|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bob Hinton
Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 5:03 am: |       |
Whilst reading the current posts on the suspects page re Danny McCarthy, it occurred to me how many hoaxes we have had regarding JTR (leaving out the diary - please!)
I would be interested in hearing about them, my own personal involvement goes no further than the fuss about the letter mentioning the graffiti from a soldier some years ago.
Bob Hinton |
R.J. Palmer
Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 7:50 am: | |
Bob--Hi. I've been thinking along similar lines. I don't know about England, but out here in the wild west it was reasonably common around 1910 or 1920 for old codgers on their deathbeds to confess to being Jesse James or Billy the Kid. I guess it's more gutsy than a last minute conversion.
Another famous case was in Enid, Oklahoma in 1903 where an old drunk named David E. George confessed to being John Wilkes Booth. I seem to remember than one of Booth's nieces even became convinced by the story.
Anyway, I have to think there must be many "Jack the Rippers" in many family trees...
|
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 7:10 am: | |
I know you wanted to leave out the diary, Bob, but that's a hoax that I pretty much fell for.
Not to mention I fell pretty hard just recently for the 'Masters' hoax. I'm still licking my wounds over that one, although some good research did come out of that thread, and that's always a good thing.
In my case, I think it's a case of wanting to believe in a suspect that I (personally), feel fits all the criteria. I also put a good deal of faith in the FBI profile for 'Jack', so I tend to want my suspects to fit into that.
|
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 11:08 am: | |
Hi, Stephen Ryder:
With the exposure as a hoax of the claim of the past week on these boards by "Paul Masters" to have evidence that John McCarthy's brother Daniel was Jack the Ripper, as well as their claim to have unseen postmortem and crime scene photographs, I hope this person, whom you say was actually the person known as "Arfa Kidney" has been permanently banned. Stephen can you confirm that the person's privileges (if they had any) have been revoked?
Best regards
Chris George |
Bob Hinton
Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 28
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 12:19 pm: | |
Dear Everyone,
So it was a hoax was it? He had me fooled, I mean every elderly person I know starts off saying "Hi I'm Paul"
I don't think Marie has anything to reproach herself for by being taken in by this chap, it obviously shows that she is a good decent person who expects others to act likewise.
I on the other hand am a total scoundrel who always expects others to be the same. Weighing it all up I think it shows that Marie is a much nicer person than I am and that is certainly nothing to reproach yourself for!
all the best
Bob |
R.J. Palmer
Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 12:23 pm: | |
Mr. M rather gave himself away early on by claiming both a family connection to the case and access to lost police photographs--a situation that didn't make much sense. Sort of like the woman in Liverpool that is allegedly related to key members of the Maybrick saga through two seperate family connections.
But then, 85% of the Whitechapel material is probably bunk anyway. Dear Boss, the Lusk kidney, Pedachenko, Nicolai Wassili, Sickert's lodger, Matthew Packer, the Ripper Diary, the Maybrick Diary, the Malay, several caged lunatic stories, 'Thomas Mason, 124', Forbes Winslow's letter, the Ripper skeleton found in a pub in Hampstead, etc. I wouldn't be startled to find that even several respectable theories such as Druitt or John Anderson weren't based originally on hoaxes.
And--to be sure---at least half of what I believe is almost certainly bunk, too.
But hey, not to be smug, but personally I think many of the "reasonable" beliefs and solutions are also on very shaky ground. The non-descript local chap and the F.B.I profile, for instance. Or, as one poster once insisted to me, that the murderer couldn't be someone like Tumblety slumming from the West End. It has to be a local working-class chap or an insane Jewish clerk. But I think it was Chief Commissioner James Monro who said that there was no evidence whatsoever that the crimes were committed by one of the local denizens. To me, I think many underestimate the class distinctions in Victorian London. Check out Love in the Time of Victoria by Francoise Barrett-Ducrocq or Outcast London: A Study in the Relationship between Classes in Victorian Society by Gareth Steadman Jones. 'Slumming' was commonplace in Victorian London, largely because working-class women offered a type of overt sexuality that was missing in the unnatural and over-civilzed Victorian lady. Victorian sexologist Krafft-Ebing made a point out of the fact that prositutes and servants wore white aprons--"suggesting underclothing and the intimate parts the body concealed." Personally, I suppose I might be dismissed as a crackpot, but I think that the fact that the prostitutes were destitute objects is part of the equation of such crimes. The murderer was a stranger to these woman, was not a local, and at least three of the murders were committed by someone higher up the social ladder...not by a working-class stiff.
|
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 1:47 pm: | |
Dear Bob Hinton,
Thank you so much for the kind words! But honestly, I feel like such a fool. I don't know about being 'nice', but I certainly can be naive! I'm thirty years old, but it seems I'll never learn my lesson in life when it comes to trusting people. I've been burnt before, and likely will again- just watch me fall for the next hoax that comes along!
I must admit I did go to bed a bit upset. I may not be very experienced, but I am very passionate about the ripper case, and I felt so disappointed. My own daft fault- I should listen to you guys next time.
R.J. Palmer: personally speaking, I just can't can't reconcile myself to Tumblety as a suspect. Although Evans and Gainey make a good case for him, there are still all sorts of things that don't add up, for me. For one, his homosexuality (I do believe homosexual serial killers primarliy target males). Also, his supposed hatred for 'the knife' (I can't remember where I read that he was so opposed to surgery). Also he doesn't match the two witness descriptions that I accept: Isreal Schwartz, and Joseph Lawende.
I honestly haven't read anything in all my source material, to *convince* me that Jack was an upper-class gent. Perhaps he was, but to my mind, it's unlikely.
Until some new research, or piece of information comes along, I'm sticking by the FBI profile.
|
Bob Hinton
Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 29
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 2:48 pm: | |
Dear Marie,
For Pete's sake don't listen to us guys - we haven't got a clue by and large. Go with your gut. Some advice a very old and bold copper told me once is what I describe as the ABC of research and investigation:
A Accept Nothing
B Believe no-one
C Check everything!
Just a word about profiling. Profiling is the result of many many hours talking to serial killers to see what makes them tick. This information is then used to give a number of indicators or signposts showing what we should be looking for in a present or future serial killer.
However bear in mind one thing. This information is taken from serial killers who have been caught! In other words the failures!
What about serial killers who have not been caught and are happy murdering away without anyone knowing anything about them. For all we know their profile could be totally different - I mean one thing thats very different is that they haven't been caught yet.
Think about it.
Bob |
R.J. Palmer
Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 2:55 pm: | |
Marie--That's perfectly fine. And you're in good company, because many of the best minds here would agree with you. I have no desire to convince you, nor anyone, actually.
But as for profiling, I would recommend for anyone interested to look up the case of John Wayne Glover in Australia sometime. While the profilers looked for a 20-something local, a 58 year old well-respected middle class businessman kept up killing women.
Much of what the profilers are saying is nothing more than statistical probabilites based on 20th Century American crimes. There are plenty of serial murderers in history that don't match their generic thumbnail sketch.
Finally, there is nothing in the source material that suggests to me that the Whitechapel murderer was ever seen.
Cheers, RP
|
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 28
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 7:29 pm: | |
Whatho all,
I thought when the new boards were set up the only posters allowed would be those who had registered. From the Masters debacle obviously not.
I think, Stephen, you may consider this to be a good reason to shut the door on unregistered guests. After all, it is quite simple to register so the likes of the lovely Marie will not be put off (come in Marie, the water's lovely  ) whilst those trying to cause trouble can be told to bogger off.
Cheers, Mark (who does not want to ban fun) |
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 57
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 8:43 pm: | |
Hi Mark:
I entirely agree with you that there might be a good reason to only allow registered posters to post in this forum, and that newcomers be vetted through the registration process that Stephen has set up.
It might be argued of course that if Paul Masters really did have new information, it was Stephen's duty to bring it to our attention. As it happened, "Masters" was able to air his hoax information without actually producing the goods, which was not the best situation.
I might suggest that in future in such instances of someone who claims to have new information they wish to present here that Stephen, perhaps working with a committee, vet the material, documents, photographs, or whatever the information is, for authenticity before the material is laid out before the "Casebook: Jack the Ripper" readership, lest the same sort of anticipation be built up and ultimately hopes dashed once more. After all, as has been remarked, the field of Ripper studies has been rife with hoaxes in the past, and we really should try to avoid another if possible.
Best regards
Chris George |
Bob Hinton
Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 30
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 3:29 am: | |
Dear Everyone,
Please don't let us get into the realm of committees vetting things.
I for one would rather suffer the occassional Masters event than have censorship by the back door.
Lets be big enough to admit for just a minute there Masters had some of us going. Perhaps in a way he has done us a favour, he has taught us to analyse and investigate new information with logic and common sense before rushing to wrap our arms around a new Messiah.
Always ask yourself Is this new information likely? Is it logical? Then apply the ABC ruthlessly!
all the best
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 4:00 am: | |
Hi Everyone,
Thank goodness, Its A hoax, I thought I was going mad, we can now resume in our own ways of trying to decifer this case.
Richard. |
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 9:16 am: | |
Hi, Bob:
Inasmuch as RJ commented "85% of the Whitechapel material is probably bunk anyway" I do think it is a serious business when more nonsense is introduced. I think every bogus claim has a consequence and while we may think that the only effect of Arfa Kidney's (aka Paul Masters') shennanigans was to keep some of us going for a few days, there may be people who come along later who believe this claim has basis and is not the shallow and cruel con it really is.
Let me, for example, cite the 17 September 1888 letter which you (I believe), Stewart, myself, and others who have studied the case believe is a modern hoax pulled by some visitor to the PRO who slipped it in among the genuine 1888 Ripper letters. Edleston in his recent JtR encyclopedia treats the 17 September letter as if is an authentic communication of 1888. Just as David Canter or Professor Rubinstein apparently believe the Diary is the real deal. Or a number of authors accepted Dr. Dutton's material or Abberline's diaries as real. Need I go on?
Bob, you may think I am overreacting, but I wholeheartedly agree with RJ. This case is already filled with a surfeit of bogus material and misinformation.
Best regards
Chris George
|
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 10:35 am: | |
Dear Bob,
Thanks! I shall definitely apply the 'ABC' advice from now on. 
To everyone, on the topic of profiling: I do realize that it's based on statistical probabilities, and obviously not all serial killers will 'fit the mold', as it were. Particularly historical killers, or the ones who were never caught, as Bob Hinton pointed out.
However, it has proved a very useful tool in many cases, and thusly- I cannot discount the FBI profile when doing my own research into JTR. I do have a gut feeling that the profile is correct....but let me assure all, my mind is fully open to other possibilities!
On the topic of only allowing registered members to post, I worry that this would scare away some newbies. I was pretty shy to post at first, particularly because many other members are very experienced in the case (I sent my registration a few days ago. I can't wait for it to go through!)
Also, I've noticed that a few unregistered guests have come here to ask questions about the case. If a person only wants to ask a couple of questions, they may not want to go through the registration process. 'Casebook' is such a wonderful resource, it would be a shame if people weren't free to come and just ask the resident experts a question, or two.
The 'Masters' hoax was indeed a cruel one, but his posts have been deleted now, and a good thing that came out of that thread was more research into the McCarthy clan (I have always been curious as to why Mary Jane was supposedly known as 'McCarthy').
I know it's worrying that more misinformation will muddy up the waters even further; but if we impose even stricter controls on posting, don't we run the risk of having the whole debate stagnate?
|
Tom_Wescott
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 22, 2003 - 12:14 am: | |
Hello all,
Chris, as far as the 17 September letter goes, there should be no question that it is a hoax, and a BAD one at that. I find it frightening, though a little amusing, that 'scholarly types' fell for it. But then again, I don't care for 'scholarly types'. 
Bob, what's this about a soldier writing a hoax letter regarding the graffiti? That doesn't sound familiar. Could you please give a few details?
Marie, if you were truly among the gullibles, you'd be posting in praise for Cornwall under the Sickert threads. Since you're not, take it easy on yourself.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Chris Phillips
Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 4:21 am: | |
I see that a new poster has appeared giving tantalising hints about a "private investigation" showing that Sickert was involved in the murders and Druitt was dismissed as a result of a homosexual incident staged by unknown "forces".
One bath-load of tripe could be viewed as diverting, but if this sort of thing is going to become a regular sport, it could get very tedious.
I think a policy of not allowing posts based on "secret information" would be reasonable.
Chris Phillips
|
Diana
Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 38
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 7:58 am: | |
Either that or have a section on the boards labelled for this kind of post. All such material would be placed on a board labelled "Unsupported Scenarios" or some such thing. It is always possible that someday there will be a person who actually has found new evidence and it would be a shame if they couldn't post. |
Diana
Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 8:47 am: | |
I notice that the new poster referred to above has the name Vendettuoli. I tried a couple of online dictionaries and could not find that word in Italian, but I did find vendetta which means vengeance. Could this be Arfa again, this time styling himself "the revenger"? |
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 23, 2003 - 6:08 am: | |
Tom Westcott: thank you.
All: I must admit to being weary of the 'secret information' posts, too. Perhaps because I'm still sore about the last episode.
I now resolve not to respond to these posts, unless some sort of tangible evidence is presented.
A-B-C! |
danefirmin
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 2:40 am: | |
Forgive me since I haven't been here very long and am not aware of all the details as to what happen but I think everyone might be missing an obvious point. That being, You learned something from that hoax. You learned not to believe everything that comes your way. I look at everything as a learning experience if it teaches me something.
As far as the registered user idea, I hope you wouldn't enforce that. I'm sending my application off monday but if that was enforced I wouldn't beable to post until then. As it is now I almost feel having to mail someone and give them my personal home address is borderline too much. (I just don't trust many online people. lol) Maybe if you could enforce an online registration where they have a terms of agreement that they have to read through would be sufficient. Maybe just stricter banning of people would work just as well.
Mr. Bob. It seems as though your an author with an intresting theory on the case. (If I were not a student in high school and also living in the US I would have loved to help you catalog your research. Maybe one day.) For that I have much respect to you and everyone else here.
You are correct Sir in stating that they are creating profiles on serial killers that were caught, but in the same sense they were serial killers. That being the important thing. We can't be sure "how" they were caught. With the new DNA techniology a killer almost has to be a genius to get away with murder or they have to be lucky. I point your attention to a semi-famous serial Killer over here. The Green River Killer. This person killed atleast 40+ with over 90 other people going missing in the period of time that he killed. He would pick up hookers and kill them. He wasn't caught for 20+ years. And finally they charged someone with the murders due to DNA evidence. So techniquelly he was a caught serial killer, but really does that mean that because of that he can't provide helpful evidence? I think there are certain characterists that almost all serial killers have. exp:
1. Serial Killers are Male.
2. Serial Killers are White.
3. Serial Killers are Middle Aged.
4. Serial Killers had an absents of a guidence in there life. Whether that is a father or mother.
5. Serial Killers usually go back to their scence of crime or atleast keep a "trophy" of the victim.
6. Serial Killers usually think they're doing it (1) for a higher cause whether that be religious or ethical. (2) because they couldn't help it. (3) because they get enjoyment out of killing. (4) because of rage or other emotional motives.
7. Serial Killers usually don't have remorse.
8. Serial Killers usually have a physical and/or mental abnormality which would make it hard to attrach women normally (with the exclusion of prostutes).
This is just a very open and short explain of a profile that fits 90% of killers out there. The problem being there's still 10% of killers out there that don't make sense. I still feel that criminal Profiling does help in giving a general "idea" of what the killer "could" be like. Everyone just has to keep in mind the word COULD. I think it best to use the criminal profile but not to turn your head away just because a suspect doesn't fit that profile. All in all I love you all and I just hope my registration comes back quickly..... |
Dan L. Hollifield
Sergeant
Username: Vila
Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 31, 2003 - 8:35 am: | |
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to point out that I recommended to Stephen that he keep the hoax posts online in an area clearly labeled: These are hoaxes! for the express purpose of learning from the ensuing discussions. Needless to say, he didn't like that idea very much.
Personally, I didn't know if "Masters" could be believed or not, but I was willing to listen, just in case. That is pretty much the same way I felt about the Diary when it first came out, by the way. In a chatroom discussion a few weeks ago, Stephen pointed out that quite a few of us were drawn into the mystery of JTR by theories that didn't pan out, or even out and out hoaxes that got a lot of people talking. Even Arfa's little prank generated some new information from people searching for confirming or dismissive evidence.
Hoaxes will be with us always, but we can twist them to our atvantage by developing new avenues of research that we might not of thought of before the need to examine the hoaxer's claims.
Oh well, the illusion was nice while it lasted.
 |
Kydon
Police Constable
Username: Kydon
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 9:51 pm: | |
Hi Guy's,
I've been out of the loop for awhile. I left just as 'Paul masters' came in. If its not too much trouble, can someone enlighten me as to how the hoax was proved and who is 'Arfa Kidney"?
Thanks, Ky |
Maura
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 1:51 pm: | |
I found interesting the thoughts of danefirmin on Profiling.
Though I am much a proponent of this sometimes exact science, and enjoy reading the books by FBI profilers like Douglas et cetera, with exciting info as to obscure things like secretors, it has occurred to me often that just as I was taught in an art class, that people did not see a sunset in a certain way, till it was painted by Turner, so too do people sometimes conform unconsciously toward acting out in ways that they have heard or read about.
As they say...nature imitates art, not the other way around.
Ergo...in a time a hundred years before profiling, one might act a wee bit different than what we accept now as the typical profile of a serial killer perhaps? Your colleague danefirmin has mentioned the common characteristics of a serial killer as recognized today. I find instructive also the common triumvirate of the the killer in childhood being a pyromaniac, bedwetter, and one cruel to animals. Would Jack have had these traits or do they relate more to Twentieth Century serial legends?
If you come before the syndrome is diagnosed, are you used as the justification for cataloguing the syndrome succinctly..as in Jack being the precursor for all sexual sadists to come in the minds of profilers?
You know the saying from John Ford's film..when the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
What say ye? Is every aspect of recent profiling pertinent to describing Jack, or does his time frame in history affect any of the theories raised? Was he a Mama's boy like Edward Gein, a brain like William Heirens, a con man like Bundy, a misanthrope like Richard Speck or simply akin to Vlad the Impaler or had he previously resided at 10 Rillington Place?
|
Michelle E
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 02, 2003 - 5:47 pm: | |
In response to damefirmin's descriptions of serial killers, there are some flaws to his statement.
1. Serial Killers are Male.
This is not the case. There has been known Female serial killers.
2. Serial Killers are White.
Also not the case. If you were go through the chronicles of crime serial killers, you would find there are coloured as well.
3. Serial Killers are Middle Aged.
Again there are cases in which the killer are in their mid to late twenties.
I do realise that I haven't shown any proof, to any of my answers, yet throughout my life from the age of 8 till now (I'm 22), I've been intrigued by the history of world crime.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
