel” Dunham’s room that Tumblety unburdens his tale of being married to a woman who turned out to be a prostitute. Sanford Conover is one of Dunham’s other identities yet Tumblety does not mention this. Why?
Now, Mr. Palmer, you seem to be a great one for demanding that people give you evidence or provide you with examples so I’m going to do the same to you. What concrete evidence do you have that places Tumblety in Washington before December, 1861? Don’t give me your opinion, or your suppositions, I’m afraid your credibility does not allow for that, but hard evidence only, please.
You mention that Dunham knew about Tumblety’s trouble with the Canterbury Music Hall, excuse me, you term it “Tumblety’s obscure and brief” trouble. You seem to be attempting to claim that it was too obscure and too brief for anyone to have heard about it. Nice try at “obscuring” the truth Mr. Palmer. In fact the suit was reported in the Washington papers wasn’t it? And it is also a fact, isn’t it, that it was even reported (20 March, 1862) in the St. Thomas Weekly Dispatch, the newspaper of a small Canadian town in Ontario? I think we might have to call that “international news” rather than brief and obscure. What else do you say about this? Oh, Yeah. “Dunham mentions Tumblety's obscure and brief suit with Canterbury Music Hall and although he turns it into a c*ck and bull story, any rational person would realize that he couldn't have possibly (sic) known about it in 1888 unless he knew a good deal about Tumblety' s time in Washington. I find that interesting that you state “he turns it into a c*ck and bull story,” which appears to be “linguistic gymnastics” for attempting to hide the fact that Dunham’s take on the affair does not fit the known facts. More misdirection?
Okay, at this point you got me. You see I knew that if I didn’t edit out the two words “I believe” (plus large chunks of Dunham’s lengthy “interview”) from Dunham’s description of Tumblety’s living/working arrangements everything would fall apart. I was sweating and couldn’t sleep at night because the inclusion of these two little words would ruin the entire 41 page article. Maddeningly, the fact that Dunham was a known liar and perjurer whose words cannot be trusted; the fact that Kauffman discounts Dunham’s story; the fact that his biographer, Cummings, discounts Dunham’s story; the fact that the story doesn’t fit the known facts, all of this would be blown out of the water had I included the two words “I believe” (and I even left that “strange method of editing” so as to completely cover my tracks). This is what you call “linguistic gymnastics”? This is what you meant when you posted that I “misquoted Dunham (leaving out two qualifying words) and then compounded his error by misinterpreting (sic) the subtle meaning of the statement…” (wow, the “subtle meaning” of a totally bogus statement). This is your kill shot? This? Good thing this over the top accusation comes from someone who is totally unbiased and objective about all this and who is not attempting to get even with me. Cling to that log Mr. Palmer.
Let’s look at what Dunham said here shall we? He “believed” that Tumblety was living and working at a location on H Street in Washington (happy now?). We know that Tumblety’s office was at Pennsylvania and 7th Street so the two stories don’t match. In a recent posting on the Tumblety and the Lincoln Assassination board Joe Chetcuti wondered whether Dunham mentioned H Street in connection with Tumblety because this is where Mary Surratt, whose son John was one of the Lincoln conspirators, had her boarding house. Perhaps Dunham was attempting to connect Tumblety to the conspirators Chetcuti wondered. Mr. Palmer responded with this: “ Joe--I agree with you, and don't think this is a coincidence. I'd noticed this sometime back while reading Roscoe's book on the assassination about the infamous little boarding house in H Street, and felt that Dunham's statement was very much a wink and a nod to the Surratt boarding-house….”
What this answer shows is that Mr. Palmer apparently does not agree with Dunham’s information about H Street but doesn’t want to come out and claim that he was lying about it or just plain wrong. How can he, as Dunham is a known liar he can’t have parts of the “interview” appear to be based on lies without destroying the credibility of the whole document. In effect, however, Palmer is stating here that Dunham’s “interview” does contain false information but rather than point out Dunham’s proclivities towards mendacity he writes that it was only a harmless little “wink and a nod.”
This brings us your accusation that I “…finished-off by throwing in a completely undocumented and uncited 'fact'...that was, in reality, untrue. Untrue, Mr. Palmer? You also state “I notice that the citation was left out of the article. Why? Could it be that it wasn't as pristine as it proports (sic) to be? I will await further elucidation.” Palmer is speaking about Tumblety’s living arrangements at Willard’s Hotel, which, because he is the great expert on Tumblety and yet has no knowledge of this, he believes it is “in reality, untrue.” So I must have lied about this because you have missed this fact? But first you point out that Tumblety was living in a boardinghouse because he is supposed to have said that “he had been treated with disrespect at his boarding house.” when giving evidence in his civil suit against the manager of the Canterbury Music Hall. Palmer uses this as the evidence that proves that I must be lying about Willard’s Hotel. Really?
“The provost-marshal, or military governor of Washington, General Wordsworth, who was acquainted with Tumblety’s family in Rochester, repeatedly invited him to his headquarters to dine with him. It was during these evenings that Tumblety became acquainted with several high-ranking military officers. He often stayed late at these soirees, and at such times the general furnished him with some of his staff officers as escorts BACK TO HIS ROOMS AT WILLARD’S HOTEL”
(Evans, Stewart, & Gainey, Paul, The Lodger. The Arrest & Escape of Jack the Ripper, Century Ltd. 1995. Page 199. Bite me.)
So I was lying was I? That “pristine” enough for you Palmer?
So according to some guy named “Evans” Tumblety was staying at Willard’s Hotel which is situated at 1401 Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th Street. We also know that his office was at Pennsylvania and 7th Street. Not the same thing is it? Now, tell me, Mr. Palmer, what was the name of this boardinghouse which you were talking about and where was its location? That only seems fair since I have given you the name of his hotel and its location. I will await further elucidation.
On to Dunham’s claim that Tumblety had been married to a woman who turned out to be a prostitute. Mr. Palmer claims that there is evidence to support this stating “Vanderlinden is forgetting that Mrs. McNamara, Tumblety's Manhattan landlady, stated that he used to absent himself at night from his lodgings in order to ‘pray for his dead wife.’” You are wrong. Mrs. McNamara never said this and you have appeared to have purposely attempted to deceive here. The total quote runs “Everybody in the neighborhood seemed to have heard of Dr. Twomblety’s arrival, and he is well known in all the stores and saloons for several blocks. One merchant who knows him well said:
Mrs. McNamara is a queer old lady, very religious and kind-hearted. The doctor began stopping with her years ago and he has lived there ever since he was in New York. He used to explain his long absence at night, when he was prowling about the streets, by telling her that he had to go to a monastery to pray for his dear departed wife.” (The New York World, 4 December, 1888.)
This story, at best, told second hand is not evidence that Tumblety was married but evidence of how he lied to his religious landlady about his nocturnal cruising probably for young men. Do you really think that Tumblety’s hatred for his wife was so great that he would swear off women for life and also butcher five women in Whitechapel but still go every night to pray for her? Be real.
You also state “oddly, Mr. V also seems to be forgetting that Tumblety's own final papers in St. Louis listed him as a "widower." (Evans & Gainey, p. 245) What Mr. Palmer doesn’t want anyone to know is that when he states “Tumblety’s own final papers” he doesn’t mean Tumblety’s personal papers but his death certificate. He also doesn’t explain that we have no idea who helped fill out the death certificate as Tumblety was only “wintering” in St. Louis and was booked into the hospital under the name Townsend and it was reported that “No relative or intimate friend was at his bedside” (The Newark Advocate 30 May, 1903). This point is important because the DC also lists Tumblety’s date of birth incorrectly as 1820. As Stewart Evans writes “this, as we know, is incorrect and may have been a mistake by the hospital staff reporting the death.” (Evans & Gainey P. 245)
What evidence do you have, Mr. Palmer, to prove that the fact that the DC states that Tumblety was “widowed” is correct and not another error? What do you say to the Newark Advocate, mentioned above, which states that Tumblety was “unmarried”? How about the Baltimore census of 1900 which lists Tumblety as “single”? Moreover, if Tumblety’s hatred of women, especially of prostitutes, stems from his prostitute wife, as Dunham claims in his “interview” then how do you explain the words of Martin McGarry? When asked why Tumblety hated women McGarry stated “He always disliked women very much. He used to say to me: ‘Martin, no women for me.’ He could not bear to have them near him. He thought all women were imposters, and he often said that all the trouble in this world was caused by women.” (The New York World 5th December, 1888.) Tumblety does not mention any prostitute wife to his close and intimate friend McGarry but he tells this personal story to a casual acquaintance like Dunham? Is that really believable? No, it’s not.
Mr. Palmer, I would also like you to name Tumblety’s wife, tell me where the couple was married and when, and also what happened to her. I would like this in addition to the information about Tumblety’s date of arrival in Washington and the name and location of his boarding house. I await your response with great interest.
In the end, I am sure that anyone who is even remotely unbiased can see that Dunham’s “interview” is, as Kauffman and Cummings state, a pack of lies. Anyone who claims that Dunham was telling the truth in the “interview,” or at least that he was telling partial truths, are deluding themselves. There is no concrete evidence to support any of it.
Wolf. |
Belindafromhenmans
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Please, no more pointless radka norder disputes! |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2081
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 7:22 am: |
|
Julie
Posted on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 - 3:06 pm:
Monty
I don't know how you come up with this rationality for David's post.
He sent me a threatening post, telling me I do not know what is good for me.
That sounds pretty clear.
I would hope that you do not share the same sentiments.
Julie,
I would like to apoligies for my delayed reply. I have been away for Christmas.
Sorry for hijacking the thread Folks but I do feel I should respond to this.
Rationality? With Davids posts??
No, it was not pretty clear. You saw a threat. I did not. I was asked my opinion and gave it. Of course, my opinion is worth nothing since the post was addressed to you and therefore the only interpretation that matters is yours. If you felt threatend then I sincerely hope David will respond properly....if he has not already done so.
I have experienced David for some years now and yes, he annoys me at times. Yes, at times, he tries to intimidate and ridicule. However, at times he comes up with some extremely interesting and valid points.
Does this excuse his behaviour? For some not at all. Thats not for me to judge, I do not police him, but my own personal opinion is that sticks and stones may.....but Radka is worth putting up with. To a degree.
Anyway, thats my own view on the fella, yours, I suspect, may be slightly different. I will not, however, let a misinterpretaion of his post become a thorn between the two of us. If what I have put offended in any way, which it has done, then I apoligise.
Sorry Julie,
Regards,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3455
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Monty,
it is worth noting David hasnt apologised.
I'm sure you weren't defending David.
Jenni
"The truth. It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2453
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Hi Julie,
You wrote:
I know he [David Radka] isn't worth worrying about, however what infuriates me is the fact that he was not chastised by those in charge of the board.
So your quarrel is with 'those in charge of the board', for not interpreting David's words as a personal threat to you, and treating them as a breach of the posting rules?
Have you sent a formal complaint via email to the person in charge, Stephen Ryder, directing him to this thread and explaining why you feel the rules were broken? He isn't sitting there 24 hours a day waiting to chastise the next poster who may have hurt someone's feelings and failed to apologise. But he may agree with you that David 'isn't worth worrying about'.
What sort of 'threat' do you think David could possibly have been making against you? To me, his words were patronising, in that he thought he could offer you advice on what and whose writings would be good for you to heed or good for you to dismiss. Did you think as a registered poster David would seriously suggest that if you don't see things his way he will make it the worse for you somehow?
As it is, things can't get much worse for David, as a result of writing stuff that is way too easy for many of us to misinterpret - innocently or wilfully. He is his own worst enemy, and is absolutely no threat to anyone else while sitting at his computer chair typing.
Just think how many alibis we build up for ourselves with our timed, dated and registered user posts. We might argue, fuss and fight like cats and dogs here, but if you don't know it by now, none of us could knock the skin off a rice pudding while doing it.
If it helps, think of the male posters naked (especially David - he'd like that - but don't forget Wolf and RJ too) and eating rice pudding while they are posting. I can think of little less threatening than that.
It's not exactly Titus Pullus (Tightest Pullover) versus the gladiators in the last episode of Rome (last night for UK viewers), but it'll do for now. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 716
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 2:58 pm: |
|
"If it helps, think of the male posters naked (especially David - he'd like that - but don't forget Wolf and RJ too) and eating rice pudding while they are posting. "
I love rice pudding.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 935
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Caz,
He [David] is his own worst enemy
Not as long as several other people (no names, please) are still alive.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 796
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 3:50 pm: |
|
"Mr. Palmer, I would also like you to name Tumblety’s wife, tell me where the couple was married and when, and also what happened to her."
Mr. Vanderlinden-- You seem to have trouble with elementary reading skills, so let me repeat my original statement.
"Whether or not Tumblety was married is irrelevant. The only point is whether or not Dunham may have heard such a statement from his lips."
Was that sentence really so difficult to comprehend?
The rest of your response is largely a smoke screen. For instance, you tell me that Mr. Kauffmann is an expert in Civil War history. Yes, lovely; I think we all knew that. And then, in light of this, you go on to repeat even more vehemently that Dunham is a liar. Yes; I think we all knew that, too.
All this really reveals is a fundamental error in logic, as well as an extemely profound divide between my view of the historian's task and your view of it.
The point wasn't whether or not Dunham was a liar. We know that he was a liar. Nor have I ever "defended" him. One does not "defend" historical figures. The point was that Kauffman stated that "all" the tales told about Tumblety's misogyny could be traced back to Dunham....which was transparently false. Yet you chose to repeat it--because of your strange eagerness to pick fights with your primary sources, and to argue rather than to reason. Historians can't afford to do that.
Perhaps your editor is a bad influence on you; he seems to view history as a sort of search-and-destroy mission---what they used to call "the scorched earth policy."
But I'm tickled that you finally revealed your source for Tumblety living in the most elegant hotel in Washington D.C. and being escorted back & forth by a military entourage.
Yup, just as I suspected: you were referring to Tumblety's own pamphlet. No wonder "Ripper Notes" was hesitant to give the souce.
Let me let you in on something, Mr. Vanderlinden: Tumblety probably didn't smoke cigars with Lord Russel and Ulysses S. Grant, either. If you really think this is credible source in comparison to a contemporary report of Tumblety's court case, then all I can say is, "May Heaven help you."
Next you refer to the St. Thomas article of 20 March, 1862. Here you seem to be confusing the issue of Time and Space. Einstein would be pleased.
The news article was in response to the contemporary law suit. It was of local interest because Tumblety very briefly had a medical racket nearby. This in no way addresses the fact that in 1888 Dunham was aware of this minor legal suit 26 years in the past. You also don't seem to appreciate that Tumblety mentions Conover in his 1872 pamphlet.
But enough of this minutia.
You see, here's the bottom-line. The historian can't afford to be a skeptic. This is what divides the girls from the women, and the boys from the men. He or she can't be gullible either, of course, but in some ways the latter sin is lesser than the former. One has to cultivate what Keats called "negative capability." Stay out of it; don't pick fights with your sources--as a Historian you're basically stuck with what the sea washed up that morning. There is a human agency to all things human. And as much as we want it, we dont' get a video tape of what was under D'Onston Stephenson's bed. We only get a ghost story from a dotty lady. Yes; that has to be part of the equation, but I sure hope no one doesnt' go on to make the mental error of believing they've proven something about Stephenson by showing that Cremers or Collins was 'dotty.' By a similar sort of alchemy, you seem to think you've shown 'cracks' in the Tumblety case by reminding the world of who Col. Dunham was.
This is my last post on this subject. There will be no further responses. The rest is Keats:
"I dined with Haydon the Sunday after you left, and bad a very pleasant day, I dined too (for I have been out too much lately) with Horace Smith, and met his two Brothers, with Hill and King ston, and one Du Bois. They only served to convince me, how superior humour is to wit in respect to enjoyment-These men say things which make one start, without making one feel; they are all alike; their manners are alike; they all know fashionables; they have a mannerism in their eating and drinking, in their mere handling a Decanter-They talked of Kean and his low company -Would I were with that Company instead of yours, said I to mvself! I know such like acquaintance will never do for me and yet I am going to Reynolds on Wednesday. Brown and Dilke walked with me and back from the Christmas pantomime. I had not a dispute but a disquisition, with Dilke on various subjects; several things dove-tailed in my mind, and at once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in Literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously - I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason-Coleridge, for instance, would let go by a fine isolated verisimilitude caught from the Penetralium of mystery, from being incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge."
(Message edited by rjpalmer on January 05, 2006) |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 273
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 6:05 pm: |
|
Caroline
Yes I feel David made a direct threat to me.
No, my quarrel is not with the management of the Casebook, I know they are not watching and reading 24 hrs a day, however I doubt very much that this situation was not brought to their attention by other posters who agreed with my concern.
I did not personally email them,I do not hold them accountable, but I do hold David accountable.
I know there are many times when we all disagree, fight, and get thoroughly pissed with other posters, but there is no need to make a comment such as he did.
This is a very changing world Caroline, you don't know what David is capable off any more than I do.
If he had posted after the fact explaining his meaning or intentions, we would not be having this "conversation" now.
I've been around the boards for awhile Caroline, I am not green, nor am I a pushover, I can and do accept constructive critism as I know other posters feel the same, but we are not talking about regular critism here, David's comments were threats, whether or not you agree is of course your choice. I do not stand alone.
I have already stated that I will move on and not bring this post up again, however it would have been rude if I did not at least acknowledge your post.
regards
Julie
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1094
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 6:25 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
Actually, historians can't afford to not be skeptics... Any "historian" who chooses to believe what they want to believe without taking a critical look at sources isn't a historian but a fantasist. Anyone who acknowledges that sources can and often are incorrect -- especially when the source is a known liar and con man -- is not a "girl" or a "boy" as you so bizarrely put it (geez, sounds like you lifted that straight from Radka's earlier posts), but simply doing the intellectually honest thing. Children live in fantasy worlds, grown ups accept reality. So, much like most of your accusations, you've got things entirely backwards.
Frankly, RJ, this little crusade of yours to insist that people who question sources are somehow bad for doing so is really tiresome. The way you do it is also consistently a violation of the policy against personal attacks on these boards. You can't seem to have an honest debate here, instead everything has to some vast conspiracy of people lying to make you look bad.
All,
I do hope that everyone who hasn't seen it goes back to read Wolf's post above. Having lost his password to his main account he had to post as guest, and it took quite a while to go up so therefore didn't show up when people were looking for new posts.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2785
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 6:41 pm: |
|
Thanks RJ for that!I have always loved poor old Keats-and its a delight to see someone here posting
up one of his famous assertions!Never quite got there myself-but think I understand it .
I always had a soft spot for his friend Severn-who nursed him during the last stages of his T.B.in a tiny room in Rome
My own mother nearly died of TB when I was small.I didnt know where she had gone or what had happened to her for several years.So I think I have a sort of "affinity" with his sense of abandonment as he too had a mother who came and went when he was a very young child.
You have touched a chord RJ.
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2786
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 7:12 pm: |
|
My post above just crossed with Dan"s.
Sorry about the rather inappropriate digression,chaps----hadnt quite read all the above posts just caught the last part of RJ"s above.
Apologies.
Natalie |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 797
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 8:01 pm: |
|
Natalie - Not a problem. I don't think Keats is ever inappropriate. The only time I had a chance to go to London I spent a nice afternoon in an old house he once stayed in on the edge of Hampstead Heath; it's been made up into a nice museum. In a way, I think Keats is as good an antidote as anyone to a certain way of thinking about the world.
"Any "historian" who chooses to believe what they want to believe without taking a critical look at sources isn't a historian ..."
I don't wish to carry on this pointless discussion further, but I did have to pop in for this one. If Mr. Norder will recall (I think he's hoping no one will have noticed) it was I who pointed out that Wolf Vanderlinden's "source" for his "fact"(?) was based on nothing more than Tumblety's own air-castle--so he can hardly turn the tables on me with this misrepresentation.
I've never stated I believe Dunham, just as I've never stated I believe or disbelieve Vittoria Cremers, or Matthew Packer, or Mrs. Maxwell, etc.
Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in the issue of belief.
I think what Keats is saying is that people who get bogged down in 'wit' and 'cleverness' (and I think 'debunking' would fit here, too) are perhaps missing the boat. They're too confident in their own cleverness to sit back quietly and see what they might learn...even from reptile journalists, dotty ladies, and doddering old men.
I don't think "debunking" the world really helps; it's a substitute activity. The ultimate act of debunking will be pushing the case as far as it can be legitimately pushed.
Different world views, only, folks. More of a mental attitude than anything. Take your choice. Bye, RP |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2460
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Hi Julie,
Thanks for clarifying. I thought you were 'infuriated' with 'those in charge' for not having publicly chastised David. My mistake.
Hi RJ,
Why do you put on a completely different head away from Diary World?
There, I'm the dotty lady and you are the witty, clever debunker - so confident in your own 'the Barretts dunnit this way with Diamine ink' rubbish that you dump it and run, so you don't have to be around to hear my objections to the smell it leaves.
What's with Tumblety, that demands such a seismic shift in your attitute towards debunking? Do you only regard it as an unhelpful 'substitute activity' when it's someone else doing it? Or would you say the debunking you do in Diary World when you are not complaining about debunking here is equally unhelpful?
Love,
Caz
X |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 493
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 3:05 pm: |
|
Wow, all this time I've been gone .... and nothing much has changed!
Mikey |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3501
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 3:12 pm: |
|
yuo almost sound suprised, why would you be?!
"I bid him look into the lives of men as though into a mirror"
|
Ken Proctor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Gizmo
Post Number: 124
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 3:29 pm: |
|
"Is that a threat?" - "No it was not!" - "Yes it was!" - "Was not!" - "Was too!" - "Was not!". Crikey some of you folks should join that self help group for compulsive bickering. Its called ON ANON AGAIN. "HOPPY NEW YEAR " "GIZMO"
" Don't be reckless with other people's hearts. Don't put up with people who are reckless wih yours." Baz Luhrman
|
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 495
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Gizmo,
ROFLMAO....that was great!
Jenni,
Nah, not surprised at all!
Mikey |
Ben Holme
Inspector
Username: Benh
Post Number: 152
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 06, 2006 - 7:25 pm: |
|
Just out of interest, does anyone still believe that Tumblety is the "best suspect yet"?
Should anyone respond in the affirmative, I'd be interested to hear his/her version of events relating to Mitre Square and the Lawende sighting.
All the best,
Ben |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
