There is no Jack the ripper

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

It's okay. I don't mind being called a crackpot. I've been called worse. But I'm glad you enjoyed my Anderson [don't forget M&M] article and hope you also enjoy Smoke and Mirrors.

When it comes to Elizabeth Stride I fall firmly into category 3.

What's that? You don't have a category 3?

You do now. My candidate for her killer is anyone but the Ripper [because Jack the Ripper did not exist] or the person who killed Eddowes. Secondly, irrespective of who it was [my guess would be grape-man] the murder had to be attributed to the non-existent Jack the Ripper because it would have been impossible for the cops to launch a worldwide lone serial killer scare [already in the works] if the public thought two murderers had been at large that night. The giveaway is the SJ postcard. It's too neat, too convenient and oh-so-coincidentally spells out exactly what the cops had been saying twenty four hours earlier about Stride's murderer being interrupted.

Now I fully realize this instantly catapults me back into your category 1, but hey, I'm made of stern stuff. What could be worse than you calling me a crackpot?

Regards,

Simon

[Supe]

It is not generally fair to discuss people who are not in a position to reply, but as Tom pointed out Michael is the Sarah Bernhardt of the boards. That is, constant "farewell tours," so I'm sure Michael will be back to reply.

I am glad that your experience, Norma, was good but it was not so with most of us. First of all, for someone who prated so long and so often about "evidence" he gave no indication of understanding what actually constitutes evidence as opposed to supposition, extrapolation and sheer blind faith in his beliefs. In that regard he is rather like the late David Radka, though without David's intellectual mastery or David's sense of humor.

Moreover, he had certain cherished ideas that he would insinuate into every thread he read. After a while, his "King Charles' Head" antics had many of use climbing the wall.

Most of all, though, I would suggest Michael has no grasp for what history actually is. First and foremost, historical analysis is interpretation. The facts available are assembled and then they are interpreted and how well that is done determines how persuasive a particular interpretation becomes. Michael does not understand that his view of the 1888 murders is no more (or less) of an interpretation than is that of the Ripper establishment he despises and deprecates. And that what he rails against as the erroneous interpretations of the establishment are much the more popular only feeds his enmity and envy.

It is not healthy to feed solely on enmity and envy, as Michael so clearly does, and that, I think, is what makes him so uncollegial so often. These boards are open to many ideas about JtR--almost as many as there are members--but we all must remember that others will disagree with our ideas. Michael, with his sincere but misguided belief that he alone has glimpsed the Grail, could not handle criticism.

Anyway, we may already have wasted too much time on the topic. The rest of us should get on with the quest--however we envision it.

Don.

[Cap'n Jack]

I have always enjoyed Michael's contributions to this site, he has shown uncommon good common sense, and has always questioned the status quo, which is good for any grouping of individuals.
Questioning the status quo of any grouping or organisation is bound to lead to an isolating process from the group or organ as it seeks to protect its perceived image of itself, often a fractured and impure image, as it is generated by what are seen as the 'leaders' of that social grouping, and here I deliberately mean writers and authors who enjoy a social scale out of all proportion to their real contribution to that social grouping.
Protectionism will work in the short term, as does prohibition, but the subject is actually too damn interesting to let it be sabotaged by a bunch of groupies who will not hear a single word said against their percieved landlords, the 'lords' who are published... who actually don't have much land at all.
Take out the common man with a gripe, and you are left treading tripe.
I rest my case, and it is Samsonite.

[Natalie Severn]

I dont have Michael"s email Tom.I prefer to discuss the case on the boards----


yes,jukka-great to see you!

[Tom_Wescott]

Nats,

Are you one of the people Michael referred to have his e-mail address? If so, nothing is stopping you from continuing your chats with him off the boards.

Jukka,

Hi, it's great to see you!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Tom and Nats!

Well, it's good to create options to these "if it's not him..." -discussions!

But I have to agree with Tom's two pet peeves at the moment!

All the best
Jukka

[Natalie Severn]

Albert Bachert ----hm-m---thats interesting Tom,I have definitely had suspicions about him too!

[Natalie Severn]

Ally,
Well here ofcourse you see the broader picture! I can understand that its important for this site that individuals dont come on it solely to pontificate about their own theories, quirky or not, and when they meet opposition start throwing out insults and angry accusations.
On the other hand, I had been discussing an aspect of the Stride case with Michael in an amicable way and though we were not in agreement , Michael was at no time unpleasant to me.
However it must be said, you most certainly do have a much broader picture than me when it comes to the Casebook.
Best Wishes
Norma

[Tom_Wescott]

Nats and Ally,

I have two pet peeves with the 'Stride was not a Ripper victim' camp, and those are 1) Almost without exception, it turns out they reached their conclusion based on bad information or a misinterpretation of the information, and 2) They refuse to tell us who did kill Stride, if not the Ripper. Or at least offer a hypothesis as likely or moreso. This never happens.
So, I've been spending some time developing a shortlist of viable suspects for the Stride murder outside of the Ripper. This isn't the right thread to talk about it, but even I was surprised at how strong the case I put together against Albert Bachert once I dug in and started looking. Downright creepy. He's now third on my list of most likely suspects, behind Jack the Ripper in the first spot and Charles Le Grand in the second.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Natalie and Simon

Someone says they are liable to catch an STD from associating with this group and you evidence surprise that the group finds him unwelcome?

If you make it your mission to constantly piss on the people you are associating with day in and day out, it's only a matter of time before they get fed up with you and ask you to seek another group to shower with condescension.

No one here cares what your personal theory is, there probably aren't two people on the boards who share the exact same theory. In fact, I actually lean towards Stride NOT being a Ripper victim, though I am perfectly content with the fact that my opinion on that topic may well be wrong, since it could go either way. So no, it's not just his particular views that are responsible for his reception and it's false to imply that it's merely the hidebound who refuse to accept anything but canon. What matters is how you go about presenting and defending your opinion. And on that count he's failed miserably on every occasion and he derails other threads to constantly harp on his personal theory. If people don't accept his theory, they are rigid, stupid and unthinking. He never seems to accept the fact that he's as guilty of that mindset as everyone else.

[Natalie Severn]

Well thankyou for your words Tom.
One of the things I have noticed about your posts is that you try to stay with the real and what was , when weaving through these past events and thats so crucial to getting any kind of useful insight into what happened - what may have moved him and why etc. Nor did I mean to minimise your wider contribution to the case in what I said before,its just that the case you made based on the Stride murder that appeared in Ripper Notes was actually quite an eye opener to me.I was certainly very impressed. Also ,I tend to think that if anyone gets close to discovering who the killer actually was, it will be through going like you did from the particular to the general, rather than trying to get there from the wider picture ---if you see what I mean.
Cheers
Norma

[Tom_Wescott]

Natalie,

Stride isn't 'my patch' at all and it would be a boring place if the only posters around were ones who agreed with me. Michael was a nut and he never had a single original thought. He grabbed the 'Schwartz as liar' idea from me and made a mockery of it. Same with his suspicions against the club, which arrived from posts I did showing that the club members were on 'damage control' following the murder. He took this true observation and made a circus of it. You're ten times the researcher and thinker Michael is, and your knowledge of Berner Street far outweighs his. Trust me when I say you won't be missing anything.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Tom,
I understand how important the thread is to your thinking on the murder of Elizabeth Stride and how irritating it is having someone come and start pissing on your patch and,to your mind, making a pig"s ear of it while he is at it.
I have been very intrigued too by some of your ideas about what happened that night and will be glad to read anything further you write along the same lines.But I was interested too in some of Michael"s thinking on the club and any role it may have had in a cover up.While I myself doubt there was a cover up, I must admit to being deeply puzzled by the inconsistencies that arise as a result of the statement by Schwartz .
Best
Norma

[Tom_Wescott]

Simon,

My apologies, I meant to include a funny icon to make it clear I was joking...at least to some extent...about the 'crackpot' comment. I read your recent Anderson essay, and while I only agree with a portion of it, I didn't realize until then what a talented writer you are. Like AP, you make it look easy to educate as well as entertain with your words. I'm going to print out 'Smoke and Mirrors', which I've heard good things about, and read that very soon. I can honestly say I look forward to reading more work from you.

Nats,

I don't understand how anyone can be 'astonished' at Michael leaving. I said that was coming a day or two ago. I'm no psychic, just observant. He's left these boards about 10 times, only to come back. I hate to say it, but I hope this time he stays gone. Maybe some good discussion will now take place on the Stride threads.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

Well Simon I am as astonished as you about tonight"s fireworks but that doesnt mean I accept that there was no jack the ripper-----its my view that whoever the murderer was he existed and like all bullies chose as his targets a collection of women who were the most ill equipped to defend themselves .I dont believe he stopped in 1888 either but went underground.
Anyway,sorry this thread has gone a bit pear shaped,
Cheers
Norma