Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stephenson AS a Suspect

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stephenson AS a Suspect

    Anyone wishing to pose Stephenson as a bona fide contemporary ( 1888 ) and/or modern ( Post-Aleister Crowley to present ) suspect, please use this thread.

  • #2
    Hmm, that's odd, Howie. Considering the recent whingeing on a certain hoax-related thread, I was expecting to see a small contribution from Omlor here at the very least, if only a sigh of disapproval because nobody is rushing to defend the case for Stephenson being turfed out of his hospital bed to take on the role of a bona fide suspect.

    I won't hold my breath then.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • #3
      There is a difference between claiming that Donston was a legitimate suspect and being put off by some one making false accusations that Harris deliberately framed him to draw attention away from the Diary.

      You are a clever woman, Caz. I am sure you recognize the difference.

      Let all Oz be agreed;
      I'm Wicked through and through.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks Ally. But I really don't consider this as a matter of being clever or not. When someone repeatedly makes false accusations that Feldman deliberately framed Maybrick, with a hoax he planned himself, anyone can recognise the difference between someone 'being rather amused' by this behaviour and 'being put off by' someone else who makes one tongue-in-cheek comment on a different website about another late ripper author with a theory he wanted to flog.

        Harris apparently knew, by the time he used The True Face of Jack the Ripper to trash the diary while claiming to have closed the case, that D'Onston was in hospital when the murders were committed.

        It's a pity that instead of spending so much time debunking a ripper confession that was clearly not in a hand recognisable as Maybrick's, and having to rework his theory because he now needed D'Onston to have fooled the hospital by faking his illness and managing to creep in and out to commit each murder, Harris didn't put all his energies into ascertaining whether such faking and creeping would even have been possible, never mind plausible or likely.

        If he had, he would not have left himself open, as Feldman also did with his own strange and obsessive priorities, to accusations like this that others are left to debunk on his behalf, or to be 'put off' or amused by, or to be stoical about - according to individual taste.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        Last edited by caz; 02-28-2008, 07:57 PM.
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • #5
          That still doesn't explain any correlation between a person being put off by a claim of deliberate fraud against Harris and an automatic belief in his suspect of choice.

          One has nothing to do with the other, so there is no real anticipation necessary as to whether Omlor will show up to "defend" Stephenson's candidacy.

          Let all Oz be agreed;
          I'm Wicked through and through.

          Comment


          • #6
            I would say there's more evidence that D'Onston was a bonafide suspect than there is that Harris was fraudulent and insincere in his claims.

            Yours truly,

            Tom Wescott

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi Ally,

              I just wanted to add that I am not clever enough to work out why Omlor was 'put off by' this particular accusation.

              Was it because it was demonstrably false?

              Was it because the author concerned cannot defend himself?

              Was it because he believes D'Onston was a bona fide suspect with no reason for the author ever to think he may have had a verifiable alibi?

              All I know is that Omlor is not similarly 'put off by' other false accusations made against people who cannot defend themselves, but neither is he over here putting any sort of case for Harris's entitlement to promote D'Onston as a bona fide ripper suspect after learning that this would depend entirely on the man's ability to leave a hospital bed.

              What would you call it, to claim that a man was faking his illness and popping in and out of his hospital bed to commit murder when nothing of the kind had been established, if not 'fitting him up' as the ripper?

              Don't all authors with ripper theories to flog have to 'fit up' their suspects one way or another? Are you seriously suggesting that anyone who uses the phrase is talking about 'deliberate fraud'? I'd say it was more like 'desperate measures' when the facts turn out not to live up to one's strong beliefs. I've no doubt Harris had convinced himself that D'Onston did commit the murders, despite the implausibility. That didn't make him a fraudster - it made him a man with a belief but no proof, just like a whole lot of others around here. Having two axes to grind at the same time, and a patient he needed to kick out of bed in the early hours, just made his life more difficult than it would otherwise have been, and easier for others to look on bemused.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              Last edited by caz; 02-28-2008, 09:28 PM.
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • #8
                [QUOTE=caz;2754]Hi Ally,

                I just wanted to add that I am not clever enough to work out why Omlor was 'put off by' this particular accusation.
                Then why don't you ask him directly rather than post some roundabout commentary on a thread he hasn't posted on yet?

                All I know is that Omlor is not similarly 'put off by' other false accusations made against people who cannot defend themselves, but neither is he over here putting any sort of case for Harris's entitlement to promote D'Onston as a bona fide ripper suspect after learning that this would depend entirely on the man's ability to leave a hospital bed.

                Well there could be two excellent reasons for that. One this thread is not called "Defend Harris' right to promote D'onston as a suspect" so such a defense on this thread would not be needed or appropriate or even on topic. And two, just like you once were vigorously and vociferously chastizing Harris for holding on to secret evidence that he claimed was proof of the Diary's origins, and claiming it was appalling and demanding he put it on the boards, and yet now you find yourself claiming on the boards that you have seen secret evidence that proves the Diary's origins but are refusing to say what it is....I guess circumstances change depending upon what side of the fence you find yourself on, don't they?

                Let all Oz be agreed;
                I'm Wicked through and through.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi guys, I am a Hull born resident and researcher and as such have a huge intrest in RDS.
                  First and foremost he is the most intresting suspect, the most colourful and the most mysterious.
                  He has a habit of telling us stories full of truths, half truths, and not a lot of truths!!
                  I started out believeing he was the Ripper and set about researching his early years, family and associates here in Hull in the hope of uncovering evidence to back up his claims, and the claims made by others.

                  Unfortunatly, although i got a massive amount of info, I wasn't able to get anything solid.
                  In Jan of this year I visited Islington, were bot him and his brother spent the last years of their lives and the Royal London Hospital.
                  What I found changed my mind on Stephenson forever.
                  Anyone intrested should read the other threads on Stephenson which I have posted on.

                  Regards Mike
                  Regards Mike

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I would say there's more evidence that D'Onston was a bonafide suspect than there is that Harris was fraudulent and insincere in his claims. --Tom Wescott

                    Which isn't saying much, Tom...since D'onston, at the most , was a contemporary police suspect for 48 hours...tops...if that. I told you a long time ago on these boards that I thought we ( meaning you and me ) were being "had"...and I was right.

                    Let me run it down for you and anyone else one mo' time....

                    1. In the book, The Ripper File, on page 168....Harris wrote : " Following the Kelly murder, he suffered a breakdown in health and was bedridden in the London Hospital..."

                    Does this mean that Mr. Harris was being "fraudulent and insincere" ?

                    No.

                    What does it mean?

                    It means he did NOT know when D'onston went into London Hospital at the time of the publication of the Ripper File.....if he DID know, then why did he not mention the "faked neurasthenia" at that time?

                    So..lets move on to the True Face and the first declaration of "faked neurasthenia".

                    Two conditions exist here:

                    Harris, not knowing when Stephenson entered the Hospital during the publication of The Ripper File, has two choices here after finding out that his boy was in a third floor ward with no "insy-outsy" at night.

                    A. To admit that he was in error and as a "professional investigator" he rectifies it. No harm done.

                    Or....

                    B. He invents this claim that Donston "faked" neurasthenia. Harris was neither D'onston's doctor nor was he in a position as none of us are to claim Donston faked his complaint. Harris makes no such determination of Donston's second complaint upon Sudden Death's entry to the London Hospital in May of 1889 and neither should he have.

                    If Harris did not invent this "faked neurasthenia" claim, pray tell who would have?

                    For anyone else who may want to "use" the Cremers Memoirs as some sort of viable suspicion on Stephenson, I say bring it on.

                    I see some folks claim that Harris was obsessed with Donston. I disagree. I think he felt that if his comments in The Ripper File went unchallenged then he might be able to push the "faked neurasthenia" nonsense to the same crowd.

                    Besides...heh heh....Mike Covell did a "professional investigation" himself and found out that the Currie Ward where RDS was...was locked down at night.

                    Any more questions or "issues" Tom? I'm always glad to help out.
                    Last edited by Howard Brown; 02-29-2008, 01:07 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ally:

                      The reason I put this thread up for the site was to provide information to anyone who might not be cognizant of all the facts about Stephenson.

                      We don't need to know if he went to America and dug gold...got a degree...went to Africa...denounced Christianity...and all that stuff. Its all irrelevant now.

                      All we needed to know was the basis for the faked neurasthenia claim...which I have provided...thank you very much....and Mike Covell's hands-on investigatin' down yonder in the Big Smoke.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The reason I put this thread up for the site was to provide information to anyone who might not be cognizant of all the facts about Stephenson.
                        huh. And here I thought you had created this thread for people who wanted to argue Stephenson as a viable suspect. That's what it says in the opening post after all. Are you saying you just put this out here, like a big ole spider laying a trap, hoping to ensnare some poor unsuspecting dupe? Pooor unsuspecting Stephensonites!


                        All we needed to know was the basis for the faked neurasthenia claim...which I have provided...thank you very much....and Mike Covell's hands-on investigatin' down yonder in the Big Smoke.
                        No, I think you've provided your interpretation of the basis for the faked neuastensia, one that might well be agreed upon by most people, but it is still just an opinion at this time.

                        Let all Oz be agreed;
                        I'm Wicked through and through.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hi Ally,

                          Wether or Not stephenson had faked his condition or not, he was still stuck in the Hospital.

                          The external gates were locked at night with entry via one gate, this was adjacent to a lodge, the gate was locked the key keeper was staying in the Lodge, he let only employee's and emergancies in and out.

                          The Hight of the gates is about 7/8 ft, not forgetting Stephenson still had shot in his leg from the Flamborough Shooting incident, how would he make it over, and back?

                          Buildings were locked due to dossers, and prostitutes entering!

                          Then there is the fact that the mens wards were on the third floor, and far from being private.

                          The wards were tended to one surgeon, one doctor and several nurses.

                          So basically for Stephenson to be the ripper, he had to evade the staff on the ward, slip by his cohabitants, get down lots of stairs, through a possibly locked door, over a 7/8ft metal fence with a gammy leg, or past a guard at the gate house, before he even commits the murder.

                          Then he has to get back in, possibly covered in blood, possibly carrying a momento.

                          I studied Both 1888 and 1889 patients registers,
                          1887/1888 and 1888/1889 hospital year books,
                          Hospital minutes books covering many years including the period,
                          and a wonderful book regarding the London Hospital,
                          As well as spending several hours discussing the matter with the hospitals head Archivist.

                          Mike
                          Regards Mike

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Ally View Post

                            Then why don't you ask him directly rather than post some roundabout commentary on a thread he hasn't posted on yet?

                            Well there could be two excellent reasons for that. One this thread is not called "Defend Harris' right to promote D'onston as a suspect" so such a defense on this thread would not be needed or appropriate or even on topic. And two, just like you once were vigorously and vociferously chastizing Harris for holding on to secret evidence that he claimed was proof of the Diary's origins, and claiming it was appalling and demanding he put it on the boards, and yet now you find yourself claiming on the boards that you have seen secret evidence that proves the Diary's origins but are refusing to say what it is....I guess circumstances change depending upon what side of the fence you find yourself on, don't they?
                            Hi Ally,

                            Yes, Iím afraid Iím not as clever as you. Took me a while to work it out for myself, but I did just ask Omlor directly, on the other thread, about his strong protective feelings towards Harrisís published case solution - before seeing your advice here.

                            Iíve also addressed this business of secret evidence that, on the one hand (Harris & Coís), was supposed to be the dynamite needed to blow the diary the same way as the DíOnston theory has now gone, and stop anyone else making money out of making a murderer of an innocent man, and on the other hand (Skinner & Coís), would merely confirm that the diary came from the right place without providing a solution re its creator or the ripper case.

                            Circumstances beyond my control let the latter cat out of the bag. No way that cat wants to go back in now. Cleverer people than me have tried to shove him back in but he ainít co-hoperating.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by caz View Post
                              Iíve also addressed this business of secret evidence that, on the one hand (Harris & Coís), was supposed to be the dynamite needed to blow the diary the same way as the DíOnston theory has now gone, and stop anyone else making money out of making a murderer of an innocent man, and on the other hand (Skinner & Coís), would merely confirm that the diary came from the right place without providing a solution re its creator or the ripper case.

                              Caz
                              X
                              Yes but your super secret evidence would be the dynamite needed to stop further slander such as the sort that is occurring on the Powell thread and stop further people from making money off of new frauds they are dreaming up. So you are hardly off the hook, and in fact, even more so on the hook as there are CURRENT frauds and lies in progress that could be arrested in their tracks with the revelation of this new information.

                              So ....you are in the unique position of stopping a fraud and a scam BEFORE it occurs. Do it.

                              Let all Oz be agreed;
                              I'm Wicked through and through.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X