Private sale

[Chris]

After all your moronic postings you still cannot answer a post sensibly without resorting to personal abuse.

I freely admit I have been adopting a "when in Rome" attitude on this gloriously silly thread - though I'm starting to realise I'll never match the accomplishments of the real experts.

But in all this glorious silliness, the one thing I find seriously frightening is that a man like you should ever have been entrusted with criminal investigation in a professional capacity.

[Stewart P Evans]

Oh dear...

I freely admit I have been adopting a "when in Rome" attitude on this gloriously silly thread - though I'm starting to realise I'll never match the accomplishments of the real experts.

But in all this glorious silliness, the one thing I find seriously frightening is that a man like you should ever have been entrusted with criminal investigation in a professional capacity.

Oh dear...

[Fisherman]

Stewart P Evans: One of the oddities (perhaps it's not odd) of Ripperology and suspect theorizing is that when you push a suspect of your own it has traditionally been deemed necessary to attack other people's theories regarding suspects and the material they use to support their suspects.

I think it is very logical to question (not attack, if I may choose a word for it) other theories, when promoting a suspect. It comes with the territory.

The reasons for this may seem obvious but, perhaps, should be restated here. Theorists, researchers, authors, and essay writers, have their own stature in the field and more notice is taken of some than others. Also the sources used in some cases are much better than sources used in other cases, particularly when they offer no evidence of a person being a suspect at all. We therefore find that when top authors and researchers, such as Paul Begg and Martin Fido, favour a theory (in this case based on Anderson and Swanson) a lot more notice is taken of them than those with lesser recognition in the field. Another result of this is evidenced in all the ego and stature building that goes on in these forums. Ergo Messrs Begg and Fido gain a greater following, and belief in their ideas, than do, say, 'Fisherman' and 'Lechmere', or Marriott for that matter.

Thatīs all very comprehensive and logical. But I would also like to point to the fact that the people you speak of are authors who have put books out on the market, and as such they are much better known than, say, "Fisherman" and "Lechmere". I would also propose that if these people had arrived today, new to Ripperology, they would have been regarded as fair prey for the killer whales of the ripper bog.

Now, donīt get me wrong - most of them would have shredded the killer whales quite easily, since they are all people with vast knowledge of the case.

The point I am making is that they would not enjoy the sheltered existence they have today without earning it first.

We are all travellers in the ripper world. Some will travel further, some will only enjoy a very short term before being discarded. Who ends up where is anybodys guess.

Anderson's writings and Swanson's annotations have long been the bedrock of the Polish Jew suspect theorizing, and it's a valid and rather solid bedrock to build upon. So, Paul and Martin are in a strong position with their Jewish suspects (especially 'Kosminski') as opposed to anyone who may have the temerity to suggest that Charles Cross, or Lechmere if you prefer it, was Jack the Ripper rather than a mere inquest witness.

Be that as it may, that was not what we were discussing. There are Lechmere threads better suited for that purpose.
What we discusses was whether the marginalia affected the Lechmere theory in a manner that somehow threatened his suspect status.

I donīt object to acknowledging Kosminskiīs status as an important suspect, but the topic is immaterial to our discussion.

So, there, I have explained the relevance of the 'marginalia' and of how its authenticity reflects upon a suspect theory that enjoys greater recognition, and following, than yours. It is, therefore, in your interest to cast as much doubt as you can on this valid suggestion as to the identity of the Ripper, as based on the writings of two very senior police officers involved in the case. But I am sure that you know that really.

No, I do not know that - it was new to me. I am more interested in promoting Lechmere and the things pointing to him, than in trying to dispell what points to other suspects. And again, dispelling the suggestion that Kosminski was Andersonīs Polish jew does in no shape or form alter the fact that we know that Anderson DID promote a poor Polish jew as the Ripper. That is beyond doubt.
However, Anderson himself is NOT beyond doubt, something that has been argued with heat by yourself. If you did this in order to "cast doubt" on the work of others, I canīt say - but Iīd like to think that the driving force behind it was factual more than vindictive. That is how I reason myself.

We are all interested in the genuineness of source material and the quality of the source material used in various theories. I'm afraid that in your case there seems to be only your own (and apparently a very few others) interpretation of what you regard as suspicious, such as an alternative name being used (I do hope that doesn't start another lengthy debate on this theory as this is not the place for it).

Potentially suspicious, would be my choice of words. And I donīt ascribe much to how many out here it is that agree with me, since I have a sneaking suspicion that many people will safeguard what marries best with their own thinking.

I should, perhaps, add here a little about my own position. I have been interested in the case for the past fifty two years, which is longer than some on these boards have been in the world. In 1965 my favoured suspect was Druitt (thanks to Cullen), and by the late 1980s it was 'Kosminski', (thanks to Messrs Begg and Fido). In 1993 I acquired the Littlechild letter which made it necessary for me to write my own book (published in 1995). I was reluctant to write a suspect based book but I really had no choice. I was also reluctant to include a chapter in that book dismissing other suspects, but I lost the argument on that one. After the paperback and TV documentary on Tumblety came out in 1996 I ceased any active research on Tumblety and left it to others interested in him. And I was realistic enough to know that he couldn't be proved to be the Ripper, nor was there any hard evidence.

Post 1996 I moved back into objective work on the case, as witness my subsequent publications. I am silly enough to sometimes be drawn into 'debates' about Tumblety, not arguing that he was Jack the Ripper (which could never be proven with regard to any suspect), but in answer to some ridiculous suggestions that he wasn't even a suspect. Some of the objective and relevant research and writing I have done since has involved a deep study of Sir Robert Anderson, upon whom some of the strongest suspect theorizing is based. I could not agree with writers who suggested that Anderson was some sort of paragon of virtue who simply would not lie or prevaricate in his published books (I proved that he did).

What I find typical for the ripper world here is the Tumblety business - I have no trouble seeing what your stance on the man is, but that wonīt help - you are going to be painted out as a firm believer in his guilt anyway. But this you know already. It is, however, a shame that things work like this - I am constantly being goaded for having changed my mind on Stride - all other comparisons aside.

So don't you presume to tell me anything about this case or Anderson.

Oh, I am not saying that I am no incredibly inferior in every way to you when it comes to Ripperology. Nor am I saying anything about where I rank myself on the list of ripperologists - for the simple reason that I donīt do it at all. It is uninteresting to me. I have sepnt around thirty years with the ripper myself - and that is something I donīt mind pointing out.
How it would make me any better or worse than other ripperologists, is however a topic I donīt engage in. Some pick things up fast, some never do. Mozart was dead and gone at the age of, what was it, thirty years?

Unlike you I have examined all the material being questioned here, and I have not been uncritical of it. However, I have to accept that the 'marginalia', in my considered opinion, is genuine as is the other Swanson material. Despite the unfortunate initial assessment of the 'marginalia' proper examinations have now been done, and as I stated I have no doubt that other document examiners would reach a similar conclusion, that the handwriting is, indeed, that of Donald Swanson.

I canīt see that I have objected to this, unless you propose that I must accept the marginalia as a consequence of it. I think there is a fair chance that the marginalia is genuine, and I think you are a very useful judge. What I donīt think is that the oddities involved have been fully explained. Maybe they can never be. But trying is never a bad thing.

It is also interesting to note that you refer to Cross (Lechmere) as 'my suspect', interesting use of the possessive there. He is obviously set to be your own personal claim to Ripper fame. By the way, were you aware that many years ago, on these very boards, someone suggested Cross as being suspect (before the name Lechmere was known) and they were quickly 'thrown overboard'. I fear there are many here who will 'throw your suspect overboard'. I think I shall steer clear of that one.

Illusions of grandeure, perhaps? Iīm afraid I must dispel that notion if anybody has it. I know that Lechmere has been promoted and researched before. He is my suspect nevertheless - the one I promote and believe in. You may consider the "my" very uncontroversial and totally free of any claim other than the claim to think he was the killer.
And yes, I am very much aware that Lechmere has not been universally accepted as a good bid for the killerīs role. I commend you on steering clear of throwing him overboard, though. You have a deep knowledge of the case, and people with a deep knowledge of the case will know that no such thing can be rationally defended.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

You have a problem with basic English comprehension,

Iīd say itīs the other way around - and your "take" on Davies is why.

Now, can we discuss the case?

Fisherman

[Ally]

Hi Ally.

Iīve seen it mentioned in two sources, but I could only find the one when I looked for it. I posted it earlier. A guy named Charkot, who is apparently a front figure of early PD research, mentioned this trait in his work.

Just how prevalent the trait is, I donīt know, since I have not been able to relocate that other source. It was discussed in more detail there, as I remember things.

All the best,
Fisherman

The second guy you were mentioning was merelyquoting repeating Charcot as he was doing a book about the history. So I did want to be clear that when you claim the upward stroke shakiness as a hallmark of PD like micrographia, you are merely pointing to the research of a single man from almost 150 years ago, who also thought Parkinson's was a hysterical disease brought about by neurosis, and that you had not, as I have not, found any modern evidence for this notion, including the recent handwriting study where computers analyzed the writing of Parkinson's patients?

[Ally]

The [endpaper notes] (in the marginalia copy of Andersonīs book) show evidence (signs or clear signs) of occasional tremor (shaky handwriting is what is caused by that tremor) which is similar (looks exactly like, is the exact same type as) to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Parkinson's.

Once again. Distortion of facts. Similar does not mean "exactly like". That is WRONG. It means the exact opposite. It means "near but not exacly the same" a definition I already put up on the boards. Like a donkey is similar to a zebra, not the same thing.

sim·i·lar
ˈsimələr/
adjective
adjective: similar

1.
resembling without being identical.

"The [endpaper notes] show evidence of occasional tremor which is similar to that sometimes found in the writing of individuals with certain neurological conditions, such as Huntingtonīs disease."

...
You in fact suggest that Davies picked PD out of the air, just to tell the world that there are people besides Swanson that shake when writing.

No I would suggest that Davies picked Parkinson's because it is the second most common neuro-degenerative disease and people would be far more likely to recognize its name and effects than Hunington's. In other words, he was picking a common example and presenting it to the layperson in terms they can understand which is what all professionals do.

[Ally]

But in all this glorious silliness, the one thing I find seriously frightening is that a man like you should ever have been entrusted with criminal investigation in a professional capacity.

Bam! And who will win the title is anyone's guess at this point.

[The Good Michael]

I freely admit I have been adopting a "when in Rome" attitude on this gloriously silly thread - though I'm starting to realise I'll never match the accomplishments of the real experts.

But in all this glorious silliness, the one thing I find seriously frightening is that a man like you should ever have been entrusted with criminal investigation in a professional capacity.

To be fair, detectives may start out fine and then be driven to madness. Once someone is employed by government, even madness isn't often enough of a reason to get rid of them.

Helpful Mike

[Fisherman]

The second guy you were mentioning was merelyquoting repeating Charcot as he was doing a book about the history. So I did want to be clear that when you claim the upward stroke shakiness as a hallmark of PD like micrographia, you are merely pointing to the research of a single man from almost 200 years ago, who also thought Parkinson's was a hysterical disease brought about by neurosis, and that you had not, as I have not, found any modern evidence for this notion, including the recent handwriting study where computers analyzed the writing of Parkinson's patients?

There was another, modern, source, as I said. I will try to fin it again, but so far, I have not succeeded.

Maybe itīs a parallel to Richard Nunweeks radio programme...? Hopefully not!
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Suspects

Stewart P Evans: One of the oddities (perhaps it's not odd) of Ripperology and suspect theorizing is that when you push a suspect of your own it has traditionally been deemed necessary to attack other people's theories regarding suspects and the material they use to support their suspects.
I think it is very logical to question (not attack, if I may choose a word for it) other theories, when promoting a suspect. It comes with the territory.
...

Fisherman[/B]

I suppose it could be argued that questioning, in this sense, is attacking. I know that it comes with the territory which is why I qualified it by saying 'traditionally'.

However, I do feel that many a 'suspect book' would have been better if it had devoted more time to the subject in hand rather than digressing onto (often complex and distracting) arguments against other suspects. It seems to also be a requirement of publishers which inevitably leads to great consumption of word count allowance, thus reducing the amount of relevant material an author might like to include on the suspect he is writing about.

[Fisherman]

Ally:

Once again. Distortion of facts. Similar does not mean "exactly like".

This has been discussed already; please scroll back and read.

No I would suggest that Davies picked Parkinson's because it is the second most common neuro-degenerative disease and people would be far more likely to recognize its name and effects than Hunington's. In other words, he was picking a common example and presenting it to the layperson in terms they can understand which is what all professionals do.

Iīm sorry, I just donīt buy that for a second. There was no need whatsoever to name any disease, and if he would feel like doing this all the same just to exemplify with something/anything (which I donīt believe he would), why did he not just use PD- which, as you say, is known to many people. Why did he specify that he was speaking of "certain" neurological diseases - and why did he speak of the group to which PD belongs? Surely, most people do NOT know that this is a group of around 50?

If he wanted to be very clear, he could have said that neurological diseases cause a tremor. But why predispose it WAS a neurological disease at all?

If he wanted to exemplify with PD - that people are aware of - then why speak of a GROUP of PD-related neurological diseases?

I think you are dead wrong here. But you are in your full right to be so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ally]

There was another, modern, source, as I said. I will try to fin it again, but so far, I have not succeeded.

Maybe itīs a parallel to Richard Nunweeks radio programme...? Hopefully not!
Fisherman

How do you explain the recent study where actual computers analyzed the strokes of known Parkinson's patients and this was not included as a component of their handwriting?

[Chris]

Now, can we discuss the case?

Of course we can't, if you're going to carry on behaving as you have been so far. I don't know whether it's really poor understanding of English, or a deliberate tactic to try to confuse the issues, or sheer bloody mindedness. But it makes any attempt at serious discussion absolutely impossible.

And unfortunately it makes any attempt at silly discussion quite hard too ...

[Hunter]

The instruction from the Commissioner, dated 15 September 1888, putting Swanson in charge of the case is undoubtedly genuine. I state this having examined, photographed and analysed it.

Indeed, it was I who identified it as having originated with Warren, and not Anderson, as had previously been assumed and even published as such. It amazes me how people who have not even seen these documents feel happy to proclaim on their authenticity based on their own biased theorizing.

Hi Stewart,

There are several indications in the photocopies of Warren's Sept. 15 instruction memo pointing to it being genuine, but as a layman, my pointing them out would offer little credibility as opposed to someone who has actually seen and photographed the original, is a former policeman and familiar with the procedure of such internal memos. Perhaps, when you have a moment, you could indicate what these are for the benefit of those who might not be aware or have not considered this document in detail.

Thanks

[Chris]

Perhaps, when you have a moment, you could indicate what these are for the benefit of those who might not be aware or have not considered this document in detail.

I'm sure that would be interesting, though on the other hand it may generate a thread containing 1200 posts in which a tiny but dedicated band desperately try to manufacture reasons to think the document is a fake ...