|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Joseph Lawende
Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: Specific Witnesses:
Joseph Lawende
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 21 September 1999 - 05:31 pm |        | Jospeh Lawende is the man who walked out of the Imperial Club on the night of September 29-30, 1888, and purportedly saw Catherine Eddowes (he later identified her by her clothes, per the A to Z, Begg et al.) shortly before her murder. He was accompanied by Harry Harris and Joseph Hyam Levy. Also according to the A-Z, it is either stated or inferred that all three men were Jewish.
Does anyone have any evidence that the Imperial Club of 16-17 Duke's Place was frequented exclusively or predominately by a Jewish clientele? Or would anyone consider that a fair inference to make?
If the answers are yes, the implications for the murders and subsequent events on the night of the 29th-30th are obvious. I would consider such a description of the club's clientele as being one more nail in the coffin for the argument that two different men killed Stride and Eddowes although it would not automatically rule out that different men killed Nichols, Chapman, or Kelly.
I'll explain more if this suspicion about the club's clientele is or can be inferred to be true.
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 23 September 1999 - 05:57 pm | | Thinking about Stride, Eddowes, and all the happenings of the Double Event, I remembered Joseph Lawende for some reason. I looked him up in the A-Z and found that he, along with two companions, walked out of the Imperial Club. Lawende later identified Eddowes by her clothing. It was an odd coincidence to me that all three men were Jewish.
I'll try not to belabour all the coincidences and similarities between the Stride and Eddowes murders. One thing that stuck with me was the anti-semitism shown by the attacker in Stride's case, the Jewish-related locale of Stride's murder, and later the dopey, maybe anti-semitic graffitto found in Goulston Street. What didn't fit in this running theme was Eddowes' murder. If the same man who killed Stride also killed Eddowes, and if he wrote the Goulston graffitto, he was obsessed with anti-semitisim that night -- from the cry of Lipski to the blaming of the Jews in the graffitto. Eddowes murder apparently had (has?) no connection to Judaism or the Jewish population in the East End. Yet her piece of apron accompanies the Goulston graffitto. Go figure.
If -- and this seems to not be the case -- the Imperial Club bore a similar relationship to a segment of the Jewish population that the Jewish-Socialist club bore to another segment, I believed you would have the last piece of a puzzle that makes the best sense of that night's events. Eddowes was apparently approached in front of the Imperial Club, and she was killed not far away. These two features would have been an unbelievably identical correspondence with Stride's murder near the Jewish-Socialist club.
The chances of two murders being committed close to a Jewish social center -- added to the many coincidences of weapon used, cause of death, type of death wound, choice of victim-type, proximity in time and geography -- would have put the staunchest believer in two separate killers for Stride and Eddowes on the ropes...in my opinion.
The piece of graffitti targeting the Jewish population, and later on the Lusk letter and the accompanying kidney sent to an organization with prominent Jewish representation are only further facts that support one organized mind controlling the events of that night and the aftermath. None of the following would serve as a very good explanation of all these circumstances (and I've heard or read all of these "explanations" for various facts about that night):
1) Coincidence,
2) Chance,
3) Accident,
4) Hoaxes,
5) Student hijinx,
6) Furry creatures with a desire to drag apron pieces about and then abandon the thing in a doorway where anti-semitic graffitti just so happens to be scribbled on the wall (as if a simple questioning of the residents wouldn't have determined if the message was or was not there when the last person entered the building that night),
7) Ultra-fastidious habits in a murderer that supposedly made him clean his hands and discard the apron piece in the same location as this "accidental" bit of anti-semitic scribble,
8) On top of a run on two murderers operating on the same night, there would be an epidemic of anti-semtisim in these two distinct murderers,
9) Two distinct murders within an hour and roughly a mile of one another,
10) etc. etc.
Another interesting feature would have been a strong indication that some socio-economic-religious-political motivation played a factor in both murders...the murderer would not be driven exclusively or even primarily with any abberent sexual urges or gender bias or etc. etc. (though I wouldn't argue that these motives/drives would not also be present).
Finally, the murderer would be seen sending messages:
1) The act of killing and associating the murders with Jews, in whatever twisted manner, is one type of message.
2) The Goulston Street graffitto would be a literal message that ties together all the night's events, at least to the murderer's warped thinking.
3) The Lusk letter, accompanied by the kidney, would have been a second iteration of the murderer's sending messages. (And what he was trying to say in the letter is just as incomprehensible as the meaning of the graffitto.)
And whatever we want to believe, the first candidate on the list for writing the graffitto, leaving the piece of apron, and sending the piece of kidney and letter would be the murderer. You'd have to exclude him with proof and evidence before considering alternative explanations. Either that or else close your eyes or pile on more coincidences or strew spurious, seemingly omnipresent pranksters about...again and again.
Eddowes murder is the only unexplainable anomoly of that night (my opinion), and what I thought about the Imperial Club would have shown she was not an anomoly at all. Even to people who think one murderer killed both women, I think you'd have to reckon with a murderer who ran away from one crime, committed and fulfilled another, not exclusively or primarily because of murderous rage or deviant sexuality...but also because he had one stupid idea or program he wanted to get across to his 1888 audiences (plural is intentional).
Ah well! It was not to be.
So it goes.
Yaz |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Friday, 24 September 1999 - 04:52 am | | Hi All,
Yaz, I've checked some popular secondary sources, there is actually very little to indicate that the Imperial Club was frequented exclusively or predominately by Jews.
From Sugden (1995 paperback edition, P. 257): "the murder of Kate Eddowes close to another club frequented by Jews,"
3rd edition A-Z has no entry for Imperial Club. There were only two brief references to it as the place from which Harris, Levy, and Lawende were leaving when they saw Eddowes at the end of Church Passage.
I could find no mention of the Imperial Club having exclusively or predominately Jewish clientele in Begg's "Uncensored Facts". Ditto Fido's "Crime, Detection, and Death of Jtr".
The above is by no means a definitive answer to your question, just a cursory look at some of the most popular secondary sources. Aside from the passing reference by Sugden, I could find nothing to support the notion regarding the Imperial Club's clientele. I would have to say it is still an open question - perhaps someone with access to Kelly's, or with specific knowledge of this point could jump in here.
I'll give some further thought to your theory, and come back later. It's an interesting idea, one that bears further discussion. However, it's early in the morning here, I've only just gotten out of bed and started on my first cup of coffee, so my brain is not yet fully functional.
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 24 September 1999 - 08:31 am | | Hey Jim!
Thank you for looking. I'll add that, along with the sources you mentioned, I also looked in Rumbelow and found nothing on the Imperial Club.
And I agree that the reference in Sugden is pretty thin to base any conclusions on it. Also, although Sugden references Martin Friedland for support of the theory that the murderer was purposely acting that night to implicate the Jews of the East End, I've looked at Martin Freidland's Trials of Israel Lipski, especially the pages cited by Sugden (p. 200-203) and can't find any reference to the Imperial Club let alone any mention of the frequency or support of Jewish clientele. I should make it perfectly clear that Sugden does not directly reference the claim about the club to Friedland. I don't want any more historians peeved at me than is absolutely necessary. grins...please!!!
I wonder where Sugden got the idea that it was "frequented" by Jews? Three Jewish men leaving the club on one night does not a crowd or a steady clientele make. No?
But I can't complain, being as dependent on secondary sources (and the good will of people like you, Jim) as I am.
Again, thank you for looking,
Yaz |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 24 September 1999 - 03:53 pm | | Hello Yaz, Jim
The Imperial Club was based at 16-17 Duke Street, Aldgate. The site is listed previously in Kelly's Directory as a tinplate works and shortly afterwards as an asbestos factory. It is possible that the Club met above premises that were in continuous use for manufacturing. Whether that is true or not, the Club appears to have had a rather short life. Not listed as being a Working Men's Social Club, it probably catered for local tradesmen who would have been either community minded or looking to network among themselves. The Secretary at the time of the murder was an S.J. Britton Esq., whom I believe to have been a general supplies dealer from the locality.
There is no reason to believe that the Club was exclusively Jewish in nature, but Aldgate had a significant Jewish population, many of whom were tradesmen, so it would not be unreasonable to assume that they were well represented among the membership.
I realise that this is a bit wishy-washy and would welcome further details about the nature of the Imperial.
Regards. |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Saturday, 25 September 1999 - 03:02 am | | Greetings Viper and Yaz:
Thank you, Viper, for that information on the Imperial Club. I have also been curious about the Imperial Club and have had it in mind to write an article about it. It appears though from what you say there may not be that much known about it since it seems to have been relatively short-lived.
From the name, "Imperial Club," I was imagining an upscale establishment with men in top hats and evening wear, white gloves and scarves, and so on, but from what you say, Viper, that does not seem to have been the case. It appears to have been a working man's or tradesman's club more akin to the International Working Men's Club in Berner Street.
The Jewish connections on September 30 are certainly intriguing. Elizabeth Stride was killed at the side of the Jewish club in Berner Street, she spoke Yiddish, the killer shouted out "Lipski," the name of an executed Jewish murderer, to passerby Israel Schwartz, the Goulston Street graffito would seem to mention the Jews, and Kate Eddowes was last seen by three Jews emerging from the Imperial Club.
Are all these Jewish connections on September 30 sheer coincidences? As I have said previously, the large Jewish population in the East End makes it almost inevitable that the Jews would be touched by the murders, but it does not necessarily mean that the murderer was Jewish or was trying to implicate the Jews. If we look at the murders on the nights other than September 30, it would seem that the Jewish connections are harder to find. Polly Nichols was killed not far from a Jews' Cemetery but what are the connections in the case of the murders of Annie Chapman and Mary Jane Kelly, apart from the Jewish-looking man that George Hutchinson reported seeing?
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 25 September 1999 - 05:19 am | | Hey Viper and Chris!
I had the same impression about the Imperial Club as you did, Chris...nightclub/bar, entertainment, etc. I also agree about being wary of making assumptions about motivations or personal characteristics of the murderer we might deduce from such convoluted material as the graffitto or a locational significance in the murders.
From the description, Viper, the club sounds very middle-class and capitalist...the farthest place in the world from a socialist's club. Should have guessed that from the "imperial" in the title. Thanks for the info.
Does anybody know if there were any English- or foreign-language newspapers that served the Jewish population? I think there was one in Dutfield's Yard, no? I wonder if places like the Imperial Club would have advertised or been covered in a special audience press?
(Or maybe I'm just clutching at straws! I know, I know, Caz...be positive. I'm trying.)
Yaz |
Author: Sara
Saturday, 25 September 1999 - 07:33 am | | Yaz:
Interesting straw to be clutching at -
All the best,
Sara |
Author: The_Viper
Sunday, 26 September 1999 - 03:03 am | | Chris
Kelly’s used to make a basic distinction between working men’s clubs and others. The Imperial was definately not listed under the working men’s clubs section.
Yaz
The paper published from Dutfield’s Yard that you refer to was the Arbeter Fraint (Worker’s Friend).
No doubt there were publications that catered for the Jewish population in both English and foreign languages. Certainly the best known was the Jewish Chronical.
BTW, if you are exploring the angle of Jewish connections to the night of the Double Event, it should be pointed out that the Great Synagogue stood in Duke Street beside the passage way that led to Mitre Square.
Regards |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 26 September 1999 - 03:21 pm | | | Or that Martin Kosminski, whose naturalization papers were supported by Joseph Levy in 1877, was married at the Great Synagogue in 1872. |
Author: Sara
Sunday, 26 September 1999 - 04:48 pm | | Viper, You are incredible. I'm starting to think you were there. :-)
Sara |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 26 September 1999 - 06:17 pm | | Hi, Sara:
Yes, Viper was that reptile wrapped round that lamppost in Mitre Square. . .
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 26 September 1999 - 07:29 pm | | Hey All!
If we're concentrating on the types of places where the East End Jewish population might have socialized, I'd rule out the Great Synagogue as being irrelevant, the same as I would the cemetary's proximity in the Nichols murder. That's a big "if" for some people, but I don't feel that the killer was mixed up by the "sacred" versus the mundane. He seems to have focused on the mundane.
I'm a bit confused, though. If the Imperial Club wasn't listed in Kelly's under the working men's clubs section, what section was it listed under? I may have mistaken your first note, Viper -- I assumed you found some listing that provided Britton's name as the Secretary. Does the Imperial Club have any listing in Kelly's? Are you inferring its presence above a factory based on the street address in Kelly's directory? Could there be some error in either the address given for the Imperial Club or the address for the tinplate/asbestos factory in Kelly's directory? Sugden, Evans, Paley, and Begg -- in the Uncensored Facts -- all list the Imperial Club at Duke's Street; the A-Z has it at Duke's Place in the Lawende listing; Rumbelow has no mention of the club. Is it Street or Place? Would it make a difference in the Kelly directory?
Something seems 'not right' about this information.
In Sugden, Lawende is described as a "commercial traveller," Levy is a "butcher," and Harris is a "Jewish furniture dealer" (I assume he was a Jewish man who sold furniture and that there is no such thing as 'Jewish' furniture!). Viper describes Britton as general supplies dealer.
These occupations are pretty remarkably diverse and only Lawende's could remotely be connected to the kind of manufacturing that Kelly's directory describes went on at that address. None of them would be 'working-men' if I take that descriptive to mean something like an unskilled laborer. Lawende and Britton (maybe Harris too) sound like white-collar workers, salesmen and such. The butcher, maybe the furniture dealer if he also made/manufactured the furniture he sold, might be described as skilled tradesmen. What would four men in four unrelated fields of business have in common if this club was business-oriented? At least the men and women in the socialist's club had a common political ideal to bring together people with many different backgrounds.
And how can all the secondary sources, with quotes from some primary sources (Lawende himself!!), fail to mention something as large as a factory that took up two street numbers? It would be more logical to me to read something like 'the Imperial Club above/near/located close to/etc. the XYZ Factory at 16-17 Duke's Street/Place.' If the club was so insignificant as to have no listing, why is there no mention of the primary use for that address?
Sorry if I've mangled the information you've all found. If the confusion is just in me...don't mind me. I'll keep quiet.
Yaz |
Author: Wolf
Sunday, 26 September 1999 - 10:02 pm | | Hey Yaz, I also did some searching and came up with a couple of interesting things. Tully states: The police had a similar lack of success with their investigations in the immediate vicinity of Mitre Square...most of the residents were German, Austrian or Russian Jews employed in the clothes trade or as cigarette makers...
Edwin Woodhall, writing in 1937, says: ...it, (Mitre Square), ran very near the City of London ground, and as there were one or two working men's clubs in the locality at the time, it was no unusual thing to see members leaving at early hours of the morning.....In Mitre Square, the scene of the fifth killing, at this time there was a small workingmen's club, most of the members being alien born tailors.
Howells and Skinner say in "The Ripper Legacy": White's colleagues were keeping their eyes on specific targets-either politically suspect individuals or one of their known meeting places-possibly the Imperial Club in nearby Duke Street.
This all would seem to point to the Imperial Club as being not only a mainly Jewish but also, possibly, Socialist club.
Now the bad news. Woodhall is a very unreliable writer when it comes to the Ripper crimes themselves. Many of his facts are wrong and indeed in this case he writes that only one man came out of the Club that night to see Eddowes and the Ripper so I'm not sure if he can be considered reliable on this point.
Howells and Skinner have based their assumption that the Imperial Club was a "politically suspect" meeting place on rather dubious and twisted logic based on the article in the Peoples Journal of September 27th, 1919 by "a Scotland Yard Man" dealing with the career of Inspector Stephan White. White, a Sergeant at the time of the Ripper crimes, was supposed to have had two men watching a certain alley in Whitechapel. This alley had only one entrence and as White arrived to take the report from his men, a man walked out of the alley and caused White to be suspicious of him, mainly because he was wearing rubber soled shoes and walked noislessly. White got a good look at the man and even spoke with him briefly as he passed. Seconds later, White's men entered the alley and found the body of a woman ripped open. Now, Howells comes to the conclusion that White and his men must have been part of the Special Branch and were in Whitechapel keeping their eyes on political undesirables. They could not be staking out alleyes in the East End on the off chance that the Ripper would use one that was under survailance so they must have had a politically motivated reason for watching this certain alley and if the alley was in fact Mitre Square then the politically motivated reason may have been that the Imperial Club was a known Socialist meeting place. The problem is that the circumstances of the murder do not fit any of the Ripper killings. Mitre Square had three entrances and could not be considered an alley, and Inspector White had never worked for Munro and the Special Branch, he was an H Division Sergeant in 1888.
Jewish newspapers, beside the Jewish Chronical (probably the largest Jewish paper), included The Jewish World and Die Tsukunft (I have absolutely no idea what that means). These would be besides the various Socialist, Communist and Anarchist papers although I find it hard to believe that these would be suitable to advertise a club named The Imperial.
Take from this what you will.
Wolf. |
Author: Jill
Sunday, 26 September 1999 - 11:07 pm | | Die Tsukunft= The future
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 27 September 1999 - 12:07 am | | Yaz,
I mentioned the Great Synagogue's locations only because I thought you were looking for general Jewish connections to the night of the Double Event. I realise now that you were interested specifically for the social club connection.
The information given was gleaned in a very limited timeframe using Kelly's Directories of the period and the 1873 Ordnance map. When time permits I shall re-examine Kelly's in more detail and publish all the data if you wish, (it's all very unexciting). In addition, there is at least one other available source that may offer us a little help. All information will be listed straight from the sources to allow you to make your own interpretations this time. Unfortunately all this requires a two hour lunch break - and that certainly won't be today.
The errors and inconsistencies of established authors must be resolved elsewhere.
Regards |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 27 September 1999 - 04:58 am | | Hey All!
Viper, I'm not criticizing you or your work, and by no means go out of your way to research what is most likely a very stupid idea.
I am looking for the Jewish connection to Eddowes' murder but the synagogue and the cemetary seem too specific and not in the same category as the socialist club. Where the Jewish population lived seems too general -- they could be everywhere in the East End.
My questions were meant to try to determine what these four men (thank you for finding Britton) had in common if they all belonged to a membership club rather than being attendees in a bar or pub type establishment. Their occupations don't seem to me to be very socialist or anti-establishment -- if they weren't workingmen, what were they, and what would be the common bond of their club?
Mostly I'm trying to shoot holes in my theory. I cannot accept it as true or even leaning towards being true with the facts as currently known. No one is at fault for what we know or rather don't know about the Imperial Club.
If only Sugden had footnoted his assertion that the Imperial Club (whatever it turns out to be) was "frequented by Jews," I'd feel more secure that I am not taking advantage of what may be an assumption that cannot be substantiated. But I'm not faulting him either.
Thanks also to Sara, Wolf, and Jill.
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 28 September 1999 - 03:26 pm | | Although I could annoy you all with many other questions, I've recently looked at two maps, the Ordnance Map of Whitechapel, Spitalsfield and The Bank 1894 and the near-impossible-to-read "Jack's London" (which purports to be from "the 1880's").
I found two Duke Streets.
And not only that, these two apparent Duke Streets interesect one another.
And if that's not bad enough, it appears they intersect at the end of the block -- heading west -- from the dratted Imperial Club, between Houndsditch and St. James Place.
Is this correct, was I swindled when I purchased these maps, or am I just plain simple?
If there are two Duke Streets, are there any more?! And would this bonanza of Duke Streets possibly be hindering us finding any mentions of the dratted Imperial Club in Kelly's or other directories?
Yaz |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 01 October 1999 - 05:08 pm | | This board should be left for discussing Lawende as a witness. So, rather than confuse different issues, please switch to the new General/Research/Imperial Club board for specific comment about the Club.
Regards |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 05:18 pm | | A question about the relative positions of Lawende
,Harris and Levy as they approached and passed church passage.Some accounts say they were together,at least one account say's Lawende was a little apart from the other two.Of course,being a little apart,can still be considered as being together,but was there ever an official police or other report which placed them at the respective positions?.
H.Mann. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Thursday, 29 June 2000 - 07:05 pm | | Harry
The testimony given at the inquest, recorded in the Daily Telegraph, Lawende say's "they (man & woman) were 9 or 10 feet away from me". Both Lawende & Levy gave evidence but neither stated how far apart the witnesses were while walking.
In the actual Inquest testimony, Lawende say's "I walked a little further from the others", once again, no distance is specified.
The City police files were destroyed in the Blitz.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 30 June 2000 - 04:52 pm | | Thanks Jon.
H.mann. |
Author: Eric Franklin
Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 06:38 am | | | It is always assumed that the 3 men left the imperial club together. Reading what Jon says here I wonder if only Levy and Harris were really friends though. What if Lawrende was in front because he happened to leave the club just in front of them when it closed. If thats true does it make any diffrence to our understanding of things? |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 01:01 pm | | Eric,
When I saw your "Eric" come up on the screen my heart lept. For a moment I thought we were miraculously meeting up again with Eric "Zipitty" Vaughan, an honest-to-goodness necrophilliac who posted here briefly some years ago. But--sigh--no such luck for the weak and weary.
Regarding your question, Lawende, Levy and Harris were in fact visiting together in the Imperial Club. They got up and left together.
David |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 25 September 2000 - 11:29 am | | Eric,
The inquest papers answer this one conclusively:-
From the statement of Joseph Lawende: "On the night of the 29th I was at the Imperial Club. Mr Joseph Levy and Mr. Harry Harris were with me. It was raining. We left there to go out at ½ past one and we left the house about five minutes later. I walked a little further from the others…"
And from the statement of Joseph Hyam Levy: "I was with the last witness and Harris at the Imperial Club in Duke Street. We got up to go home at ½ past one. We came out about 3 or 4 minutes after the half hour…"
It’s exactly as David says.
Regards, V. |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 25 September 2000 - 08:34 pm | | Crackin' post, Viper!
David |
Author: Jeffrey
Tuesday, 26 September 2000 - 04:27 am | | Hey all !!
Nice to see you posting here David !! So, tell us, when are you going to reveal your theory to us mere mortals ? How has your work been going ? Have you decided how you are going to tell the world yet ?
Please excuse me if I've missed your previous posts on this matter, its just nice to see these message boards up again, especially with so many learned people and good discussions going on. With your presence here, I had hoped we might get a taste of your explanation to the madness of 1888.
Jeff D |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 12:38 am | | Jeff,
I'm writing it up slowly. Then I'll get a copyright, and put it up for sale in the form of photocopied pages on a cheap web site. If there is any interest, I'd consider hiring a vanity-type publisher, such as Vantage Books, to make a paperback of it, which I'd offer also on the internet. I can't tell anyone what the theory is before I copyright, or else I'd surely lose it.
I am certain I have the solution nailed. There may be others also who have it. It is an easy solution, anyone can work it out--being God is not a requirement. As to when, well....It takes time, I have to work for a living. Thanks for your interest, Jeff.
David |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 04:43 am | | G'day David,
I've studied copyright as an artist, mate. You don't have to buy it! It automatically goes to the artist/composer/author. The most believed myth about 'copyright' is that you have to buy it!
Publishing your theory, is the best way to secure your copyright! If you don't write a paperback, someone else will and claim it was their idea. Speak to a publisher now, who knows more!
LEANNE! |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 05:47 am | | Yes, David
Leanne is right. You can sell authorrights about something you have created, but texts you have written, pictures you have made are automatically yours by right. Even interpretations of another ones pictures or texts are yours. Even when you sell the physical picture, you still have the rights of it, until you sell the rights or are dead for 78 (or pretty close to that) years.
A legal known trick to secure your authorrights before you want to publish, is to send the original by post to yourself. Don't forget to make a hole into the envelope, and ask the postman behind the counter to put the stamp half on the envenlop and the document within. From that moment on, you have a dated original document. If ever one publishes the same thing before you do, you have proof you still were the first one.
I have done the same thing with my thesises before giving it to my outside-promotor and professors.
Besides that you also can do the same thing to an authorships-right company. They will keep the document within the envelope stashed in a file.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 11:24 am | | LEANNE! and Jill,
Thanks very much for this info. I've made up a fairly detailed outline of the points I take in my thesis, and have had it cued up, ready to post here for some months. My thought behind this was that if I saw people on this web site discussing matters that appear to put them on the verge of my solution, I could preemptively post the outline in a heartbeat. This is the concept of "global thermonuclear Ripperology" in the internet age, as I have seen it. I'm going to mail myself the outline of "A.R.," as you suggest above.
I've discussed the matter with attorneys where I live, and they told me to absolutely pay up the money, they quoted me $1,200 for a basic copyright job, to protect myself. Since I need a completed document to do this, I haven't moved yet.
David |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 11:39 am | | David,
Be sure that by law electronic mail is regarded as a legal document where you live, especially the date. It can maybe be seen as an easy way to fraud the date. Better yet, print it out, and post it to yourself besides the e-mail. That way you have back-up proof.
Good luck,
Jill |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 06:26 pm | | Jill, Leanne, David.
Those are interesting points you raise.
(I think David's getting nervous)
But isnt it true that, in David's case, a similar thesis or theory will only compromise copyright if it is exactly the same on all points.
I'm sure that if someone else comes up with a similar scenario, with a slightly different motive, for example, then copyright is not compromised, and the work is then not protected.
Give us a clue David,.......who's close? :-)
I think I recall the exchanges that recently got David all excited....hmmm.
:-)
Best regards, Jon |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 10:43 pm | | Jon,
Thanks so much for sending me those photographs of the G-G-Goulston S-S-Street graffito s-s-scene. And no, I'm not g-g-getting n-n-nervous! Noop! Not me!
Now I need to ask permission of the owners if I can include them in my thesis. I assume they are owned by the same company that published the A-Z.
Thanks again, J-J-Jon!
David
Noop! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 11:41 pm | | G'day David, Jon, Jill,
No one can claim copyright (ownership) of 'THE TRUTH'.
David: Your copyright has been breeched if someone uses any part of your theory word-for-word, without your permission.
I think the photographs used in the 'A-Z', belong to the 'Metropolitan Police Museum'.
Leanne! |
Author: Grey Hunter
Thursday, 28 September 2000 - 02:26 am | | | The black and white shots of the entrance to Nos. 108-119 Model Dwellings, Goulston Street were taken in the early 1970's by Leonard Knight (brother of Stephen Knight) at the behest of Richard Whittington-Egan. Thus permission for the use of these photographs needs to be obtained from either Mr Knight, or Mr Whittington-Egan. |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 02:31 pm | | Hello Ed,
I need some help here.
Is it unrealistic to think (as I think) that Lawende did not see Eddowes but only some of her clothes and the fact that the woman turned her back to the same Lawende and his two companions was not so casual ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 25 August 2001 - 05:29 pm | | Hello everybody,
the question I asked Ed follows a point that has always puzzled me regarding the night of the double event.
The first time the murderer seems to be willing to be seen by someone.
As Ed pointed out in one of his message Schwartz had to see what he saw.
Of course this could be a mere point of view, but it seems corroborated by two factors:
a) Elisabeth Stride when attacked by the man seen by Schwartz is not pushed in the obscurity of the passage leading into Dutfield's yard but instead she seemed to be pulled towards the street by the same man (strange behaviour for a killer-of course one may say that he was not the killer but the problem with this argument is that the woman has been found killed moments later),
b) looking like being afraid that Schwartz has not looked at him well enough this same man shouts "Lipsky" that seems more likely "Look at me again".
So, putting aside the reasons for such a behaviour, I wondered why such a searching for publicity in one murder and not in the other.
But was the other murder so different in this way ?
Why should Lawende and his two companions had the opportunity to look at the murderer of Eddowes ?
Why did he stand in the middle of Duke's street with his next victim having had the possibility to see the three witnesses coming out from the Imperial club, standing some minutes at the entrance and then coming towards him (more than 50 yards away).
Why didn't he go away or go with Eddowes (who seems to be in friendly terms with him) in the passage nearby towards Mitre square before or during the approaching of the three companions ?
Why he didn't turn his back to the three men as he did when Long passed by in Hanbury street and leaves to the three men the possibility to look at him ?
That's why I came to the conclusion that if Schwartz had to see what he saw, very likely the same was true for Lawende and his companions.
And what Schwartz and Lawende were able (and supposed) to see ?
A quite similar suspect (and a lonely one - pipeman came after).
Of course I came also to the conclusion that if they were to see that, the truth could have been somewhat different.
I apologize if I state all this in a way that could be interpreted as an accepted truth for me.
It is just a way I think things could have been.
Any critic or suggestion welcome.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 26 August 2001 - 12:20 pm | | Hello everybody,
another thing about the night of the double event:
James Brown at the inquest, speaking about the couple he sees against the wall of the Board School (Daily Telegraph): " He was standing with his arm against the wall; she was inclined towards his arm, facing him and with her back towards the wall"
Joseph Lawende at the inquest, speaking about the couple he sees with Levy and Harrys in Duke's street (Daily Telegraph): "She had one hand on his breast" (let us not forget that she was 2 or 3 inches smaller than her companion).
I know, I know, this is only anecdotical.
Nevertheless, a lot of extended arms that night (the night of the long arms ?)
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 11 September 2001 - 04:24 am | | Hello Jon,
sorry to push on that bottom again, but what's make the classical opinion on the Ripper's case (and I mean by classical the one that has been generally accepted by the researchers till today) so sure about the Eddowes spotting by Lawende ?
Since I do not believe him to have met her that night, am I missing something there ?
Why everybody seems to avoid the subject ?
Lack of interest ?
Come on, he has been hinted at as the possible Anderson's witness.
Stupidity from my side to believe that ?
Well, he told at the inquest only that to the best of his belief the bonnet and the jacket were the same.
Something strange here, Hutchinson is dismissed by many because too precise, Lawende is believed by everybody when himself told he was not sure.
What is your explanation of that ?
Thanks. Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 11 September 2001 - 10:24 am | | Hello Graz.
Some issues in this case are frequently accepted as part of the story, such is the Lawende sighting. That is not to say that his sighting was definitely of Eddowes, the sighting has been questioned, its just taken as a high probability nowadays, as it was then by the police.
If you recall another sighting around the time of the murder, a nightwatchman in St. James Place was approached by a well dressed man who asked if a man and a woman had passed through there.
Was this a city detective acting on Smith's instructions?, to follow any man and woman seen together after midnight.
There was also another unidentifiable witness in Dukes Place that night.
Either of which could have been Eddowes with her killer, and Lawende's sighting may have been a different couple. Afterall, most women wore very similar clothes in those days.
I don't think anyone is avoiding the issue, in fact we have filled many a thread talking over the Lawende sighting.
Whether Lawende was Anderson's witness is another controversial issue, other contenders are Schwartz & Grainger, we have chewed that one over several times too.
In comparing various sighting, Mrs. Long, Hutchinson, Lawende, Schwartz, to name a few, many theorists tend to only consider the one's who fit their suspect and concockt arguments to discredit the others. Lawende's sighting has had a boost in recent years due to Bruce Paley who rely's on Lawende's description to support his case for Joe Barnett being the ripper.
But, when the dust clears, neither one sighting has any more credability than any other, and as any policeman will tell you, eyewitness sightings can be notoriously unreliable.
Regards, Jon |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 11 September 2001 - 11:06 am | | Thanks Jon.
I didn't know about Paley's boost.
I go back to the case.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 18 September 2001 - 08:34 am | | | Jon, The discripton of the man with Eddows given by Lewande, matches(according to the Daily Telegraph) the discription by the unidentified witnesses in St James Passage at roughly the same time. I understand what you are saying about the eyewitness accounts but if one sighting is colaberated by another at a similair time then the sighting must surely be realitively correct. If 2 people see a fair haired man with the victim from different angles the that must be more accurate they a single eyewitness account. Its unfortunate the the city police records where destroyed. It also means that because they were my statement is very irrelivant but what the hey. But I totally agree with you, theorist's will always adapt the facts to fit their ideas. Cheers Monty. |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 18 September 2001 - 07:25 pm | | Hi Monty
I note you say "similar time", I might be wrong but I seem to recall the other sightings were not timed?.
I do not recall reading of a time for either of the other two 'potential witness sightings', therefore we cannot be sure if either one supports the Lawende sighting.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 19 September 2001 - 08:44 am | | | Jon, sorry.You are quite correct.I've just checked my info and to my embarresment I find no time was given.But I do say any description is better than none,reliable or not. Sorry again, Monty. |
|
|
|
|
