Stephenson AS a Suspect

[Ally]

Howard,

When you show precedent that a hosptal has better security than a jail cell making an in and out absolutely impossible, then you can claim that. But until such time as you prove that there was absolutely no possible way for a person to get in and out of the hospital, precedent suggests that the security would not have been better than a jail.

A hospital has NEVER had better security than a jail. Period. Therefore, when people escape from jails, bribe guards and stroll out unimpeded, it is logical to conclude that the same thing could happen at a much less secure venue like a hospital.

A hospital is NOT as secure as a jail. Period.

[Mike Covell]

Let's say for a second that RDS could get out the hospital, what then Ally?

He does his black magic rituals?

I am intrested to know what motive you have in mind for RDS.

I know there is no proof other than the sources i have already sited and that human error could play a part in that, so lets imagine the gates are open, and RDS could come and go as he please, what then?

Mike

[Pilgrim]

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

From what little I've read about Stephenson there would seem to be sufficient reason to suspect him of having had a criminally vivid imagination. So, I guess, in that respect, he would be guilty of at least one crime. Which perhaps makes it understandable that some people would come to suspect him of these murders.

There is also the fact of course, that Stephenson is supposed to have been suffering from an 'illness' known to have been of a rather vague character, sometimes including (what might be interpreted as) psychosomatic symptoms. And of course, Stephenson "injected" himself into the investigation, with his claims about the "writing on the wall" in Goulston Street. Most propbably in order to divert the investigation all the way over to France. A criminally vivid imagination, no doubt. And his "diversive injection", when did it happen ? Hadn't he already been fingered as a possible suspect ?

Personally, I have found it most safe to file Stephenson's statements under "Contemporary Witnesses, too imaginative and/or perceptive for their own good." But of course, that decision may have been caused by a certain prejudice in his favor.

My Regards.

[Howard Brown]

Ally:

Setting aside the impossible-to-prove security up on the Currie Ward during that particular time frame for the moment....and yes, anything "could" happen in any given establishment, hospital and jail included...may I ask why you are supporting the notion that it could have happened the way it has been suggested in the case of RDS...when I am pretty sure you don't honestly believe it went down that way.

Because I get the impression that you are simply supporting the idea in order to keep Stephenson afloat solely on the baseless premise that Stephenson faked his condition, which is something that no one could determine from any precedent in Stephenson's life.

Let me just add this to the mix, Al...

Stephenson, to the best of our knowledge, never left the LH during the day. His correspondence with Stead, some of which which Marsh saw and mentioned to Roots on the 24th of December, could have been given directly to Stead if RDS had walked or taken a cab to the PMG.

Why on earth would anyone...not just RDS....but anyone who has serial murder in mind wait until the evening or even worse, early morning when that would be the most suspicious/risky time to do so to request an hour or so of legstretching time? Its as if Stephenson, who was no dumb cookie, completely tossed common sense into the wind.

Back to you,dear.
****************

Dear Pilgrim:


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

From what little I've read about Stephenson there would seem to be sufficient reason to suspect him of having had a criminally vivid imagination. So, I guess, in that respect, he would be guilty of at least one crime. Which perhaps makes it understandable that some people would come to suspect him of these murders.

There is also the fact of course, that Stephenson is supposed to have been suffering from an 'illness' known to have been of a rather vague character, sometimes including (what might be interpreted as) psychosomatic symptoms. And of course, Stephenson "injected" himself into the investigation, with his claims about the "writing on the wall" in Goulston Street. Most propbably in order to divert the investigation all the way over to France. A criminally vivid imagination, no doubt. And his "diversive injection", when did it happen ? Hadn't he already been fingered as a possible suspect ?

Personally, I have found it most safe to file Stephenson's statements under "Contemporary Witnesses, too imaginative and/or perceptive for their own good." But of course, that decision may have been caused by a certain prejudice in his favor.

His imagination also was his meal ticket.... in particular, the plagiarized episode in Borderland, which is virtually verbatim from an 1836 novel by his "hero" Lord Lytton, entitled, the Coming of the Great Race*....the part about the witch in the Italian hills... and the Haggard-inspired stories in early 1889, from whence his "relationship" with Mabel Collins began. I'm not so sure its a "criminally vivid imagination", no offense...but rather he fancied himself a "adventure story" writer.

Some folks have theorized that he displayed signs of OCD...unprovable,for sure...but yes, it has been suggested.

RDS was "fingered" as a suspect for the first time by Marsh, as you know. Its through the O'Donnell Manuscript and Aleister Crowley where we hear of him next. All I can suggest,Pilgrim, is to read the O.D. and see for yourself what I/we mean about how absurd it is. Maybe you could set up a thread here on Casebook for O.D. discussion like we have on the Forums.

That RDS profitted from the murders outside the LH walls...while he was confined there is without doubt. His earnings from the Stead piece and perhaps...perhaps...the advance he recieved for stories for his 1889 contributions,inspired by his first article in early December of 1888 were part of the reason he seems to be out of control during December.

He went in the LH, most likely, an alcoholic...or at least a regular drinker. He came out sober. His behavior is rather manic ( fitting up Davies...his barroom scene with Marsh....and the content of his letters ) and might indicate that his being too perceptive for his own good was a reaction he had to and of this new salubrious lifestyle....which didn't last too long,as you know, since he's right back in the LH in May of 1889 for 70 more days as a chloral hydrate abuser.


* This was revealed by Canadian Ripperologist Mark Franzoi back in 2006.

[Ally]

Mike,

Up til now, I had not really considered a motive for RDS. I have merely been arguing that his placement at the hospital does not remove him from the "possible". Was it possible? Yes. But then of course you get into ' was it "plausible"'?

Earlier on this thread, Howard made some sort of comment about "means, motive and opportunity", saying that Donston never had a motive. This is a complete misrepresentation of the "means, motive and opportunity" schtick. What motive does any serial killer have in killing scores of women? That is something no one understands until they catch them, interrogate them, and find out where the wiring went bad. Why would Bundy kill random women because they had long dark hair? Who knows? Oh because they looked like an ex? What possible real motive is that? None. It's screwed wiring in his head. With serial killers, motive doesn't apply. They kill. Period.

[Ally]

Howard,

There is also no documented proof that Donston DIDN'T leave the hospital during the day. You can't claim there is no proof he left without giving a nod to the fact that there is NO PROOF one way or another. If there were day passes for family visits, if his doctor allowed him to take a day constitional, a pressing need to go home and visit the family on the odd weekend.

No proof one way, means no proof the other. And as for why I am arguing this, the same question is rightly turned back to you. You seemed desperate for someone to take you up on this thread. You even started it, admittedly to hammer some believers. What's your "need"' to argue this?

[Howard Brown]

There is also no documented proof that Donston DIDN'T leave the hospital during the day. You can't claim there is no proof he left without giving a nod to the fact that there is NO PROOF one way or another. If there were day passes for family visits, if his doctor allowed him to take a day constitional, a pressing need to go home and visit the family on the odd weekend.

Thats true Ally...there isn't any proof he didn't leave during the day.

No proof one way, means no proof the other. And as for why I am arguing this, the same question is rightly turned back to you. You seemed desperate for someone to take you up on this thread. You even started it, admittedly to hammer some believers. What's your "need"' to argue this?

Not to hammer 'em and never desperate, but in all sincerity,to see how the argument "for" Stephenson would materialize based on the concept that he faked his complaint. Thats all. Anyone is free to believe in what they wish.

I also don't "need" to debate the points...its not a case-solution in the scheme of things...I just like talkin' 'bout D'onston.

[Ally]

But of course if you are hinging your entire argument that Donston is eliminated because there is no proof he "faked his complaints" that's already been dashed. Yes, Harris may well have completely made up the idea that Donston faked his illness, and that may be what Harris believed. But he might well have had "neurasthenia" considering it is a "fake" illness to start with. Headache and fatigue and irritability are not something that would have prevented him from being the ripper. Hell, it could have been a contributory cause! I know when I get tired, irritable and have a headache, murder is not only plausible but likely.

Whether D'onston faked neurasthenia or not doesn't appear to be the point. It's irrelevant to his candidacy. He was a candidate before it was discovered, and he has been a candidate after the fact. It seems you have a specific need to tear down this particular argument. Why? The Donston case doesn't collapse if this linchpin is pulled.

[Howard Brown]

But of course if you are hinging your entire argument that Donston is eliminated because there is no proof he "faked his complaints" that's already been dashed. Yes, Harris may well have completely made up the idea that Donston faked his illness, and that may be what Harris believed. But he might well have had "neurasthenia" considering it is a "fake" illness to start with. Headache and fatigue and irritability are not something that would have prevented him from being the ripper. Hell, it could have been a contributory cause! I know when I get tired, irritable and have a headache, murder is not only plausible but likely.

No,Ally..the "case against Donston as a suspect" isn't based on Mr. Harris's contention that RDS faked neurasthenia. Mr. Harris, like everyone and anyone else, did not and probably would not have even considered the possibility of RDS faking his complaint, had Mr. Harris or any other theorist known when RDS entered the LH. Thats "all" that that argument or discussion was about.






Whether D'onston faked neurasthenia or not doesn't appear to be the point. It's irrelevant to his candidacy. He was a candidate before it was discovered, and he has been a candidate after the fact. It seems you have a specific need to tear down this particular argument. Why? The Donston case doesn't collapse if this linchpin is pulled.

While I agree that its not a necessary component of whether or not he was a suspect...the statement that he WAS a suspect before "it was discovered", referring to the concept that he "faked neurasthenia" is not true.

He "was a suspect" to a private citizen...whether primarily for his handwriting or for his blabbermouthing in the Inn in early December to George Marsh.

He "was a contemporary police suspect" for 48 hours. The Roots Report does not mention anything remotely close to Stephenson being worthy of future inquiry. At this juncture, he is out of the proverbial loop. Only wishful thinking can "make" him a suspect in the contemporaneous sense.

He ceased to be a suspect..in the contemporary sense, until the 1890-1891 living arrangement with Collins & Cremers. If anyone can take the content of the Cremers Memoirs seriously, then there is no point of me discussing the tome, since what is in the Cremers Memoirs and more importantly what is NOT in it doesn't make him suspicious upon close scrutinization... and which may have, in all likelihood,been fabricated by Mr. O'Donnell since there are no existing letters or correspondence ( sources ) either with dates or any other defining characteristics extant that indicate Cremers actually said or wrote what is alleged to have emanated from her.

He is only a modern suspect based on the effort, primarily by Mr. Harris, to give provenance to these Cremers Memoirs, AND, but not completely, by the absurd notion that Stephenson faked his first complaint and entry into the LH on July 26th,1888.

At this time, I'd like you, as someone who appears to "need" to defend the premise that he is or as you stated,was a contemporary suspect for more than 48 hours....to explain what it is about Stephenson that merits consideration as a viable suspect. Likewise, an outline of why he is a modern suspect would be nice.

Back to you...

[Ally]

I have no interest or desire in defending him as a contemporary, modern or post-modern suspects. There is no need to defend him. He was, he is, until such time as there is proof to the contrary, he always will be. He was a contemporary police suspect, the length of time is irrelevant. Period. There is no debate. The Green River Killer was a suspect, for a couple of days, interviewed, released and voila! He turned out to be the killer. The length of duration as a contemporary suspect is irrelevant. He was a contemporary suspect. His candicacy as a modern suspect is based in part on his contemporary suspect status and to date, nothing has categorically ruled him out, not even plausible circumstance. I don't need to provide an 'outline of his candidacy as a modern suspect'. He was contemporary, he's current, nothing has ruled him out. The End.

[Howard Brown]

I have no interest or desire in defending him as a contemporary, modern or post-modern suspects. There is no need to defend him. He was, he is, until such time as there is proof to the contrary, he always will be. He was a contemporary police suspect, the length of time is irrelevant. Period. There is no debate. The Green River Killer was a suspect, for a couple of days, interviewed, released and voila! He turned out to be the killer. The length of duration as a contemporary suspect is irrelevant. He was a contemporary suspect. His candicacy as a modern suspect is based in part on his contemporary suspect status and to date, nothing has categorically ruled him out, not even plausible circumstance. I don't need to provide an 'outline of his candidacy as a modern suspect'. He was contemporary, he's current, nothing has ruled him out. The End.

The end? Say it ain't so,Ally !

That he never made it to three days as a contemporary police suspect and that you feel that his modern status has some foundation in fact...well,okay, if thats where your head is at, there's nothing one can do about it. That he made himself a contemporary suspect means nothing and I suppose that since you've read the Cremers Memoirs that thats good enough for you.



The bridge is available and I will even cover shipping charges for the merch.

[Mr Poster]

hi ho

Im not a great man for absolutes so...

A hospital has NEVER had better security than a jail.

That depends on the hospital. mental hospitals are probably more secure given that the entire gamut of security measures can and are employed plus the added bonus, unavailable to most jails, of being able to keep inmates so sedated they cannot escape.

Victotian mental hospitals were probably even more secure than their jails given the belief in the use of chains, cages, strait jackets and dungeons as means of treatment as well as detention and restraint.

Addmittedly normal hospitals are probably less secure but even normal hospitals have secure depts. which employ much of the same methods as high security nut houses.

A hospitla doesnt need high walls as there is nothing like sedation to curb the wanderings of those so inclined.

So while acknowledging that D'Onston may have been in for kidney stones.....its hardly true to state that hospitals are never as secure as jails.

p

[Ally]

Poster,

Were weren't talking about asylums. We were talking about hospitals, specifically the hospital Donston was in.

[Mr Poster]

Sally

We were talking about hospitals, specifically the hospital Donston was in.

If so....the you should keep generalisations such as this stunner:

A hospital has NEVER had better security than a jail.

behind your pearly whites

p

[Gideon Fell]

Sally


If so....the you should keep generalisations such as this stunner:



behind your pearly whites

p

You are surely being disingenuous Mr Poster - it is obvious to any but a fool that the hospital in question here is a common or garden Victorian General Hospital serving the general public.