There is no Jack the ripper

[Natalie Severn]

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


yes,jukka-great to see you!

[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.

[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.

[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

[Tom_Wescott]

What could be worse than you calling me a crackpot?

I could call you Canadian, but that would be hitting below the belt. As for your theory, you have it backwards...Le Grand and Packer's Grape Man was a fabrication, Jack the Ripper aka the Whitechapel Murderer, existed. As for the Saucy Jacky postcard, it was posted LONG before 24 hours following the discovery of Stride's body.

You ever taken a close look at the 'smudges' on that postcard?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Varqm]

There is not even 1 percent of what is required to point to a definite killer and already all these quarrels and nonsense. How much more if we get to 20%. People will explode.

Ally you are cheap. Very cheap .
No spine to allow and let people breathe.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

I was using the approximate interval of time between the cops first saying the Berner Street murderer must have been interrupted and the appearance in the press on Monday of the corroborative SJ postcard.

Do you have any evidence in support of your other two assertions?

Yes, I have looked carefully at the smudges. And the hand-drawn postmarks, for which there was a legitimate reason.

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

If Michael wants to go, he has the right to do so.
It's sad, but he's a big man.
But he shouldn't say "I go because the administrator told me so".
A post from Ally is a post from Ally.

Amitiés all.

[Tom_Wescott]

Ally you are cheap. Very cheap .

I can't afford her.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Grave Maurice]

Save your sympathy, David. As has been pointed out, Michael has pulled this stunt before. He'll be back. You can count on it.

[Tom_Wescott]

Do you have any evidence in support of your other two assertions?

Of course.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Ally you are cheap. Very cheap .
No spine to allow and let people breathe.

You know that second sentence made no sense right? And you are full of sh!t. Michael got plenty of room to breathe and he's been spouting his BS for years unfettered.

But it's typical of cowards like you and Mike who run away when confronted with opposition to say it's the people who don't fall down and roll over and accept that kind of abuse to be the ones who are rigid.

Michael is perfectly happy to be the one insulting and deriding others, but the minute he gets a bit of it back you and he have a whiny little "I am so oppressed". It's not my fault you and your ilk are weak and cowardly.

Here's a clue, pansy. If you can't take it, don't start dishing it. Because there are people in the world who are a lot better equipped at serving it up than you ever will be.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Care to share?

121 years of Ripperology hangs in the balance.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Don't be a smartass, Simon. Anyone who has carefully evaluted Packer knows he was full of crap. I'm not gonna waste my time preaching to the inconvertible.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Sounds to me like you got nuthin' and are just plain foolin' with an old crackpot.

Regards,

Simon