Ripperologist 113

[tnb]

Thanks for your comments, Tom.

I will comment on a few questions you raise, I won't attempt to answer everything point by point, as that would get pretty tedious for all involved! If you feel I have missed anything out, then be assured that is not an attempt to duck any awkward questions, and if you want clarification on anything not included here please feel free to PM me. Please bear in mind the spirit of this, which was that I praised Adam's article, and gave the opinion that it hadn't quite convinced me to include Stride as a bona-fide 'Ripper' victim. I was asked to expand on what was a subjective opinion and did so, in a manner which, as I admitted and by its very nature, included a degree of personal prejudice. We all have it. It was not a review of Adam's article, or yours for that matter, and were I writing such I would not have included half the points I did, at least without further backing them up. And the first thing I would have said is that the articles were excellent - as indeed I did.


Firstly, I would like to say that I am not going to get into the whole Diemshitz spelling debate, because, and I say this with the utmost respect, I have never seen the point of people getting so worked up about it. Thank you for correcting me, but I would hope you do not make any judgements on my argument from a differing spelling of a name of which there have been literally dozens over the years. I hope that doesn't sound arsey, it is not meant to.

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.

Indeed, as I said, yours and Adam's articles have come the closest to making me change my mind of Stride. Unfortunately I have not had the chance to read your earlier articles, as I am not a subscriber to Ripper Notes, and the last time I checked it didn't actually seem to be much of a going concern. I would very much like to read them, one day. I would like to point out that I am hardly the only one around here who seems to have missed the boat, if a gold-plated belief in Stride's candidacy is the price of admission.

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

Fair point, but let me clarify a little - what I should have said was that I do not BELIEVE that Stride would be included as a victim to the same extent were it not for the 'double event' factor. Yes, Coles and McKenzie etc have been posited at 'Ripper' victims, as would Stride even without the second murder that night, but they have not been suggested as strongly as Stride. All the reasons against Coles, for example, being a 'Ripper' victim (apart from her death not occuring in the autumn of 1888) also apply to Stride, but for some reason Stride is seen as being in a class of her own, largely due - I BELIEVE -to, for want of a better phrase, the Eddowes factor. Obviously that is a simplification, and there are many other elements to both cases, which I am aware of.

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

On the night after Nicholls' murder, a woman was allegedly accosted by a man with a knife in Cambridge Heath Road. Okay, it was not in the same hour, but it was the very next night, and within not a 10 minute walk this time but a less than 2 minute one. No one that I have ever seen has tried to connect that incident to 'Jack', but it happened.

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

You would definitely not be wasting your time. If I am proved to be wrong on this one I will be the first to hold my hands up. I have never claimed to be 100% correct - these are simply my personal reflections on the way I see the case, as I was asked. I would very much like to hear anything which may further my understanding of the case, which is why I subscribe to Ripperologist and now the Examiner and come on here, after all, and also why I engage in conversations with the likes of Adam and yourself. I have no agenda here, honestly.

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.

I used the word 'attempt', perhaps wrongly, in terms of the fact that we can only 'attempt' to prove anything after so many years. I think I made it pretty clear that I think it is an excellent article, as is Adam's. It certainly does correct a lot of errors, and that is, as I said, long overdue.

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.

A fair point, but it could be that Kidney did not know the man's name. He may simply have been convinced (or had convinced himself) that if he was allowed to wander around the streets where he roughly knew he lived for a few hours with a constable, or go in the pubs he had seen him in, or similar, then he would have been able to point him out. You don't have to agree that is the most likely possibility - it isn't! - but I cannot see how you can say it is not a possibility. I would argue that declaring that he could solve the whole matter, or words to that effect, if given his way would indicate a pretty strong suspicion about either someone or something.



Thanks again for your reply, and I do appreciate you taking the time. As I say, feel free to PM me if you want, otherwise I look forward to any further reflections. But please don't get me wrong - I was simply answering a question, not criticising anyone.

Trevor.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Trevor, no worries. You're more polite than most, myself included, and it's always fun discussing a topic with someone who has a shared interest.

Firstly, I would like to say that I am not going to get into the whole Diemshitz spelling debate

Well, there's really no debate. One person took me on about it (Sam Flynn) but eventually even he had to conceed it's Diemshitz due to the documentary evidence.

Ripper Notes is dead in the water, though past issues exist (it was a print mag, you can still order copies at amazon and abe books) and are definitely worth having. Incidentally, I'm not arguing on behalf of Adam's essay nor in any way trying to compare his work to my own, although clearly we've reached some of the same conclusions.

Fair point, but let me clarify a little - what I should have said was that I do not BELIEVE that Stride would be included as a victim to the same extent were it not for the 'double event' factor.

And Annie Chapman wouldn't have been considered to the extent that she was had she been murdered with a potato. It's the same argument. You're disposing of one of the most significant facts of the entire case in order to dismiss Stride. It just won't work. You can't pick your facts. Two women died at the same time in the same place in the same way. If that is pure coincidence then it's an anomaly...something that hasn't happened before or since.

I would argue that declaring that he could solve the whole matter, or words to that effect, if given his way would indicate a pretty strong suspicion about either someone or something.

Not to be assumptive, but I don't think you read my essay. Kidney was given information by an unknown source whom I speculate was Charles Le Grand. He was not given the full story and felt that a 'strang young detective' might be able to elicit more information. He then later made a seperate comment to the effect that if he could place 100 constables, he could catch the murderer. None of this suggests he had a single individual in mind.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[tnb]

And Annie Chapman wouldn't have been considered to the extent that she was had she been murdered with a potato.

Fair play, that did make me laugh.

As for your LeGrand-as-the-source-of-Kidney's-information theory (and yes, I have read your essay) it is indeed interesting, and may yet be correct. However, unless I have missed something, there is no definitive evidence to prove it is the case; while very logical, it is nonetheless 'just' (respectfully) one way of looking at the facts, such as they have passed down to us. Therefore, other possibilities do still remain. Forgive me if I am wrong! I can't explain the hansom cab though...

Whatever the case, LeGrand is a fascinating character, and I await more coming out about him, as it now finally seems to be.

Unfortunately time is against me here right now - so 'Ta ta for now', as they say. But before signing off, I would like to second your opinion that it is indeed nice to have a cordial debate with those with a shared interest, but at the same time a different way of looking at things. I look forward to another such one day soon!

Trevor.

[Tom_Wescott]

As for your LeGrand-as-the-source-of-Kidney's-information theory (and yes, I have read your essay) it is indeed interesting, and may yet be correct. However, unless I have missed something, there is no definitive evidence to prove it is the case

Which is why I said I "speculated", but odds are I'm right. However, if Le Grand had a suspect, he would have asked for a detective to speak to the man, he would not have needed 100 cops placed strategically for this, nor would he have needed a cop to talk to a third party to get 'more information'. Simply put, he didn't have a suspect and was forming theories from third-hand information, like a proto-Perry Mason.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Hey Trevor and Tom,

Trevor:

Tom has pretty well answered most of the things that I would have done myself, but I'll just add on a couple of points to what you've said....

First, I'll just say that I didn't take your comments as bad or disrespectful in any way, not even close, I was simply curious about what particular points you felt weren't quite convincing enough! So long as you don't start suggesting that Liz was a spy, we'll be fine.....

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.

There definitely was a third knife murder on the night of Liz Stride's death, but that was a domestic with a husband who very quickly confessed, and it was in the West End as well IIRC. No doubt that violence was extremely common in the East End in 1888, and attacks and assaults were common, including with knives, but the difference is the way in which the victims were killed. It's one thing to threaten a woman with a knife, it's another to kill her in what is essentially a similar way except for the abdominal mutilation to another victim less than an hour later.

Infact, since Liz was killed at around 12.50 AM, and Catherine Eddowes was at 1.35 AM, give or take a couple of minutes in both cases, that is only 45 minutes difference, and we have to assume that there was 2 killers.....surely it has to be beyond coincidence?

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.

Well each person reacts differently when put in a tough scenario, and it's difficult to judge the actions of another because we are basing it on what we ourselves would do in that situation. I've stated elsewhere before that Kidney is simply put in the unfortunate position of being the "next best suspect" to JTR because of his relationship to the victim....

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.

There are only two possibilities for this. One is that he retreated further into the yard until Louis ran inside to search for his wife, and then bailed out the front gates, or that he went through the side door of the IWMEC and then back out the front door again, unseen because everyone was upstairs by that stage. The second option is not likely because the side door was locked from the outside, and could only be opened from inside the IWMEC. The first is a possibility, but perhaps more likely that he left the yard via the front gates before Diemschutz ever entered with his pony. Very tight scenarios otherwise.

Firstly, I would like to say that I am not going to get into the whole Diemshitz spelling debate, because, and I say this with the utmost respect, I have never seen the point of people getting so worked up about it.

Me neither. Let's stick with Diemschutz because it's more tasteful than Diemshitz, just like it's better to call Fanny Mortimer, Mrs. Mortimer....I personally don't care but I'm sure some people wouldn't like it too much. I used both Diemschutz and Mrs. Mortimer in the Stride article....

Anyway, thanks for all the very kind comments and good discussion Trevor, much appreciated.....

Tom:

First of all, thanks for clearing up some of the points Trevor mentioned already, and.....

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

Would you care to elaborate on here about that? Unfortunately at the present time I don't subscribe to Ripperologist (yes it's bad, I know, but I can assure you that it's not by choice) so I won't get to see what you have to say in the next Rip.....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

Me neither. Let's stick with Diemschutz because it's more tasteful than Diemshitz, just like it's better to call Fanny Mortimer, Mrs. Mortimer....I personally don't care but I'm sure some people wouldn't like it too much.

That's good history, folks. I love Adam to death, but our thought processes and agendas seem to be wildly different, which is why I don't think our work should be compared or taken as one.

Would you care to elaborate on here about that? Unfortunately at the present time I don't subscribe to Ripperologist (yes it's bad, I know, but I can assure you that it's not by choice) so I won't get to see what you have to say in the next Rip

I'm sure you will because the editors will probably give you an opportunity to respond. I just think some healthy debate is fun, and certainly accuracy is crucial.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Tom:

That's good history, folks. I love Adam to death, but our thought processes and agendas seem to be wildly different, which is why I don't think our work should be compared or taken as one.

Well let's be honest here, anyone who reads Ripperologist magazine is going to know who you're talking about, whether it's Diemschutz or Diemshitz. It is not a big deal and I would question whether Diemshitz is the accurate spelling anyway. The sources that I used all spell it as Diemschutz. The point is, the spelling of somebody's name hardly matters when you compare it to the facts that you're trying to establish elsewhere.

I'm sure you will because the editors will probably give you an opportunity to respond. I just think some healthy debate is fun, and certainly accuracy is crucial.

I'm not sure that they will, and in any case, I have no interest or desire in becoming entangled in a prolonged debate via e-mails to a magazine which comes out once a month. I would like to respond to your comments, but not if it means discussing it when the May issue comes out, because I don't want to take anything away from the May issue by arguing about something that was said in the April issue.....so if you wish to have a discussion about it, please do either post your comments on here, or even e-mail or PM them to me if you would prefer.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

It is not a big deal and I would question whether Diemshitz is the accurate spelling anyway. The sources that I used all spell it as Diemschutz.

Exactly. This goes back to what I was saying about our agendas, which seem to be different at this juncture. I'm all for correcting as many errors as I can to get at the truth. That's my total agenda. Comments like the above make it clear that's not where you're at right now, which I'll admit makes me a little snippy, because I feel like literally the only person in the world who really wants to clear all the cobwebs from Berner Street, because Jack is to be found somewhere on the night of the double event.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Tom:

I wouldn't have bothered to put the time and effort into writing A Matter Of Timeif it wasn't also my mission to clear away some of the conjecture surrounding the case, or in this case specifically Berner Street. Reading the article, it should be obvious that is the sole purpose of it. The difference is that i'm trying to exonerate a group of people (the IWMEC) rather than an individual (Michael Kidney).

Diemschutz/Diemshitz is such a trivialty as to barely be worth mentioning. I wouldn't mind betting most would agree with me. We're talking about murders and innocents being accused here. That's like two families being killed in a head-on car crash and then somebody walking along and saying "Oh damn, you squashed the rose bush on the side of the road..."

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

wouldn't have bothered to put the time and effort into writing A Matter Of Timeif it wasn't also my mission to clear away some of the conjecture surrounding the case, or in this case specifically Berner Street. Reading the article, it should be obvious that is the sole purpose of it.

You made some fascinating errors and omissions in your piece. What's more fascinating is that I corrected those errors and omissions when you were still working on the essay, and you included absolutely ZERO of the information I gave you, but instead chose to go forth with the errors and omissions. I've literally never seen a writer do that before in my life.

Diemschutz/Diemshitz is such a trivialty as to barely be worth mentioning. I wouldn't mind betting most would agree with me. We're talking about murders and innocents being accused here. That's like two families being killed in a head-on car crash and then somebody walking along and saying "Oh damn, you squashed the rose bush on the side of the road..."

Where have you been? Do you not remember the Catherine/Catharine debate of 10 or so years ago? History is all about the details. If you don't care about details, you don't care about history. I'm absolutely certain that the serious students of the case would not agree with you on this.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Adam Went]

Tom:

You made some fascinating errors and omissions in your piece. What's more fascinating is that I corrected those errors and omissions when you were still working on the essay, and you included absolutely ZERO of the information I gave you, but instead chose to go forth with the errors and omissions. I've literally never seen a writer do that before in my life.

I'm struggling to grasp what errors or omissions you could be referring to. If it's about the position of Schwartz relative to Pipeman, we've already been over that. Omissions? Anything that was omitted was only done so because it wasn't relevant to the article, or to try and maintain brevity, lest I write a book rather than an article. So I shall look forward to seeing exactly what it is that you point out.....if I hear so much as a whisper about Mrs. Mortimer having a 10 minute gap rather than a 30 minute gap again, there will be trouble.

Where have you been? Do you not remember the Catherine/Catharine debate of 10 or so years ago? History is all about the details. If you don't care about details, you don't care about history. I'm absolutely certain that the serious students of the case would not agree with you on this.

Considering I've only been involved in the JTR case since 2004, no, I imagine I would struggle to remember the debates that happened 10 years ago. The point is that there is a lot more important things to try and solve here than a letter or 2 in somebody's name.

You are the only one who has really had anything negative to say about the article, Tom, publicly or privately, which is fine, you have to accept criticism at times and I would welcome anyone else who has anything to say about the article to do so as well, but I can't escape the feeling that you are nitpicking just for the sake of making a twat of yourself.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

To knowingly get someones name wrong shows a gross lack of respect in my book.

If its been proven its Diemshitz then he should be addressed as such. Admittedly, in the great scheme of things its not essential however its still a detail and the devil is in there so they say, even if its out of respect or to avoid confusion at least,

Tom, has this evidence of Diemshitz been presented?

If so, where? If not can it be?

Monty

[Adam Went]

Not sure if that's a reference to me, Monty, but I'll make it clear in any case that I was not, and am not aware of any such evidence that the correct spelling is Diemshitz rather than Diemschutz. Wasn't even aware that it was an issue when the article was written.

Getting someone's name wrong, for whatever reason, is hardly a new phenomenon. It was going on even in 1888.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

Adam,

If I was going to refer to mate I would. No, I was merely expressing my opinion, for what it is worth.

Its a relatively new piece of information and if you are not up to speed then one can hardly be blamed for such things. It wasnt a criticism aimed at you. And it certainly doesnt, nor should it, detract from a very good piece. As I said, its hardly going to change the debate and is really semantics.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Adam, I'm shocked to see you behaving like this. We both decided that we'd each critique the other's essay upon publication. You're welcome to correct any errors I made by writing a letter to Casebook Examiner. I welcome the opportunity to improve my knowledge.

I'm struggling to grasp what errors or omissions you could be referring to. If it's about the position of Schwartz relative to Pipeman, we've already been over that.

Yes we have, and yet there it is.

if I hear so much as a whisper about Mrs. Mortimer having a 10 minute gap rather than a 30 minute gap again, there will be trouble

And why is that? There are two different press accounts of Mortimer, one well-detailed that fits with everything else, and then the one you have latched on to apparently to discredit Mortimer...for what purpose I don't know. It's of course your right to latch onto what you'd like, but it's also your burden to let your readers in on the fact that there's another, far more accepted, account relating to Mortimer that completely dashes your nonsensical notion that her evidence should be discredited (in spite of the fact that she remains the only corroborated witness).

The point is that there is a lot more important things to try and solve here than a letter or 2 in somebody's name.

You've been very clear about your take on factual accuracy, and as I stated was the case, you've seen what serious researchers think about your stance.

You are the only one who has really had anything negative to say about the article, Tom, publicly or privately,

This is because they don't know better and that's the only reason I'm bothering to put my neck out to correct your errors, although you seem to be aware that criticism comes with the territory of publication. I was raked over the coals by your editor when I published in Ripper Notes, so welcome to the club, my friend. 90% of what I have to say about your essay is positive. But here's my point...if I read Bob Smith's article on Frances Coles, and it contained a number of errors, some minor, some significant, I might not pick up on that because I - Tom - have not studied Coles to a great depth, but I would assume Bob has. Therefore, I might reference Bob's work in the future and repeat these errors without thinking twice. I think we owe it to each other to keep that stuff from happening as much as we can.

but I can't escape the feeling that you are nitpicking just for the sake of making a twat of yourself.

I tried to avoid all this on the forums by literally handing you my research. You didn't call me a twat then. You chose not to use it and published your essay, mistakes and omissions in tact. My sharing information with you was done out of friendship. Because of your actions I feel I now have a responsibility to share what I know with those who've read your article. It has absolutely nothing to do with you. I'm not insulting you at all, though I see you're calling me names and behaving more like Trevor than yourself.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott