Pentagram

[Mike Covell]

How on earth would I know? It's not up to me to question the motives of the staff at the hospital, nor the people who wish to gain entry to the grounds, I can only speculate.

I would have thought that the beggars were after someplace warm to sleep for the evening.
I would have thought the thieves would have been after something to steal.
Maybe they were after somewhere safe to stay for the night?

I honestly do not know why they wanted to gain access to these areas, but it was a matter of some concern for the staff at the London Hospital.

[DVV]

The necks job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off...

Amitiés,
David

[rbaynton]

The necks job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off...

Amitiés,
David

The Juwes are the men That Will not be blamed for necking

[Howard Brown]

I honestly do not know why they wanted to gain access to these areas, but it was a matter of some concern for the staff at the London Hospital.- M.Covell

Mike:

Its not up to you to provide others with cases or instances of people who didn't belong in the hospital after hours creating problems for the hospital prior to the rules being enacted. The hospital clearly had such a protocol and enforced it. End of story.

Besides, there's no basis for D'Onston wanting to leave the hospital.

[Uncle Jack]

Didn't I hear it mentioned on the forums that Donston had been proved no to be the Ripper by someone? If that is the case, then he is not a good suspect for the necks theory. I'm afraid the theory is flawed and has no foundation to it whatsoever. I wouldn't ridicule the theorist but I do not agree with it at all

[Howard Brown]

Dear Uncle Jack:

Didn't I hear it mentioned on the Forums that Donston had been proved not to be the Ripper by someone? If that is the case, then he is not a good suspect for the necks theory.

What has been shown is the basis of him having a reason for being the Ripper or a motive for the crimes based on old, outdated and faulty researching. In short, what was claimed to have been his motive for being the Ripper doesn't exist in the sources used to suggest that very motive. Not only that, but Mike provided the clincher from London Hospital staff with that protocol back in 1888 which prevented patients from nocturnal excursions.

Its like the Bigfoot Hoax, Adam. Everything used to promote him was based on fabrications. The Customs House records are the monkey suit they put on D'Onston and had him walk around in it for a while...where he was alleged to have had v.d. and hung out with prostitutes...nothing of the sort which is found at all in any sourceable literature written by or about him. Even the section of Bernard O'Donnell's manuscript which purportedly was all from Cremers is suspicious. The sequence of events is out of whack and there is no mention anywhere of D'Onston actually practicing that mumbo jumbo in front of or even discussing it with the two women he was in close contact with back in 1889-1891...or anyone else for that matter.

[Ally]

Mike:

Its not up to you to provide others with cases or instances of people who didn't belong in the hospital after hours creating problems for the hospital prior to the rules being enacted. The hospital clearly had such a protocol and enforced it. End of story.

Actually wrong. There is absolutely no documentation as to them enforcing it whatsoever, which is what is under dispute. Or if you claim it's a secure hospital with beggars, prostitutes and thieves given free run of the grounds after hours, you are clearly in a different mindset as to what constitutes an impenetrable and inaccessible hospital than I am.

If the prostitutes and beggars were getting warm beds and places to sleep, wouldn't that mean they were IN the wards which would sort of defeat the purpose of locking them to keep them OUT.

Your attempts to portray the london hospital as some sort of Fort Knox that no one could get in or out of is clearly not accurate.

[Howard Brown]

Mike:

There's no need to show an example or case of any hospital protocol being enforced. That they had a rule and regulation intended to prevent, once more, people who did not belong in the Hospital after a certain hour unless they were patients, is all you need to show. It might be worthwhile if some people tried to find an example of this protocol being violated instead of trying to insist that you show that it was not always enforced. No one can show an example of either someone going in who didn't belong there...nor leaving the hospital as D'Onston is falsely alleged to have been capable of.

Prior to the implementation of the policy at the LH, it seems that there had been a problem of trespassers ( which includes those in need of a place to crash, prosses, and transient bums ) using the facility for their own immediate reasons. If there had been no need to initiate a rule or regulation, meaning...no problem of outsiders trying to get in...then there would have been no reason for creating a regulation, such as found in Royal London Hospital Archives document reference LH/A/1/17....something the previous D'Onston hoaxmakers probably innocently overlooked in their hurry to make a few bucks before the balloon was burst.

[Ally]

You don't need a specific example. You need to use logic and common sense, which I do understand is not everyone's forte. If a hundred years from now you were to pick up the security policy for 99 percent of schools and review them, you would find that the vast majority of them say that all doors are to remain locked at all times and that visitors must check in at the front door and be assigned a name tag. So someone a hundred years from now, looking only at the policy, would conclude that schools were safe and locked facilities.

Now let's look at the reality and actually go to one of those schools. Teachers leave by every door imaginable and prop them open to run out and take a smoke break or a quick pop through to another building to talk to another teacher. Visitors go in and out of every door imaginable once they've learned the most convenient routes and which doors are likely to have been left open by which staff.

This is policy in probably every office and every building around and no matter what you are going to find people violating that policy left and right because policy doesn't matter diddly squat when you are talking about human nature and taking the path of least resistance.

So if we factor in human nature and ask the question was safety protocol followed all the time to the exclusion that NO one could ever have gotten in or out of the building undetected, basic common sense would tell those who are acquainted with it, that there was every chance that someone could have gotten in and out of that building undetected.

A policy, is irrelevant. A policy, isn't worth the paper it's written on, because precedent proves that policies are nothing but what you ought to do and have very little reality with what people actually do.

[Howard Brown]

Mike:

Comparing lets say, a school , as opposed to a hospital with some very sick men in a ward ( typhoid being one complaint ), might be offered up as some sort of viable comparison. We know better. Its not the same.

People are expected to be ambulatory in a school, but after hours..relative to a hospital ward and relative to the existing conditions in the East End...where the people are in the hospital and without reason to go in and out like a convienence store, why its only common sense that rules were created to prevent people from going into the building first and foremost and that the idea of patients, once again there for a good reason, going out was secondary.

You'll run into such anal retentiveness from time to time Mike and usually from people who make little of Harris omitting the mention of where the October 16th letter came from in the hospital.

Its like they say Covell-Lipski...its not what you know, its whose baseless argument for a suspect you wanna defend.

[Ally]

Howard,

Why are you acting like a childish little twat? If you don't have the balls to address me directly, don't respond to my posts at all.

And yes a hospital and a school are valid comparisons because neither require the kinds of security or attention to security that say a jail would. If a teacher is liable to leave a door open, so is a nurse. If a kid can get out and skip, so can a patient.

But I understand that you can't actually argue the logic so you'd prefer to just play the fool. Carry on.

[Howard Brown]

You flinched first ,toots.

"And yes a hospital and a school are valid comparisons because neither require the kinds of security or attention to security that say a jail would. If a teacher is liable to leave a door open, so is a nurse. If a kid can get out and skip, so can a patient..-

People want to escape jail, rendering comparison and even mentioning jail, null and void. People want, on occasion, to get out of or into school either to whack some mouthy teacher for being uppity...or for other reasons. I can see why in the former case.
People in wards such as the Currie Ward with its very sick clientele, do not have the same inclination for going outside as do those who seek entrance or exit from a school or jail. There is no reason to suspect that anyone from within the hospital ever did want to or try to go out at night. Again, the all encompassing protocol was created so that people could not go into the joint.

I love you too.

[Ally]

I flinched first? What does that mean? If you are implying I wasn't addressing you directly when I was quoting and responding directly to your post... what?? If we are playing a game of chicken, you need to make that clear upfront. I can't keep up with you boys and all your games.

So we are clear. You are now saying that London policy on safety was not aimed at keeping people in, only out.

So therefore, you admit, that there was every likelihood that a patient could have left should they have chosen to do so.

Thanks. That's all then.

[Daniel Gillotti]

Petagram

I honestly do not know why they wanted to gain access to these areas, but it was a matter of some concern for the staff at the London Hospital.- M.Covell

Mike:

Its not up to you to provide others with cases or instances of people who didn't belong in the hospital after hours creating problems for the hospital prior to the rules being enacted. The hospital clearly had such a protocol and enforced it. End of story.

Besides, there's no basis for D'Onston wanting to leave the hospital.

Hi Howard:

I have to make this short my wife is bugging out about the amount of time I've been on the computer.

About hospital security we have in todays modern tech, with electronic swipe cards, armed guards, I/d tags...ect you still have people on occasion walk in to a secured ward and take a newborn baby and walk right the front doors.

You have people who don't want to stay in their hospital bed for treatment, put their cloths on and walk out the front door.

Inmates being treated by Doctors with armed guards in another room sneak out the back door lol... What I'm trying to say is, this doesn't happen often, but it still happens in todays society.

122 years ago I'm sure they didn't have better security than they do now and if D'onston wanted to come and go without detection I think its realistically plausible.

Also, I think the Cremers story even if 40 years old and after the fact; second hand info, about the bloody ties and D'onston drawing an upside down triangle on his door is very relevant. It shows how scared Cremers was of this man and how it impacted her to remembering details.

In "Crowley's Ripper: the collected work of Roslyn D'onston, not only does it talk about the bloody dress ties, it goes it great detail about D'onston's fascination with the black arts, how he electrocuted dogs, cats, and other animals; his initiation into black magic through Lord Lytton using a chalked- red- outline on the ground of a pentagram...ect, and no he wouldn't let anyone no of his mumbo jumbo.

I never said D'onston had syphilis just the opposite, I don't think he had VD

what I would like to know if anyone here knows if any, or all of the C5 victims had syphilis or not.

Also, I'm looking for a book that D'onston wrote in 1903 doe anyone remember the name of it and were i could view a copy of it, or any of his literature.

Thanks... Dan

[Ally]

122 years ago I'm sure they didn't have better security than they do now and if D'onston wanted to come and go without detection I think its realistically plausible.

Is it plausible that D'onston could have snuck out of the hospital and killed five random women? Yes, remotely, not realistically plausible.

Is it plausible that D'onston, in addition to sneaking out of the hospital somehow managed to track down and find five specific targets who all had that exact last letter of their name that he needed in the limited amount of time available to him? No. That's not even in the realm of plausibility.

You can argue a Name specific theory or you can argue D'onston but add two very implausible scenarios together and it equals an impossible.