Mile End Vigilance Committee

[mariab]

Adam,
as it happens, I just re-read your A matter of time in Rip 113 and the LTE in Rip 114-115. Apart from your having misrepresented/mistaken? the fact that Ms Mortimer didn't SEE the young couple standing at the street corner, but learned from them having been at the premises AFTER the fact, and the young couple having not been sure about when the Stride murder exactly happened, I agree (as expected) with your position that the majority of the newspaper reports place Ms. Mortimer at her doorstep for about half an hour, approximately from 00.30-1.00. Tom's claim that Ms Mortimer might have been at her door for only 10'min., from 00.46-00.56, appears rational enough in view of the fact that Ms Mortimer seems to have spaced out and missed everyone but Leon Goldstein and (possibly?) PC Smith's steps acoustically (esp. if PC Smith exaggerated the accurateness of his shift?), still, Tom really doesn't cite the “lengthy and more accurate reports“ giving this shorter time frame. I don't have The Ultimate or Sugden here in Paris, I've had a super quick look at the press reports posted here on casebook, but no find on Mortimer for 10' min. only. I wish I had the Swanson police report here, or better, I wish that Ms Mortimer had been asked to appear at the Stride inquest.
Perhaps Tom will clarify. Also, in a couple of weeks I hope to be able to conduct an intense newspaper search for some other things, and I'll keep an eye for Ms Mortimer too.

[mariab]

If you want more answers, how about research them yourself rather than wait for other people to do your work for you all the time?

I'm currently researching several aspects pertaining to Berner Street here in Paris. The results (or lack thereoff) will be made public in several publications, by myself and by others.

What debate Maria? - you never answered me on it.

Answer to what? It's hard to identify anything rational (or civil, for that matter) in your posts #127-128, Tracy.
The best of lucks with researching Jacob Levy.

[tji]

Adam, your reaction to the Jacob Levy discussion here makes me think that perhaps you havent followed the latest debate on this? It's all in Tracy's (Teej's) Jacob Levy thread to see.

What debate Maria? - you never answered me on it.

Tj

[tji]

The same with Jacob Levy, someone comes forward with evidence of a violent act committed or attempted by him, and I'm joining the bandwagon again with you merry fellows, Tracy, Jimmi, and Adam.

We have enough people on our bandwagon showing interest Maria, don't you worry your little self about rejoining....even if no-one showed any interest we would still research him, as we do a lot of other suspects. If you want more answers, how about research them yourself rather than wait for other people to do your work for you all the time?


There are different reasons (often pragmatic, as in: possibility of research) for the fields in which I'm acquiring expertise. I'm certainly more up to date than you on Jacob Levy (despite your so enthusiastically acclaiming him as a Ripper suspect),

I am sorry I have got to answer this as I think Adam would be too modest to answer it. I would be very careful with what you declare Maria. Adam has been a very helpful and supportive aid - along with a few others who have mine and Jimi's everlasting gratitude - in our research of Jacob. You are digging yourself a hole you certainly won't be able to climb out of if you continue down that road.

Tj

[mariab]

Adam, I'll do a quick one, since we are highjacking the thread.

See, now what you've said before is that it would impact "hugely" on a Ripper suspect should there be further evidence of assaults, etc by themselves, or that they had committed other similar crimes overseas - that certainly doesn't apply to Joseph Barnett, who never committed anything resembling a serious crime in his life (and that would of course mean you were suggested that he randomly decided to kill at least 5 women, including his own partner, in 1888, and then we hear nothing of him until he died several decades later - 1926, if memory serves.)That you would rate Barnett as a better suspect than Chapman (as you've said Chapman is at the bottom of your suspect list), is I think something we can all draw a fair indication of your knowledge of the case from.

My suspicions of Barnett are stirred by his behaviour and by the fact that he was close to one of the victims, plus his having been physically strong, plus his ressembling to the physical descriptions given by several witnesses. I'm completely aware that Barnett cannot be researched sufficiently (pertaining to evidence of crimes, not just biographically), and the story about his alleged grave spitting is most possibly a legend. This is more of a gut feeling or an indulgence, if you will, a pet project that cannot be further pursued. Incidentally, Paley is one of the first Ripperological books I purchased due to this “gut feeling“/preference for Barnett.

Tumblety is a slightly better suspect, but doubts have been raised over him in recent years and, if we are to believe witness descriptions, he certainly doesn't fit those.

I'm fully aware of the doubts, of Wolf Vanderlinden's work vs. R.J. Palmer's, of the recent article in the Whitechapel Society Journal, etc.. The important evidence concerning Tumblety lies in the Littlechild letter and (possibly) in the Secret Branch ledgers.

So stashing a large knife under the pillow of your bed, throwing your PREGNANT wife onto it, brandishing said knife in front of her face and possibly her life being saved only by a customer entering his store, isn't deemed a "serious" offence by you then?

Who said anything about a serious offense? I was talking Ripper worthy skills with a knife.

I'm struggling to believe that you lead the ultra-busy lifestyle that you claim to, given that you always seem to have time to post multiple times daily on certain threads - and it seems every time I look at these forums, you've replied to something. Jeez, I know I work quite a few hours a week, and I could never get to what is the equivalent of over 150 posts per month....not that I would want to, of course. Quality is always more important than quantity.

My posts contain undeniable quality, surpassing even their impressive quantity. And my busy phases alternate with intense procrastination.

I certainly hope you enjoy "A Matter Of Time" when you get a spare moment, however.... perhaps you may be more willing than Tom to explain Fanny Mortimer's testimony to me then?

As it happens, I'm too wired to sleep (after working all night on my French article) and working on ice skating double jumps on no sleep seems not like the best idea, therefore I'm about to re-read your A matter of time and the relevant LTEs, curious to remember what all differences you and Tom are harboring pertaining to good old Fanny's time(s) spent al fresco in front of her door.

[Adam Went]

Maria:

You're not gonna like this, Adam, but my other suspects (apart from the proverbial “unknown“ local) are Barnett, Tumblety, plus I'm considering Le Grand as a prime suspect on Berner Street and possibly involved in the rest of the murders. (In “involved“ I mean just that, involved, not necessarily a suspect. Research is still pending pertaining to this.)

See, now what you've said before is that it would impact "hugely" on a Ripper suspect should there be further evidence of assaults, etc by themselves, or that they had committed other similar crimes overseas - that certainly doesn't apply to Joseph Barnett, who never committed anything resembling a serious crime in his life (and that would of course mean you were suggested that he randomly decided to kill at least 5 women, including his own partner, in 1888, and then we hear nothing of him until he died several decades later - 1926, if memory serves.)

Tumblety is a slightly better suspect, but doubts have been raised over him in recent years and, if we are to believe witness descriptions, he certainly doesn't fit those.

That you would rate Barnett as a better suspect than Chapman (as you've said Chapman is at the bottom of your suspect list), is I think something we can all draw a fair indication of your knowledge of the case from.

And if the injuries inflicted on his Lucy wife with a knife have been a bit more of the serious kind.

So stashing a large knife under the pillow of your bed, throwing your PREGNANT wife onto it, brandishing said knife in front of her face and possibly her life being saved only by a customer entering his store, isn't deemed a "serious" offence by you then?

I'm certainly more up to date than you on Jacob Levy (despite your so enthusiastically acclaiming him as a Ripper suspect), and again, you're not gonna like this at all Adam, but I have a much clearer picture than you on Berner Street.

Oh good! I'm pleased that you know more than me about the Berner Street saga, perhaps you may be more willing than Tom to explain Fanny Mortimer's testimony to me then?

Not quite, Adam. “Capitalism“ is an approach, “capitalist“ refers to a
(financially very healthy) state in which one is. One does not need to be rich to act in a capitalist manner, as the (poor) vendor who spotted American flags at his vendor stand just one day after 9/11 occurred in N.Y.. I used this as a comparison to Joseph Aarons' approach to the WVC venture.

I'm not going to debate with you over the intricacies of the English language - the fact is that whether it's capitalism or capitalist, neither of those terms rightly fit the MEVC or the members of it.

Busy life, long French article on deadline for completion, busy research in Paris (in both musicology AND Ripperology), do you need me to go on? I'll read it eventually, when my article's put to bed, or when I'm just too tired to keep doing musicology, but not tired enough to collapse. It's item #1 on my reading list in Ripperology.

I'm struggling to believe that you lead the ultra-busy lifestyle that you claim to, given that you always seem to have time to post multiple times daily on certain threads - and it seems every time I look at these forums, you've replied to something. Jeez, I know I work quite a few hours a week, and I could never get to what is the equivalent of over 150 posts per month....not that I would want to, of course. Quality is always more important than quantity.

Despite your superior knowledge of Berner Street, I certainly hope you enjoy "A Matter Of Time" when you get a spare moment, however....

Cheers,
Adam.

[mariab]

Quote Maria:
Which is pretty high, given that my personal Ripper suspect consists of solely 3 suspects (plus the proverbial “unknown local“).

I see. So who would those other two suspects be then? And are you saying that you give no credence at all to any other suspects outside of your list?

You're not gonna like this, Adam, but my other suspects (apart from the proverbial “unknown“ local) are Barnett, Tumblety, plus I'm considering Le Grand as a prime suspect on Berner Street and possibly involved in the rest of the murders. (In “involved“ I mean just that, involved, not necessarily a suspect. Research is still pending pertaining to this.)
And no, I don't give credence to suspects such as Druitt, Ostrog, and Kozminsky – even if for the latter I'm looking forward to reading the upcoming book by Rob House, and I'm even open to reconsider, if confronted with new evidence. The same with Jacob Levy, someone comes forward with evidence of a violent act committed or attempted by him, and I'm joining the bandwagon again with you merry fellows, Tracy, Jimmi, and Adam.

Klosowski was a resident of the US for a grand total of about a year, if that.And i'd very much enjoy seeing you try and explain yourself in 3-D. ;-)

For 3-D my time's too tight, but what I kept repeating is that it would help Klosowski's candidancy as a suspect for the Ripper if there was evidence or suspicion that he committed any crimes in New Jersey as well. And if the injuries inflicted on his Lucy wife with a knife have been a bit more of the serious kind.

Maybe you're right that I don't pay the attention to your posts that I should, but then who could blame me?

Wasn't meant to come off as a personal complain in any way whatsoever.

Judging by your tally of more than 1,500 posts in 9 months of membership, one would think you should be something of an expert by now - and yet you have freely admitted in the past that you've not read or seen some of the most basic pieces of Ripper film and literature.

The good basic books I've read (and I feel a question coming, asking me to specify, so it's almost all of SPE, Sugden, plus Paley; Rob Clack's and Mark Ripper's books are on my list to buy). Films not yet, but then, I'm a bit of a cheapskate.
There are different reasons (often pragmatic, as in: possibility of research) for the fields in which I'm acquiring expertise. I'm certainly more up to date than you on Jacob Levy (despite your so enthusiastically acclaiming him as a Ripper suspect), and again, you're not gonna like this at all Adam, but I have a much clearer picture than you on Berner Street. Plus I'm conducting important research on this as in now. (Now refers to Monday though, not right this minute.)

Capitalists and capitalism is the same kettle of fish, by the way.

Not quite, Adam. “Capitalism“ is an approach, “capitalist“ refers to a
(financially very healthy) state in which one is. One does not need to be rich to act in a capitalist manner, as the (poor) vendor who spotted American flags at his vendor stand just one day after 9/11 occurred in N.Y.. I used this as a comparison to Joseph Aarons' approach to the WVC venture.

I reckon you've said at least a dozen times now that you're going to read it, how about just getting on and doing it?

Busy life, long French article on deadline for completion, busy research in Paris (in both musicology AND Ripperology), do you need me to go on? I'll read it eventually, when my article's put to bed, or when I'm just too tired to keep doing musicology, but not tired enough to collapse. It's item #1 on my reading list in Ripperology.

I'd be willing to bet that neither you, nor Tom, nor anybody else can find a credible contemporary source that backs up Tom's claims re Mortimer's testimony, cause as far as I can tell it simply doesn't exist.

For once, you might not be completely wrong on this one.

I'm going to bed now, so I won't be responding for quite a while. I'm hoping to get up in a couple hours to go to the ice rink, if not too comatose. I bet that, were I to oversleep, Adam Went would probably hold it against me too, along with not yet having read Rip 113-115.

[Adam Went]

Maria:

Which is pretty high, given that my personal Ripper suspect consists of solely 3 suspects (plus the proverbial “unknown local“).

I see. So who would those other two suspects be then? And are you saying that you give no credence at all to any other suspects outside of your list?

Adam, Klosowski/Chapman has also been a resident of the US. I don't think it sufficient to say more, even if you STILL don't get it, after the 3d time I've explained myself to you.

He was a resident of the US for a grand total of about a year, if that.
And i'd very much enjoy seeing you try and explain yourself in 3-D. ;-)

An observation you're all by yourself in making, which is directly related to the fact that you've missed, misread, or misunderstood at least 5 of my posts in this thread (pertaining to “capitalists“ vs. “capitalism“, Klosowki's/Chapman's residency in the US, and more.).

Maybe you're right that I don't pay the attention to your posts that I should, but then who could blame me? Judging by your tally of more than 1,500 posts in 9 months of membership, one would think you should be something of an expert by now - and yet you have freely admitted in the past that you've not read or seen some of the most basic pieces of Ripper film and literature. Capitalists and capitalism is the same kettle of fish, by the way. What you do have is the ability to make comments whilst leaving yourself enough leeway to find a loophole should the response not be suitable to your arguments, to try and backtrack, and we've seen it several times in this topic alone. Essentially what it comes down to is a thorough lack of knowledge.

Should I take your completely preposterous post #121 at face value, Adam, I would not be too surprised to find out that pertaining to the Ms Mortimer debate Tom might be right and you mixing up things, again.

I reckon you've said at least a dozen times now that you're going to read it, how about just getting on and doing it? I'd be willing to bet that neither you, nor Tom, nor anybody else can find a credible contemporary source that backs up Tom's claims re Mortimer's testimony, cause as far as I can tell it simply doesn't exist.

Still, I'm the kind of reader who likes to stick to the facts



Cheers,
Adam.

[mariab]

Maria:
Well no, last time I read anything from you regarding Chapman, it was along the lines of him being at the bottom of your Ripper suspect short list.

Which is pretty high, given that my personal Ripper suspect consists of solely 3 suspects (plus the proverbial “unknown local“).

and his candidacy being better if it could be proven that he committed Ripper-like murders in the US as well.....which, frankly, is something of a bizarre comment to make, given that the general opinion amongst Ripperologists is that the supposed American Ripper murders had nothing to do with the London JTR murders. The multi-continent serial killer, I think you'll find, is far rarer than the serial killer who changes their M.O.

Adam, Klosowski/Chapman has also been a resident of the US. I don't think it sufficient to say more, even if you STILL don't get it, after the 3d time I've explained myself to you.

I'll confess that I do have difficulty keeping up with your posts when your opinions seemingly change randomly and without notice.

An observation you're all by yourself in making, which is directly related to the fact that you've missed, misread, or misunderstood at least 5 of my posts in this thread (pertaining to “capitalists“ vs. “capitalism“, Klosowki's/Chapman's residency in the US, and more.).

As for Levy, i've been fortunate enough to be kept pretty well up to date with the developments on him as a suspect, and hence I maintain that he is the best suspect to have been brought forward in the last decade.

I very much doubt that you're up to date on Jacob Levy, as you seem to STILL not have a clue whatsoever about the recent mixup with the OTHER Levy (who was old and missing an arm and a leg, having served as a soldier in India), and you were unable to figure out my and Tracy's references to evidence of a sexual assault by a perp named Levy.

Should I take your completely preposterous post #121 at face value, Adam, I would not be too surprised to find out that pertaining to the Ms Mortimer debate Tom might be right and you mixing up things, again. Still, I'm the kind of reader who likes to stick to the facts (which in this case is the relevant texts in Rip 113-115), so I'll wait and form my opinion when I read the entire darn thing.

[Adam Went]

Maria:

Well no, last time I read anything from you regarding Chapman, it was along the lines of him being at the bottom of your Ripper suspect short list, and his candidacy being better if it could be proven that he committed Ripper-like murders in the US as well.....which, frankly, is something of a bizarre comment to make, given that the general opinion amongst Ripperologists is that the supposed American Ripper murders had nothing to do with the London JTR murders. I'll confess that I do have difficulty keeping up with your posts when your opinions seemingly change randomly and without notice, especially when, seemingly unlike yourself, I don't have time to keep up with every single post from every single thread on Casebook.

The multi-continent serial killer, I think you'll find, is far rarer than the serial killer who changes their M.O.

As for Levy, i've been fortunate enough to be kept pretty well up to date with the developments on him as a suspect, and hence I maintain that he is the best suspect to have been brought forward in the last decade - unless, as I said to Tom, you would prefer Robert Mann or Uncle Jack? Or Arthur Conan Doyle even?

Cheers,
Adam.

[mariab]

Maria:
Uh, no. There's quite a difference between Chapman murdering random prostitutes and murdering his WIVES. Obviously it would not do to have them turning up mutilated in his bedroom, would it? He had to choose a much more subtle option - hence, poison. And it worked, for a while.

Hi Adam. Have you noticed my post #116 at all? That's exactly what I said in there.

As for Levy, you still haven't answered the question - why does the lack of sexual and/or physical assaults make him a better of worse Ripper suspect? Are you not generalising who you think Jack the Ripper ought to be?

Surely you're not serious, Adam? OF COURSE it has HUGE importance towards Jacob Levy's candidancy as a Ripper suspect if there were evidence in the Old Bailey records of him having sexually assaulted a young girl at a young age. Only it turned out a false alarm. Why “generalizing“? I'm referring to perfectly specific details here.
Adam, your reaction to the Jacob Levy discussion here makes me think that perhaps you havent followed the latest debate on this? It's all in Tracy's (Teej's) Jacob Levy thread to see.

Also, your being under the impression that you've just changed my mind only proves you read my previous posts in a haste. (And nothing too wrong with that, I'm very busy myself.) Sorry to disappoint you about your convincing capabilities, Adam, but I was agreeing with you pertaining to Klosowski already BEFORE.

[Adam Went]

Wow. If only it was that easy to change people's minds all of the time...

Cheers,
Adam.

[mariab]

Completely agree with you on all this, Adam.

As for Rip 113-117, sorry mate, had to take a rain check for tonight (too busy completing a long French article on dealine which is partly still in conference paper-form), but I haven't forgotten, and I'll definitely read your old Rip serialized debate with Tom in the next couple days.

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

I think everybody is getting a bit too hung up on the whole Klosowski as JTR thing - for a start, it's not even related to this thread, and in any case, as I stated in the very beginning, it is only my personal opinion that he is the "least unlikely" of the Ripper suspects, and I gladly keep an open mind to any other evidence - it's not as if i've come out and said Klosowski was JTR, end of story.

Chris:

This has already been pretty well answered, but yes, I am including Abberline, Godley and Arthur Neil as my three officers. There may have been more of the lower rank but these three are certainly the most prominent. Neil expressed his opinion on Chapman in his memoirs from 1932, despite incorrectly calling him "Kloskovski".

Maria:

Uh, no. There's quite a difference between Chapman murdering random prostitutes and murdering his WIVES. Obviously it would not do to have them turning up mutilated in his bedroom, would it? He had to choose a much more subtle option - hence, poison. And it worked, for a while.

As for Levy, you still haven't answered the question - why does the lack of sexual and/or physical assaults make him a better of worse Ripper suspect? Are you not generalising who you think Jack the Ripper ought to be?

YS, Wickerman, etc:

Abberline stated to the press of his own free will in 1903 that he felt Chapman was Jack the Ripper, and just to avoid any mis-reporting, he stated exactly the same thing again a couple of weeks later to the press, and just to make sure that time hadn't changed his opinion or he'd been influenced by the trial, he didn't bother to change his story even in the 1920's. As Chris said, there's nothing "third hand" about it.

As for everybody saying a serial killer can't change their M.O., i'm not even going to waste my time on this one - it's been proven time and again that it can and does happen (certain serial killers have even been known to deliberately make a point of changing their MO from murder to murder so as to confuse the police), and there's no reason why JTR would be any different to the rest. Besides, again, this is completely off topic.

Cheers,
Adam.

[mariab]

Hi C.D.,
that's why I'm still keeping Klosowski at the very bottom of my very short list of suspects for the Ripper. And yes, it can be related to his changed MO that he poisoned his wives, yet might have slayed strange women. Still, his attack on his wife Lucy was conducted in a too “amateurish“ capacity for him to be of serious consideration for a Ripper suspect.
And now I hope that we might move away from Klosowski, who has nothing to do in this thread. :-)