|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Are there records/files/notes yet undiscovered?
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Are there records/files/notes yet undiscovered?
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 08 October 2002 - 03:32 pm |        | Hi, Rosey:
Theft is one thing but Jacunius's tirade about Donald Rumbelow for finding source materials beggars belief. The main thing to know is that Don Rumbelow was doing research on the City Police at a time when files were being thrown out and disregarded, and he was the one who saved these items for posterity realizing their importance. Why is Mr. Rumbelow being castigated for doing what we should all wish should be done?
All the best
Chris |
Author: Ally
Tuesday, 08 October 2002 - 03:48 pm | | | Either Jacunius is accusing Rumbelow of some sort of impropriety (in which case he ought to ball up and say it straight rather than pansy dancing around it) or he is picking nits to an unreasonable degree. Either way, not worth the time it would take to argue with him. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 08 October 2002 - 07:50 pm | | If David is right about the self-abuse , it will be pretty difficult to make the next Ripper movie won't it ? Mind you , the appropriate term could be said by some to already describe the Hughes' brothers effort ( Not by me though , I liked it although it took a pretty big suspension of disbelief I can tell you ... ).
Wasn't it that ole Polish Jew who was into that sort of thing ? |
Author: Jacunius
Wednesday, 09 October 2002 - 02:15 am | | Hello all,
Rosey - thank God there is someone here at least with sanity enough to see (perhaps she has even tried?) to find out where these photos were found - well sorry Rosey its like I have been trying to point out all along - something is dodgy. If there are those who are happy to believe with what they are presented with - good on them - I hope the next intriguing sequel to the ‘Jack the Ripper’ diary keeps them entertained. However, the history of Jack the Ripper right from the word go is sprinkled full of mystery (some of it unnecessary) - and it saddens me to see authors, researchers etc presenting unfounded evidence (possibly even planting it - just look at McCormick) - for God sakes the suspect list is somewhere out there, obviously stolen (to say it is misplaced or destroyed is ridicules) I mean look at the scurry around the late 60’s and early 70’s by the few who had access to hunt through the files - and the amount of discoveries during this period!
Now let me first get this straight (so listen up Alley), I am not accusing Rumbelow of some sort of impropriety, as you want to call it. I am only presenting the facts as they stand, if you believe (and I address this to everyone) that the past world of Ripperology is a straight forward, clean and honest business then I do not know what fantasy world you follow.
I am not ignorant of the fact that Rumbelow has saved many files, I am also not ignorant that he has a private collection with God knows what pertaining to this case - just ask Mr. Evans - he is also a collector and seems to be a friend of Rumbelows’. Which brings me to the question of where Mr. Evans is now? Seems cat has got his tongue on this one - and all I wanted to know is if he knew where exactly some of the photo’s had come from? You see people over 25 years ago may have been willing to throw those such as Rumbelow high up on a pedestal for finding such amazing discoveries - well it is about time people started to look outside the square they live in - and ask where & when such discoveries were found.
Alley & Mr. George are quite unwilling to step outside their comfort zone - I challenge them to find out where & when (and by whom) these photos were found - I have done my part of the research - if they think I am nit picking and possibly not worth the time then prove me wrong? If not please go away and bother someone else - obviously the intellectual ability to seek the truth so as to keep this case on the straight and narrow path has deluded these people - please give some positive input.
Still waiting,
Jacunius. |
Author: Gunnar Benckert
Wednesday, 09 October 2002 - 06:59 am | | Chris,
Thanks for the information about Whittington-Egan.
For a start, I will stay with books with kind of approach.
Gunnar |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 09 October 2002 - 07:45 am | | 
You have been told where and when they were found Jackie. If you choose not to believe it, well brilliant for you but let me tell you, when you say you have done your part to discover this vital little bit of information (vital how I wonder) I'd have to say bullsh*t. What have you done but be snide and accusatory to the person who could have told you? What possible reason would he have for satisfying your little curiousity now? You've acted like an ass and people don't tend to go out of their way to help people who act like asses. As for your challenge to Chris George and myself to satisfy your curiousity for you, I'll have to decline for the very simple reason that I don't care how or when the photos were found. It's fairly much a non-issue for me. They're here, we have them, big whoop.
If you are trying to slither around accusing Rumbelow of stealing them somehow, again, big whoop. If he stole them when they were about to be tossed and subsequently entered them into the public domain so that we now have them to be viewed today, Go D.R!
So basically to sum up your whole theory: Big Whoop. |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 09 October 2002 - 08:00 am | | | Oh and by the way, Jackie, accusing a man of doing something dodgy without any proof whatsoever or even a strong foundation for your suspicion, and then worse yet to tell others to go and prove it as you have done your part ( I suppose by the unsubstantiated muck-raking)is not the sign of a forward and creative thinker. It is the sign of a sniveling weasel who slings mud for the sheer delight of causing problems. So why don't you provide something more substantial than your 'feeling', or go bother someone else. Because you've done nothing but prove that your ethics are right up there with tabloid journalists so you aren't really in a position to point fingers are you? |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 09 October 2002 - 08:11 am | | Monty is now backing slowly out of the room
Monty
 |
Author: Jacunius
Wednesday, 09 October 2002 - 12:47 pm | | Ally -
Perhaps you should actually read Mr. Evans reply, before you also go off on a ramling blab - hey I know, how about attempting to find the answers, instead of wasting your time putting me down - or are you afraid of the truth?
Correction : No one has stated to me where & when these pictures were found. Because fact is at this moment only Rumbelow knows - so you, I, and others can only assume - and that is really sad. But what really is sad is your effort in blantently declining the challenge I put forward - I was only explaining a point, but I guess I 've proved it in more ways than one - that people like you are unwilling to see the trees because of the leaves - come on Ally those painted eyes don't look good on you!
No help here...
Bye for now,
Jacunius. |
Author: John Hacker
Wednesday, 09 October 2002 - 01:04 pm | | Jacunius,
You know, it's truly sad that you're taking potshots at people who have actually done research and contributed to this field. Apparently for the crime of contributing?!? You sit there and insinuate that there is some big mystery. The real mystery is why you feel compelled to display your ignorance when it would in fact be simpler and less work to simply relieve your ignorance by doing a little research.
While you claim to have done some "research" on the photos, it couldn't have been particularly thorough, because there has never been any great secret about them. Plenty of information is available. Indeed, as Stewart suggested to you, there is a dissertation on this very site regarding the Kelly photograph. Did you bother to read it...? It appears not.
This is one of the most idiotic remarks to date on the Casebook: "Because fact is at this moment only Rumbelow knows - so you, I, and others can only assume - and that is really sad." He has never made a secret of how the photo was found. The information is available on this site. And for that matter Chris George, Ally, myself and many others were lucky enough to hear his tell the story first hand at the latest american JtR confrence.
And if you want to talk about delusion (and you should), I suggest you seek the help of a professional psychiatrist. Perhaps they could help you in some small way. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 09 October 2002 - 03:08 pm | | Dear Jacunius,
I suspect what you have discovered, though some researchers may find it disagreeable to delve into such an issue. Let me leave it at that point.
Perhaps, Rosey Junior might take up this matter of photographic-networking in, say, fifty years time. We must await the documentary evidence that may well support your suspicions...by then I suspect we will all be dead.
Jack is in charge!
Rosey :-) |
Author: Howard Brown
Wednesday, 09 October 2002 - 06:10 pm | | | One reason why I have stuck my nose in the midst of some of these ball-busting rants conducted by unappreciative people with anal-retentive tendencies with little more to do than hassle the pioneers of modern JtR research like Mr.Evans,for example,is that I don't want these people( Mr.Evans,in particular) to just say,"f*** it !" and not appear here anymore. If Mr.Edwards and Mr.Evans get into it,that's cool.If Mr.Fido goes on a cyberfit at Mr. George,that be cool too. They're doing or have done something to expand the parameters of JtR knowledege. I'm with you,Ally,and I think most of us are likewise..None of the contributions from the researchers HAS to be explained to anyone's complete satisfaction. |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 10 October 2002 - 12:09 am | | Dear Ally, John and Howard,
I had to say "hi" to you all, cheers, and that I absolutely refuse to dignify Jacunius' remarks by responding to them. I WILL, however, sound off a bit regarding what is going one. Haven't we been through crap like this before, Ally? We have all seen the accusations, badly disguised libel, and outright horse s**t that has been thrown at both posters and NON posters. My only suggestion is that those who want to libel ANYONE be required to do it to that person's face...no more innuendo or sly comments (nudge, nudge), no more accusations, and no more libellous remarks made under the guise of "proving a point".
If anyone wants to come at me, let 'em e-mail me direct; if anyone wants to libel Don Rumbelow, I suggest they take one of his London walks and do it to his face. Sneaking libel onto the message boards is a cheap trick and cowardly, to boot.
Get off your ass and FACE the person you mistrust; don't slink around making accusations and then fade away. If you believe what you say, BACK IT UP with facts; if not, SHUT UP.
And NOW, for something completely different...
Hi, John..long time no see..how have you been? Hope to see you in Baltimore in 2004. And Howard, how about YOU in 2004....we'd love to have you!
Cheers to all,
Judy |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 10 October 2002 - 02:57 am | | In fairness to those who have defended Don, and me, I am making one further post here. As I stated I was less than pleased with the initial post by 'Jacunius' as it resumed where its writer had left off, some time ago, by sniping at Don Rumbelow. And, as I also stated, 'Jacunius' could hardly expect a polite reply to that sort of post.
I have ascertained the provenance of all the Ripper-related victim photographs and there is no big mystery. In order to prove that I am not perfect I will admit to an error in my first post. The four well-known shots of Eddowes did in fact originate from the City Police where they were discovered by Don. Another copy of one of them was in the album returned to the Yard in 1988. Also, as stated, all the original material was passed on by Don for preservation. That should suffice for an answer to all those who may be curious about Don's part in the chain.
The original Scotland Yard files contained photographs of five Whitechapel victims. The main point, as has been pointed out, is that thanks to people like Don Rumbelow we today have copies of all these photographs.
The missing 'suspects file' is a separate issue, and we know that it went missing from the Yard in the 1970's, before the material was transferred to the PRO. At that time these files were accessed by many researchers, such as the BBC team in the early 1970's, Stephen Knight, and others. Apparently supervision of anyone consulting the files was not too good at that time. It is believed that even as early as the 1950's some material went missing.
All in all, I think that we should be grateful that anything at all survived at a time when the police were notorious for simply throwing out old files that were over a certain age as they simply did not regard them as of historical significance. It was only with the advent of officers such as Don, a historian, who realised the significance of these items that they were preserved.
To those who have supported Don and me on this thread thank you very much, it is appreciated. |
Author: Howard Brown
Thursday, 10 October 2002 - 08:00 am | | | Dear Judith: I hope to do just that in 2004. O'Flaherty and I have a few unopened beers to investigate. That was nice of you to ask me. Howard |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 10 October 2002 - 10:31 am | | Good morning, Stewart and everyone,
Well said, Stewart; yours is an eloquent rebuttal. Thanks for taking the time to make it.
Great news, Howard; we look forward to seeing you there. Even as we speak, Stephen is lining up some very interesting additions to our already stellar lineup of speakers. As Freddie Prinze used to say, "looookin' good!" And, you already know that every unopened beer has a secret that MUST be investigated!
Take care, and cheers to all,
Judy |
|
|
|
|
