Ripperologist 111

[DVV]

And I think others are more apt for the job. John Bennett springs to mind (excellent piece by John in this months Rip, awesone in fact) as does Ben Holme. However my money would be on Gareth Williams aka Sam Flynn. And seeing Im on a roll after picking winners in Rob Clack, twice, and Debs, I trust my nose.

Monty

Great names here, Monty.

But you shouldn't forget Daniel Gilotti.
40 years of theories, one theory per week.
Do calculate.

Amitiés,
David

[Supe]

Grave Maurice and others,

Rest assured. I spoke to Gareth just the other day and he is fine but has been away from home on business and will be a bit longer. His closing words, though, were "I will be back."

And Tom, thanks for the kind words. It was a fun run at Rip--for most of my tenure anyway. Though, I would think they will miss Jen's magisterial management skills much more than anything I did.

Don.

[Ally]

Hah! All the men at Rip are pure useless...it's all Jane. That's where the real talent lies.

[Scott Nelson]

Are there now going to be lots and lots and lots of big long articles about Kosminski and Anderson and Swanson.... ?

Unfortunately, yes. Until Kos can be eliminated as a suspect and new information remains to be discovered about Swanson and Anderson.

[Scott Nelson]

You raise a good point, Thomas. I had been wondering why these boards seemed to be about 10 or 12 posts a day lighter than usual.

Good, not bad. Quality over quantity. BTW, that's post number 666 for you. Not that I'm superstitious, but it is quite a lot. Since I've been posting back to 1998, I have a total of, maybe, 500 at the most. Maybe 25% research-oriented, the rest throw-away garbage. The majority of which was influenced, sadly, by stupid, junk posts by others. How could I have been so weak?

[Natalie Severn]

Unfortunately, yes. Until Kos can be eliminated as a suspect and new information remains to be discovered about Swanson and Anderson.

That is unlikely to prove anything more, Scott.
If Kosminski was Jack the Ripper he would not have been left in Colney Hatch and Leavesdon for thirty years.He would have been quietly taken to Broadmoor ---along with the likes of Thomas Cutbush.

Anyway, I forgot to say how much I enjoyed your article on Inspector Robert Sagar,Scott.It shone a light on City of London Police work and lit up Aldgate itself for once.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks for the very kind words, Nats. I doubt any work from Dan, Wolf or myself would be all too welcome by the current Rip brigade, but I don't think that will slow us down much. We seem to do a fine job of slowing ourselves down. LOL. I used to disagree strongly with Wolf Vanderlinden's views on Martha Tabram, but I must say I'm starting to warm up to them just a bit. And I can understand your points about Kosminski, however, I think he remains the only viable candidate remaining from the 'Macnaghten 3'. In any event, Rip seems to have published more on Tumblety and Druitt than on Kosminski in recent times.

Scott Nelson clearly does believe in quality over quantity, as he all too rarely publishes anything, but when he does, it's always quality, and as long as he's pecking away at Kosminski, one never knows just what revelations await!

And Don, you're no doubt right about Jenn's efforts being missed by the staff at Rip. To readers, the work of a managing (man-aging?) editor is never as obvious as that of the 'out front' editors.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

Tom,

Actually, I think Ally was right--Jane is the glue that holds everything together: laying out page after page, making last minute corrections (on top of corrections on top of corrections . . .), writing articles to fill out issues and serving as everyone's Mother Confessor.

And don't be too quick to accept Martha.

Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

And don't be too quick to accept Martha.

Ha ha. I'm very slow on the matter!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Grave Maurice]

BTW, that's post number 666 for you. Not that I'm superstitious....

You're right: 666 is a great number to have. I'm not superstitious either, so I'm never going to post again and that way I'll be able to keep the number 666 forev....Oh, damn!

[DVV]

To be honest I didnt enjoy this months Ripperologist very much at all .I thought the writer of the Kosminski piece wrote very well ,but really if we need anything its not any more of Anderson"s tired old "definitely ascertainable facts" we need,but fresh statistics or medical views that might possibly support a case against a man who so far was considered harmless for thirty years.

I agree, Norma,

however, I found the change of strategy most interesting...
Jonathan Hainsworth doesn't argue that Anderson wasn't a wishful thinker, etc...
Quite the reverse : "arrogant and unappealing"... "he is undermined by his insufferable vanity"..."vain and mean-spirited in the way he expresses no compassion whatsoever"..."one with a mind more than capable of self deception, and always with the agenda of making himself feel and appear to be right".

But...as a conclusion : "I argue that scrubbing away all the mythical encrustations still leaves a suspect who is not only strong, but arguably the strongest."

The article subtitle should have been "The art of war", imo...

I add that John Bennett's contribution is a joy to read, and beautifully illustrated.

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

Hainsworth isn't very popular, it seems. Why is that?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I haven't read the latest essay.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Tom.Glad you are warming to Wolf"s views on Martha!
I cant consider Kosminski as a serious suspect,these days, not at all.But thats for another thread.
Look forward to the day we get some of you three"s fired up in depth investigations and hope its not too far off!
All the Best
Norma

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks again, Nats. I don't know what Wolf's up to, and I don't know if we'll ever see Dan again, but I've been writing up a storm. I'm waiting for some new materials to come in the post. You can't find everything on the internet, you know!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Natalie Severn]

David,
I think I agree with you over this.Hainsworth"s conclusion almost doesnt match his earlier searching and his otherwise really astute observations.
What can happen is that the research can take over the unfolding of the storyline and the thing that would give it zest and hold the reader in suspense suddenly gets killed off by pedantry.I dont mean that that happened particularly in that article but it became a bit difficult to know where exactly you were being led at times.
If you have ever read any of the old "Ripper Notes" articles you will know what I am getting at. Dan wasnt afraid to let his writers have some fire in their bellies.So the publication was somehow fresh and sparkly.
But you know,its easy to drone on like a pedant---I know I do it myself all the time---but it doesnt really help an article for publication if its all about the everyday doings of Joe Bloggs-how he went two steps forward and another one back, kind of thing .You actually need to know if he is ever going to go anywhere at all!
I will take your advice and read John"s article-he has done some sterling work John so I look forward to it.
Best
Norma
Just seen your post---great news Tom!