Ripperologist 125: April 2012

[Phil Carter]

This is an idea I would have scoffed at five years ago. But not now. The evidence is starting to pile up. I can't wait to read it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

Sadly, some will never believe that the background of 1888's ongoings in Whitechapel, London, Parliament, Scotland Yard and Politics is the key to all this. One of my first posts on here said so and was roundly scoffed at. It was a conclusion I personally came to in about 1978, after deciding that no author was at that time anywhere near the truth.

I will just mention that the involvement of Special Branch in the same area at the same time has cross over points. Monro too. But then, it rather shoots down the 'must keep the old nutmegs afloat' supporters.
The evidence has been there for years- but some just wont open their eyes to the blooming obvious, aod others HAVE to keep the hand-me-downs of Aberconway and Co going. With no evidence to place any of them near the murders on the nights in question- and conveniently all ThEIR files missing/pesumed lost/pulped/burnt/stolen- But loads of totally innocent files still around.

Funny that all the 'important' stuff on these PRIME SUSPECTS is the stuff missing/presumed lost/pulped/stolen isnt it?
More likely they didnt exist in the first place. No one has evidence they ever did- but the argument put forward is we have to prove that files on Druitt, Kosminski Ostrog, Le Grande and Tumblety DIDNT ever exist. (Nothing personal I assure you)

Thats how the Merry go round is operated Tom.
And God help anyone who calls it utterly worn out hogwash.

But hey- it wouldnt be fun anymore if the all-seeing,all silent, all deftly, all looney, all-in-control, multi-murdering genius is put to beddy-byes would it? There are after all reputations and egos to consider. Its strange that it isnt until after they die that reputations are dared to be ripped to pieces- ask McCormick and Farson that started the modern 'theories'- thanks to dear Lady Aberconway who suddenly turned against her own and her father's written words in later life and supported the 'next' big theory about someone 'high up'.

There has been a whole lot of game playing going on- then and since. And the evidence for that has been 'piling up' for ages too. And a few people know full well too.

Just my thoughts on your excellent comment.

Best wishes

Phil

[The Grave Maurice]

I'm falling behind in my reading because I'm quite busy at work, so I can't read much there, and we're doing a spot of home reno, so I can't read much at home. <Sigh>

I've managed to get through Mark's article on Ada which was brilliant, and I'm about half-way through Lynn's piece on Jacob which, so far, is also brilliant. I liked the way Lynn structured his article by starting with what he intended to prove. Nice touch.

And anything Gareth writes is fine with me.

[lynn cates]

academe

Hello Ken. Thanks for that. My class in grad school got a bawling out for not structuring their papers that way. "You guys--ALWAYS put your thesis first, then how you will argue. Argue. And your conclusion should be, 'see, I did it.'"

Ah, those were the days.

Cheers.
LC

[The Grave Maurice]

Yeah, Lynn, I had the same sort of profs: "Tell them what you're going to tell them; tell them; then, tell them what you've told them." It's a technique that seems to have gone out of style, but it still works well.

[lynn cates]

writing

Hello Ken. Thanks. Sadly, most writing has gone out of style.

Cheers.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

I enjoyed your article, Simon.

Quoting you:

The most simple and elegant explanation for the Whitechapel murders remaining a mystery is that all these top policemen were being deceptive.

Do you mean police didn't know who commited the murders, or police did know who committed the murders but didn't say or lied.

Here's another quote, Simon :

But to lean the truth we must first stop believing in Jack the Ripper.

Do you mean there were no murders? Were these suicides, assasinations, mob hits, what?

You may begin please, because, and I mean this, I enjoy your articles and your posts, Simon, but I'm still not "getting" it.

Roy

[Beowulf]

Have not gotten my copy as yet. Really want to read it as I see these comments!

[PaulB]

You should have done. PM me or email Adam.
Paul

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Barb

Didn't you get my pm?

Maybe your email program removed the attachment? I have had that happen to myself. I sent myself a sound file and it didn't arrive... the email did but no attachment. Send me your email address and I will try to get it to you.

All the best

Chris

[AdamNeilWood]

Hi Chris,

Already sorted, thanks. It seems the attachment was being stripped out as you suggest.

Adam

[ChrisGeorge]

Good to hear. Thanks, Adam.

Cheers

Chris

[Roy Corduroy]

the background of 1888's ongoings in Whitechapel, London, Parliament, Scotland Yard and Politics is the key to all this.

Great, we have the key. I'm ready. Explain it to us. I'm all ears Phil.

the involvement of Special Branch in the same area at the same time has cross over points. Monro too.

That's fantastic, Phil. Okay, I'm sitting on ready. Please explain.

Or, if I hear the words politics, parliament, Scotland Yard, Special Branch, or the name Monro, am I supposed to just stop in my tracks? Frozen, like a deer in the headlights? Overwhelmed by it all? Hope I don't have to hold that pose long.

I don't understand Phil. I don't know what your conclusion is. You've never said. But I wil gladly listen. You may begin now. Please.

Roy

[Wyatt Earp]

Great issue, congrats to all involved. A quick question about the Ada Wilson article: if she was posing as a married woman, isn't it possible that the "Ada Wilson" name itself was wholly a fabrication of hers? This might explain the difficulty in locating a good match for her in the government records.

[Beowulf]

Hi Chris,

Already sorted, thanks. It seems the attachment was being stripped out as you suggest.

Adam

Thank you Adam, thank you ChrisGeorge!

and I add a very relaxed aaaahhh, lovely.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Grave and Lynn. Yes, but Lynn did not set out the intention of his thesis in the beginning. He said "I think Jacob killed Polly and Annie," which he most certainly did not prove. And I'm here to tell you that this choice set many, many readers against him from the onset, which is a shame, because he succeeded on other grounds. If he had just said "I intend to demonstrate why Abberline focused in on Jacob as the prime suspect in these murders," then I think people would have read his work with a more open mind. Also, I didn't understand the point of all the 'Leather Apron' stuff. That in no way strengthens the argument either for Jacob as a murderer or for why Abberline would have held such suspicions against him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott