The Davis Ward HOAX

[Mike Covell]

Ha ha, I just saw this. Funny thing is this is exactly what I said when I heard about the photo. Seems the Whitechapel Society people know the Tabram descendants, but you know how Brits are, they probably asked politely one time, got a polite 'no', and let it drop. Perhaps a little American innovation could do the trick?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Give me their address, I will nip round in my Michael Myers suit!!

Wore it last year to the Local Chinese Take away, they didn't say no when I asked for a bottle of Coke mu ha ha!!

Caz, I would love a pair of RDS Slippers, there already on the Xmas list!!

[Howard Brown]

One of the crucial elements of the whole Donston Hoax is the omission of facts which I will now demonstrate once more in light of the comment that Ally made a while back.

Before I do, I will be prepared to chew crow or Stetson hat if it could be proven that Donston could...not actually did...but could have been sinecured for a while on the Davis Ward. Debra Arif,as well as Ally herself, have provided reasonable doubts to my declaration that Donston invented the Davis Ward scenario and that because of the mention of Dr. Evans having typhoid, that Donston would not have been and could not have been residing in that ward at all in his 134 days in the LH might be a case of me jumping the gun.

Nevertheless, I want to reemphasise my position on why this whole fiasco is a Hoax.

Lets go back to what Ally mentioned before...that "Melvin had the facts on his side as Donston actually said he was in the Davis Ward"..

Well...the fact is, is that Mr. Harris did NOT say this in his books on Stephenson.

Lets reexamine the facts of the matter shall we?

Fact: Currie Ward is listed on the London Hospital register.....and Spiro Dimolianis brought this up 19 months ago on this site. Mike Covell has SEEN it in person.

Fact: Davis Ward is also mentioned on the London Hospital register.

Fact: The October 16th letter is mentioned on page 111 of the True Face by Melvin Harris. It does NOT give the full address of the source of the letter, which was from the Currie Ward.

Fact: Ivor Edwards remarks on the same letter in his chronology, but does NOT mention that the letter, just like Harris didn't, came from the Currie Ward.

Fact: Ivor Edwards claims to have gone to the LH ( twice in his book ) and having seen the register with the location of the ward that Donston was in during his stay..in his book. Miraculously, he did not see what Mike Covell saw and what Spiro learned from Jonathan Evans in an email.

Fact: Melvin Harris, intrepid professional investigator, went to the London Hospital, spent time and money in his research, got someone from the LH to open up the 100 year old books...and did NOT see the listing of the Currie Ward....did not ASK what the "m" meant on the register...and did not ASK about the security or particulars of EACH ward during his excursion....which is utter nonsense.

Fact: To this very moment,Ivor Edwards continues to pretend he is oblivious to the very same facts that not only Spiro pointed out but what Harris ALSO was oblivious to and what Mike Covell saw with his very own eyes...and asked about with his very own mouth.

The facts are this:

Harris and Edwards, by virtue of both men going to the LH and supporting each others version of reality...that the Currie Ward does NOT appear...that the ward differences are of no consequence in the scheme of things...and that Stephenson wrote "u" when in fact the LH does NOT use a "u" to designate marital status and above all OMITTING these seminal facts from the community about ALL the facts that were there in front of them in the very same way they were for Spiro and Mike......have only given their interpretation of the FACTS at large and had expected and hoped that people would accept their claims without further examination. After all, if one supports the other, why should a third, non-partisan party, investigate what has already been "proven" as fact?

Yet, it was this OMISSION as I have pointed out on the Forums and here elsewhere, that enabled this HOAX to last as long as it did, because its over with.

These two pro-Stephenson authors KNEW...both of them knew...that TWO wards are listed...letters to the police are clearly shown to have emanated from TWO wards...and they expected no one to investigate further.

One can not say that these authors were BOTH oblivious to what Mike Covell found out on his excursion to London...and also what Spiro pointed out from afar long ago....and have anyone with half a brain not realize that the entire foundation of the hospital stay and the subsequent "faked neurasthenia" claim are not part and parcel of an intentional OMISSION of facts.

I'll gladly lose the battle of Stephenson possibly being in the Davis Ward, if it means that I can bring to light that the two authors intentionally or shall we say, sloppily, gave you,dear reader,only half the facts....

[Tom_Wescott]

Howard,

If D'Onston was actually staying in the Currie Ward as you suggest, but was enjoying nightly visits with the other two men in the Davis Ward as he states, does this in turn suggest he could and did leave his ward at night, or is that at least one possible interpretation?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jenni Shelden]

I've got a question, its going to sound like a criticism, and partly you know it is, but mainly its a genuine query. There seems to be a lot of detailed research about D'onston here - or rather about Donston research. You know i am all for research that disposes of falsehoods from suspect theory, but a lot of what you are saying is difficult to follow because it is disjointed and relies on knowledge of the suspect to follow it. Im not being critical im being a dumb ass - there are so many donston threads sudenly - they are hard to keep track of - its hard to remember where ive got to and to follow therefore. Howard, you have a website and all, why not write an article that lays this out more clearly for the casual reader, you piqued my curiosity , and probably many other peoples, but it would be nice to have all your research together somewehre so it can be properly looked at and therefore my considred opnion given to it. In many ways to me you often come across as Ivor or Mel bashing (proably just enthusiasm for your research), which probably isnt your intention, since i know you have been interested in this suspect as long as i can remember.

i hope you take this as it was meant

sorry to butt into the thread

Jenni

[Tom_Wescott]

Jenni,

I don't think anyone would see that as a criticism. I told Howard the same thing over at the forums a long time ago when he and others were putting up tons of new finds, and new posters would find the site and post stuff, and it was literally EVERYWHERE and I couldn't even understand it all, and I have a working knowledge of D'Onston. Howard was already aware of the problem and I believe he's been correlating the data. HOPEFULLY the end result will be a large volume presenting all the data and what Howard & Co. make of it. If such a volume happens, I wouldn't mind lending a hand or two.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

...and had expected and hoped that people would accept their claims without further examination. After all, if one supports the other, why should a third, non-partisan party, investigate what has already been "proven" as fact?

Now be fair, Howie Baby,

Melvin didn't really need Ivor the Engine, did he?

I mean, Melvin's word used to be Melvin's bond, didn't it?

I mean, Melvin was used to 99.9% of folk accepting his claims like they were babies being offered candy.

So you can hardly blame him for going with the flow and letting 'em soak it all up.

It takes a big big man or three (and maybe a small woman who'd like to be a bit smaller ) to say "Hang on a moment, I feel like examining this particular claim a bit further before I accept it, if you don't mind" to really rattle someone who thinks everyone will just eat out of his hand forever.

I tell you, when Feldman or Cornwell pulled tricks on half this kind of scale to big up their suspects, the same people fawning all over Mighty Mel blew fuses.

Time may not reveal all but it certainly reveals a lot.

Love,

Caz
X

[Howard Brown]

Jennifer:

You have to understand something.

Ivor requested that any posts that were made in regard to Stephenson made by me...since I seemed to be deviating from "party line" at that juncture and considered RDS maybe being something a little different than what "The Boss" wanted people to hear....... had to be edited and approved by him back when I was affiliated with his site. It was then that I started to reexamine what has turned out to be a hoax and quite frankly, the unsupportable claims I was making on behalf of Stephenson's culpability either on the UK site,Casebook and even on behalf of sales for Ivor's book. I have no one to blame but myself. I recall that you mentioned a while back that "all of this" is just a case of me desiring "revenge" on Ivor. Thats 100% incorrect. At each step of this inquiry, I have time and time again asked Edwards to step up to the plate and discuss or debate these facts I have been providing ( and other people's excellent work too....it ain't all me). Time and time again, he has used excuses ( "I'm banned from Casebook"..."Your site is a propaganda site"...."I don't want to do anything with you" ) to avoid discussing the omissions and distortions that if one looks hard enough,they will find for themselves.

I didn't use my head and investigate whether sources could be provided as to some of the more crucial elements that make up the Hoax. I simply accepted that these claims, some of which I have brought up on different threads, were verifiable....because "who was I to doubt?" the prior efforts of Mr. Harris or Ivor. In other words, I deferred to their accumulated experience in this field.

I understand that for some, Ripperology is a way to make money, because they depend on the collector-completionist mentality that....lets be frank...a lot of us have. Unlike some people,I do not believe for a second that Mr. Harris actually believed in this saga of Stephenson faking neurasthenia and I am certain that as a professional investigator, he knew that the Currie Ward had a security protocol that disallowed patients out after a certain period of time. I honestly believe that he felt he needed his "own" suspect to promote,since he had done so much or tried to do so much to destroy the candidacy of other suspects in this Case and by virtue of his career as an investigator, he felt he could get some miles out of RDS. He was right. But now,the tires have no air left and Stephenson now belongs in with the Ludwigs, Issenschmidts, and Pizers. All flat tires like RDS....the 2 day suspect.

Harris chose a suspect that he once felt was the 'biggest fantasist in all of Ripperology"...and using the same body of facts did an about face and pushed this genuinely ill man into the forefront of suspects in 1988....not knowing at the time that he was in the hospital during the murders....and after finding this out later,jumped on this notion that somehow,without any basis in fact whatsoever, that RDS faked his claim. No one else would have ever considered this sort of scenario.

I hope this clarifies any confusion about the motivation I had about putting this non-suspect to rest.

Tom:

I suppose he was able to go chat with this Dr. Evans in the Davies Ward, when both were concievably in the Davis Ward together.

I couldn't tell you if he was able to do this when he was in the Currie Ward...at night,since as Mike Covell found out, they had a curfew there. I suppose Currie Ward patients ( and he indeed was in the Currie Ward up until October 16th by virtue of the letter....unless someone now says that he was lying about that without any basis in fact ) could traipse the hospital during the daytime.

I believe that the protocol as Mr. Evans mentioned was limited to a specific number of visitors ( see original post on thread). Whether Stephenson actually ever spoke to Evans...was privy to any conversations Evans had with Dr. Davies, I don't know. But as I said, I'm prepared to admit I jumped the gun,thinking that Stephenson made the Davies Ward story up...and then going back at Ivor and showing him yet another fable in the Hoax.

Caz:

Oh, he didn't "need" Ivor's research techniques...in fact,I believe that Mr. Harris was somewhat irritated that upon the discovery that Ivor was going to promote the silly "Vesica Fishy" on everyone...he blanched and thought to himself..."Oy vey ! I get the people right where I want them with my theory and this guy comes along with this nonsense !!"

[Ally]

Howard,

I don't believe Jen was questioning your motivation, but your method, which I agree is random, scattered and often hard to follow. It would make more sense to write a primer of the Donston case providing the facts and not randomly throwing up bits here there and everywhere. You presume a lot of the time that people care enough about Donston to have internalized all the minutia that you seize upon and understand the often random points you are making about trivial and esoteric bits. Not the case. You should consolidate your arguments into a cohesive whole and provide relevant background information. Just a recommendation for better reading....as it is, most people consider donston along the same lines as Sickert....not a real suspect and not worth agonizing over the various bits.

[Howard Brown]

Ally:

Understood. Yes, a lot of D'onston material is spread out and not in some semblance of order.

Thats going to be rectified.

What I originally did here on this site three years ago when Stephen asked me to put together a Stephenson Forum was to try and delineate each aspect or area of his life and then replicating that over yonder in my neck of the woods.

I did this to try and focus on each aspect, rather than have a lot of unconnected posts and the concomitant Chinese fire drill that would have transpired if we discussed RDS on one main thread or even two.

But yes, I suppose its about time that the old Gang O' Four put their heads together and put together the most complete and factual repository of information on RDS....on the nice blog Stephen let me control and in book form.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Howard,

Yes, Ally is right I wasn't questioning your motivation - but your methods. I just find it difficult to follow. I guess Im being lazy and asking you to help me out!

Jenni

[Howard Brown]

Its not being lazy to ask "whats going on" regarding Stephenson, Ms.Pegg...if you have difficulty in grasping what you are reading....its a natural response.

Mike and I still don't have an update from this Jonathan Evans yet as to the nature of the Davis Ward and protocol and all that....but when we find out, we will put the reply here.

[Mike Covell]

Jeniffer, there is the "Stephenson family Chronology" on this very casebook which I have put together, fully referenced and sourced (a rarity in RDS research) it is a labour of love, that whilst it is packed full of dates on him and his family, it is no way complete!!

Add to that at the end loads of maps and photos from my research of the areas the family resided.

Then there is another thread entitled "stephenson related pics" which some of the London residents have set up.

My chronology currently covers over 100 pages, over 1 thousand entries, including, Birth, marriage, death, trade directory entries, newspaper reports, magistrate papers, letter books, burgess rolls, polling books, obits, grave transcriptions.

Yesterday alone I spent 16 hours transcribing newspaper reports regarding the family in Hull!!

As for Jonathon Evans, he is actually a really nice bloke, full of info, I mean this guy was sat in the room and whenever I had a question he would fire back the answer almost immediatly, he knew were "stephenson" was in the books, possibly because we keep hindering him!
And knew all the terminology including the M!!

The register books are about 15inches wide unclosed, 30inches wide open and stand about 25inches high!

Each section for writing is about 1inch high so there is plenty of space for writing, and the letters are very high and clear.

[Jenni Shelden]

God How,

have I offended you? I have stated several times how this was NOT what I was attempting to do. In fact, its quite nice to have presentable facts about a suspect - which I was encouraging you to do more of by collating a summary of the detailed research that is being done in one digestible place, to aid those of us who you have contempt for to NOT have contempt for you. But you are not exactly making things easy, the minute I even hint that people might think something underhand was going on, there you are insulting the number of brain cells I have (frankly this method of trying to attack me is getting a bit old, and is so last year) but no matter, all I was doing was making a suggesting that I felt might be helpful to your cause, which personally, all things considered, I think is pretty good of me (if I do say so myself)

But no matter, if you want to make a fight of things and make an enemy of me - I guess that can be arranged - but what's the point?

Jennifer

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Mike,

im not blasting your research, see above, I was ONLY making a suggestion, if you think its shite, the correct answer wass, thanks for the idea Jenni but we've already considred that and not done itand so therefore we think your suggestion is shite

Jenni

[Howard Brown]

Ms.Pegg:

Even for you,your post is unapproachable in terms of response.


In fact, its quite nice to have presentable facts about a suspect - which I was encouraging you to do more of by collating a summary of the detailed research that is being done in one digestible place, to aid those of us who you have contempt for to NOT have contempt for you

Whether you or Jesus H. Christ have contempt for me in what I do doesn't disturb me in the least. Its your inability to understand the basics that surprise me,considering that you are ostensibly a collegiate. I never lost a moments sleep worrying about what people think about me.

I didn't disparage you or your comments in my post from before and if you didn't understand them...get someone to explain them to you.