|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 362
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 5:51 pm: |       |
Richard,
What does the possibility of snow mean for that turf fixture you also mentioned? How much snow before they cancel the race?
Meanwhile, I shall dream with you for that real Ripper picture.
Don. |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 31
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 6:09 pm: | |
Dear all,
I have no antagonistic feeling and my remarks are light hearted. However, as a newcomer I see alot of people stuck in a rut with redundant theories getting nowhere, who arrogantly dismiss the idea of reworking other theories for no reason. It is a very poor show. Indeed a losers' party. But I have to go out now. |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 32
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 6:12 pm: | |
No offence, G and etc., but I think a movie about some loner in gumboots oiking about whitechapel committing henious deeds just for the sake of 'demonstrating a loner' is about as unlikely to see the light of day as a bamboo hut in the back of beyond.
Have a good night! |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 527
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 7:38 pm: | |
Actually Kitty they did have a film about a loner who was Jack the Ripper. It is the best of the Ripper films. It is THE LODGER with Laird Cregar (1943). It was also remade with Jack Palance as THE MAN IN THE ATTIC ten years later.
I don't particularly think of us as living in airless bamboo huts. By the way, while you were attacking that fool who is currently our President, I found it interesting that you did not mention one of the fool's biggest boosters: the fool who is your Prime Minister!
Now, getting down to what I think you meant by "alterations"/"altercations" regarding that Royal Conspiracy theory, I honestly can't think of anything valuable to redefining the theory. However, I am curious about the man who started it: Dr. Thomas Stowell. You see, because of the television series which gave John Sickert an opportunity to vent his story about the Duke of Clarence, and the book by Stephen Knight, we tend to forget all about Dr. Stowell. Why would a successful doctor risk a lifetime of reputation to impugn the memory of a member of the British Royal Family? For that's what he did in 1970. He died shortly after releasing his interpretation of the case, so was his revelation made because he was about to die, or did he suddenly realize that by publishing his theory he had stepped on a social and professional landmind, and that knowledge (or it's suddens effects) killed him. See that is rather interesting.
I have read that Stowell named his suspect "S" because he needed a letter, so he used his own last name's first initial. I am not sure that is quite true. I think, in fact, that Stowell had a suspect in mind (originally) whose last name began with "S". It was not Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence (commonly known as "Prince Eddy"). I think that the "S" stands for "Spencer". I also think that the theory probably was originally formulated in the 1930s, and changed over the decades until it was finally published in 1970. But I also feel that the motivations for the theory were not very noble - not to avenge a set of prostitutes who were slaughtered, but to smear certain people. But I would need more information about Dr. Stowell to prove my own theory on him.
Best wishes, and enjoy the party
Jeff Bloomfield |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 33
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 9:07 pm: | |
It's 2.00 am in UK and I am back from the neighbours' drinks do. Thought I'd get on line as I have been accused ( By G) of being an airhead for going to parties, which isn't true atall.
Yes, Stowell is very interesting- an old Mason, it seems. My idea is that he expressley caused confusion, and detracted from Gull's and others' guilt in the case.
Why might he do that though? I agree it's intriguing. Some Masonic pact?
Views? |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 528
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 11:03 pm: | |
Hi Kitty,
I think it was a political motive, but I don't know enough about Stowell's background. I noticed that Stowell never was Sir Thomas (like Gull was Sir William). I wonder if he could have had a grudge against the government or establishment about that.
As for "Spencer", my guess is that Stowell may have stumbled on this party's getting syphillis. It wrecked this man's life and career. Moreover, in the 1930s, it would have possibly had serious effects on another political career. But for some reason Stowell backed off.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1194
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 3:27 am: | |
Hi Don,
The opinion is whilst it may well snow anywhere from xmas eve through to Boxing day, the brunt of it will be to the north of England- Scotland.
Regrding the King George steeplechase at Kempton, I would be more worried about night temperatures ie.. frost any drop -3 or worst would almost certainly mean the meeting would be lost.
I sincerley hope the south of england escapes this cold snap on sunday.
Richard. |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 34
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:25 am: | |
Hi again Jeff,
Some good thoughts. The Spencer to whom you refer , is he related to the Princess Diana based Spencer clan?
I personally wondered whether Stowell maliciously implicated Eddie? Looks like it abit doesn't it!
He could so easily have been seeking publicity , a sad old man dying, trying to leave some sort of mark.
Yet why imply Eddie, one wonders? :-)if indeed he was implying Eddie. It's some sort of decipherable puzzle, 'S', unless Stowell was simply being a nuisance.
Re the 'Sir' business, the English 'gentleman's club' doesn't exclude non status members, so your Spencer suspect isn't excluded.
Salisbury? Sickert? Spencer? Eddie?
All viable. My view is Stowell wanted to confound and confuse students of the case! |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 35
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:41 am: | |
Jeff, re the above, the fact of Stowell not being excluded from the gentleman's club makes him unlikely to have merely had a grievance against the establishment.
Just a thought...... could Eddy, one wonders, have been maliciously implied by Stowell in a way that's hard to prove or disprove in order to make slander against him more effective?
One certainly feels deeply sorry for Eddie looking at the whole business! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2453
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:25 am: | |
Jeff, Kitty,
We can't even be sure of that Eddie was identical with the "S" character Stowell referred to in his article -- Stowell himself denied that fact just before he died, although Eddie indeed is strongly implied.
But the author that really put Eddie's name up front in this story was Michael Harrison, who based the foundation of his book on Stowell's information, but took it in other directions.
Several indications show that the "S" may be misleading.
According to author and crime historian William Beadle, it was Nigel Morland, editor of the Criminologist,, who insisted on that Stowell changed his original choice of symbol "X" to an "S" (wherever Beadle got that information), and this "S" should actually derive from the first letter of Stowell's own name (Beadle, Jack the Ripper: Anatomy of A Myth, p. 102)!
This then led Michael Harrison on a wild goose chase to come up with Prince Eddie's tutor James Kenneth Stephens as the Ripper.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 23, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 529
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 4:44 pm: | |
Hi Glenn, Kitty
Harrison was a prolific writer - one is almost tempted to call him a hack. His major readership remains Sherlock Holmes officionados, for whom he wrote a series of books such as IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES. He would try to find the probable locations of all the fictional sites in the "Canon" of 56 short stories and 4 novels. These books are not without any interest (no book is totally valueless) in that Harrison could explain some long forgotten term like "gasogene" (which I believe is the correct spelling) that appears in the Holmes tails. But his hack work remains. In IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES he has a chapter on the West Ham disappearances, and steals word for word a famous passage by Elliott O'Donnell's STRANGE DISAPPEARANCES, listing all the mysterious vanishings and deaths centered in West Ham from 1880 to 1891. He does not site O'Donnell's book in his bibliography, but he never starts the paragraphs off, "The noted expert on strange and mysterious events, Elliot O'Donnell has created the following list:" You are surprised to find O'Donnell is word for word the same, and then you realize he wrote his book in 1929 while Harrison wrote his in the 1950s.*
[*To be fair, a similar situation is in a chapter on the unsolved murder of children in Guy B.H. Logan's GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY, published about the same time that O'Donnell wrote his book. The listing is also "used" by the American criminal historian Jay Robert Nash, in his book "AMONG THE MISSING - but Nash displays some originality, breaking the list up to fit his time line in the second half of the book.]
I would normally not carp on such matters, because such carelessness is a misfortune in much publishing. But (I don't know if you two saw this) on the original Casebook website I put down two bits of original research on the deaths of two of the victims, Charles Wagner (found dead at Ramsgate in 1883) and Amelia Jeffs (found dead in a locked cubboard in an unfinished house in West Ham in 1890). There were serious inquiries into both cases. It looks like Wagner was inveigled into robbing his father of a considerable sum of money, and subsequently robbed and murdered (by being thrown off a cliff) by the perpetrator (a former employee of the father). Unfortunately for justice, the cliff location at Ramsgate was a known danger spot at night, with many unwary tourists or locals ignoring warning sides and falling to their deaths. The local jury could not say the murder was proved beyond a reasonable doubt - a type of "Madeleine Smith" verdict. It looks like they got the right guy, but fully proving it was another matter.
The Anne Jeffs Case, Kitty, you would find as a type of vindication of looking more carefully at
using political and social pull to avoid justice.
When the coroner actually started questioning three members of a family (a grandfather, his son - the house builder, and his son) about how Anne got into a building that was supposed to be locked, and was strangled and put into that cubboard, the father's testimony dripped of his MASONIC AND LOCAL TORY PARTY connections. Giving the gentleman the best break regarding this snobby outburst one can only say it was like: "Look at the great me! I'm too important and big in West Ham to be bothering in the death of this little girl!!" In reality (and to the credit of the coroner) the questions became more probing for all three members of the family. The answers were contradictory to each other, and to themselves. The grandfather was the night watchman, but he claimed he never knew Jeffs, but locals had seen him talk to Jeffs. The son was in the right age group to have tried to make a go for Jeff in the house - only to find she became frightened and he had to silence her. Nothing conclusive against any of these three could be shown (the evidence against the ex-employee in the Charlie Wagner affair was stronger)but when the verdict of "murder by a person unknown" was produced, one could read between the lines of the accounts that everyone in the courthouse knew where the blame for the murder rested, but just could not zero down to the who. I am certain, however big the father was in local affairs before 1890, his family's reputation in West Ham was shot to hell afterwards.
It is illuminating to do something like this - it does shake up the tendency to accept what has been passed down as a spooky, gothic gospel when one probes. So Kitty you are not totally wrong, although I suspect if a Royal Family member was involved it was not Eddy. Everything about him shows he was a nice, soft guy, but too stupid to carry out the killings.
But there are other members of the Royal family. Victoria had about nine children, four of whom were girls. One was the German Empress, Vicky, whose husband Fritz died in June 1888 of cancer of the larynx, three months after the death of his father Wilhelm I. Their son, Wilhelm II, basically stole the crown off his father's dying head. Then there were her sons. One of them, Leopold, died from hemophoellia after an accident on a dance floor in 1884. The second oldest, Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh, was nearly murdered by an insane "fenian" in Melbourne in 1868. There is a story that when his sole son and heir was told to give up an infatuation with a non-royal lower class type in 1899, the boy shot himself. Alfred never recovered from that. How true this is I don't know.
The "Spencer" I have mentioned might be distantly connected to Princess Diana's family, as most of the noble houses are interconnected. I just don't have enough knowledge of BURKE'S PEERAGE or DEBRETT'S to say so. However, to just complete the references, I meant that "S" could have been for Lord Randolph SPENCER-Churchill. Not that I believe his Lordship was Jack the Ripper, but he had more reason for hating prostitutes than Eddy might have (or Gull, for that matter). Think about what syphillis did to Lord Randolph's political climb. By 1887 he had reached the post of Chancellor of Exchequer, in a ruthless series of power plays within the Tory party. He overreached himself that year, daring to confront Lord Salisbury. Nobody could confront the Marquis of Salisbury and survive. But Randolph's apparent reason was that he knew his "good years" were nearly through, and he would not have another chance to be Premier.
Premier or nothing due to health issues from Syphillis? That is more of a motive for anger and murder than an illegal marriage that had no standing in court. Conspiracy...doubtful, although Lord Randolph's wife Jennie did have a close friendship with the Prince of Wales (one that weathered some of Randolph's ridiculous confrontations, such as in some divorce matters). Certainly, in the remaining eight years of Randolph's parliamentary career, as his mind and body collapsed, his fellow parliamentarians (friend and foe) did not attack him.
Do I think it was Randolph? Hardly. But I have been curious about Doc Stowell. I suggested that this theory may date back to the 1930s. My reason is that in the 1930s, Lord Randolph's son, Winston Leonard SPENCER-Churchill was in his period known as "the Wilderness Years". After the 1929 defeat of Baldwin's Tory government, Winston Churchill was a respected member of Parliament, but was not in power. Even after 1931, when MacDonald's National Goverment was formed, Baldwin and MacDonald kept Churchill out. He was attacked as a questionable power-seeker, who had jumped from the Tory to the Liberal Government in 1904, served in Liberal run government under Campbell-Bannermann, Asquith, and Lloyd George, and then rejoined the Tories in 1923, to become Chancellor of Exchequer under Baldwin. His warnings about India (somewhat wrong headed - they reveal his own bigotry, and make Baldwin look like an apostle of liberal progress), his support of King Edward VIII in the abdication crisis (again wrong headed, now that we know more of "David" and Wallace's pro-Nazi beliefs), and his amazing inability to guage the 1930s correctly are astounding. Everyone jumped down on Churchill as the creator of the Gallipoli disaster. H.G.Wells spoofed him as "Rupert Catskill" in one of his lesser novels. If Stowell had it in for Churchill the news that "S" was his father, and "S" had syphillis, and it drove him mad, causing the Whitechapel killings, publication of this in quiet times would have probably finished him. It would be interesting to know what Stowell's political affiliation was: Liberal, Labour, Tory (and, if Tory, a supporter of Baldwin or Neville Chamberlain?).
Of course what happened was Churchill's constant warnings about Nazi aggression and the need to rearm finally hit home in 1939. Stowell (if he ever thought of Lord Randolph as his suspect) would have known that it was downright foolhardy to attack a leading Cabinet member (and subsequently Prime Minister) with such information. In rethinking his information out more carefully, he might have concluded that he was wrong about Lord Randolph, and "S" was someone else, of temporary importance in 1888. This would make him look at Eddy.
I don't believe anything that I have put down - but I want you to see that Stowell's bizarre theory has made me think a bit about it over the years. If you think that it is worth pursuing, please feel free to use it.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2463
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 5:11 pm: | |
Thanks, Jeff.
All very interesting, and much of it very much news to me. You seem quite well read on the subject indeed.
It's been a while since I've read Stowell's rather fiction-drenched story (I think Colin Wilson was pursued by Stowell on one occasion in order to get him interested in his new Ripper revelations, but Colin declined), but your theories regarding the "S" are better than much I've seen so far.
To kill a number of prostitutes as a revenge for being contaminated with syphilis is of course always a credible motive, but this does not in any way require someone from the upper classes -- that would most probably involve someone from their usual clientel of customers. And Lord knows these women hardly socialized with the upper class.
What bothers me the most with the Royal connection is that I can't really see why the upper class should be interested in some rather ragged, untidy and not very inviting prostitutes from the dirty East End, when they just as well could have frequented the brothels in East End (which was quite acceptable from a social point of view).
And the motive that people like Stephen Knight has presented seems even stranger; if something connected to the lower world of East End should be hidden from public view -- and these prostitutes were involved -- then there would indeed be more discrete and simpler ways to silence the matter than stirring up a scare throughout the entire British empire (if not the whole world) and turning it all into a media affair -- probably the complete opposite effect to what they desired.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 625
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 5:51 pm: | |
Hi Jeffrey,
I think if you're interested in learning about Stowell, you might like Sir Harold Nicolson's diary, which apparently has an account of the Colin Wilson-Stowell lunch in 1960. Stowell was Wilson's source for his 1961 Encylopedia of Murder entry about a Royal Conspiracy between Gull and a relative of the Royal Family. Phillipe Julian apparently got hold of the account via Nicolson and mentions not only Eddy specifically, but also one about the Duke of Bedford. I'm getting this from Stewart Evans's "On the Origins of the Royal Conspiracy" here on Casebook.
So could "S" have been "Fransssisss Charlessss Hassstingsss Russssell", 9th Duke of Bedford, precious?  Apparently not; Colin Wilson seems to have been taken aback by Stowell's 1970 denial that he'd ever said Clarence was the Ripper and that more than a few people knew about it.
Cheers,
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on December 23, 2004)
(Message edited by oberlin on December 23, 2004) |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 530
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:49 pm: | |
Hi Glenn and David,
David, it might have been his lordship Lord Russell, or (if the theory was of a mad Earl who was spirited to an asylum) the Earl of Shaftesbury, who committed suicide in 1887. But I will take a look at the article by Stewart Evan's. Thanks David.
As for all the complicated killings to cover up an illegal marriage, yes Glenn it does sound totally ridiculous. But while I tend to reject conspiracy theories, sometimes they are true. A new volume about John Wilkes Booth, AMERICAN GOTHIC, shows that while he did centralize his role as the assassin of Lincoln he did recruit and train his fellow conspirators, even creating versions of the modern "cells" we hear about. But that case also illustrates the problem: Booth hoped by killing Lincoln, Seward, and Vice President Johnson he was going to cause massive confusion in the federal government (and allow the Confederates to reneg on Lee's surrender a week earlier). However, no matter what, Lincoln was going to die and Booth was going to kill him. Not quite like killing five or more prostitutes, ending with Mary Kelly, to hide the fact of an illegal marriage. Moreover, Booth's men were all to coordinate the attacks on April 14, 1865. Except for the deaths of Stride and Eddowes (which many still are debating as both being Ripper Crimes), the other killings were on different days. Conspirators try to centralize attacks (witness the suicide bombings of individual targets at peak times or hours). They don't tend to think..."Well, it's the start of August...One this week...one at the end of the month...One the first week of next month...One the last week of next month...and it will culminate in a baccanalia of blood in a room in early November, around "Lord's Mayor's Day". It sounds to lacsadaisical to work well that way.
Members of one class can show peculiar interests that are not shared by other members of the class. My father used to use a French phrase that translated into "Nostalgia for the mud." I think we would call it slumming. Stevenson's character, Prince Florizel of Bohemia (in THE NEW ARABIAN NIGHES) goes out at night seeking adventures among the millions. That was published in 1886, I believe. It is not as well known as DR.JECKYLL AND MR. HYDE, but it does sort of bare noting.
As for Stephen Knight, to me his errors and misstatements of facts put him into that catagory as Donald MacCormick, with his weak evidence about Dr. Pedechencko. Regretfully both men wrote other books, that we have to consider very carefully when we read or use them.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 627
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 10:20 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
Since you brought up Shaftesbury, I saw a peerage website which says Russell shot himself in 1891, during a bout of insanity. He was about 70. I don't know any of the circumstances or how accurate that is.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2465
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 5:12 am: | |
Jeffrey,
Well, the answer to why one can find elements of conspiracy in the Booth context, is quite simple:
Here we are talking POLITICAL motives -- Booth & Co. indulged in political activities, and the motive for killing Lincoln was of course -- political (in political murders it is quite common with conspiracy elements). So therefore it is not really that surprising and not at all comparable to a serial killer like Jack the Ripper.
No activities to date by a serial killer has had any connection whatsoever to an upper class conspiracy. Serial killings are performed by one (or two in collaboration) more or less disturbed and violent individual. It's not more complicated than that. That doesen't mean that it's easier to investigate, though.
Stowell was obviously a fruitcake, and Colin Wilson (according to his own words) seem to have thought his stories to be both weird and not based on facts. Wilson was approached by Stowell with the latter's ideas, and Wilson didn't buy it.
However, as I reread that chapter of Wilson's and Odell's Ripper book last night, it WAS obviously, according to Wilson, Prince Eddy who was the "S" in Stowell's article. Stowell had told Wilson that during a dinner.
And once again according to Wilson, Stowell denied it when everything got out of hand.
Stowell's crap story has so many factual error, which proves it to be fake, that it is almost embarrasing.
Like the idea of Prince Eddy being mad from syphilis, softening his brain.
As many know nowadays, it takes at least 15 or 20 years for syphilis to evolve from the second and third (and final) state, where the outcome is insanity and/or death.
Prince Eddy should therefore had been a rather young child when he was contaminated with syphilis by a prostitute in east End. I think that says it all. Curtain!
A Happy Christmas, Jeff.
Now I am taking a festivity brake.
Thanks for an interesting discussion so far. Your answers are very enlightening.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 531
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 11:28 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Of course the fact of Booth's Conspiracy being political is the key difference, except that the more extravagant cover-up tales of the Clarence - Gull - Stephen - Masonic business makes it look like it's political too (although not to destroy a foe's government, but to save the status quo).
However, at this point it seems like beating a dead horse. Neither one of us believe this theory, and my curiosity is solely Stowell and his purposes for expounding it.
My wishes for a warm and merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year (better than last one I pray) for you Glenn, for Dave, for Kitty, and for all others on the threads on this board.
All the best,
Jeff |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 628
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
Jeffrey,
I had no idea Sir Harold Nicolson was such a well-known diplomat. I've been enjoying Nigel Nicolson's interview about Virginia Woolf in The Hours DVD without ever realizing the slight connection with Ripper lore. Sir Harold was married to Vita Sackville-West.
Here's a link to the three volumes of his diary. If you're interested, I'd check to make sure they're not abridged versions. Of course, I have no idea if an account of the Wilson-Stowell lunch is in there, but I should think besides Stowell, you would find a lot here to interest you.
Thanks for the well-wishes and same to you.
Cheers,
Dave |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 532
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 10:39 pm: | |
Hi Dave,
The only books by Nicholson I read were his account of the Congress of Vienna and his account of the bumbling of the Treaty of Versailles. I was aware that Nicholson was married to Vita Sackville-West, and that (although they had a son) it was a cosmetic marriage for social reasons, both being gay.
the Sackville-West/Woolf contact does bring Nicholson into the Ripper orbit, as Virginia Woolf is a cousin of James Kenneth Stephen (not to mention being a grandniece of Judge James Fitzjames Stephen.
Jeff
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1691
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 9:17 am: | |
Hi Richard!
No snow!!!!!!!! any with you???? Have a chum who's in N.I tho and they have it!!!!!!
Suzi (Happy Christmas!!!!!! )chin chin!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2466
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
Suzi,
Believe it or not -- we hade a thick layer on snow on Christmas Eve!!!!
Everything looked like a christmas card.
This hasn't happened here in the South of Sweden for the last ten or fifteen years. Everybody had to pinch themselves; we just couldn't believe it.
the weather forecast had proclaimed rain as usual, but the temperature probably dropped to a lower level than they had reckoned with. Thank God!
It's been a wonderful Christmas over here -- I hope everyone has enjoyed it too.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 533
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 4:40 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
Well you've had a real white christmas. We escaped the snow in New York City, but we have had very cold days recently, due to windchill factors. I just heard that they have been innundated with snow in Brownsville, Texas - more than they have had since 1866. The weather has certainly been freaky.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2467
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 4:48 pm: | |
Indeed, Jeffrey, indeed.
The world is certainly upside-down -- when even New York doesen't get any snow.
However, for once I experienced a complete regression back to how christmas was as I remember it during my childhood days.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1326
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 5:37 pm: | |
Hi Everybody,
Glenn I understand your scepticism very well about all these people and their unlikely involvement with the ripper murders.
However with regard to Stowell it is altogether more difficult to assess his motives.
He may have been an oddball.
However,Dr Thomas Stowell,CBE,FRCS a consultant surgeon,chief medical officer to ICI lecturer at the London School of economics,educated at St Paul"s and St Thomas Hospital.He was the pupil and very close friend of Theodore Dyke Acland who was the husband of Caroline Gull,Gull"s daughter.
He was also executor to Acland"s will and confident of Caroline Gull after her husbands death in 1931.
A more illustrious surgeon would be hard to find[even among Druitt"s illustrious surgeon relatives]-----only Gull himself as Victoria"s doctor would out rank him!!!
If this man had any mental health issues as you suggest I very much doubt he would have had such a long and prestigious career----and been so sought after as a consultant surgeon.
Stowell may have made enemies---or he may have had an attack of conscience or something.
Maybe at the very end,although only in his 70"s[I think] he had developed idiosyncratic thought patterns due to old age but there is noone"s word other than Colin Wilson"s about this ----and I dont trust
Colin Wilson either actually!
All the best Glenn for Christmas and New Year!
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2468
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 6:12 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
Best wishes to you as well.
We don't have to trust Colin Wilson (who I have always regarded as a bit eccentric anyway) -- we only have to read Stowell's nonsense in order to suspect that he didn't keep both his paddles in the water, so to speak.
His story is absolute crap and a flake of his twisted imagination, and the loads of factual errors in it proves it. The point about the stages of syphilis is one such thing he should have been aware of he was such a prominent doctor.
That being said, I truly believe he DID read something in Gull's notes that started a chain of personal theories and interpretations on his part, and it is also possible that Gull thought he knew who Jack the Ripper was. The question is exactly what and why Stowell needed to elaborate it into a story that in more ways than one is an obvious fairy-tale.
There is also a possibility that Stowell did it for personal benefits and prestige -- like Stephen Knight -- after all, it has happened to better people than Stowell. Then, after the storm began to rage when Eddie was identified in the story, he possibly realised that the price for releasing the story was higher than he expected.
Stowell only agreed on publishing the story, as long as the identity of the murderer was hidden.
When that bubble burst, and Eddie's name was mentioned, I believe he understood that he had opened a can of worms, and unfortunately it apparently killed him.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 25, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1327
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 6:40 pm: | |
Yes Glenn,I think you may be right esp over your last point.
Its just that they all seem to have been a bit odd really---all this syphilis stuff turning their brains maybe[I don"t mean Stowell but the others.Eddie seems to have just been a bit easily led and not very bright.And I know you disagree here too but I think the ripper was very bright indeed-bonkers maybe but no fool.
And I think you may be right----Gull may have known the identity of the ripper[or thought he did!] and hid this knowledge from all bar his son-in-law.Once again,it brings me back to the suspicions around Druitt.After all his family had amongst them quite eminent doctors and surgeons,his uncle had written learned texts on this and that medical quest so maybe Gull knew of this through gossip from fellow doctors for example.
It still doesnt mean Druitt WAS the ripper of course but maybe he knew of the rumours through his colleagues
Best Natalie |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 1:56 am: | |
There is also a possibility that Stowell did it for personal benefits and prestige...it has happened to better people than Stowell. Then, after the storm began to rage when Eddie was identified in the story, he possibly realised that the price for releasing the story was higher than he expected.
I don't know how many of you have read Leonard Matter's book (c1929) with the famous Dr Stanley theory. The first part of the book is tremendous and constitutes - I think - some of the best JtR writing and first hand research around (allowing for when it was written). After all he visited the sites and gives us vivid descriptions.
But the second half is a farce - unsubstantiated fiction.
But i once read (can't recall where) that like macCormack's invention of dialogue 30 years later, Matter's posing fiction as theory was just the convention of the day. At another time he might have written a novel, or said, "This is what I think but I have no proof".
Perhaps Stowell was caught in a similar dilemma - an idea that caught hold of his imagination, ran away with him until he believed it true, then he passed it off as "faction" and was surprised and appalled by the reaction.
Not that I'd want to push that idea too far.
Just a thought,
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 1:38 am: | |
Kitty - for the first time I have seen, you actually post something half-way sensible. Not that I agree with you.
...there is nothing in the whole conspiracy business just because it has been badly presented in the past.
This is rubbish, frankly. The conspiracy "theory" (I am not sure it deserves that title) was NOT badly presented, it was DEMOLISHED by sound and good research, Kitty. Joe Sickert withdrew his story after knight's book was published. He RECANTED it.
Knight's work was shown to be fundamentally flawed in terms of research that DISPROVED KEY elements of his argument.
If you believe in a conspiracy, it is now for you (with your clearly - though self-stated and unproven - knowledge of and insight into London and masonry) to let us know how and why we are wrong.
[The conspiracy theory] still remains the focal point of interest, all over the world
...]
George Bush won the US election by a significant margin, what does that tell us?? A billion people may believe the world flat (including you Kitty?) but that does not make it true.
Perhaps you can tell us how many books on JtR you have read or how long you have studied the case - though I suspect you cannot read, hence your reliance on films. Not that such information would MEAN anything. But neither does your point.
Cyniscism is not objectivity.
Sorry, Kitty, I'd rather be a cynic than take the GULLible approach you do.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 1:51 am: | |
The interesting thing is that Stowell should have picked on PAV, a relatively unknown member of the royal family. Even in the 30's, I suspect, he would have been only dimly remembered by any outside the royal family itself (his brother was King until Jan 1936 and his former fiancee Queen).
But despite the colossal size of the memorial and Windsor (Albert Memorial Chapel) PAV was largely forgotten by the public. Like his nephew, Prince John (epileptic) his existence was not covered up, they just went un-noticed. I suspect that if you look through the material published for George V's Silver Jubilee in 35, you'll find relatively few pictures of his brother.
Now did Stowell chose PAV BECAUSE he was unknown but close to the throne? Or because it was easier to embroider fantasies around a poorly recorded figure, who had had slight scandal attached to his name a generation earlier?
If the Spencer referred to is Lord RC and the other politician WSC, then the former would still have been remembered.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 12:09 pm: | |
Re the 'Sir' business, the English 'gentleman's club' doesn't exclude non status members, so your Spencer suspect isn't excluded.
Kitty are talking specifics here, or generalities?
If by "English 'gentleman's club" you mean an actual club, with members etc, then they will accept a broad range of people recommended by other members. But there can be strange anomalies in which a proposaed member is "black-balled" by existing members and thus refused membership. In which case, his sponsors sometimes also have to resign. the term "black-balled" comes from the voting system, in which white (yes votes) and black (no votes) balls are put into a bag or box. A single black ball means that the application fails.
In a famous case a few years ago, the British broadcaster and writer Jeremy Paxman was black-balled from membership of the Garrick Club (theatrical, political, cultural and legal members mainly).
Or do you speak generally, and does the phrase you use "English 'gentleman's club" refer to the British "establishment"?
The "establishment" is a term coined to represent the people with influence, either overt or covert on affairs, whether political, social, or institutional.
Once I know what you mean - never easy with your posts Kitty (partying must play havoc with one's linguistic skills) - I'll be able to respond appropriately.
With the condiments of the season,
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 1:42 am: | |
I have been accused ( By G) of being an airhead for going to parties, which isn't true at all.
Kitty, if you think that that's why you have the reputation you do, it explains a lot!!
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 1:54 am: | |
Harold Nicolson is an interesting peripheral figure for the 1930s - he wrote a fine official biography of George V (PAV's brother, of course) which became the model for later such books.
His sons book about his father and mother - "Portrait of a Marriage" is fascinating. Both parents were bi-sexual.
Vita created a famous garden at Sissinghurst Castle.
Just some points I thought mildly relevant.
Happy Christmas to all (though at the rate my posts are appearing that'll be May when you read this!!)
Phil |
mvario
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 8:20 pm: | |
I don't think a good and historically accurate Ripper movie could ever come out of Hollywood. The studio would muck about with it before they would fund it. At minimum would insist on inserting a love story. Then next Ripper movie to come out of Hollywood will be based on Patricia Cornwell but be juiced up with a love story, gunfights, lots of stuff blowing up, a monkey ('everyone loves monkeys") and maybe some zombies ("zombies are hot"). And it will star Vin Diesel as Abberline. Gary Oldman as Sickert, and Milla Jovovich as Mary Kelly.
If any historically accurate Ripper film were to come out of America it would be low-budget indie and play in 3 theaters. No, I think if a decent, historically accurate Ripper movie is ever made it is going to come out of the UK, or maybe France. As you can tell I have to faith left in Hollywood.
-Mike |
Jeff Stone
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 10:35 am: | |
Stop putting down the US. Our movies are no worse than your's. It's a stupid, 100-year-old murder case. So, someone made a movie about it? |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2476
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Jeff Stone wrote:
"Stop putting down the US. Our movies are no worse than your's."
Yes, generally speaking they are, Jeff. Hollywood movies are badly researched, shallow, commercial and adapted for hitting the box offices as well as striking the "right cord" at the audience.
Naturally there are good American movies and exceptions from this rule, but seldom when it concerns those with a historical content. In that area, as well as regarding quality and historical accuracy, the British film and television companies have always outranked the American ones. It is my firm belief that no decent Ripper movie will ever be out on the market until the BBC or Granada companies sink their teeth into it.
Sorry for my generalizations and sorry all Americans for saying this (note, though, that I am not British myself), but that is how I feel about it.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2477
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 12:54 pm: | |
Phil,
"I don't know how many of you have read Leonard Matter's book (c1929) with the famous Dr Stanley theory. The first part of the book is tremendous and constitutes - I think - some of the best JtR writing and first hand research around (allowing for when it was written). After all he visited the sites and gives us vivid descriptions."
No, I'm sorry to say, I haven't read it. But you have med me quite curious about it. If the first part contains the things you say they do, I can probably live with the presumed drivel in the second part. Maybe I'll check it out.
"Perhaps Stowell was caught in a similar dilemma - an idea that caught hold of his imagination, ran away with him until he believed it true, then he passed it off as "faction" and was surprised and appalled by the reaction."
Sounds reasonable, Phil. Quite possible this is what happened, in my view.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1331
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 3:07 pm: | |
Can"t agree with you over American Films Glenn.
Absolutely true regarding historical stuff[though ours are often just as fantasy and profit led].
American movies whether they are of the Citizen Cane type of thing,The Godfather,Touch of Evil-again Orson Wells-and could be the best movie ever made] out class the lot in my view for cinematic brilliance and cool.
Natalie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1206
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
Hi,
I have to agree with Natalie, the Americans make far superior films then us British, of course we have made some fantastic films, and extremely atmospheric, exspecially the forties-mid fifties.
We have our John Mills, Richard Attenborough, Larry oliver, Ralph Richardson etc, not to mention our female actors, Vivien Leigh, Margaret Rutherford, and not forgetting Dame anna Neagle a superb actress.
However against the likes of Spencer tracey, Jimmy Stewart, James cagney[ superb] and the female counterparts katherine Hepburn, Betty davies and Joan crawford. we run second in my opinion.
Not to mention the superb technical aspect to their films.
Praise indeed considering I am British.
Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1207
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
Hi
I should mention that was a general reflection of movies past, but even in todays age i feel it still applies.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2480
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
Well, Natalie, I was mainly referring to the historical stuff, since that is what is interesting here. And there I believe American films are hopeless.
Regarding other subjects, I think there is a variety in quality as in other countries' movies (although I do feel that British films generally have a high even standard that beats most other countries, including Sweden).
Now this is a pure matter of taste, of course, but regarding Citizen Kane, I consider that to be one of the most over-rated films ever produced; it leaves me totally indifferent. I have tried to watch it several times but never managed to finish it or keep myself awake. I think the film is absolute crap, but that is only my personal opinion. Many film connoseiurs seems to hold it in high regards, but to me it's unbelievable why.
But regardless of that, the production quality of films like Citizen Kane and The Godfather etc. is in no way whatsoever representative for Hollywood movies as a whole, where commercialism and shallowness generally is the common trademark.
Americans may manage to make good films on occasions when it comes to American subjects, but they should keep their nose off English themes like Jack the Ripper and Sherlock Holmes.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 26, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2481
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
Richard,
I do think you are underestimating British films. The quality in British films when it comes to production, acting and sets are in a league of its own compared to any country.
And I believe it generally is considered so in the rest of Europe, and certainly in Sweden.
Regarding American films, note that I am not talking about the old ones as you mentioned. I am, for example, a great fan of James Stewart, who I believe is one of the best actors who have ever lived on this planet and the films he participated in were in general of high quality. I also love Spencer Tracy.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 26, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1334
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
By the way Glenn,we have a new Sherlock Holmes on BBC 1 starting in twenty minutes starring Rupert Everett,Helen Mcrory,Ian Hart and others of talent,Sherlock Holmes and the Case Of The Silk Stocking----cant wait
