| Author |
Message |
    
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 459
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 6:30 am: | 
|
Hi Diana,
I've always wondered about that forgiveness and love bit. It's almost like saying 'Hey its Christmas, Peace be unto you! War re-commences 0900 Boxing Day!'
Of course we actually did have that very situation in the the trenches in 1914, the very last British survivor of that incident has just died.
I've always wondered why if all our lives are totally controlled by some deity he/she or it didn't just make forgiveness and love our default setting.
Anyway these are far too weightier matters to be considered here.
Good luck and a happy Christmas to all our posters - including of course David!
Bob Hinton
unreconstructed agnostic but leaning if pushed to Hinduism or Buddhism. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 933
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 6:44 am: |
|
God originally did make love our default setting. The fall introduced bugs into our program and we don't work right.
Today we celebrate the birth of the One Who came to set things right. By His death on the cross he paid the penalty for sin for all who place their trust in Him.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." John 3:16
God forgives and gives life. If we have been to Him for forgiveness, we can have the strength to forgive others.
I hope everybody has a great Christmas, and especially you, Mr. Radka. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1269
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 7:51 am: |
|
I'd like to ask Dave a couple of questions regarding the theory when he reappears....
Right off the bat..Was the man who visited Ms.Marsh at her pop's shop,dressed as a cleric..the man who inevitably mailed or sent the Lusk kidney to Lusk?
Also...nothing major...could you qualify this statement found in the theory:
"the psychopath notes Israel Schwartz’’s strongly Jewish features.."
Thanks in advance.
Have a nice day today... |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3469
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
Hey come on!!!!!!!
Im no wiser having phoned Lyn either!!!!!!!! Sod boycotting......but the humour goes on doesnt it!!!!!!
Happy Christmas Bob!
and Glenn,Nats Caz Lyn and well all the rest of you!
Suzi x |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4298
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Back to the subject of this thread:
I am sure this is old news and has been said before, but anyone who has been to Hove and the house that once was the Seaside Home (which I in fact have, together with a few others, at an excursion during the Brighton Conference this year) will probably find the location for the identification as the most puzzling bit. Hove is a hell of a long way from East London to transport a suspect and the house itself is quite small and insignificant.
One must ask why they went there in the first place.
The most probable explanation is that the witness lived there at that time and for some reason couldn't come to London. If the Seaside Home had the function we assume it had, I would say this excludes both Lawende and Schwartz as being the witness in question. That is as far as I am prepared to go.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on December 25, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 618
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
Well, considering everyone else is at it now; even the lovely ones -- I mean breaching 'Founding Principals' from one to eleven, including all the i, ii, and iii's. (That was nice, Diana, by the way.) Anyway, I've changed my mind about my last post being my last post on this thread.
Only, I find myself, once again, with nothing better to do. (Not easy being a housewife, you know. 23 hours of being a wife and mother is fine, but there's still that one hour slot when the kids aren't actually calling that still leaves my thoughts and fingers dangerously free. Even on Christmas Day.)
After Suzi had rung me yesterday to ask me how one boycotts posts, I found myself wondering exactly why 'Founding Principal Number 3' was breached in the first place.
It clearly states that "no personal discussion of any kind shall be permitted", which suggests to me (forgive me, that was another breach, I'm sure) that it really wouldn't have been kosher for someone to wander onto this thread during the night and start talking about their day and suggesting everyone settle down and have a cup of tea while watching Dr Who. That I can see. But I remain clueless as to how someone finding themselves on a thread about a theory that they simply couldn't make head or tail of, and basically apologising for realising they'd found themselves in the wrong place and leaving after a very brief statement saying so, could be remotely considered "personal discussion" of any kind.
Which then left me with a burning desire to ask -- Christmas or not -- had that person actually wanted to stick around that night and post that they didn't understand the theory in question at all, wouldn't that also have breached #3? And that post been BOYCOTTED? I mean, it's still 'personal discussion', isn't it? Or how about if someone wandered in and possibly understood the theory in question, but disagreed with it. Wouldn't that too be a breach of #3?? I suppose what I'm trying to ask here is, are all posts on this thread (prior to the invasion by the Rabble) then automated or something? Aren't people allowed to post their personal thoughts about Kosminski or the A(can't remember the correct punctuation mark)R theory on this thread?
Just curious  (Dang. I bet icons aren't allowed here either..)
David, once the Christmas season is over for another year, I would like to offer my services (for a substancially smaller fee than I charged Mr Norder -- or complimentary help with my 2005 taxes. Whichever is easier for you) and enlist at least 30 other Casebookers (names witheld until I receive payment from you) to help you rewrite the 'Founding Principals' for this thread. It's okay, Hon. I've rewritten entire Dan L. Hollifield novels that way. It can be done, and believe me, the A(what-was-the-punctuation-mark-again?)R Theory thread will be better for it. You'll thank me one day.
I do hope you're having a lovely Christmas, David. I really do, Hon.
Please don't burst anything, David. I BOYCOTTED this post before I started typing, so just ignore it. (Or, as our sweet Jenni mentioned before, you really have no grounds to BOYCOTT it.)
Love,
Lyn x 
(Yeh, I got into the crackers already.)
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 619
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Oops.. Glenn and I got our posts out of whack.
His was supposed to go second.
Please BOYCOTT the post above Glenn G.L. Andersson's (which was BOYCOTTED before typing -- I think I mentioned that already) and please do resume.
Who wants to pull the last cracker with me? Meet you on Pub Talk, Suzi.
I'm gone.
Lyn x
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 620
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Or maybe I'm not..
Sorry. (Well, we all know me..) But I'd like to ask Howard Brown a question.
Since when did you get away with calling Mr Radka "Dave", Mr Brown? I mean, that's getting waaay toooo personal if you ask me. So, you totally breached the major principal #3, Mr Brown. I only merely breached it 
Anyway, what was Mr Andersson saying again?
Seriously, I'm outta here now. I have this in-law thingy going on tonight, and I have to make sure I drink a lot first 
Love,
Lyn x
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 113
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
"Was the man who visited Ms.Marsh at her pop's shop,dressed as a cleric..the man who inevitably mailed or sent the Lusk kidney to Lusk?"
>>I believe there is insufficient evidence to establish this one way or the other.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 621
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 2:42 pm: |
|
**Lyn hugs and kisses David Radka**
You learned how to boycott! That's lovely Hon! 
That was a lovely moment 
Love,
Lyn x
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1270
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 4:00 pm: |
|
Dave:
Thanks for the prompt reply.
The reason I mentioned this is that I remember that you straightened me out once when I was, for some reason or another, under the impression that a generic, unremarkable person [ I called it/him a "delivery" man..]. I completely overlooked the fact that a man dressed in a cleric's rig was our visitor at Marsh's shop.
Having said that,I mentioned this to you,as I did not see a reference to the cleric in A?R.
As to the second question above, I mention the qualification of the statement that Schwartz ostensibly had a "strong Jewish appearance", which of course is in A?R.
Have you or anyone else ever found a photo of Schwartz ?
Thank you and have a pleasant evening. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5433
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn
That is as far as I am prepared to go.
Maybe Brighton was as far as Levy was prepared to go, if he was living there.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2735
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 5:50 pm: |
|
Hi David and Howard
re the stranger in the Marsh shop:
in the source book it has him as 45 years of age[approx],fully six feet in height,slimly built.he wore a soft felt black hat,drawn over his forehead,a stand-up collar,and a very long black single breasted overcoat,with" a Prussian OR aclerical collar,partly turned up.His face was of a sallow type,and he had a dark beard and moustache.the man spoke with what was taken to be an Irish accent....
Natalie |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 115
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 6:07 pm: |
|
"As to the second question above, I mention the qualification of the statement that Schwartz ostensibly had a "strong Jewish appearance", which of course is in A?R. Have you or anyone else ever found a photo of Schwartz ?"
>>No photograph of Israel Schwartz has ever been produced. That he had strongly Jewish features was discussed by the police and newspapers at the time.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1273
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 6:50 pm: |
|
Hey Nats...
Thanks dear. I knew that,but appreciate the post all the same.
Since Dave feels there is insufficient evidence on this point,what I was really trying to find out was whether his Jewish suspect would go in a Christian cleric rig to the Marsh shop...and make inquiries as to Lusk's address.
Now...on to the strong appearance question.
In the time since I asked you, I found the reference by Abberline on Nov. 1st. regarding the appearance...
Thanks for the reply. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3472
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 5:01 am: |
|
Just having a Boxing Day am trawl!!!!
Blimey wish I could "Boycott!" hehe sounds fun!
Suzi
Saturnalia continues into Day 3 xx |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 460
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 5:21 am: |
|
I've been trying to locate David's piece in the dissertation section.
I've found one, but it appears to be the second half of something.
Does anyone know if he wrote this in two or more parts?
Bob Hinton |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4300
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 5:58 am: |
|
Hi Dave,
The dissertation that is produced here: http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-ar.html appears to be a summary of the theory in question. The whole thesis I believe haven't been published yet, unless I am mistaken.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
-----
"It's a BEAUTIFUL day - watch some bastard SPOIL IT."
Sign inside the Griffin Inn in Bath
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3474
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 6:42 am: |
|
Bob-
David always seems to be in the Second Half of 'something!'.....reality!???????
Suzi xx |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3476
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
Nats
Just reading through yr post...
Read through that description again......could easily be either Mr A or Hutch's man to a tee! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Suzi x |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3477
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 7:20 am: |
|
Nats
Have just gone through that point by point
a)45 yrs
b)6' tall
c)Slim
d)hat
e)wing collar
f)sallow complexion
g).Accent!
OK the age is sort of irrelevant but may be accurate,
-the height was TALL for the time and so would have been noticable!
-Slim well yes ok
-Hat.....now a wideawake is a black felt number-wing collar ok posh!
-Now the skin-----sallow....jewish.... someone of foreign appearance! Hmmmmmmmmm
And the accent ...Well it could have been anything couldn't it Irish, American.....or maybe just somewhere in Norfolk (sounding a bit Australian!!!!)
Shut up Suzi
lol
Suzi x |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2741
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
Hi Suzi,
Yes,quite right-but you dont get told whether he looked well-to-do or not.
The other point I find interesting is the address of the leather shop owned by the Marsh family:
218 Jubilee Street,Mile End road.Its very close to the Whitechapel Royal Hospital,and so very close to the murder of Polly Nicholls-
so I looked up the address of Ada Wilson in Maidmans Street Bow.I found it on an old map of Bow[1894 Os].I found it lying less than half a mile from the Marsh shop!It was immediately next to Canal Road which is still there,running alongside the Grand Union Canal immediately South of the main Mile End road.So Maidmans street was close to Lusk's address in Globe/Alderney road ,less than half a mile from the Jubilee Street Shop of the Marsh family and about three quarters of a mile from the London Hospital,close to the scene of the first so called "canonical" victim.
Interesting!
Nats
x-Glad you are having a Good day Suzi!Me too! |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3479
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 10:03 am: |
|
Nats
Thats great! Am here ...between meals ,,GOT to stop cooking and eating
here...everyone else asleep!
Suzi (plugged into sensory deprivation with Steeleye Span and Abba)
xx |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 791
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
RE: Simon Owen's remarks.
Strictly from my own observations, I would suggest that most theorists go through three stages.
Stage one is enthusiasm and optimism. It usually lasts 1-24 months. The mystery still seems fresh. It is a period of revelations: the stories swirling around Druitt and insane medical students, the mystery of the Goulston Street message, Mrs. Maxwell. The case solution seems to be almost impending at times.
Stage Two is the disenchantment. The theorist becomes a little embarrassed by his own youthful exhuberance, having learned that much of it was based on apocryphal stories and misinformation. For many, cynicism takes over. This stage lasts an indefinite length of time, 1-75 years. Most never leave it because they are confident that they are engaged in what is commonly called "critical thinking," and everyone knows this is a good thing. You can tell the new initiates to this level becaue they usually spend a great amount of time knocking the Klosowski theory, kicking Mathew Packer in the teeth, or scolding the neophytes about their many errors. I would call these folks the "dissemblers" because the prefer the clockwork to be torn apart so that it can be inspected, but they don't seem to be interested in putting it back together again.
Stage Three. Having lost all patience with the dissemblers, a few lost souls graduate to next level. Sometimes they are unpleasant people, (but not always) and a few of them might even be on medication. In the old days, these folks could be seen in one corner of Hyde Park or on certain benches in Central Park. They have regained some of their initial sense of optimism and wonder. As Willy Blake would say, "there is no innocence without experience." Whether they are mad or merely inspired remains to be seen, I suppose. There used to be an old poster named Graziano who was, I think, an example of this type.
I think this is what Mr. Owen was suggesting. Or at least I think so. I could be wrong. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2745
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Thyanks for thay RJ;that makes me feel a hell of a lot better!
Have a Great day!
Natalie |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3484
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Hey Nats
Way too many stages here...pick em up tomorrow
Suz
x |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3485
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Hey Nats
Way too many stages here...pick em up tomorrow
Suz
x |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3486
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek TWICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry!!!! [word word]
Suzi |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2747
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 26, 2005 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi,
Instead of thinking of all this in "stages"
I am hanging onto the three C"s I quoted not long ago on another thread ie:
I didnt Cause it
I cant Control it
and
I cant Cure it!
....so I may as well accept my "powerless over it" and get on with the addiction!
Nats
xxx |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3490
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 10:16 am: |
|
He he Nats!.
Story of my life!!!!!!
Suzi xx |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3491
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
Blimey RJP....thats a tad harsh!
I (IMHO) wouldnt put Mrs M in the first category at all!!! but Mr Packer belongs there without a doubt!
Us 'dissemblers' better stick together I suppose!
Suzi |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 792
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Well, I didn't really mean to be harsh. I realize that 'Dissemble' usually means "to lie" or "to disguise"; but I was rather obscurely playing with words, suggesting that to endlessly take something apart (disassemble ) is a kind of illusion (dissemble) if you have no intention of ever putting the pieces back together again.
There are basically two ways of going about business. You can look at things in isolation ('Was Stride a Ripper Victim?'; 'Was the Lusk Kidney Genuine?') or you can look at things in a Big, Unified way, and see if this can explain a large swath of the case evidence. (Jack the Myth; The Ripper as Psychopath, etc.)
Some might argue that looking at things in isolation is itself a type of distortion. The Goulston Street message is a good example. Seen in isolation, it is easy to dismiss it as accidental graffiti. Seen in the context of events leading up to Oct. 1 (The Lipski affair, the near riot after Pizer's arrest, etc.) it isn't quite as easy. Rakda is merely a more extreme example of the latter type; other examples are Knight, Graziano, Fido, etc.
(Message edited by RJPalmer on December 27, 2005) |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3493
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
RJP
Sorry didn't mean to be harsh either!
As you say 'The Graffito' is a classic example of graffiti being in the wrong place at the wrong time!
Dissemble Chambers) to disguise,to mask,to assume a false appearance ........as in 'The Pirates of Penzance' when Ruth sings..I Disemble I disemble!
Lot of disembling going on here!!!!
Suzi |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2748
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 3:00 pm: |
|
RJP,
I often see it like that .The detail is important but if taken in isolation it can take you off on a wild goose chase.
Whats the saying?- the whole is always the sum of the parts but the sum of the parts is not always the whole!
The evidence that has remained has allowed several fairly convincing theories to be constructed
but the missing parts mean that although some of these theories may be tantalisingly close none can yet be said to be the sum of the parts[because we dont yet have all the parts] none can therefore be said to fit the equation exactly-that
the sum of the parts equals the whole and the whole equals the sum of the parts!
So the detail is very important but only insofar as it helps us to weave together all the other details into a viable construct.
Natalie |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 122
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 8:17 pm: |
|
I think what Mr. Palmer and Ms Severn are saying is true. There is an additional factor beyond what she discusses, however, that can lend additional reliability to a theory. That is the matter of critical satisfaction. If we are able to ajudge how well the parts fit the whole by some objective criteria, then we would be capable of reaching a critical mass. We'd be in a position to say we have to get X% matching in order to be satisfied, and we've got X%, so we're satisfied. Logical satisfaction has a long history in philosophy, and is especially important in Hegel. Further thoughts solicited.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3494
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 10:30 am: |
|
Nats....
The Devil's in the detail I say!
Suzi |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 466
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
Dear Natalie,
I’m afraid I would have to disagree with you here. If you look at it as a whole and not as a series of individual events, then who stipulates what constitutes the whole?
For example if you take the attack on Annie Millwood, is that the ‘whole’? What happens when Ada Wilson was attacked? Do you now expand the whole to include her attack as well?
And then you have the murders, Smith, Tabram Nicholls, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly and so on. When is the ‘whole’ complete?
The only way is to investigate each crime and occurrence individually and try and see if there is a link, otherwise you fall into the trap of sweeping up events which have nothing to do with each other.
For example, let us say that Stride was killed in February, and the other killings happened as they did. I guarantee that no one would have included her death in the canonical five. She was only included because of the timing.
Each incident has to be investigated on it’s own merits, otherwise you run the risk of doing a Yorkshire and including things that have absolutely nothing to do with the case.
Bob |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 123
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 2:07 pm: |
|
Mr. Hinton said: "Each incident has to be investigated on it’s own merits, otherwise you run the risk of doing a Yorkshire and including things that have absolutely nothing to do with the case."
>>The key word here is "risk." Being a Ripperologist is risky both ways: Too much separateness in your investigation means you can't see the forest for the trees, but too much unity means you might be guessing wrong on what the point of it all is. So either way you lose, unless you can figure out a way to get true interpenetration of form and content in your investigation. You've got to have a methodology that allows you to keep both the separateness and the unity in a mutual state of flux and influencing each other all the time. You never really know what the right method is until you hit the eureka moment when the solution appears. Thus the point becomes: Stay critical. Develop logically an idea of what kind of methodology would be needed to solve the Whitechapel murders before you begin, so you can always be able to appraise your work critically. I know this sounds impossible to the average person, but it isn't. It's been done before, Hegel is an example. It is a dialectically-tinged process.
More thoughts solicited--the A?R M&R thread is now beginning to hit its stride according to its Founding Principles. That is a credit to all who contribute here.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 626
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 4:04 pm: |
|
You're welcome, David.
Any time,
Lyn
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3384
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
I always stay critical David.
Am i doing the right thing?
(Message edited by jdpegg on December 28, 2005)
"Yo, don't believe the hype"
|
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 627
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
It is, Jenni.
But I'm supposed to be keeping quiet..
Lyn x
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3385
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
ewr Lyn,
I might have edited my post
slightly
I didnt know you already replied
oppppss
"Yo, don't believe the hype"
|
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 629
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Actually, I think editing was the right thing, Jenni.
No worries.
Lyn
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3387
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Yes i erased myself from history.
not all bad, lol
Jenni
"Yo, don't believe the hype"
|
Spiro
Detective Sergeant
Username: Auspirograph
Post Number: 55
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
All I can say is that the Whitechapel victims solicited according to their founding principles and look what happened... |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3389
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
i dont know if thats true Spiro
"Yo, don't believe the hype"
|
Lindsey C Hollifield
Chief Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 631
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Jenni,
Never argue with an Australian. Their founding principals are originally based on ours.
Lyn x
My first reaction is, "OMG that's crazy". But then I'm thinking this just may be crazy enough to work.
copyright © Bradley McGinnis Sept. 2005
|
Scott Nelson
Inspector
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 169
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
More questions/observations on the Kosminski's family, his "brother" and the confinement:
Matters and events are apparently getting compounded, and it becomes harder to separate what's what. Is there a person who is taking on the name Wolf Kosminski, or is Wolf Kosminski a feint? They may have cobbled together Wolf from Woolf Abrahams and Kosminski from Aaron Kosminski, possibly to make it look like Woolf Abrahams would have been in charge of matters if the commitment were to have been later questioned, when in fact Woolf Abrahams had not been involved with it. Did this putative committing person exist or did he not? If he did, who was he?
Either “Wolf” 1) existed as Kosminski’s brother, 2) existed as his brother-in-law, 3) was a name fabricated by relatives, or 4) was actually “Jacob Cohen”, who gave evidence to authorities and the police as his “brother” at the Workhouse and under his real name in the asylum (confidential-- Colney Hatch records; more accessible—Workhouse records.) I’m still looking for “Wolf Kosminski” in the 1891 census, thus far without success.
On the one hand Isaac Kosminski, Daniel Kosminski, Morris Lubnowski, Woolf Abrahams or Martin Kosminski? Or on the other Joseph Hyam Levy, or Robert Anderson? Can we determine anything that may help resolve these questions from the records? The first time to Hove, the second to Colney Hatch. Deals are being made, influence applied, secrets kept, distances maintained. Nobody knows more than they have to know. Who else could the suspect realistically be? If it is another Kosminski, I'd think that we would need to show at least some specific data about that person's movements to support this position. A perspective on these questions may provide closure concerning the stakeout and other questions.
There are twelve known adult males surnamed “Kosminski” living in London in 1891. Several of these guys weren’t in London during the terror (but that still doesn’t mean that one of them couldn’t have been the suspect’s actual brother). One guy, in particular, Abraham Kosminski, is really interesting. He lived on Langdale St., in St. Georges, very near a couple of other Kosminskis. He died of Bright’s disease in 1894 at the age of 42. There’s also H.W. Abrahams, who signed Aaron’s death certificate (this could be Woolf Abrahams) and several interesting shop keepers emerged from a review of the Butchers’ Row directories, Abrahms, Gluckstein and Salmon. And three butchers, any one of whom may have employed the city suspect: Morris Bosman, Frederick Louisson or Solomon De Leuw.
Given the information that we have, it probably was Aaron who was Anderson’s suspect. However, Swanson, Anderson (by his son, Arthur) and Abberline all said that a man was suspected who had died in an asylum. Through Macnaghten and Swanson we know that this man was “Kosminski”. Anderson told his son that the man had died in an asylum (and Aaron was still alive when Anderson died in 1918). There may have been somebody else named “Kosminski” who fits the bill better than Aaron. A good candidate would be a 40-year old boot and shoe-maker, Isaac(s) Kosminskie, who lived in the Brunswick buildings on Goulston Street, across the street and down (south) from the where the piece of apron was dropped. This guy and his family completely disappear in the 1901 census. They are the only “Kosminski” family I have found to be missing between the 1891 and 1901 census in London.
There are also about a dozen other Kosminskis in the 1891 census, anyone of which could have harbored the Kosminski murder suspect, including the hairdresser, Daniel Kosminski. You have to ask the question, if Anderson and a few others believed that Kosminski was the Ripper, would they have allowed his actual name to be recorded in admissions registers and asylum case-note files? And the workhouse records are even less secure than asylum records, but there in the Mile End records we find Aaron Kosminski’s name. It is possible that the suspect, Kosminski was, via instructions from Anderson to the authorities, sent to the asylum under an alias? How else explain why the police officials thought that Kosminski had died in the asylum? Begg gives a possible answer, that when Aaron was transferred from Colney Hatch to Leavesden in April 1894, this became garbled in communication to police that he had died in Colney Hatch. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2751
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 28, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
Hi Bob,
Well I see what you are saying.But maybe staying with the three that most people agree were ripper victims ie Polly,Annie and Kate and working from the general to the particular rather than the reverse
might provide a better overall picture within which similarities of time,place,crime scene and social circumstance can be analysed than can be appraised by taking them one by one.Actually why counterpose?Both approaches can be taken side by side?
David
I dont think that Hegel can be the easiest philosopher to understand.To take his dialectical approach,which I think concerned the "Spirit"of man to solve this case must surely be one of the most tortuous routes to follow?.Besides,it may provide a brilliat methodology but in the end if the evidence isnt 100% accurate then it cant be said to be 100%proven.
OK it was Kosminski"s brother in law but as Scott is demonstrating above we cant be sure it was Aaron"s brother in law or more to the point who exactly "Woolf" was.
Best Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5449
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 6:38 am: |
|
Going back to Chris Scott's post of June 2nd 2004
../4922/11394.html"MB">
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.
|
|
|
