Author: Penelope Vilela
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 11:05 pm |        |
| What about this American doctor? I can't remember his name. Was he a mason? Why did the police stop the investigation so quickly? Did this case go far beyond the scope of police investigative techniques for that time? I don't think so. Did the police use the press to mask the identity of the true killer? I know if you plant enough false leads you taint the investigation beyond repair. Did they have handwriting analysis at that time? The letters seem too convenient and muddy the case. Were they perhaps given to the press as a false lead? |
Author: Jon
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 10:54 am | |
Penelope
The American Doctor was never identified.
'The Lancet' called the Doctor 'foreign', but did not elaborate on his origins.
The Doctor made enquiries at Middlesex Hospital & University College Hospital, and was refused by both establishments. (why?)
The foreign physician was looking into the possiblity of securing certain parts of the body for the purpose of scientific investigation
(where have I heard that before?)
The Lancet concluded:
(with subversive pressure?)
"The theory has been dismissed, and this, we believe, is no longer entertained by its author"
But, 15 yrs later Abberline still held that the theory had possibilities.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 01:25 pm | |
| Thanks,Jon. Doctors, autopsies, cadavers. I wonder if Eddowes, Chapman and Kelly were victims of some over zealous medical students? Has anyone ever investigated a possible Tontine. I believe they were quite the thing in Victorian England |
Author: Jon
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 01:42 pm | |
Trust a woman to throw a word at me I've never seen before....Tontine ?
Websters:
Main Entry: ton·tine
Pronunciation: 'tän-"tEn, tän-'
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Lorenzo Tonti died 1695 Italian banker
Date: 1765
: a joint financial arrangement whereby the participants usually contribute equally to a prize that is awarded entirely to the participant who survives all the others
Ok, now we have that out of the way......what are you suggesting, a kind of Agatha Christie murder, where they all have a stab at it?
:-)
Jon |
Author: Chandler
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 02:31 pm | |
Penelope,
There are some students of the case who believe that the American doctor might have been a certain Dr Francis Tumblety. There is a section
in the Suspects board devoted to the "good" doctor. You might also wish read the Evans and Gainey book on Tumblety which is listed in the Casebook's book list.
There are certain sources which seem to think that the reason police efforts were considerabely scaled down in late Dec. 1888 and early 1899 was that some senior police officals belived JtR had drowned himself in the Thames a short time after Mary Kelly's murder.(I personally have serious doubts on this theory as it relates to who their suspect was.)
The general concensus at the time of the murders, among police officals, was that the letters were the work of either "cranks",hoaxers or newspapermen. So you could say that it was the other way around on who was trying to mislead who.
I cannot recommend highly enough working through the previous posts listed on the topics board.
Best reguards to all from another new poster,
chandler |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 03:26 pm | |
Hi Chandler:
You are incorrect in saying "The general concensus at the time of the murders, among police officials, was that the letters were the work of either cranks, hoaxers, or newspapermen." You may be correct in saying this is a later view of some police officials but at the time Scotland Yard put out a broadside containing facsimiles of the September 25 "Dear Boss" letter and the "Saucy Jacky" postcard asking if people recognized the handwriting. This, in addition to the request to the San Francisco police for a sample of Tumblety's writing, indicates that, at least initially, they took the letters seriously and did not believe them to be a hoax. Today we can say that because there were upwards of 2,000 such letters sent, probably all or all but a few were sent by cranks and hoaxers despite the indications that the police of 1888 thought that at least the first Dear Boss communications and possibly the Lusk letter could have been from the murderer.
Chris George |
Author: Chandler
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 03:43 pm | |
Chris George,
I stand corrected and only hope the evil anon
doesn't come after me.
I do find it interesting that there almost seems to be "foot dragging" on getting that sample to London.
chandler |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 04:29 pm | |
Jon
Not exactly Agatha Christie. More like the Son of Sam murders. Perhaps a group of people willingly participating in a very dangerous game of chance. Perhaps for some kind of profit. That profit may not be money. It may be more of a prestige thing. I just do not think that all the murders were committed by one person. Especially Eddowes and Stride. Two maybe more people working together. Lookouts for one another. |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 04:42 pm | |
Chandler
Thanks a lot! I too am a new user. Reading thru all the info gives me a strange feeling. So much written with such little result. Fascinating as all the info is I am left with the feeling that somebody really screwed up the investigation. They should have been able to catch JTR. There was an abundance of evidence, multiple witnesses and ample man power to investigate.
Bye, PV |
Author: Jon
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 05:16 pm | |
Hi Penelope
I go along with you as to Eddowes & Stride.
Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes by the same killer.
Tabram, Stride, Coles, McKenzie, and Torso's by other(s).
But there were many murderers out on the streets of London in 1800-1900, roughly about 10 per year as police statistics indicate.
So, we may be dealing with more than one, two or three killers in the Whitechapel murders.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Chandler
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 12:48 am | |
Hello Penelope,
I agree mistakes were made;
but the major factor to me seems to be that the police were dealing with a "new" phenomenon: an urban serial killer. I have heard interviews with modern police officals the substance of which is that the most difficult crimes to solve are "stranger to stranger killings" because all the "typical" motives are not there and this in a time when forensic science is flourishing.
I believe the police did their best but they
were up against someone whose motives they could barely begin to fathom. One thing that has struck me is when they erred quite often it was by upholding what they were legally entittled to do.
I give them a great deal of respect for that.
Now I'm off to wade through Suspects>>>Hutchinson,George(U.K.)
regaurds,
chandler |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 07:12 am | |
Hello Jon:
There may be something in the Whitechapel murders being an Agatha Christie plot. Note that the name of Christie's famous sleuth "Hercule Poirot" has EXACTLY thirteen letters as does the name "Jack the Ripper." Coincidence? I think not! :-)
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 08:01 am | |
I can see your having a slow day, Chris
LOL
Nice to hear from you, once in a while :-) |
Author: Chandler
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 02:39 pm | |
Hello Chris George,
Forgot that simple courtesy on my stand corrected post. My apologies.
Didn't Piorot have a moustache and was a dandy such as seen by "Hawkeye" Hutchinson? Viola' the case is sol-ved! We can now all go home to our skittles and beer.
regaurds,
chandler |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 05:36 pm | |
Thanks, Chandler. Apologies accepted and your thanks was taken as given earlier, so no apologies were needed. Indeed, now that you mention it 'ercule Poirot does provide a good match to the man Curious George Hutchinson saw. Curiouser and curiouser. . . :-)
Chris George |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 09:43 pm | |
Penelope -
In the spirit of this discussion's title, here's something to confuse you further: take a peek at http://www.casebook-productions.org, and in the "Member's Corner" you will find suggestions for further reading among the staggering plethora of Ripper books.
Just to depress you into thinking there's even MORE about the case you don't know. . .
CMD |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 10:55 pm | |
CMD
Thanks. I'll take a look.
PV |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 10:17 am | |
CMD / PV
In the C.P. site you are looking at there is something of a misnomer.
- The Final Solution. (Stephen Knight)
- The Diary. (Shirley Harrison)
Are hardly "Should have" books.
And Don Rumbelows;
- The Complete Casebook, cannot be, by any stretch of the imagination classed as 'Entertaining".
They should be the other way round.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 12:26 pm | |
Jon -
As I stated, the Knight / Harrison / Feldman books are "should haves" because so many people (admittedly, more for Knight than the Diary) believe those books to hold the truth. You know, of course, that I do not believe in the Diary or the Royal conspiracy; however, someone new to the subject such as Penelope should be aware of the books and able to deconstruct their arguments. I think they're "should haves" because she needs to know what's in them in order to intelligently refute them.
I do agree with you that Rumbelow probably belongs more with "should have" or even "must have" than "entertaining," but I would also put Beadle's book in that same category. I enjoy "Complete Casebook" very much (I take it your demurral is not with classifying any book about such a subject as 'entertaining'), and wanted to share that enthusiasm with anyone else tempted to pick up the book, which is probably why I gave it the rating it has. Since I expect to add SPEs "Ultimate Source Book" to the list after it comes out, perhaps I shall muck about a bit with the categories then.
But then, opinion is sometimes silly personal prejudice, isn't it? God knows I can't convince too many people that "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" is one of the best movies ever made. . .
All the best,
CMD |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 12:46 pm | |
CMD
Agreed, it is explained well enough for those who bother to read the small print. But as the site is viewed by the 'masses' & people have a habit of not reading the small print I was a little surprised to see a word like 'Entertainment' used.
When the connotations of that word conjure up 'frivolous, amusing, light-hearted, etc....
Not meaning to raise any ire over a small issue, but maybe a 'promotion' of Rumbelow's Casebook is in order? :-)
Best regards, Jon |
Author: Lisa Muir
Sunday, 08 October 2000 - 03:04 pm | |
| Dear Christopher-Michael, I hope you were being honest about "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang", and that it wasn't just a cruel sarcastic attack on what is, indeed, one of the finest films ever. Even "Mary Poppins" deserves praise - the choreography to "Step in Time" is just wonderful. And Dick Van Dyke is marvelous, despite his inability to produce an authentic sounding Cockney accent. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 05:55 am | |
Oh come on - "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" just can't hold a candle to "The Great St. Trinians Train Robbery"!
Und damit basta, as they say in Germany. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 07:05 am | |
Hercule Poirot was a French speaking Belgian -> the double negative of the grafito?
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 07:56 am | |
Hi, Jill:
Mais oui!
Chris |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 09:51 am | |
Jon -
Point well taken. Once I get a copy of SPEs new book, I shall revamp / rename the categories.
Lisa -
I'm quite serious, I assure you! Though Disney generally sets my teeth on edge, I must admit to a lingering fondness for the Sherman brothers' never-never-sort-of-Edwardian-England milieu. Probably why I like "Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines" as well. Though I never understood quite how Disney managed to get the Baroness von Bomburst's merry-widow past the censors. . .
CMD |
Author: LeatherApron
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 10:38 pm | |
Re: "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang"
Any film with Benny Hill in it gets my vote!
CMD,
You are always an example of a perfect gentleman and I enjoy reading you here and in Ripperologist. From now on, instead of saying "Jesus Christ!" I'm going to say "Jesus Christopher-Michael DiGrazia!"
Sorry, just a little humour at your expense, thanks to Penelope.
;-)
Yours Truly,
Jack |
