Ripperologist 113

[rbaynton]

I HONESTLY did not know that there was a 'history' between Rip & Casebook. I stumbled into this in all innocence. I just thought it would be a nice way to spend an hour or so doing a review and had a notion (which I really do hold) taht it can get a bit pi**y here sometimes

Only after Rip publishes a letter from you stating that both the Casebook and Tom Wescott rule. Though bear in mind that such a letter mind lead to the immediate cancellation of your subscription!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I was joking a bit there, Roger. While it's true that Paul Begg refuses to post on the Casebook, and Chris hardly does at all any more, and Eduardo even less frequently, to my knowledge there's no bad blood between them and Stephen P Ryder. But keep in mind my knowledge of such matters is very finite. And its no secret that Paul, Chris, Eduardo, and Adam are huge, huge fans of my work.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

Hi Rog,

I think it boils down to a simple matter of etiquette and equality.

As a fellow Chelsea fan I know the rule about what's yours is mine and what's mine is my own. I mean, fair's fair and all that.

You NEVER see anyone criticising Rip on these boards because it just isn't done. That's the rule. And it's why one should NEVER criticise any of the Casebook's posters on the pages of Rip.

So if you THINK you see anyone ripping into the Rip around here, you are either drinking too much, hallucinating or you should have gone to Specsavers.

I thank you.

Love,

Caz
X

[rbaynton]

Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

Hi Rog,

I think it boils down to a simple matter of etiquette and equality.

As a fellow Chelsea fan I know the rule about what's yours is mine and what's mine is my own. I mean, fair's fair and all that.

You NEVER see anyone criticising Rip on these boards because it just isn't done. That's the rule. And it's why one should NEVER criticise any of the Casebook's posters on the pages of Rip.

So if you THINK you see anyone ripping into the Rip around here, you are either drinking too much, hallucinating or you should have gone to Specsavers.

I thank you.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

Hi Rog,

You NEVER see anyone criticising Rip on these boards because it just isn't done. That's the rule. And it's why one should NEVER criticise any of the Casebook's posters on the pages of Rip.

So if you THINK you see anyone ripping into the Rip around here, you are either drinking too much, hallucinating or you should have gone to Specsavers.

I thank you.

Love,

Caz
X

Actually, I've been known to criticize specific articles a time or two on the boards, usually over punctuation snafus or something I found just bizarre, so I wouldn't even have a problem if they'd done a review of the Casebook and put it out there on its merits. But I've been specific in what I criticized, not done a blanket sweeping --They suck and I'd never write for them....etc.
And you can bet your boots that if I had ever criticized them like that and said I'd refuse to write for them, I'd have the basic self-respect to stand by my convictions.

What I take exception to is the back-handed, sneaking in criticism of Casebook in a vague, generalized way that's then attempted to be offset with, oh we like Casebook, we really do, really....it's just that the people who suck.

Ripperologist is a magazine, a published journal that people pay money to read, and as such, I do think they should be held to a somewhat higher standard than what gets posted on message boards by yobs like me. However...

If they want to write a review of the Casebook, that's absolutely their prerogative, and they can make it as nasty as they want to, that's also their prerogative. But if they are going to do it, be upfront and honest about it and don't sneak in digs under the guise of something else.

[Natalie Severn]

I emailed Adam a few days ago but still havent had the new rip copy!Can anyone help?

[Robert]

Nats if you PM me your email I'll mail you a copy.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Robert but have now received my copy!

[tnb]

Natalie,

Exactly the same thing happened to me. Think there must be a gremling lurking somewhere. Never mind, it's well worth the wait. Except now my laptop's had to go to the computer doctor's and so I'm without it again! Was halfway through Adam Wood's Stride article too which was shaping up to be excellent.

[Tom_Wescott]

Adam Went's Stride article.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[tnb]

Adam Went's Stride article.

Indeed it was. And very good it was too, even if it hasn't quite convinced me!

[Tom_Wescott]

It hasn't convinced you of what? That Liz Stride wasn't a police spy?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Thanks very much, TNB. And yes, please do elaborate on what it is you're still not sure of, and I'll do my best to convince you.

Cheers,
Adam.

[tnb]

Adam,

Please believe me when I say that I meant no disrespect; it was, as I said above, an excellent essay. And no, I do not mean that I need further convincing that Stride was not a government spy! While it is an interesting theory, I have never given it too much serious consideration, and I must say that your debunking of it seems pretty final.

For me, however, and this may simply be personal prejudice, Stride is just not a Ripper victim, and in fact I would go further and say that I have always felt that had Eddowes not been murdered on the same night then I have serious doubts about whether the possibility would ever have been raised. I have never bought the 'it would be too much of a coincidence for two killers to be active on the streets of the same area on the same night' argument, as we have to admit that there were in fact at least two killers active at roughly the same time (unless you believe all the Whitechapel Murders were the work of 'Jack') and also the events in Cambridge Heath Road, Redman's Road etc, plus Emma Smith's murder, for example, show that there were definitely other dangerous individuals on the streets of Whitechapel and its environs rather than just the 'Ripper', and bearing in mind that were Stride's killer not the same as Eddowes', then he would not have known that there would be another murder on that date, and so the chances of this killer choosing to kill on the same night as 'Jack' were just the same as his choosing to kill on any other. I know that you didn't use those well-worn points, but I am just trying to give a bit of background to my view.

Your reasoning throughout the article is sound, and I particularly like the way in which you attempt to reconcile the various witness statments, and the questioning of Mrs Mortimer's odd assertion is long overdue. In fact, I cannot fault the process at all - I am just not convinced by your conclusion, that 'the police in 1888 were as close to the truth as we are now: That Liz Stride was soliciting on the night she was killed, that she died a few minutes before 1.00 AM, that her killer was Jack the Ripper, and that the killer worked alone.' The bold section is my only quibble; I can only agree 100% with all the other points.

I have always considered that the man seen with 'Stride' by Best and Gardner was also the same man seen with her by Marshall. I realise there are problems with that assertion, but I am yet to see any details that make it impossible, or even improbable. More than that, I actually believe this was the opinion of the police at the time. When conflicting testimony witness testimony was given to the police, more often than not they 'covered all the bases' by caling even questionable witnesses to the inquests, as in the case of Mrs. Maxwell at the Kelly inquest. If they believed that Marshall had seen the same couple as Best & Gardner, then it would however make perfect sense to rely on the later sighting, closer to the all-important moment, and also the sighting without any innate difficulties - ie the flower business.

I think it goes without saying that if Stride was the woman seen on both occasions and that the man too was the same, then that is a much longer time than we can expect 'Jack the Ripper' to have spent with any of his victims. To my mind, that suggests a more 'domestic' angle, with a meeting - whether a date or otherwise - that at some point turned deadly. I realise that for many people it is a big 'if'.

And no, I do not believe that man was Michael Kidney, and I must say a 'well done' here to Tom Westcott for attempting to rehabilite his character in the Casebook Examiner. Once again, long overdue.

Your point about the likelihood of Stride 'moving on' from Michael Kidney so quickly is a very good one, and I cannot really counter it; however one possibility I would raise is that, to me, Kidney's behaviour at the inquest has always seemed to suggest that he knew of some other man 'on the scene', so to speak, and against who he had suspicions. Whether a new beau, or simply a friend, and whether his suspicions may have been valid or simply the result of jealousy, we will of course never know.

I also have an issue, as I think was raised on the Dutfield's Yard podcast, with the idea of Diemshutz disturbing the killer, namely that having studied the layout of Dutfield's Yard I simply cannot see how the killer could have either escaped once Diemshutz and his pony were in the yard, nor how he could have succeeded in concealing himself within the yard with all the activity that followed pretty hot on the heels of his discovery. That said, your analysis of the time of death estimates is pretty solid, and I would not - as some people have - use the above argument to argue for an earlier time of death, simply I would suggest that the killer had more likely already left the scene when Diemshutz arrived, even if only by a minute or two. If you choose to follow that logic, the inevitable assumption is that Stride's killer's motive was simply murder, and not murder with mutilation, ala 'Jack'. Tom does a very good job of suggesting alternative reasons why the 'Ripper', were it he, may not have performed this part of his routine, and I cannot argue with the possibility of any of them. In fact, I was pleased to see them raised - I have always felt the 'he was disturbed' angle to be the weakest point of the argument to include Stride in the 'canonical' list.

With all that said, your article did come closest to anything I have read to convincing me to have a closer look at my view of the events surrounding the whole night. Whether I agree with the conclusion or not that can only be a good thing. I must also add that the 'Pipeman' possibility had never crossed my mind before, and does seem worthy of further investigation.

I would indeed be interested in your thoughts on any of this - or Tom's, for that matter - should you see fit. And once again, well done for an excellent article!

Yours etc,

Trevor.

[Tom_Wescott]

For me, however, and this may simply be personal prejudice, Stride is just not a Ripper victim

That would for sure be personal prejudice, because it's not an argument supported by the weight of evidence. If you've read Adam's essay, my last one in Examiner, and my 'Berner Street Mystery' series in Ripper Notes #'s 25 and 26, and still think Stride wasn't a Ripper victim, then you're missing the boat. And I say that with the utmost respect.

in fact I would go further and say that I have always felt that had Eddowes not been murdered on the same night then I have serious doubts about whether the possibility would ever have been raised.

Of course it would have. Look at Coles, McKenzie, etc.

I have never bought the 'it would be too much of a coincidence for two killers to be active on the streets of the same area on the same night'

In the same hour and within a 10 minute walk of each other?

and the questioning of Mrs Mortimer's odd assertion is long overdue

Unfortunately, Adam missed the mark here. More on that in the next Rip.

I have always considered that the man seen with 'Stride' by Best and Gardner was also the same man seen with her by Marshall. I realise there are problems with that assertion, but I am yet to see any details that make it impossible, or even improbable.

Would you like just such a reason, or would I be wasting my time?

I must say a 'well done' here to Tom Westcott for attempting to rehabilite his character in the Casebook Examiner. Once again, long overdue.

Thank you, but surely it's more than a mere 'attempt'. It corrected a bunch of errors made by a bunch of authors over the last 17 years.

to me, Kidney's behaviour at the inquest has always seemed to suggest that he knew of some other man 'on the scene', so to speak, and against who he had suspicions. Whether a new beau, or simply a friend, and whether his suspicions may have been valid or simply the result of jealousy, we will of course never know.

Kidney wanted justice, more than that, he wanted vengeance. Had he known who killed Stride, or thought he knew, he either would have confronted the man himself or told the police. All he could offer was the name of the brother of the man Stride had worked for years ago near Hyde Park, and it doesn't seem he held much suspicion against this unknown man.

I simply cannot see how the killer could have either escaped once Diemshutz and his pony were in the yard,

If Diemshitz (correct spelling) could see it this way and he lived there, walked the yard, and discovered the body, how can you suggest it wasn't possible?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott