Millers Court Gate?

[Monty]

For heaven's sake, the last five or so posts are so boring, and add nothing to the study of this subject. Swords? Dueling pistols? Get it over with, please. Why not settle this with private e-mail, and not torture the rest of us!

Edward

I assume you include your post above within that 5 Edward, seeing as it only provokes and adds nothing.

Sometimes its wise to say nothing (especially as nothing had been added for over 24 hours) and the situation calmed.

Until you piped up.

Monty

[Edward]

Duel?

For heaven's sake, the last five or so posts are so boring, and add nothing to the study of this subject. Swords? Dueling pistols? Get it over with, please. Why not settle this with private e-mail, and not torture the rest of us!

Edward

[Monty]

For the sake of this thread, I'm not even going to address your post Phil,

I'm sure others are sick and tired of our saga. God knows I am.

Monty


PS I will respond to you opening lines though. At NO stage did I provoke a reply out of you. I responded to you posts. It was OTHERS who took it upon themselves to provoke you/PM you. I did not do such a thing. And if you do not believe me ask them. I don't rely on others, I am my own man....unlike you.

[Phil Carter]

A point I will make was that when I did have you on ignore, you did all you could to try and entice a response anyway, even through a third party. You "portray" yourself, for all to see.

The word "outlandish" is not applicable. I find it at best an over-exaggeration. As others have not expressed "outlandish" in any way shape or form on that thread,..you live in an interpretational world of your own, so far unsupported.

I am not at present personally concerned with the continual or frequency of your verbal "attacks" as you put them, although the examples have been logged. I only hope that it ceases! Thats YOUR choice.

I prefer it when you stick to presenting brilliant research and not use your time on attacking, verbally, chosen individuals. But that is my preference.

You used the word "bully". Not me. How people see you is their concern. I have NOT called you that. Respectfully, I ask you not put your words into my mouth. Thank you.

Phil

ps edit. After 40 years of studying this case at least I am not one dimentional, narrow minded and closed off to possibilities. Being open minded to change is always helpful. I do not believe all that was written as gospel. Shame. Hang me. As to perpetrating "myths"...Writers, including Robert Anderson, a high ranking policeman, and a few thousand newspapers were way before anything I have written that could be interpreted as myth.

[Monty]

Phil,

I expressed an opinion, as is my right, on the hypocrasy of your stance regarding myth and your use of it. It was done so in the first paragraph and left there.

I agree, others supported you views on Halse, and others supported mine. And? That wasn't the point I was making.

The rest of my post wasn't about you, as is plain to see.

If you want to portray me as the bad man who wants to surpress every question on this case, or paint me as a bully who forces everyone to toe the line then carry on. It only highlights your paranoia.

If you deem my attacks as personal and unwarranted then there is a correct course of complaint you can take, via the Admin. That's your choice and no concern of mine.

Either do that or quit whining....which is as equally wearisome.

I preferred it when you had me on ignore, with the promise you'd never post upon my comments again. Promises easily broken.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I am reminded yet again, and sadly, yet again, that whenever anyone ever has an opinion that doesnt bear up to some individual's, it will get belittled in some form or another...normally accompanied by the ever-wearisome personal attack. Well, that is up to him or herself.

I pass no judgement on whether he or she is right or wrong to do this, whether he or she is serious or playing games for the benefit of what he or she may term "fun"..or just an attempt to bait perhaps or maybe, but hopefully not, a more sinister long term intention of chase away people from a worldwide public message board on the genre. That is for others to judge if they wish.

I also make no comment upon the intentions behind such actions...whatever they may be. I will not make a personal comment nor attack upon the poster either.

In my honest opinion, it is NOT "hypocrasy" to have an opinion on the penchants of the historically written word that has been superceded with greater understanding and information since. Critique of the written word is allowed. Viewpoints as to the writer's intention is also allowed. .as indeed the previous poster has done above, himself, comparing the 3 authors. There is no "oath" in question here, hypocratic or otherwise. It would only be hypocratic if I did not accept anyone criticising any factual, published work in magazine or book form of my own which I do not believe to have occured.

We are all entitled to our opinions about a writer's published works, good or bad. As I personally have at present only had a handful or two of published works, (including a book that has little connection to Ripperology) presented, and have heard to date very little critique about them, I class myself humbly, to be fortunate. Should there have been critique of any published work in magazine or book form, I have, as far as I am aware, accepted it without bias.

Whether any poster finds my comments about previous author's works an insult (to their memory or their work, or both) is their opinion only. All are welcomed to have such opinions on the subject. It is NOT irreverent to opine upon an author's works. It is an opinion, which I CLEARLY stated was my own personal one.

After over 40 years of being "engrossed" in the subject, I opine it "insulting" to "Joe Newbie" that they should follow the words of those who bemoan, belittle and cajole others and their opinions...and in doing so not allow the individual to make up their own minds up without being influenced into "towing the line" through watching constant belittling of any poster.

The word of a few seemingly self deemed "chosen ones" are not the be all and end all of how it is nor indeed WAS in Ripperology. I would think that any interested parties have their own opinions having heard ALL sides. One cannot force opinion. One can only offer it and see if it has any influence after thought.

Personal attacks have no bearing on the subject either, and again, it is unworthy in reference to another poster's written opinion. ESPECIALLY if, as in the case above it is one of a long line of such comments that have gone without response on at least 5 different threads. This type of behaviour could raise eyebrows. That is at present, not my concern.

As regards my comments about Halse, I have, for the benefit of those not aquainted with it, only stated that had DC Halse not been a policeman, he would have been, could have been and was in the correct place at the correct time to be an accomplice with the dumping of the apron piece. Others have also seen this possibility as plausible.

That isn't "outlandish" by any stretch of the imagination. Unless one is by chance one of those who would urge all to not consider such possibilities because all is "as we have been told".

As regards my post above, neither Stephen Thomas nor John Bennett nor Jon S regard it as far as I know, "outlandish" either. All three would I'm sure have no hestation in giving that opinion had they thought it. Three people I have a high regard for.

Embellishment in a factual historical work, at whatever level, sold on a worldwide stage, to add to, colour, advance or even support a theory does, in my personal opinion, belittle the integrity of the work.

Stephen Thomas, a respected Ripperologist, states that he too is "no fan" of Dan Farson, which I presume to mean his Ripperological offering. He, on the other hand, likes the Cullen book. That is for him to opine and it is of course, perfectly acceptable.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Having read Phils outlandish suggestions regarding Halse, and now his post above, it reminds me that hypocrasy is rife in the field.

However, that's by the by. I am, prechance, re reading Phillip Sudgens cornerstone tome and his opening chapter gives warning of hearsay testimony and falsities. I think its no surprise that since access to the case files has become more easier (works from the early 90s I say), such myths has slipped from the majority of books.

My biggest bugbear is the trend which has seemingly replaced the untruth, and that is the authors presentation of theory as fact with no words of caution. I have seen this with Cornwall (who, to be fair, obviously concluded her book without doing the full groundwork), Williams and Marriott. I'm not blaming the authors, I'm fully aware that publishers place pressure on 'the answer' or revelation and a writers work is often not as its intended.

I'm purely stating this from a readers view point, and a reader who has spent nearly 30 years engrossed in the subject. To me its insulting, to Joe Newbie its fascinating.

That's just my tuppence, rightly or wrongly.

Monty

[John Bennett]

That is why the making up of stories to enhance a published theory from THAT time shows to me weaknesses when we look at the overall picture we know today. And that is why I now regard the Farson book, and the Cullen book, good that they were at the time, to be factually unreliable.

The question for me personally is simple. How far would a person go, if willing to embellish, to enhance a theory, to sell a book?

In all fairness to Cullen and Farson, the stories they mention don't really bolster or add to their central (Druitt) theory, they just add a bit of colour to a general overview of the crimes.

[Wickerman]

Quote:
"An unexpected result of the Tabram inquest was that soldiers stationed in the Tower of London were forbidden to carry bayonets or any sidearms while on leave. This information was given to me by James W. Bousfield, who's mother ran a boarding-house at No. 4 Star Court (now Planet Street) where Martha Tabram lodged."
The Crimes and Times of Jack the Ripper, Cullen, 1973, p.36.

I did write to the archivist at the Tower back in '98 about this but it could not be confirmed.

Regards, Jon S.

[Stephen Thomas]

The question for me personally is simple. How far would a person go, if willing to embellish, to enhance a theory, to sell a book?

Some quite far Phil, some not at all.

I'm no fan of Farson but Cullen is OK. There's a statement from one of his interviewees that says that after the Tabram murder, Guardsmen were not allowed to carry swords when on leave.

How true this is I don't know.

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

If by that you mean that Farson's source is possibly a fabrication, then you'd have to tar Tom Cullen with the same brush, as he has a few stories too: namely Mrs Bousfield's son with Martha Tabram's key and the little boy who saw Annie Chapman's body being taken from No.29.

John

Hello John,

I could not agree more.

You see, at this point in time, which today is a world or two away, the mere idea of making any money out of a good yarn has different meanings. Then, it was not subject to the type of scrutiny that we use today..far from it infact, which is exactly the reason McCormick got away with what he did for so long. Perhaps we can even go back to the yarns from the books from the 1920's and 30's...perhaps even accounts told to us from the early years after the murders themselves.

Does this make me a Doubting Thomas regarding these writers? Well, at the time when I first read the books, late 60's and early 70's, like everyone else, I had no doubts of the direction of the writers at all. However, and this must be said, Ripperology has had more than it's fair share of bogus accounts and stories over the years. I do not believe it started with Stephen Knight either.

So the embellishment of authors of a factual study crosses over into a grey zone.. is it non-fiction when there is proven story telling and made up tittle tattle to help sell an idea or theory? Today we would say that the book is a work of fiction if the above is used... but then?...I am sure we all thought of the works as a book of fact more than anything else.

That is why the making up of stories to enhance a published theory from THAT time shows to me weaknesses when we look at the overall picture we know today. And that is why I now regard the Farson book, and the Cullen book, good that they were at the time, to be factually unreliable.

The question for me personally is simple. How far would a person go, if willing to embellish, to enhance a theory, to sell a book?

I can only speak personally here..in my honest opinion if there are barbs of dishonesty through made up stories to add weight to any theory, then I doubt the integrity of the book as a whole... and don't regard it as factually reliable. It causes me to look at all the presented material, in a differing manner. The point is, is it trustworthy? If so, who draws the line on what was honest and what wasn't? Only the author himself or herself really knows that truth, I'd imagine.

best wishes

Phil

[John Bennett]

Oral history is terribly unreliable , but usually at the very least, some semblance of truth lies within.

Absolutely. Mrs Cox's story for one does have elements of what happened in it.

A more recent modern example is the Bob Dylan 'Judas!' incident. If the amount of people who claimed to have been at that concert actually were, you'd have an audience the size of Live Aid crammed into the Manchester Free Trade Hall. Not only that, more than one person has come forward to claim that it was they who shouted the word.

So we have an incident which DID take place (it was recorded) but the resultant oral history makes things that more complicated.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
My grandmother told me some great stories of the 1880s/90s ,in the 1950s when she was alive, and I would never accuse her of fabrication, or using oral history.
The bogey man from London was responsible for my initial fascination with this case, she recalled her parents used to use that term , as a means of getting her and her sisters in from playing as the evening closed in, and she lived in Redhill, many miles from the east end.
Oral history is vital in getting to grips with a understanding of ages past, from ordinary folk, especially from those who lived through it, or do we dismiss everything , and rely on the honesty of newspapers?
Regards Richard.

[John Bennett]

Hello John,

Sounds like a touch of the McCormicks.

best wishes

Phikl

Phil,

If by that you mean that Farson's source is possibly a fabrication, then you'd have to tar Tom Cullen with the same brush, as he has a few stories too: namely Mrs Bousfield's son with Martha Tabram's key and the little boy who saw Annie Chapman's body being taken from No.29.

John

[jason_c]

Hi All,
Unfortunately Dan Farson cannot give a further account of his meeting with Cox's niece , neither can he shed more light on such titbits as the grave spitting for instance.
Oral history is terribly unreliable , but usually at the very least, some semblance of truth lies within.
It is a possibility that both Cox, and a certain Mrs Storey?, had a ''glimpse'' of the body albeit just that [via the window] it was reported that some residents did.
Personally I find the '' Don't pull me along '' fascinating , unless it was conjured up by a enterprising Farson... visions of Eddowes, and even Nichols .
Kate..bruise on left hand [ of recent origin][ between thumb and forefinger.
Polly ..sounds of apparent running,and breathlessness, in Bucks Row, which could have been the result of a man in a hurry, ie, Nichols being pulled.
Pure speculation, but not beyond the realms of possibility.
Do we believe Cox?
Prater has Mary wearing her jacket and bonnet at 9pm the 8th, stating she did not even own such items herself, this apparently is verified by Mrs Harvey saying on that very evening '' I shall be leaving my bonnet then''
Yet close to midnight, Cox has Kelly wearing different clothing.
How come?
Did Blotchy face even exist? if she could lie to her family ,tell a pack of porkies, upon events that night/morning, why not have five minutes of fame, the clothing difference could even mean her sighting was from the previous evening.
But to return to this thread.
The string attached to the door , was this in operation, could residents just walk in rather then knock?...a thread is needed to discuss that very point and its implications, which I will endeavour to kick start.
Regards Richard.

A resounding no I would say. Kelly was a prostitute. Prostitutes AND their clients would demand some privacy. No privacy would mean very few return customers. Return customers would be highly sought after by Kelly.