|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 59
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 7:47 pm: |       |
Glenn,
"I think you hardly read Kitty's posts correctly. I believe you missed words like "losers" etc. -- and if you did, you were probably the only one.
But OK, everyone acknowledges the insults on the part who they dislike and forget the others, I guess."
My deepest apologies, Glenn.
I was basing what you had said to Kitty only on this topic and a quick flick through the main one you are arguing on, but after taking a thorough look through it - my god!
Once again, sorry, I had no idea of the extent of what Kitty had been saying to you all. I feel ashamed of even saying that now.
"But feel free to agree with Kitty on whatever points she has, Adam, I certainly won't stop you."
Somehow, I don't think that will be happening. Quite the opposite.
Regards,
Adam. 
The Wenty-icator! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2464
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 7:57 pm: | |
Adam,
Don't think about it -- it's OK.
It takes two to tango, you know, and I don't think I had my best moments either.
But thanks anyway, I appreciate that,
Kitty is ... hmmm... unique in her own way.... 
Well, have a Happy Christmas, Adam and hopefully we'll cross swords again after the holidays. 
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 148
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:03 pm: | |
Awwww... It's so good to see some peacemaking at Christmas! Goodonya, boys!
Bestest,
Lyn  |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 63
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:45 pm: | |
Glenn,
Thanks, I'm glad you understand. We all have our good and bad moments, that's nothing out of the ordinary - still, Kitty seems to have more of the bad moments than good ones.
Merry Christmas, Glenn, have a great time. And a Happy new year!
I don't think it would be us if we didn't get the swords out eventually again! May we all cross paths and argue once again in 2005 - if not before! 
Lyn,
Thanks! Merry Christmas to you too!
Cheers,
Adam. (now in the festive spirit).
The Wenty-icator! |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 169
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 10:02 pm: | |
Mr.Spallek said something in a previous post that should be considered regarding Druitt's participation in a cricket match "a few hours" after the murder of Mrs.Chapman..
The knee jerk assumption by anyone opposed to this suspect based on that is really an erroneous one that often is manifested in extricating other suspects being "eliminated" based on other equally indefinite conclusions and assumptions that we all, as humans, make.
For example: the ages of Tumbelty,Stephenson,and Maybrick....the sexual identity of Stephen and Tumbelty...for two examples.
In fact,how many times have serial killers appeared and the first thing to come out of their acquaintance's mouths' been...
"Why he didn't look as if he would harm a fly !"
Yet all the while,little Wally Peepers had an extensive bondage photo collection,a police scanner,and a real grudge against Mama.....
I know Andy didn't intend to mention the participation in the cricket match as a disclaimer to Druitt's candidacy...but only as a "consideration" to his candidacy and that he was being objective.
It can't be a reason to "eliminate" Druitt.
The only thing that does is,like they say in business ventures, "Location, location, location."
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 64
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 6:11 am: | |
Howard,
Sorry, but I disagree entirely with the candidacy of Montague Druit as a possible suspect.
First, the only reason he was ever brought up as a suspect was because of that famous memorandum by Melville Macnaghten. Macnaghten wasn't even in the police force until mid-1889, almost a year after the murders ended. He wrote the memorandum 6 years after the murders, so his memories may have got him wrong. And most important, numerous errors in all 3 suspects' profiles by him have been pointed out time and again over the decades.
Montague Druitt was a barrister, a sportsman and part-time school worker. Not a murderer.
Infact, the only serious linkings of him to the Ripper is that he fitted the average age described by witnesses, lived in the area, was single, and had doctors in his family. Well, so what? How many other men fitted that category in the East End at that time? Hundreds! Probably thousands!
He was never questioned during the time of the murders, and you know how suspicious the police were at that time. As I said before, he wasn't even a suspect until Macnaghten's memorandum resurfaced.
His age is not necessarily of importance. Trustworthy witnesses like Elizabeth Long described him as "a man over 40." (Which certainly helps the case against Tumblety, Maybrick, Stephenson, etc, but knocks a hole in suspects like Chapman, Cohen and Kosminski).
Macnaghten made numerous errors on Druitt, such as:
1.) Describing him as aged 41, not 31.
2.) Calling him a 'doctor', when he was a barrister by trade.
3.) Claimed that his own family suspected him of being the Ripper. It's apparent that the only other person close to Druitt in his family, who also testified at his suicide inquest, was his brother William. That's not 'family', even if William did say something like that. His mother, for example, had been in an asylum for several months by that time.
Druitt did have some insanity in his family, but this clearly cannot link him to the case, since he was still working at the school until the very end of November, was still playing an active part as treasurer of the Blackheath cricket club until mid-November, and was still doing work as a barrister. Set in insanity would not have allowed him to do this, atleast not properly. Infact, in his suicide note, Druitt says "Since Friday I felt like I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die." - notice how he only says "Since Friday", not "Since June" for example.
Thus, based on all of that, it makes Druitt a very hard suspect to ascertain. His case is like trying to build a two-storey house on a pile of rotten boards. It doesn't stand up under scrutiny.
Well, that's my 2 cents, once again.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 171
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 10:09 am: | |
Adam...Thanks for the response...
My "suspect" isn't Druitt either,my man. What I was alluding to is that to eliminate him because of the cricket match shouldn't be the reason he is eliminated.
In all fairness,McNaughten's "mistakes",while evident [ the description as a barrister and his age....] aren't reasons to eliminate him,only errors in transcription. Many murderers have been and still are described erroneously and unintentionally. You of course are correct that his candidacy is suspect [ no pun intended ] based on several facts. Thats indisputable.
But while he may or may not have been the Ripper and again my dumb ass agrees with you he probably was not,the cricket match shouldn't be,nor the flaws in the memorandum of Sir Melville either, the reason he is 86'ed off the suspect list. Whether or not Druitt participated in the match isn't a fact either way as to his candidacy. In fact some could envision it as a convienient alibi for the Chapman murder,if he "needed" one..see what I'm driving at?
All the best this holiday season !
How
(Message edited by howard on December 24, 2004) |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 689
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 12:18 pm: | |
Adam,
Come, come now. Of course I agree that the chances of Druitt being JtR are rather slim. But I would argue that they may be at least as good as any known suspect.
Your objections are mostly spurrious:
1. Macnaghten was very much "in the know" on the Ripper case. He got his information from those on the "inside" of the investigation as well as, probably, James Monro.
2. Macnaghten made errors in describing Druitt. While I believe this opens the door for thinking MM may have had Druitt confused with another suspect, the most likely explanation is that he made these errors due to the fact that he was relying on memory as he prided himself (perhaps not too wisely) in doing. The errors themselves are not serious: Druitt was from a family of doctors and may have briefly studied medicine. The age of "41" may simply be a transcription error and at any rate Druitt's true age of 31 fits him better as a suspect. Elizabeth Long's is one of the least helpful regarding age since she only saw him from behind!
3. The statements made by Monty's brother, William at the inquest, are the only public statements we know of by the family. We have no way of knowing what the family intimated to others which could have been passed along to MM. See Stephen Ryder's excellent essay here at http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-emily.html for a plausible scenario.
4. We don't know for sure that the police didn't question Druitt. If they did not it may be because Druitt was not a suspect until after his disappearence/death.
5. Barristers sometimes commit murder. Schoolmasters sometimes commit murder. Sportsmen sometimes commit murder.
6. Montague Druitt had a history of mental illness in his family and presumably exhibited some signs of such illness himself. Murderers are often mentally ill. Mental illness is not like a light switch where one moment you are sane and the next moment a raving lunatic. Many mentally ill individuals have gone on for months or even years holding down respectable jobs and seemingly functioning normally.
7. The only objection you make that is viable, in my opinion, is the lack of any direct evidence against Druitt. But then, against which suspect do we have direct evidence? None. The closest is Kosminski who, according to Anderson by way of Swanson, was identified by a witness. Often criminals are convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence (in fact , this is more often the case than direct evidence). It is entirely possible that more circumstantial evidence will emerge regarding Druitt. The intent of this thread is to tell how we have changed our minds regarding the case. The fact that so many researchers initially discounted Druitt has left a potential cache of information yet to me mined by those who have changed their minds are are interested in a second look.
To summarize: I am not saying he's guilty, but Druitt is at least as good a suspect as any other known suspect.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on December 24, 2004) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 582
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 1:44 pm: | |
Andrew
See Stephen Ryder's excellent essay here at http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-emily.html for a plausible scenario.
While I agree with the drift of your argument, if I remember correctly Stephen said a while ago that he had discovered the Emily Druitt mentioned in the dissertation came from a different family.
I've always thought that the letter discussed in the dissertation was a better fit for Kosminski than for Druitt.
Chris Phillips
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1320
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 5:42 pm: | |
Hi Adam,
I think that others have said more or less what I would say too so instead I want to addthat for me the biggest problem regarding Druitt being JtR is that apart from this description of Sgt White[which I myself believe to be very important indeed-the one where he states he sees a "shabby genteel young man with black hair, a refined mode of speech,strange eyes,looking not "quite right in the head, rubber soled shoes and "snow white hands with long tapering fingers"
emerging from [apparently]the murder in Mitre Court]...........there is nothing whatsoever that we know of to link him to Whitechapel.
Sims says "he lived about 6 miles from Whitechapel"[which along with what I cite above makes it clear the man he says he and Macnaghten have talked about is Druitt-Druitt lived at Blackheath which is about 6 miles from Whitechapel.
Someone else poited out that his mother was at an Asylum in July 1888 that was just 2 miles North of Whitechapel and that he may have taken the tram or the train via Liverpool Street [2mins from Millers Court]from his chambers on embankment and walked via that part of Spitalfields actually to see her there.Sims points out too that Druitt had a horror of prostitution-[ "a certain class of women"]-though just how he knew that we dont know-probably through Macnaghten,his friend.
Myself it is his mother"s illness and his suicide that gives me the slight hunch that its just possible.His mother clearly suffered from hallucinations and paranoia,this leads me to believe she was incarcerated because she had schizophrenia.This illness can be inherited and from his suicide note this I think is what Druitt means when he says he thinks he is going "like mother".It would also account for his dismissal from Eliot"s Place School...his behaviour could have been getting very bizarre.
His work record fits the pattern of a person with the illness.He doesnt stick at being a barrister as his brother does or his father did who was the Doctor/surgeon but teaches "part time"
and works as a lawyer"part time".No grand ambition it appears for a middle class man with a
degree from Oxford.The reclusive work as a school teacher can also indicate a loner-again symptomatic of this type of person.But his excelling at sports does not fit the pattern unless his unusual strength[we know he had very great strength in his arms as he had been a champion player of "fives" at school and to be a champion at tyhis meant he had very strong hands and arms].So maybe he needed to "show off" all this stregth and skill....but its still unusual
for someone who will develop full blown schizophrenia to be able to join in all the macho gatherings that accompany a sportsman"s life.As a rule they shy away from such comaraderie.
Anyway until we can link Druitt to Whitechapel in a more satisfactory way than at present I remain dubious about his candidacy for JtR-----like most others on these boards.
Natalie |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 69
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 9:26 pm: | |
Hi all,
Howard, you wrote:
"In all fairness,McNaughten's "mistakes",while evident [ the description as a barrister and his age....] aren't reasons to eliminate him,only errors in transcription. Many murderers have been and still are described erroneously and unintentionally. You of course are correct that his candidacy is suspect [ no pun intended ] based on several facts. Thats indisputable."
Oh I don't mean to say that MacNaghten didn't really know what he was saying. On the contrary. There is numerous errors, however, in his descriptions of all 3 suspects. And since Druitt's case began thanks to Macnaghten's memorandum, it's a very unreliable thing to build a case from. I would excuse him if there was only 3 or 4 mistakes in the whole memorandum, but, alas, there is atleast that many errors in the descriptions of each 3 suspects. Maybe more.
To be perfectly honest with you all, I personally don't think a strong case can be made for any of the 3 suspects listed in the memorandum, namely Ostrog. I will admit there is a stronger case for Kosminski and Druitt than Ostrog.
"But while he may or may not have been the Ripper and again my dumb ass agrees with you he probably was not,the cricket match shouldn't be,nor the flaws in the memorandum of Sir Melville either, the reason he is 86'ed off the suspect list. Whether or not Druitt participated in the match isn't a fact either way as to his candidacy. In fact some could envision it as a convienient alibi for the Chapman murder,if he "needed" one..see what I'm driving at? "
A very interesting point. That certainly does work in Druitt's favour. Still, he would be working pretty fast to get the killing done and get back in time for the cricket match.
I don't completely disregard Druitt as a suspect, no, but I strongly believe there is no strong link to keep him as a major suspect. He should be a suspect, yes, but not a major one. That's what I think anyway.
Happy holidays to you too, Howard!
Andrew, you wrote:
"1. Macnaghten was very much "in the know" on the Ripper case. He got his information from those on the "inside" of the investigation as well as, probably, James Monro."
But not first hand during the time of the murders, and James Monro didn't get appointed Commissioner until the time Mary Kelly was killed. Perhaps it would be more believable if he got the info from Warren. (Yes, I admire Warren greatly.)
Compare John George Littlechild's 1913 letter to George Sims against Macnaghten's 1894 memorandum. Despite the fact that it was written almost 20 years later, Littlechild managed to make it just as accurate, if not more accurate on Tumblety than Macnaghten's memorandum on the other suspects. Rather interesting, yes?
"2. Macnaghten made errors in describing Druitt. While I believe this opens the door for thinking MM may have had Druitt confused with another suspect, the most likely explanation is that he made these errors due to the fact that he was relying on memory as he prided himself (perhaps not too wisely) in doing. The errors themselves are not serious: Druitt was from a family of doctors and may have briefly studied medicine. The age of "41" may simply be a transcription error and at any rate Druitt's true age of 31 fits him better as a suspect. Elizabeth Long's is one of the least helpful regarding age since she only saw him from behind!"
Read my response to #1. If Littlechild could remember details just as clearly 20 years after Macnaghten wrote his memorandum, then Macnaghten really was not wise in trying to rely on his memory. As I also explained before, I can excuse a couple of minor errors, like "31/41" and "doctor" instead of barrister, but he also said his family believed he was the Ripper, which has been proven wrong in that his mother was in an asylum, and the only family member with anything to do with identification, the inquest, etc was his brother, William. And it's not just Druitt he made errors on. His 3rd suspect was Ostrog, who was a serial stealer, not a serial killer. I wouldn't really trust Macnaghten's memorandum at all for solid information.
"3. The statements made by Monty's brother, William at the inquest, are the only public statements we know of by the family. We have no way of knowing what the family intimated to others which could have been passed along to MM. See Stephen Ryder's excellent essay here at http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-emily.html for a plausible scenario."
Will do before I next post on this topic, thanks for posting the link.
"4. We don't know for sure that the police didn't question Druitt. If they did not it may be because Druitt was not a suspect until after his disappearence/death."
I doubt the police even questioned him. Mary Kelly was killed on November 9, Druitt killed himself at or around December 2. Now let's assume that the police questioned him some time in between then, as it seems the most likely time. They have 3 weeks. Druitt was still at a Blackheath Cricket club meeting as treasurer on November 19. He was still working at the school until most likely November 30. Now if Druitt was regarded as a serious suspect or someone who should be further investigated, do you think the schoolmaster would have Druitt guarding and working amongst youth? Same with the cricket club. Would they have allowed a potential murderer to be in a higher up position in the club? Imagine the flak they would cop if the papers or general public found out! So that only leaves 1 plausible date that he could have been questioned - December 1, which is likely either the same day or the day before he committed suicide. The argument against that is obviously that someone planning on suicide would usually think on it more than for just a few hours or a day at the most. And police records say nothing about Druitt being questioned.
Perhaps you are right about Druitt not being suspected until later on. But the memorandum was 6 years later, surely something would have come out before that.
"5. Barristers sometimes commit murder. Schoolmasters sometimes commit murder. Sportsmen sometimes commit murder."
Of course. But how many cases of Barristers, Schoolmasters and Sportsmen all in 1 that have committed 5 or more murders & mutilation would there be? Not too many, I would say.
"Montague Druitt had a history of mental illness in his family and presumably exhibited some signs of such illness himself. Murderers are often mentally ill. Mental illness is not like a light switch where one moment you are sane and the next moment a raving lunatic. Many mentally ill individuals have gone on for months or even years holding down respectable jobs and seemingly functioning normally."
That's true. But that is where we come back to Druitt's suicide note. I explained it before, he said "Since FRIDAY" not "Since June" or whenever. If he knew he was mentally ill, which he must have done, then he would not have said a particular day, but rather a month. I think we can therefore assume that Druitt was not, or did not know he was suffering from a mental illness.
"The closest is Kosminski who, according to Anderson by way of Swanson, was identified by a witness. "
And he didn't even mention who the witness was. A likely story.
"To summarize: I am not saying he's guilty, but Druitt is at least as good a suspect as any other known suspect. "
There is certainly a case for him, yes, no denying it. But as for 'as good a suspect as any other known suspect', I have to disagree there. Also, Druitt did not have any criminal record. We can't expect this man to have just jumped out of the shadows and started murdering and mutilating women, who ever he was. He must have had a criminal history, as has been discussed in other threads.
Out of the 22 suspects listed on the suspects list on this site, I would rank Druitt at about 14th, I would say.
Natalie, a very interesting post by you, but I believe I have answered most of your points in the rest of my post above.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 426
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 7:22 am: | |
Since Mcnaughton made other mistakes, is it possible that the name of the witness rather than that of the suspect was Aaron Kosminski? |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 4:29 am: | |
...apart from this description of Sgt White[which I myself believe to be very important indeed...
It would be nice if Sgt White's words could be shown to be reliable.
But Natalie, surely the origin of this testimony is such that any reputable historian would treat it with the utmost caution? Can we trust it? In my firmly Druittist days, I admit that I thought that this was very strong corroboration of his possible guilt.
But time has brought (what I see as) perspective and wisdom - I don't trust it at all.
Phil
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 2:03 pm: | |
I come over here to see everyone who had a good rant on the other board... admitting they haven't got a clue about the case! Interesting!
Neither have you, Kitty (an idea about the case I mean) if you favour a royal conspiracy!!
Why don't you stop whining about others (in a totally rude and unsubstantiated way) and say something useful for once.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
My take on Druitt is that we cannot rule him out. Why? Because others closer to the events and with (according to them) information we now lack.
Neither can MM be simply discarded as not involved at the time. if the police re-opened an investigation today, or a senior policeman took over an on-going case from a retiring colleagues, would we say he wasn't in a position to know anything? Quite the reverse. And we know MM said he was personally very interested in the JtR case.
As for the mistakes, this anaology occured to me recently.
Imagine you were asked to write a three page summary of the JtR case, immediately. You do not have your reference books handy, but want to oblige.
If, writing from memory, you made some mistakes over exact dates, spelling of names, other details, would that make the overall summary invalid, if the main points were there?
Many books on JtR both in print and older titles, which respectable authors wrote with full access to their research material, contain incredible errors, as Paul Begg has shown. yet we still discuss some of the theories they peddled - Pedachencko, the royal conspiracy, Sickert - to name but a few.
Phil |
jfripper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 9:33 am: | |
Hi,
For Caz,
You misunderstood my meaning.
Basically what I was saying is that when I first heard about the diary, and that a photo of the suspect was available my PERSONAL gut reaction was..., (here I will slightly alter the wording of my previous post),
"...that it would be someone well-known from the Victorian era. Someone whose life could be easily researched."
At that time I did not know it would be JAMES MAYBRICK. His identity had not been revealed to the public yet. It could have been Lord Randolph Churchill for all it was worth. The same situation would have applied. A Well-known Victorian figure, whose life would be easy research material.
My gut reaction was right however. It was not a Mr No-body but James Maybrick, somebody that I had read and knew something about.
As to your opening comment: "James Maybrick would have remained a complete unknown had he not died in mysterious circumstances". This is basically a mute point because he DID die in mysterious circumstances and his death was the subject of a very publicized trial, ie, he is not just another Mr NOBODY to us. We know a great deal about him, his life, his family, his friends, his business ventures. Can you say the same about Mr John Leighton, who did actually live in the Victorian era, and is just a name I picked at random. But what if he had written the diary?
The point I am trying to make, is that it is very convenient that the diarist, (for modern researchers), is a well-known Victorian figure and not a no-body, whose life, given the text of the diary, would have been harder to research, had he been as lenient with the details as Maybrick was.
To clarify:
If the diary had been written by Mr X, a complete unknown person to modern research, and not by James Maybrick, a well-known person to modern research, I would have been more agreeable to the idea that the DIARY was genuine. As it is, it was written by James Maybrick, therefore, in my book, I personally regard the Diary with a lot more skepticism and I have MY OWN doubts about its genuiness.
Cheers,
Michael
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 1:01 pm: | |
Maria, you wrote: It's intersting for me that so many of us have been hooked on the case for so long. I've been at it for upwards of 30 years too.
I wonder whether (for those of us of a certain age at least) 30 years or so ago (late 60s/early 70s was the first time that books became reasonably easily available - McCormack (late 50s?); Cullen 60s; Knight mid 70s etc. There wasn't much between Matters 1929 and McCormack really, and probably not in affordable paperback editions.
I have an interesting tale to tell of how my interest burgeoned, if anyone is interested. Is there a specific thread for such things - Ripper-related but personal?
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:48 pm: | |
Diana, you wrote:
Nevertheless, someday one of us may propose a theory which will be difficult to refute. Then a detail of the theory which is checkable will be checked (probably by someone in England). Then the whole thing will unravel.
- frankly, I doubt it.
Another enthusaism of mine is the mystery of the Princes in the Tower (Richard III). Again - this time partly given the lapse of time - actual evidence is scanty.
But I have learned there over many years, that building theories on what seems reasonable, connecting ideas and arguing ("well if A was A, then b must be C...") is usually doomed to failure. You may persuade a few, but not others.
Short of new facts emerging, the mystery will never be solved.
With the JtR case, (as with Richard III) there is always the possibility that new fragments of evidence, even whole parcels of it, may emerge.
But the only way forward is the academic method - careful hypotheses solidly built on evidence, precept upon precept, tried and rested in the fire of scholarly debate and eventually winning the acceptance of peers.
That is one reason I have spent so much time since i found Casebook, sounding off (probably too harshly) against unfounded and baseless speculation. It gets us nowhere and brings the whole debate into disrepute.
Just my view though,
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 6:43 am: | |
Glenn - I don't think you have been rude at all - if you have, so have I. You make valid points and make them robustly. That's Ok by me - it's my style too.
It may be a little too sophisticated, however, for those who follow a single theory or suspect in a perfervid (look it up!!) way. Blinkered as that approach must inevitably make them, there is a tendency for their arguments become sophistical and it must be difficult for them to understand that not everyone agrees with them.
If all evidence is sifted through the lens of relevance to that single theory, it follows that those using the evidence in a different (but academically appropriate and correct) way will catch them off guard and be difficult to argue against. Indeed, those following a single theory CANNOT take on those arguments because they are not on the same board. Looking at evidence from many sides and evaluating it is a skill that has to be learned - some may have yet to learn it.
We have also seen claims that evidence is ignored or discounted because it does not fit with a particular theory. Again, I would contend that this means that the single-theorists have a difficulty, in that they are frequently debating under misapprehensions or out of ignorance.
Time is the healer - they will, I hope, learn. In the meantime, my advice is be robust but be gentle.
In the spirit of goodwill to all,
Phil |
Andrew Gable
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 9:46 pm: | |
Lindsey:
Yes, I'm looking at Tumblety closer, too. If he didn't do it, he may have at least had something to do with it.
Small world with your name being Millar -- I'm related to Millars. Are you Scottish?
Anyway, I've changed my mind many times. I started out believing Druitt was the man, then Chapman momentarily, then Tumblety for a long time, and recently I've begun to think that the man arrested in October of that year, John Langan, may bear some closer examination based on circumstantial evidence. As to victims, my victim number has remained the same. After reading these boards, I came to drop Stride off my list, but I've begun to think that it's possible (but still not really likely, IMHO) that Carrie Brown was one of the victims.
--Andrew |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 58
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 7:05 pm: | |
Mags, and others affiliated, you are way, way, way out. I have done nothing except challenge americans who are stuck in a rambling rut with their theories. It's quite justified, as although this is a good board, a few cantankerous individuals such as Mags and friends, have been stuck in a rut, going nowhere with their ideas. It's a very common complaint about this board elsewhere on other areas of the internet. lots of people find the same problem. Just a cleaky few who stick rigidly to their views and fire from the hip in an agressive manner at any new researchers.
Because you're getting nowhere fast, and are incredibly abusive to other researcher's theories, you have got to take this seriously. I'm not going to blend in with underresearched views and what is sometimes pretty low quality work because some aggressive, unqualified participant holds a gun to my head about it!
From what I gather, my challenges have been quite mild compared to many other bright people's whom you've also lost in the past.
To be honest with you all, I see alot of antisocial people with little in their lives, making aggressive statements to anyone who doesn't agree with them. It's hardly worth Steven Ryder and others doing any serious work. This board is dominated by an undereducated, uninformed cleak, and only afew sit pretty while good researchers bow out and the public lose out. It's a shame for interested people. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2545
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 8:46 pm: | |
Phil,
Just read your post above. Thanks a lot, much appreciated.
Kitty,
What's the point of inserting the same message with the same content on three threads or more?
I understand that it makes things easier from a practical point of view, but still...
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 454
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 10:53 pm: | |
Kitty,
The ones complaining about the Casebook on other places on the Internet are typically people who can't support their theories with real evidence and then get upset and whine a lot when called on it. Much like you with your humorously misplaced ego.
This part is the funniest though:
"This board is dominated by an undereducated, uninformed cleak"
Shot yourself in the foot there, Kitty.
Perhaps if you go read about the case some more and avoid trying to to use words you don't understand, maybe you'll earn your way into the clique some day.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 84
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 3:32 am: | |
Hi all,
Kitty, you wrote:
"I have done nothing except challenge americans who are stuck in a rambling rut with their theories."
Just Americans, huh? So what if I, an Australian, was to walk in to one of your discussions and start 'rambling' too? Would you then accuse me of being an American?
"It's a very common complaint about this board elsewhere on other areas of the internet. lots of people find the same problem. Just a cleaky few who stick rigidly to their views and fire from the hip in an agressive manner at any new researchers."
And are any of these other people that complain common posting members of the forum? I think it's just people who don't have a level of knowledge high enough to become a major part of discussions, or else they've got nothing better to do than sit around whining about "He said such and such to me!" all day. Really, if they have a problem, why don't they tell us all on here?
"This board is dominated by an undereducated, uninformed cleak, and only afew sit pretty while good researchers bow out and the public lose out. It's a shame for interested people."
Yes Kitty, you know far more than any of us. You are far superior. We dare not question you, because we don't know anything. You know the ins and outs of everything. What you say, goes - it has to be right! How dare us, the uninformed and unqualified few, make any arguments against you?
I hope by the time you've finished reading this post you've woken up from La-La Land.
Dan, you wrote:
"The ones complaining about the Casebook on other places on the Internet are typically people who can't support their theories with real evidence and then get upset and whine a lot when called on it. Much like you with your humorously misplaced ego."
[...]
"Perhaps if you go read about the case some more and avoid trying to to use words you don't understand, maybe you'll earn your way into the clique some day."
Well said, Dan.
Kitty, if you feel this site is so uninformed and unqualified and cannot possibly argue with you, then why are you staying on here whining about it? Really!
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 74
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 10:15 am: | |
Adam and co, I am not staying on any board where there's an uninformed cleak, quite the contrary. I have opened up a board where people interested in intelligent discussion are most welcome, called ' Evidence for and against a conspiracy!' Those not up to the challenge needn't bother. I never shoot myself in the foot, but I speak as I find. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 694
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 10:25 am: | |
Kitty wrote:
"I have done nothing except challenge americans who are stuck in a rambling rut with their theories."
In all my time on these boards this is the first instance of ethnic bashing I have noticed. That's a credit to the boards!
Andy S. <--(an American Anglophile) |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 382
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 10:33 am: | |
Andy,
Yes, for the most part the boards have been free of that sort of bashing, but I do seem to recall a certain person with an elaborate theory who has made uncomplimentary comments about the British character on occasion. And in the spirit of the Anglosphere as many Yanks as Brits took umbrage at those remarks.
Don. |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 77
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 11:18 am: | |
Don, I'm not a 'basher', but different cultures do tend to produce different theories and interpretations. I do think the American standpoint on J the R is a mistake, and the theorising is something of a runaway train. I guess Americans are feeling sensitive at present about 'being bashed by outspoken Europeans' etc.
Don, you're welcome on the 'Evidence for or against a Conspiracy theory' board. ( Yes there were some anti-britishisms not long ago. I saw that!) |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2558
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 12:04 pm: | |
Adam,
"And are any of these other people that complain common posting members of the forum? I think it's just people who don't have a level of knowledge high enough to become a major part of discussions, or else they've got nothing better to do than sit around whining about "He said such and such to me!" all day. Really, if they have a problem, why don't they tell us all on here?"
Hey, all good points there, I think. Good post.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 696
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 2:50 pm: | |
Kitty wrote:
I guess Americans are feeling sensitive at present about 'being bashed by outspoken Europeans' etc.
<chuckle>
Apparently, you don't know Americans very well. One thing we have never been sensitive about is what Europeans say and think about us.  This isn't meant as a slam against Europeans; we simply don't see the need to depend on those far removed from us for our sense of self-esteem. Objectively speaking, this is something that Europeans don't seem to be able to relate to about Americans. However, this is not the place for political discussion. BTW -- evidently the "British bashing" occurred before I came or perhaps on threads I didn't follow. This would, of course, be equally offensive.
I do think the American standpoint on J the R is a mistake, and the theorising is something of a runaway train."
Sorry if I missed it earlier, but what is "the American standpoint on J the R"?
Andy S. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 225
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 3:22 pm: | |
Adam--
I wanted to mention my own theory about Druitt and the "since Friday" remark.
I think that he's referring to the day he was let go from Mr.Valentine's school. I'm thinking that he had been behaving erratically and his behavior finally was too much for the Headmaster to deal with so he was dismissed -but apparently with pay.Meaning that he hadn't done anything awful like molesting a student, he just couldn't do the job any longer.Druitt then thinks to himself that if he's so far gone that he can't even hold that job he may as well get it over with- bear in mind that I think he was in a state of clinical depression, which ran in his family.
Hi, Phil
Yes, certainly the sudden availability of material in the case was the thing that led me down this slippery slope. I'm a librarian and Cullen's book literally fell into my hands one day in the early 70's. The rest is history.
Mags |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 700
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Mags wrote concerning the "since Friday" remark:
think that he's referring to the day he was let go from Mr.Valentine's school. I'm thinking that he had been behaving erratically and his behavior finally was too much for the Headmaster to deal with so he was dismissed -but apparently with pay.Meaning that he hadn't done anything awful like molesting a student, he just couldn't do the job any longer.Druitt then thinks to himself that if he's so far gone that he can't even hold that job he may as well get it over with- bear in mind that I think he was in a state of clinical depression, which ran in his family.
I want to believe that, too, Mags. But this just doesn't seem to be consistent with getting into "serious trouble," which seems to point to something rather more specific. Also, he seemed to be functioning normally in court that week. I also tend to doubt the trouble involved sexual misconduct, although that remains a possibility. I tend to think it might well have been along the lines of physical abuse in disciplining a child or perhaps even insulting the child of a wealthy parent.
The wording "since Friday" still sounds peculiar to me if the note is written on Friday or Saturday and if it refers to Friday Nov. 30.
Andy S. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 229
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
You're right about Druitt performing well in court,Andy.
I do think that his mental ilness was depression rather than a full blown psychosis (NOT to be confused with being a psychopath!!)and perhaps in that state he could have over-reacted to something .
Bottom line-- I just don't know.I feel so sorry for MJD and badly that I suspected him for so long so I guess I'm defensive about him now. I'll have to start the Montague John Druitt Defense League, I guess!
Mags |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 87
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 7:43 pm: | |
I'm glad there's not too much hypersensitivity then. From some of these boards, people seem so highly strung......!! :-) taking everything personally, which I never expected, instead of trying to do good debates.
For the record, I am not anti American atall.
G, stop gossiping about me when I'm not there. :-)
I think this insistance in America that J t R is a lone wolf is a mistake, and something of a runaway train.
Kitty. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2571
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 8:03 pm: | |
Kitty,
"G, stop gossiping about me when I'm not there. :-)"
OK, Kitty. Shhhh.... 
"I think this insistance in America that J t R is a lone wolf is a mistake, and something of a runaway train."
Actually, I wonder if you've confused things a bit... I have always felt that the JtR conspiracy story is mainly popular among the general public in USA, thanks to Hollywood. That is actually where it still has a life. Besides, people in the US have always displayed a love for conspiracy stories (note that I am doing generalisations here! -- please, please, no offense, people, I don't mean everybody!!!!)... just look at the JFK, Marilyn Monroe and Watergate affairs.
I don't think those theories have been particularly popular in Britain or the rest of Europe (at least not among scholars) since the 1980s, when Stephen Knight's rubbish was dusted away from the arena.
The lone insane killer idea was actually made popular by two British authors: Paul Begg (kosminski) and Martin Fido (David Cohen), although the latter's theories were to some extent supported by the FBI.
So I think you're mixing things up terribly.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 178
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 8:21 pm: | |
Kitty...What would someone's place of origin have to do regarding their "point of origin" on the Whitechapel Murders?
I could go ask the rank and file Whitechapel resident and I'm sure the majority of the White Brits would lean toward a conspiracy...
I could go ask the rank and file American resident and I'm sure the majority of White Yanks would lean towards a conspiracy regarding the assassination of J.F.K.
Let me briefly inform you,in case you didn't know,of these facts....
Not one of these major Ripperologists [ these are just a few and if I left out someone,my apologies..] agrees on the same suspect or scenario and they are all Brits. In fairness,they may have all changed their minds over the course of the last few months.
Rumbelow-----Druitt
Edwards------Stephenson
Evans--------Tumblety
Fido---------Cohen
Begg---------Kosminski
Odell--------A shochet { ritual butcher ]
Sugden-------Chapman
Feldman------Maybrick
Stereotyping any group of people that have an interest in the solution to these murders is not very bright.
I could have,if I weren't such an ardent Anglophile,pointed out the possibility that "Brits are haywire over the case and can't put their heads together to discuss their fundamental points of origin in the murders" and "being thus,further exacerbate serious research into areas available to them,since they live in the damn country !"
Face it,Kitty...Most people with minimal or at best,marginal interest in the WM,will usually consider the film version,tabloid sensation,headline grabbing version of what happened in 1888 first...because they rely on the media,whether in the U.K. or the U.S.,for their information on most anything. Its no accident that millions of people buy the "impulse grab" newspapers,such as The Star or National Retarder,or other skank press,before reading a book.
Insulting Americans is your prerogative. I'm glad that 99.9 percent of the posters at any venue I participate in don't share the provincialistic and counter-productive weltanschauung that I sense ...
And in the scheme of things...Why would anyone worry about what another nation's people think about something you are pretty much consigned to....that being a conspiracy was the motive for the murders ?
How
(Message edited by howard on December 29, 2004) |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 88
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 8:29 pm: | |
Good points. I am concerned about the runaway train in the US as there are so many people there, quite simply! Your problem in US is that the research is all journalist based, whereas the files and serious evidence is all in UK. Therefore, in US things get distorted. That's my concern.
If people could only look at the files and etc. they'd see exactly how the lone wolf theories are not apt.
Re the researchers cited above, I'm not atall sure there's too much talent between them, without being unkind. Theorising and writing well is all very well but analising this file requires insight. Insight is rare.
G, I don't think Hollywood films really influence people's opinions. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2572
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 8:48 pm: | |
"G, I don't think Hollywood films really influence people's opinions."
Oh yes, they do, K. More than you think. Not maybe on the scholars, but on the general public.
It has been noticable here on these Boards, among other things.
As I said, the lone killer idea (which is supported by other crimes similar to those of the Ripper) is mainly proposed by British scholars, not just American.
And I guess British scholars have just as good access to the files as you have, and that goes for the census records as well. Some of them have actual copies of all files that exists at home. You are hardly the only one with insight and certainly not the only one with access to the files. I actually think that people like Chris Scott has proved that they have more insight than you do.
You have a point, though, that it's easier for a researcher who lives where the original files are. That's true. But on the other hand, the files regarding JtR are quite accessable in printed form -- all that is relevant has already been published in The Ultimate Companion, and then there are... yep, you guessed it: travels, which I believe many serious scholars and researchers of the case have done.
So I think your conclusions about this are all wrong and actually terribly confused. I have no idea what you want to achieve with those strange claims and generalisations, because they are totally unfounded. Once again, the lone killer idea does not mainly originate from the US.
Everything in the files points most certainly to a lone killer. The witness testimonies are just one example of this. Not one of them mention more than one person in connection with the victims, and certainly no upper class carriage. Your analyses are twisted, my dear girl.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 179
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 8:53 pm: | |
Kitty.....Hollywood produces or Granada produces a film starring me as the Ripper or Hugh Grant as the Ripper...
Which one will a film fan go see ? And subsequently "buy" ?
End of story................ |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2573
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 8:59 pm: | |
Once again, Kitty,
I really can't figure out your obsessions regarding the Americans. What have they got to do with it?
I have no idea where you have gotten the weird notion that the lone killer theory (which is not at all controversial in this context, on the contrary) mainly originates from the United States.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 92
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 5:06 am: | |
Hi all,
Kitty, you wrote:
"Adam and co, I am not staying on any board where there's an uninformed cleak, quite the contrary. I have opened up a board where people interested in intelligent discussion are most welcome, called ' Evidence for and against a conspiracy!' Those not up to the challenge needn't bother. I never shoot myself in the foot, but I speak as I find."
I'm afraid to have to inform you, Kitty, that any discussion which involves a belief in the Royal Conspiracy is not an 'intelligent discussion.' Still, for the sake of it, I'll go there and post a rant shortly.
Glenn, you wrote:
"Hey, all good points there, I think. Good post."
Gee, thanks Glenn!
But we had better watch out about just how much we agree on - or else our increasingly well known discussions/debates will dissolve into us agreeing on everything!
Maria, you wrote:
"I think that he's referring to the day he was let go from Mr.Valentine's school. I'm thinking that he had been behaving erratically and his behavior finally was too much for the Headmaster to deal with so he was dismissed -but apparently with pay.Meaning that he hadn't done anything awful like molesting a student, he just couldn't do the job any longer.Druitt then thinks to himself that if he's so far gone that he can't even hold that job he may as well get it over with- bear in mind that I think he was in a state of clinical depression, which ran in his family."
A very interesting and plausible theory, indeed. However, the big question there is: If Druitt was so far gone with himself, and to the point of no longer being able to perform his jobs satisfactorily, would he still have the mental capacity to weigh up the for and against side of committing suicide? Would he still have been capable of doing such a thing?
As for the "Friday" note, it's my opinion that Druitt probably committed suicide on December 2. If it had been December 1, it would almost be thought that he would have said "Since yesterday" - but then there is no guarantee it would be found straight away, which it was not. So either December 1 or December 2, I think, but most likely the latter.
Regards,
Adam. }
The Wenty-icator! |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 91
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 6:43 am: | |
Ugh, you write some creepy things sometimes, G. Anyone who writes a word like 'twisted' to a woman has got to be twisted. Hopefully it was a language blunder.
There's nothing whatever wrong with inviting a decent discussion on the conspiracy business, although I did know that it would ruffle feathers, of course.
It's perfectly apparent that what I'm doing is opening up this challenge so that good people can think creatively.Not everyone subscribes to your ideas G ( and Dan, and Adam.) Why should they?
I don't think your stance on America ( I'm not anti American) has got alot to do with it, but I'm not going to bother arguing . If people want creative discussion, they can come on the conspiracy board, otherwise people can sulk about here. |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 92
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 6:45 am: | |
Howard, I have no doubt whatever that your looks exceed Hugh Grant's........ :-)
What are looks compared to brains , anyway. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2577
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 10:03 am: | |
No, Kitty I said your views and your generalisations about the role of the Americans were twisted, not you as a person. There is a difference.
I also think it's strange that you never actually comment on the factual stuff.
I still haven't heard an explanation from you why you think the lone killer theory is an exclusive American idea.
Why don't you ever answer to the questions you get? What kinds of discussions do you want, really? Ones where you set the rules?
I gave you legitimate arguments above to prove that you are wrong in your analyses regarding this point, and STILL no comment.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 230
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 10:54 am: | |
Hi, Adam-
If Druitt's note wasn't dated, then he could have said "since Friday" to point to that specific day (the day he was fired) as the reason for his suicide. If he had said "since yesterday," the reader would have no way of knowing when "yesterday" was and therefore the special reason for that day being the last straw.
I think that for people in a state of clinical depression the decision to kill oneself is just about the only thing they CAN do. I don't think there's much weighing up to be done, as there would be for a person in a healthy mental state. Everything is just so black and overwhelming that death is the only way out of the pain.
Mags |
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 94
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 12:29 pm: | |
Hello everyone,
I hope you're all well and surviving the case study.
Sincerely I take everyone's point about asking me for evidence for my views, point taken entirely. it's not out of any disrespect to brave people on the boards that I've declined, but more out of discretion with my work, as the internet goes worldwide.. I'm not going to advertise evidence and analysis on the web.
My views aren't twisted. (They're just not the same as yours Mags!) Neither am I (yawn!)
However, I still think it's a good idea to discuss basics, ie evidence for and against a conspiracy etc. as it can help and provokes people to creative ideas. These boards can be really good and you never in fact know who's got an idea that might help you.
I'll be on that board if anyone wants to challenge me on basic issues.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2583
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 12:45 pm: | |
So Kitty...
And still no comments or replies regarding your weird conclusions on the presumed American views on the Ripper and the lone killer theories...
Just a lot of irrelevant going-around-the-bush stuff as usual. yawn.... 
So I interpret that as you acknowledge that you've been wrong all along. You obviously have no answer. Great, I can live with that.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 30, 2004)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971 |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 8:11 am: | |
Asam: Regarding your "Kitty, you wrote:" post.
For once you and I are completely at one.
Phil
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 1:32 am: | |
I don't see why it should be relevant at all, what views are prevalent where. Even if we could find out.
Does it help us understand the case better - our point in being here surely - even if we knew that 28% of under 12s believe X about JtR; or 93% of XXXians have view K?
I think the origin of this irrelevance lies in Kitty's prejudices - both ethnic and against groups (we know she has a "thing" against masons - I'll put it no more strongly).
Of the "Hollywood" JtR themed films I know, the three most prominent recent examples have featured "royal" conspiracy - Caine's 88 version; "Murder by Decree" (based on Knight) and "From Hell". Earlier versions, rarely shown, such as the b&w 1958 version; the hammer film "Hands of the Ripper"; versions of "The Lodger" are relatively unseen. This MUST have an impact, as in the west in C21st, my understanding is that most people get their information from TV or films.
For Kitty to argue otherwise - as usual without any supporting evidence - is simply perverse. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 11:42 am: | |
Glenn, you said: .. it's strange that you [ie Kitty] never actually comment on the factual stuff... Why don't you ever answer to the questions you get? What kinds of discussions do you want, really? Ones where you set the rules? ...I gave you legitimate arguments above to prove that you are wrong in your analyses regarding this point, and STILL no comment.
I find EXACTLY the same. It is you and I that this poster ignores - except to insult us - even though we are the two you most regularly hold her to account.
The only explanation is that she recognises us as a threat, and is frightned of debating with us.
She has to set her only rules - that's obvious - any others automatically show her up for what she is, and how little she knows or has to offer.
Phil
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
