The Neurasthenia Complaint

[How Brown]

Over the course of the last few years, I've been at fault for not providing all of the elements of the Donston Hoax on the boards that I have encountered during that time. Over the last three days I was able to remember this one...and its important,I believe.

Everyone by now is aware of the original assessments made by the late Melvin Harris and his protege,Edwards, about D'onston's complaint of neurasthenia, which,as an aside, was hardly taken lightly by mid 19th century/LVP physicians. One article which I found and is under the "News From Philadelphia" will provide the Forums member with a professional opinion of this malady or complaint from contemporary sources.

As always,I strive to use the words & works of Harris & Co. to demonstrate the intentional attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear...that being of fluffing up Stephenson and his non-existent candidacy as a suspect after December 26th,1888.

I ask the reader to peruse the following statements direct from "The True Face of Jack The Ripper". I apologize for not bringing this up a long time ago...as I had for some reason thought I already had, but misplaced it.

From page 110:

"It is July 1888. D'onston is living there in Brighton, just minutes from the sea front, when he suddenly puts on an act that he is suffering from neurasthenia..."

Further along...

" His complaint was certainly faked.."

First of all....It is impossible that anyone "puts on an act" of a complaint such as neurasthenia. This sort of complaint must be diagnosed by a physician. Its not like a gunshot wound,where no one needs a degree from Heidelberg to determine whats "wrong". This neurasthenia came in various forms, such as a lung problem...which could be either bronchitis, asthma, lung cancer, pneumonia, etc.

Secondly...Stephenson therefore could not "fake" what the attending physician was responsible for diagnosing in the first place. Stephenson, and this is also part of this scam that he was a suspect, could not diagnose himself and have what he determined his ailment be found on the list as to what ailment or condition he had.

It is my firm belief that since neurasthenia was not a debilitating ailment in terms of preventing a person from perambulation and the obvious fact that Mr.Harris had no idea how serious neurasthenia really was considered during the time, that it became easy to dismiss what the LH physicians, not Stephenson, diagnosed as his July 26th complaint....a complaint that only the physicians could diagnose.

As always, if anyone wishes to discuss this further ,please feel free to chat it up. That includes civilians and other Ripperologists who are not members of JTRForums.

I'm still trying to recall other areas...and trust me,I will.:kiss:

[Mike Covell]

From page 110:

"It is July 1888. D'onston is living there in Brighton, just minutes from the sea front, when he suddenly puts on an act that he is suffering from neurasthenia..."

Further along...

" His complaint was certainly faked.."



100+ years later and this guy can read Stephenson's mind!! Must let the Most Haunted Team know about his talents!!

:banghead:

[How Brown]

Mike:

I hear you,buddy.

Along with a few other people who bought into this "faked neurasthenia", it appears that the complaint was serious enough for physicians to recommend long hospital stays. There's another article I think I put up regarding neurasthenics where some woman had the complaint for three years or so as well as others who were affected with it.

However, my point to all of this is not the argument that people could fake neurasthenia ( why they would do that is beyond me at this point after finding out exactly what this affliction was )...but that Harris, in an uncanny move for a professional investigator,no less, somehow determined out of the blue with no prior data regarding Stephenson's medical history,save the gunshot in 1868... that Stephenson went into "an act" where he,Stephenson, would fake a complaint that only a physician can diagnose!!! No one can go to the doctor or hospital without some prior history of a complaint or specific condition and expect to not be scrutinized. Mr. Harris knew that. What he,along with everyone else here, didn't know and probably will never know, is whether Stephenson had a prior history of neurasthenia. Had he known that, then and only then, could the assumption that Stephenson could have or would have conjured up a "diabolical plan" to bamboozle the doctors at the LH be remotely viable.

Nina mentioned something this morning on the way to work about the possibility of Stephenson going to a Brighton doctor and getting some sort of confirmation of the neurasthenic condition before he went to the London Hospital in late July of 1888.

As good as an idea as that is...the "problem" with that idea is that had Stephenson gone to a physician in Brighton prior to going to the LH, it means that Stephenson would have been diagnosed as a neurasthenic in Brighton by a doctor, not on his own determination of what he had. In short, it still means a doctor, not Stephenson, came up with the diagnosis of neurasthenia.

Mr. Harris invented this scenario that Stephenson was capable of waltzing into the LH and telling them what he had and the doctors,without examining Stephenson,accepting Stephenson's word for it.

You know what its like yourself, Mike. Go to the doctor with pains in the arm. You know how you hurt your arm. The doctor will examine your arm, regardless of what you tell him, to develop his own determination of the problem and prescribe medicine ( pills or as in the case of Stephenson,bed rest ) based on his examination, NOT what you tell him.

Why? Because people very often conceal things from doctors. Some will go to their physician and describe their particular condition, but not their lifestyle which may be conducive to the complaint.

Drug abusers will complain of aches and pains and go to their physician expecting painkillers for their pains. Often doctors will refrain from dispensing narcotics and offer anti-inflammatory drugs to combat the real or imagined pain. My step-daughter is a physician and this sort of behavior is common with patients...especially those who have issues with substance abuse and Stephenson clearly did.

In essence, the theory of the faked neurasthenia was developed out of thin air as well as a convienent way of covering up for the original gaffe in when Stephenson entered the LH as proposed by Mr. Harris in "The Ripper File".....In essence,regardless of how severe Stephenson's hospital diagnosed condition really was, Stephenson was NOT responsible for the determination of what he had the instant he was sized up by the hospital staff. .

We now see that there was no basis for the theory of faked neurasthenia, other than the declaration that Stephenson faked it by someone who merely "says" he did just that with no justification behind the statement. A neat trick that went over people's heads for 14 years or so.

Those of us involved with the bizarre saga of Stephenson can easily access, as could Mr. Harris ( no Internet access required or post-1994 "revelations" necessary to investigate neurasthenia), the mounds of cases and evidence that doctors took this complaint seriously enough to prescribe long periods of bed rest for those afflicted with this complaint..

Which in the long run they did when they put Stephenson in a bed for 19 and 1/2 weeks in 1888..........

[How Brown]

To demonstrate further what neurasthenia was back in the days of the LVP, I'll be adding newspaper reports on this thread from the United States. Some recommended cocaine, but in minute doses, to treat this complaint.

[How Brown]

San Francisco Builletin
April 2, 1881
Page 1
NEW PUBLICATIONS
THE AMERICAN DISEASE
Disease of the nervous system is one of the most important as well as one of the most interesting subjects which the physician of to-day is called upon to study. That which the study of electricity is to physics, the investigation of the phenomena of that equally mysterious agent: nerve force, is to the science of medicine and there is reason to believe that medical scientists will make, in this field of observation, discoveries that will minister as much to the physical and mental well being of man as those of modern electricians have contributed to his convienience and pleasure. The nervous systme of man is still a "terra incognito" in spite of the many efforts to discover its mysteries. Explorers in this dark region of science have as yet hardly passed its external boundaries. Nut a book entitled, A Treatise on Nervous Exhaustion recently published by Dr. George M. Beard of New York, has thrown a great deal of light upon one portion of this unknown land. Yet, if the ideas of Dr. Beard are not wholly recieved by the medical profession, it is to be hoped that his wholesome dennounciation of the relaince of the physicians of America upon those of Europe for new truths in medical science will bear good fruit. In an article in the North American Review, a few months ago, Dr. Beard refers to this fact in strong language and remarks that while the Anglo Saxon race has no superior in point of physical courage, it is a coward when brought face to face with an idea. Germany and France boldly invade unknown realms of thought and bring hence captive new ideas in science and philosophy, which the timid Anglo-Saxon,after long delay, adopts.
It is remarked by all observing medical men that the number of nervous diseases is increasing. It is alleged that during the past fifty years more new diseases of a nervous disorder have been developed than during the preceding five centuries. This rapid increase in this class of disease is claimed to be and is, doubtless, due to the civilization of the present century. The civilization of America is typical of that of the nineteenth century and it is in America that new nervous diseases are to the greatest extent developed. Although they are to be found in Europe they are comparitively rare, but are there found in greatest numbers in those countries which are more in accord with the spirit of the age. In this country,likewise, nervous disease is in a great measure confined to those sections noted for enterprise and progress. And among individuals those in the higher ranks of life and who are doubtless most thorougly imbued with the spirit of the age. furnish the greatest number of victims to this most important disease of modern times. In Dr. Beard's book which treats only of nervous exhaustion, no effort is made to show the causes of the increase in nervous disease during the present century. That subject will be made an important and interesting feature of a work now in preparation. In the book now under discussion, Dr. Beard has confined himself to the examination of the disease whose symptoms have given rise to the vague terms "general debility", "nervous prostration", etc. These symptoms are multitudinous, the larger part are vague and fleeting, and until the investigation of Dr. Beard, no physician has known clearly what they indicated. In many instances the symptoms have been considered the disease and have been treated accordingly and with the result to be expected. It is therefore a matter of no little moment to the people of the present age who undoubtedly suffer more from nervous disease than from any other to have its vast army of symptoms marebated(?) in orderly array, the central influence which sets them in motion clearly pointed out and the best mthod of attacking it shown.
The disease which Dr. Beard describes he has named "neurasthenia", a term descriptive of its principle characteristic and meaning a lack of nerve force. Neurasthenia results from defective nutrition of the nerve centers and being therefore,simply functional, is susceptible of radical cure. Among the many symptoms of neurasthenia are sick headache, heaviness in the head,various affections of the eyes, mental irritability, hopelessness,morbid fears of various kinds, insomnia,drowsiness,dyspepsia,deficient thirst,desire for stimulants or narcotics,irregularity in the action of the heart,special idiosyncrasies,etc. In fact the symptoms appear in all parts and in all organs of the body and are widely different in character. Among its *****are melancholia,inebriety,opiomania,hysteria,hay fever,somnambulism,and certain kinds of professional cramp. The treatment of neurasthenia as laid down by Dr. Beard, is plain,direct, and comprehensive. In the matter of diet he insists on increasing the amount of fat in the food. " One of the great wants of the day," he says, " is an increase of fat in the food and fat insuch a form that it can be easily assimilated without injuring seriously the digestive apparatus. Our fathers could eat pork and digest it and thus they obtained in their daily meals all the fat the system needed-sometimes,perhaps- in excess; but we cannot digest pork as they could and consequently, we are suffering in all directions from want of fat." It is gratifying to see that mental therapeutics is beginning to obtain that share of consideration which its importance demands. Hitherto, it is to be feared, this method of treatment has been employed too exclusively by the more cunning of that class of practitioners known as "quacks". But scientific medical men have proved beyond dispute the great influence of mind over disease and have made use of their knowledge to good purpose. Dr. Beard states that "by turning the mind of the patient on his body through any process whatever, as by stating the precise hour when recovery will take place. It is possible to cure permanently as well as very rapidly and in some cases instantaneously, cases of long standing functional nervous disease. Even organic structural disease may,in the same way, be relieved temporarily more speedily and satisfactorily than any of our objective medication". Charcot of Paris has recently neem experimenting with metals brough in contact with the body and although data sufficient to establish satisfactorily the efficacy of this method of treatment have not yet been obtained. Dr. Beard points to the fact that great results have been obtaine in physics from similar influences vs. an argument in favor of metal therapeutics. It is a question, he says, worthy investigation. Another method of treatment which has proved very efficacious in the hands of modern physicians is "massage" or "lomi-lomi" as it is called by the natives of the Hawaiian Islands. This treatment consists of pinching the skin or muscles or by tapping or beating. This method of treatment was brought to the notice of the medical profession about seven years ago by Dr. Meiger of Amsterdam. With regard to the administration of medicines, Dr. Beard says that "the difference in effect between a large and even an average dose and a very small dose is great and radical and that in different doses the same remedy may be used in different diseases; thus the domain of therapeutics has been greatly widened."

The book is a very able, a very interesting and a very comprehensive treatise on a very important branch of medical science and should be carefully examined by the medical profession.

Published by William Wood & Co., New York. For sale by Bancroft & Co.

[How Brown]

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87-postviralsyndrome.html

George Beard is the doctor who first named neurasthenia back in the 1860's.

[How Brown]

Referring back to the original posts on this thread and the statements made by Mr. Harris regarding Stephenson "faking" neurasthenia and Harris's argument that neurasthenia was 'easy to fake", which has also been stated on message boards by those who aren't in the know or simply haven't taken the time to examine what neurasthenia "is" or "was" :

Let us use this analogy to demonstrate the issue at hand.....

1.Big Jon Rees of JTRForums has been having a lot of problems focusing lately and has decided to go to Dr. Joseph Chetcuti for advice/remedy. His eyes have been acting up.

2.Debbie Dobbins is complaining of having problems with sleep. She has trouble getting 7 or 8 hours of sleep and has also decided to seek out Dr. Joe.

3.Tim Mosley has trouble staying awake during the day. He decides to go see Dr. Joe.

How Brown has a desire for stimulants and narcotics. He's normal.

4.Chris George has been complaining of dyspepsia. So its off to Dr. Joe

All 4 are examined by Dr. Joe and it is entirely possible that Dr. Chetcuti would ascertain their complaints as being of a neurasthenic nature. All these symptoms are mentioned in a prior post by the doctor who originated the term "neurasthenia".

Despite each individual having a different symptom of some different malady or illness, each could be ascertained as having neurasthenia.

This is the salient point to the neurasthenic argument. That Stephenson could not, repeat, could not go to a doctor and complain of neurasthenia, since it is not in itself a definable disease, but rather a complaint with a multitude of different symptoms. Only a doctor can diagnose this complaint....not a patient.

Therefore, when we read from Harris that Stephenson conjured up the "plan" to "fake" neurasthenia, he was dead wrong.

Harris either never read any literature on this diagnosed condition, as some of us likewise, didn't:banghead:...or he did and somehow "overlooked" the facts. Some took his word that neurasthenia was a specific ailment, which could be "faked"...something like a "tummy ache'. Neurasthenia is a general description of nervous system disorder, which has, again, many symptoms.

If Harris HAD read any of the literature on this complaint, then something is really out of order here for him to state that Stephenson's complaint was "certainly faked". He would have seen immediately that if anyone's diagnosis of what Stephenson had was wrong, then it was the London Hospital physician who was wrong. That is something that no one can rightfully state since there is no way we know what Stephenson had that was determined to be neurasthenia ( trouble with his eyes,sleep disorder,dyspepsia,insomnia, like the four people in the analogy had). To claim it was faked or conjured up is a baseless argument.

What is alarming and should be discussed further by Stephensonian researchers is what Stephenson did have that was classified as neurasthenia, since no one may ever know what Stephenson had and caused him to enter the London Hospital on July 26th, 1888.....unlike the May 1889 return for chloral hydrate abuse, which is a specific complaint or illness.

[Chris G.]

Hello Howard

Harris claimed that D'Onston was suffering from neurosthenia not neurasthenia. This may be splitting hairs about the symptoms of two diseases that are similar psychological complaints and not really valid medical conditions that would be recognized today--though "neurasthenia" as you point out was first recognized as a type of nervous exhaustion by Dr. George Beard in the 1860's. I had communication from him after I published my article on D'Onston in Ripperologist No. 24, August 1999, "Letter from the Sickbed: D'Onston Writes to the Police" (http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-donstonwrites.html) in which I wrote that he had neurasthenia. Harris wanted us to run an erratum but ultimately we did not and I felt the distinction between the conditions was non-existent. The main point is that Harris was claiming D'Onston was faking a disease, whatever it was.

In any case, nonetheless, we should be clear on what Harris did actually write.

Howard above you say:

I ask the reader to peruse the following statements direct from "The True Face of Jack The Ripper". I apologize for not bringing this up a long time ago...as I had for some reason thought I already had, but misplaced it.

From page 110:

"It is July 1888. D'onston is living there in Brighton, just minutes from the sea front, when he suddenly puts on an act that he is suffering from neurasthenia..."

Further along...

" His complaint was certainly faked.."

-- But read the page again.

What Harris wrote on p. 110 of The True Face of Jack the Ripper is (my emphasis),

"It is July 1888. D'Onston is living there in Brighton, just minutes from the sea-front, when he suddenly puts on an act that he is suffering from neurosthenia. Now this describes a state of excitability and should not be confused with neurasthenia, its exact opposite. The treatment for neurosthenia was simple: a light diet, plenty of rest, no stimulants, and fresh air. . . . His complaint was certainly faked. The symptoms: excitability, tension, sleeplessness, are easy to assume or induce. And this man, with his medical training, knew a great deal about inducing bodily reactions."

Chris

[How Brown]

Chris:

No,Harris did not claim that Donston faked a disease. He claimed Donston faked a condition. Again, you cannot fake neurasthenia since only a doctor can determine whether the complaint you bring to him could be considered neurasthenic. Neurasthenia is a condition with a multitude of different symptoms. How the hell could Harris know which one RDS had? Thats right, he couldn't.

Besides,Harris botched the whole thing up in the first place as he did not pay attention to the discharge sheet.

Royal London Hospital Archives document reference LH/M/1/16 London Hospital register of in patients, 1888
Page heading: Physicians male patients
Date of admission: 26th July 1888
General number: 1146
Without ticket number: 735
Name: Roslyn Stephenson
Residence: Cricketers Inn, Black Lion Street, Brighton
Age: 47
Civil state: Married
Occupation: Journalist
Ward: Currie [deleted], Davis [substituted]
Case: Neurasthenia
Physician: Sutton
Date of discharge: 7th December 1888
Condition on discharge: Relieved
Number of days in hospital: 134


Once more, someone proves my point about this whole scam and charade... and its you Chris.

Harris HAD to have seen the discharge sheet in order to invent the baseless argument about neurasthenia being faked,since he mentions the condition incorrectly on page 110 as you have pointed out and posits that it was neurosthenia..

If he had NOT seen the discharge sheet,he would not have known what the doctors ( not Stephenson ) diagnosed him with in the first place.

Here again we have deliberate manipulation by Harris.

Harris knew the discharge sheet said neurasthenia. He changed it deliberately in his book. Why?

Thanks for catching my gaffe...and anyway its 6 or 1/2 dozen of the other. Stephenson did not and could not go to the LH and complain of neurasthenia or neurosthenia.

[Chris G.]

Chris:

No,Harris did not claim that Donston faked a disease. He claimed Donston faked a condition. Again, you cannot fake neurasthenia since only a doctor can determine whether the complaint you bring to him could be considered neurasthenic. Neurasthenia is a condition with a multitude of different symptoms. How the hell could Harris know which one RDS had? Thats right, he couldn't.

Besides,Harris botched the whole thing up in the first place as he did not pay attention to the discharge sheet.

Royal London Hospital Archives document reference LH/M/1/16 London Hospital register of in patients, 1888
Page heading: Physicians male patients
Date of admission: 26th July 1888
General number: 1146
Without ticket number: 735
Name: Roslyn Stephenson
Residence: Cricketers Inn, Black Lion Street, Brighton
Age: 47
Civil state: Married
Occupation: Journalist
Ward: Currie [deleted], Davis [substituted]
Case: Neurasthenia
Physician: Sutton
Date of discharge: 7th December 1888
Condition on discharge: Relieved
Number of days in hospital: 134


Once more, someone proves my point about this whole scam and charade... and its you Chris.

Harris HAD to have seen the discharge sheet in order to invent the baseless argument about neurasthenia being faked,since he mentions the condition incorrectly on page 110 as you have pointed out and posits that it was neurosthenia..

If he had NOT seen the discharge sheet,he would not have known what the doctors ( not Stephenson ) diagnosed him with in the first place.

Here again we have deliberate manipulation by Harris.

Harris knew the discharge sheet said neurasthenia. He changed it deliberately in his book. Why?

Thanks for catching my gaffe...and anyway its 6 or 1/2 dozen of the other. Stephenson did not and could not go to the LH and complain of neurasthenia or neurosthenia.

Hi Howard

It seems a silly thing to do, for Harris to claim D'Onston faked neurothesia when the discharge register actually says the condition for which the suspect was hospitalized was neurasthesia and then for Harris to make a big point of it in his book that D'Onston most assuredly did not have neurasthesia, supposedly an opposing condition. How about rather than it being a case of manipulation or deception on Harris's part but more likely a simple mistake and an advanced case of "suspectitis"?

Chris

[How Brown]

Hi Howard

It seems a silly thing to do, for Harris to claim D'Onston faked neurosthenia when the discharge register actually says the condition for which the suspect was hospitalized was neurasthenia and then for Harris to make a big point of it in his book that D'Onston most assuredly did not have neurasthenia, supposedly an opposing condition. How about rather than it being a case of manipulation or deception on Harris's part but more likely a simple mistake and an advanced case of "suspectitis"?

Chris:

My position,since I don't speak for anyone else but myself, is that the ENTIRE D'onston-as-suspect ( much less as JTR ) argument ( and of course,I helped "push" the argument myself,based in part on the possibility of RDS feigning an illness...an illness which is in reality, a condition that we now know cannot be self-diagnosed...and I believe Harris knew that too)... is a Hoax. Pure and simple,cut and dried. There is one more bit of manipulation to come in regard to sourceable material regarding this issue..

This "faking neurasthenia" position IS a manipulation of the evidence...evidence that Harris saw and ostensibly Edwards ( who went a step further when he actually DID put "neurosthenia" in his book, when it clearly does not say that on the register ) saw or was told as being evident on the register.

How in the world can it NOT be a manipulation of evidence, when Harris altered the register's complaint entry and gives his baseless argument for what HE thinks RDS has as some sort of fact?

This man was one of those who wailed about "standards" in Ripperology and jumped all over anyone for the slightest and accidental ( see how he handles Begg,Fido and Skinner on page 130 of the hardback "True Face" for just one mistake these three made regarding Stead's alleged comments on per ano penetration of Kelly) misrepresentation of statements or declarations...and yet,I can name several mistakes...some yet to come out in consideration to another writer's project...but they will...that are intentional.

Others may believe what they wish as far as it being a case of "suspectitis", but I don't.

[Chris G.]

Hi Howard

I suppose my point of view is, why fake what is in D'Onston's discharge record to say that it says neurosthenia when someone can come along, as they have, and discover that it actually says neurasthenia? Wouldn't that be like having someone come along and find your hand in the till? This strikes me more to me as an honest mistake on Harris's part and, as I indicated, part of his drive to pillory D'Onston as the killer, rather than deliberate deception by Melvin Harris.

Yes you can say that the whole idea to portray Robert D'Onston Stephenson as the murderer was a hoax, but I have yet to be convinced that the motive on the part of either Melvin Harris or Ivor Edwards was actually an attempt to dupe the public more than it was self-deception.

Thus, Howard, I encourage you to try to convince me that you are right. The best of luck in doing so, Howie.

All the best

Chris

[How Brown]

Self deception: A woman who still believes that her husband is the epitome of fidelity, despite her finding women's underwear in a closet or stashed away by her husband in their home that are not hers...

Hoax: Taking sourceable material...altering key elements ( the "neurasthenia" to neurosthenia bit...omitting the name of the ward RDS was in when reproducing the entire October 16th letter from the Currie Ward...as well as other bits & pieces of Stephenson's saga....combined with the hope that your presentation will be accepted and not fully examined or accessed ( the CH records,for example, have never been discussed, but will be ) and you've got a hoax suspect. One person promoting this farce is bad enough, but two supporting it...and the most recent one fearful of even debating the issues openly demonstrates to me, at least, that it isn't a mere case of two delusional figures...but a sham. Its a bad cook that can't lick his own fingers.

When McCormick manipulated "facts", he was labelled a prevaricator. I'm only pointing out this specific incident in the career of the one Ripperologist, not his entire career.

[How Brown]

Chris:

Here's an easy to understand example ( for those not so well versed in this scam) of what I mean.

On a recent ( 2006 or 2007 ) episode of "Is It Real?", Edwards is seen on television rambling on about RDS ( a doctor,a Satanist,blah blah blah) without ever providing a source for these claims.

However, he did have a source for the location inside the London Hospital...and as well as actually denying RDS was ever in it ( ask Mike Covell if you think this is a joke ), the Currie Ward..and like Harris, pretends that each room or ward inside the institution was "equal' in that access to the outside was available for the sinecured patient upon asking. Thats false.

These two knew that by omitting the mention of that Ward, that people would assume that there was no problem or difficulty for anyone to traipse around the streets at night despite being hospitalized. This is one of the "parts" of the scam that "got me" back in the day.

Of course,there's an obstacle in RDS leaving the facility, namely the protocol for that Ward in question. A ward that he was in up until the middle of October when at least 4 of the 5 canonical victims were already dead.... and these two KNEW that.

Omitting the name of the ward...and not presenting the protocol of the ward which instantly demonstrates that NO ONE can go in and out quite so easily facilitated the Hoax.

These two had a vested interest in promoting RDS as the Ripper. One invested time and money into the study while the other parroted the findings of the former.

[Chris G.]

Hi Howie

I have problems with you using the word "scam" and "hoax" in regard to the theory about Robert (Roslyn) D'Onston Stephenson promoted by Harris and Edwards. I can, as I say, see on the part of Harris and maybe Edwards as well self-deception in pursuing a suspect, mistakes, and sloppy research. Even if they knew they were giving out the name of the wrong ward and mischaracterizing the ailment D'Onston claimed, that's more like a tradesman putting his thumb on the weighing machine to gain an advantage rather than making up a completely new stories out of whole cloth, which is what Donald McCormick did quite blatantly. I just don't see Harris and Edwards being such masterful purveyors of Ripper fiction in quite the same way.

All the best

Chris

[How Brown]

Dear C.G.

During the entire interview you conducted with Mr. Harris back in late 1999 and which appeared in March 2000 for Ripper Notes, it had been 6 years since he had altered ( in his True Face...another copy of which I recieved just yesterday, in hardback ) the neurasthenia to neurosthenia without any basis...and we see that in the "Exclusive Update" he presented to Ripper Notes, he's at it again.

Lets briefly check these "updates", shall we?

1. That Stephenson was some sort of chronic gambler ( see part "A" ). There's no basis for this statement.

2. Harris goes over the same ground on the alleged conversion by D'Onston back to Christianity. For the umpteenth time, I'll say it again: There is not one single word uttered in the whole of Stephenson related data which suggests he ever LEFT Christianity. In fact, there is more evidence that he remained in touch with religious figures than with the occult figures.

3. That Victoria Woodhull was the most notorious harlot,along with her sister, in the United States. Not only did Harris intentionally perform character assassination on Stephenson, but he is at it once more with his comments on Woodhull.

4. That it was Stephenson who chose the name of the business venture, the Pompadour Cosmetique Company. Harris has no idea,nor do you or I who selected that name. The comment about the P.C.C. insignia and the "woman cut off at the genitals for all the world to see" sounds as if a 5 year old came up with that idea.

5. That his medical qualifications were not up to British standards. I'll say it again...RDS had NO medical qualifications and there is no evidence he ever went outside the U.K. after 1861.

What sort of puzzles me is why no other individuals in the field ever took Harris up on these statements ( maybe one of his friends turned a blind eye...but for everyone else?) and asked to see the sources.

Its not self deception, but public deception when you put an article out in Ripperologist Magazine which says " We have a picture of Israel Schwartz..the first ever seen !!".....and the photo turns out to be some rank and file momser from the East End... and whether its found out fourteen minutes later or fourteen years later, its still public deception.

If I write a book and claim that Hyam Hyams was the Ripper because I have read his seldom seen psychiatric evaluation...and the psychiatric evaluation says he " enjoyed the company of prostitutes" and "he contracted venereal disease from a prostitute" and I use that as the foundation of an entire suspect-basis which states he wanted to enact revenge on prostitutes....and Chris George comes along, a decade or so later, reads the document in question ( One problem with our people,our community,is that not everyone reads the books or magazines they buy..they just toss 'em on the shelf) and Chris George sees that there is NO reference whatsoever to prostitutes or venereal disease, what would Chris George call that? Self deception on the part of How Brown or an outright lie by How Brown?

[Gumshoe]

Let me throw this into the mix here, Mishter Brown.

The book The Ghost Map addresses a similar situation in the post-mortem discussion of why it was that, in spite of the overwhelming evidence collected by Dr. John Snow that cholera was a waterborne disease, the health authorities of the day rejected his theory out of hand with a "We see no reason to adopt this belief".

As the author states, "This blanket dismissal of Snow's theory seems like a colossal folly to us now, but these were not unreasonable men. They were not hacks, working surreptitiously for Victorian special-interest groups. They were not blinded by politics or personal ambition. They were blinded, instead, by an idea",

The idea in question here, was, of course, that cholera was, as were all other diseases, spread by miasma and by no other means.

"And, indeed, it was a kind of madness, the madness that comes from being under the spell of a Theory."

Harris and Edwards aren't the only ripperologists to become so obsessed by their suspect that they essentially became blinkered on the subject. The same thing has happened, for example, to Patricia Cornwell and, to a lesser degree, even Stewart Evans.

I, too, would hesitate to claim deliberate hoax in the case of these RDS authors. I think it is more of a case of selectively presenting the evidence that supports one's theory and ignoring or even suppressing that evidence which does not. It should be noted that one of these RDS authors had a reputation as a 'hoaxbuster' to protect and the other had his book sales in potential jeopardy. To paraphrase the health authorities in 1855 London, "they see no reason to adopt your belief".

So, no matter WHAT evidence against RDS's candidacy that you continue to present, you may expect it to be ignored or denounced by those whom you are criticizing. And by their friends and associates too.

[How Brown]

Gumshoe:
Okay,okay...I get your drift here.

Let me just repeat what I've said several times previously and that I am appreciative of Mr. Harris's work in the field ( probably more so than the next person ) and was not castigating or critiquing his other efforts or positions on other Ripper related issues. Thats never been any of my business what he thought or felt about specific areas of the Case. If it means anything at all, no one has paid more attention to his efforts on the RDS story than I have, which I think he would have appreciated.

Unfortunately,he is no longer with us to debate or even battle with me on the basis of his declaration and research that Stephenson was Jack The Ripper. I maintain that Stephenson is no longer even a suspect in the WM Case and will continue to demonstrate that before he entered the London Hospital on July 26th,1888, 120 years ago today by the way...that there was no basis for anyone to ever even think Stephenson was JTR or a suspect using the same set of criteria Mr. Harris or anyone else has used....and that after December 26th,1888, Stephenson's "candidacy" is non existent.

From this point on...I am simply going to collate all the data and list what others have said in support of him as a suspect and list what I and others have found to counter these claims.

No more "hoax" or "sham" or "intentionality". From now on, all prior Stephenson research as well as what I place here on this thread will not be accompanied with a name as to its author or discoverer.

[Dan Norder]

Considering that rock-solid proof that Stephenson was diagnosed with Neurosthenia has been public for a year and a half, I find it odd that this is even being debated anymore.

I posted this on Casebook in October of 2006 when auspirograph was claiming that it was neurasthenia and that Harris and/or Edwards had knowingly lied:

http://rippernotes.com/public/stephensonneurosthenia.jpg

That's clearly an O, not an A. It's an extreme closeup of a photo compressed with the JPG file format, so there's some noise in the image, but there's no way to claim that that's an A instead of an O.

The full hospital record can be seen here:
http://rippernotes.com/public/stephensonhospitalrecord.jpg

So can we please finally stop falsely accusing Harris of misrepresenting the record when it's in fact auspirograph who was wrong?

[How Brown]

Dan:

Spiro Dimolianis recieved an email from Jonathan Evans, the curator of the London Hospital archives, back around September/October 2006 in regard to the discharge paper of RDS's from December 7th,1888.

The email that Spiro recieved stated that he had neurasthenia. With an "a".

This comes from the man at the Hospital...not from this blurry copy of the form.

You'll remember my urging Spiro back then to show us ( those interested) the actual email to put an end to this nonsense....and him claiming that he couldn't. I battled with him last year about this over on another site and told him point blank that his refusal to reveal the email ( without any sort of markings from the LH ) is what let Edwards off the hook about this issue and other issues regarding the discharge sheet as well...specifically his omission of the Currie Ward...but thats water under the bridge. He omitted that.

Mike Covell has seen the discharge paper at the LH. In person.

In any event, regardless of what RDS had, Harris's statement that Stephenson "faked" either complaint is irrelevant and mere conjecture based on zero evidence. No one can predict or suggest that ANYONE can fake this particular complaint, since its up to the physician to diagnose it.

If this discharge sheet says "neurosthenia" and from here, Dan, it is not clear, at least not to me, that it is an "o"....then someone has some explaining to do here.

If Spiro's email is typed out and it says "neurasthenia", then the issue is not with him, but with the man who typed it out for those of us 2,000 frigging miles away....and in Spiro's case, 12,000 miles away.

If it possibly did say neurosthenia, I apologize for the comments made about the switched diagnosis I suggested Mr. Harris made.. I think you can understand my point, had you been told and under the impression that the discharge sheet said "neurasthenia", because as we know Mr. Harris mentioned that it was "neurosthenia".

Spiro still appears around here from time to time and if he sees this, he should show us the actual email or better yet, lets ask Mike Covell what he saw in person himself.

Thanks for bringing this up,Dan. I did not know you had a scan of this "slip".

[How Brown]

In addition, Robert Clack saw the chart in person and stated that it says "neurasthenia".

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=589

Hard to argue against Mike & Robert on this one. Thats 4 people who state it was neurasthenia. Mr. Jonathan Evans,Robert Clack, and Mike Covell...plus Spiro.

What have ye to say now,Dan?

[How Brown]

And speaking of documents... wait until you see the Customs House records...which will be an education.

[Mike Covell]

Hi Dan, I remember visiting the London Hospital Archives in January and remember Jonathan Evans producing a medical dictionary, even going so far as to open it up at the entry for "Neurasthenia" and explaining what the condition would have been like.

He was very helpful and helped explain what each of the sub-headings along the top of the page meant, and going into great detail over each one.

I was pretty sure I had kept the email, but the only one's in my file are with the visit details, but feel free to contact him.

Jonathan.Evans@bartsandthelondon.nhs.uk

He is a nice bloke and always has time for enquiries.

[Dan Norder]

Dan:

Spiro Dimolianis recieved an email from Jonathan Evans, the curator of the London Hospital archives, back around September/October 2006 in regard to the discharge paper of RDS's from December 7th,1888.

The email that Spiro recieved stated that he had neurasthenia. With an "a".

This comes from the man at the Hospital...not from this blurry copy of the form.

I met Evans when I was in London. He's a good guy. But he's not immune to making typos, especially on obsolete Victorian medical terms.

If Spiro's email is typed out and it says "neurasthenia", then the issue is not with him, but with the man who typed it out for those of us 2,000 frigging miles away....and in Spiro's case, 12,000 miles away.

Well, sure, the initial error would be Evans', or whoever typed it up for him. But considering that a photo of the page in question was posted a year and a half ago in which both Spiro and you were told by more than one person that the word was actually "neurosthenia" and could see it for yourselves, I don't know why the accusation against Harris continued past that point.

If you've been over to Casebook recently, you know that Rob Clack has explicitly said that the word is, in fact, "neurosthenia" and that he has provided a clear photo focusing on just the word in question to prove it. Here is the thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1100

I won't reproduce the photo, but any claims to my image being blurry and so maybe saying something than what it clearly says go right out the window when you see this. There's no ambiguity at all.

If it possibly did say neurosthenia, I apologize for the comments made about the switched diagnosis I suggested Mr. Harris made.. I think you can understand my point, had you been told and under the impression that the discharge sheet said "neurasthenia", because as we know Mr. Harris mentioned that it was "neurosthenia".

I can understand the initial confusion, sure, and I am please that you retract the accusations made against Harris.

[How Brown]

http://books.google.com/books?id=zwCkm81ntIUC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=neurasthenia+compared+to+neurosthenia&source=web&ots=2NWAq-hJwY&sig=VIqkGyXIm29W6kCcIVrE3kFOAcU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

This URL is from an early 20th century physician in Ohio who mentioned what Chris George mentioned before on this thread: That there is no definable difference between the two, neuro or neura. I had several URL's of similar gist but as per usual for me, have either discarded them or have them mislabeled in my files:banghead: I hopped over to Google and got one that I remembered.

What is significant or should be significant to you, Dan, is that Chris mentioned that Mr. Harris requested that Ripper Notes change the reference to neurasthenia in the issue from back in 2000...to neurosthenia. Chris replied, as stated, that he felt no change was necessary since the two according to contemporary physicians were indistinguishable. I recognize that I have only put one URL or reference to peruse and that somewhere some other doctor may have disagreed with the Ohio doctor. However, the symptoms are virtually indistinguishable from themselves for the most part and what delineates the two are usually who the neurosis is directed towards.Neurosthenics directed their neuroses outwardly, while neurasthenics directed them inwards. Invariably, they are indistinguishable over the long haul and usually cross over from outward to inward manifestations of this complaint..

Yes,I did recieve an email response to the initial post on that thread ( Rob Clack's post) and there is something somewhat puzzling about it.

Long after you stated that this information was available about the copy of the discharge sheet, the very same Rob Clack stated,as is mentioned in the URL from Casebook that I placed prior to yours, that it was as Mike,Spiro and Jonathan Evans stated: neurasthenia. Check the date.

Why did Robert change his tune ?

No one is infallable,but you seem to be inferring that Mr.Evans, who works at the LH DID make a mistake.

Let me ask this if I may: When you did meet Mr. Evans, what was that business related to? Stephenson-related material? And...did YOU see the discharge sheet as Mike did when you went or is this scan from SPE or someone else?

One more thing in closing: Do you understand the position made here on this thread that Mr. Harris...without any reason whatsoever... declared that Stephenson faked this complaint and that as has been shown, that this complaint cannot be faked since it cannot be presented as an illness to a physician? In his hurry to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, this statement of RDS faking this complaint was used to support the already-baseless assertion that Stephenson was a sick pup with an axe to grind against prostitutes. If Mr. Harris knew that there was some minute distinction between the two...then he had to know it cannot and would not be claimed as whats ailing the patient by the patient when he visits the physician or hospital.

I hope you see that Harris's unusual determination to assure one and all that Stephenson didn't have neurasthenia is remarkable in light of the obvious fact that he was not present when the doctor who examined him made that decision? Again, he mandates that one was distinguishable from the other.

Why was it important that the one condition be known to one and all in our field if after cursory reading ( and I have known that there is no seminal difference between the two,with the exception above as mentioned,for some time now) of the two "twin sisters" of neurotic behavior that they are essentially indistinguishable ?

Perhaps its because of the belief or rationale that neurosthenics manifest their complaint/condition outwardly....and neurasthenics,inwardly. It makes perfect sense to promote the idea that RDS "faked" a complaint that would be more likely to manifested outwardly than inwardly....which is part of the basis of the theory that Stephenson was a sexual deviant and as a result of this, of course, he snuck out at night,and of course he manifested his outwardly-directed hatred of women...of course,with no basis whatsoever to state that.

[Chris G.]

Hi Dan, Howard, Mike et al.

I think overriding everything, whether D'Onston had neurosthenia or neurasthenia, which is debatable, he was certainly an alcoholic, which is the condition with which he landed him back in the London Hospital in 1889, and then of course there's also Inspector Roots' testimony that D'Onston was a drinker.

I am not sure that he was actually faking anything: I believe he was in similar poor physical shape in 1888 and 1889

Thus, I feel that the distinction that Harris made that the suspect was "faking" his condition in 1888 but that his poor health a year later was "real" is an artificial distinction made by Harris to further his theory that D'Onston was the Ripper.

It will be interesting to see if hospital records or other documents can shed light on D'Onston's true physical condition during these two key years.

All the best

Chris

[How Brown]

Dear C.G.

To encapsulate my argument on this issue:

Since the concept that Stephenson was the Ripper had already been firmly established in the mind of that theorist, it was obviously necessary to promote the idea that he left the LH while registered there to go out an kill at night. This is simpy a theory. It harms no one. It makes no difference in the scheme of things. It is innocuous. But there has always been a twist to this theory that few know or discuss.


To eliminate Stephenson as a suspect and not use or rely on the less than perfect arguments that he was too old, had no history of violence,and all the reasons that most Ripperologists just flip throught the section of Ripper related literature that discusses him, it required that every point of the basis of his suspectworthiness be examined.

Most people who did accept the possibility of the "faked neuro/neurasthenia argument" did not know that there are, despite them being somewhat archaic as Dan Norder mentioned. minutes differences in these complaints, albeit not clearly visible to the inquiring eye of the layman....only to someone who cared enough to examine them more closely. You did that back in 2000.

Now that its settled that had I been personally incorrect in assuming someone, Mr. Harris, changed the diagnosis to continue the myth that he was even a suspect,which he isn't by virtue of other facts, then I think this thread should suffice in the explanation of the subject.

[Mike Covell]

I am not sure that he was actually faking anything: I believe he was in similar poor physical shape in 1888 and 1889

It will be interesting to see if hospital records or other documents can shed light on D'Onston's true physical condition during these two key years.
Chris

I searched the records, yearbooks and minute books and he was registered only on the date's we already have.

Islington Archives have nothing on the man.

Mr Evans stated that individual medical cards were pretty rare, and unlikely to exsist.

[Dan Norder]

This URL is from an early 20th century physician in Ohio who mentioned what Chris George mentioned before on this thread: That there is no definable difference between the two, neuro or neura.

I've been saying that for years, but other authors -- including, I believe, Stewart Evans and, obviously, Melvin Harris -- said otherwise.

What is significant or should be significant to you, Dan, is that Chris mentioned that Mr. Harris requested that Ripper Notes change the reference to neurasthenia in the issue from back in 2000...to neurosthenia. Chris replied, as stated, that he felt no change was necessary since the two according to contemporary physicians were indistinguishable.

Harris believed the two diagnoses were different, so I can understand why he'd want a published reference to the diagnosis to reflect what the written diagnosis actually said.

Long after you stated that this information was available about the copy of the discharge sheet, the very same Rob Clack stated,as is mentioned in the URL from Casebook that I placed prior to yours, that it was as Mike,Spiro and Jonathan Evans stated: neurasthenia. Check the date.

Don't confuse the issue by claiming that all three of those people saw the record and agree that it is neurasthenia. Spiro only went by what Evans wrote to him, and Mike is unclear on what he is getting at, other than saying that Evans argued that it should be neurasthenia. If Mike would like to claim that he saw the document and that the O in the photos as presented by two independent researchers was not an O but an A, maybe he should state that and, preferably, provide a photo of his own. He doesn't seem to be claiming that.

Why did Robert change his tune ?

Rob says he missed the posts in Oct. 2006 about the controversy over what it said, so I don't know that when he first looked at it that he thought to pay special attention to that word. You'd have to ask him for details. All I know is that now he is very explicit in saying it is "neurosthenia" (he posted a correction to you this time before I even brought it up) and has provided a crystal clear photo to back it up.

No one is infallable,but you seem to be inferring that Mr.Evans, who works at the LH DID make a mistake.

I'm not inferring that, I am stating it outright. Two different photos provided by researchers have clearly shown how the word is spelled. Based upon Mike's conversation with him it looks like maybe Evans was familiar with the neurasthenia spelling and corrected the spelling on his transcript to what he thought it should be instead of what it is. I don't know. But we've got two photos proving what it said versus no photos showing it said what Evans had typed.

Let me ask this if I may: When you did meet Mr. Evans, what was that business related to? Stephenson-related material?

No.

And...did YOU see the discharge sheet as Mike did when you went or is this scan from SPE or someone else?

I have not seen the page in question, but I had no reason to. Any controversy surrounding the spelling of that word ended the moment the 2006 photo was produced. A second photo from an independent source, especially one as trustworthy as Rob, only serves as a confirmation of what was already established.

One more thing in closing: Do you understand the position made here on this thread that Mr. Harris...without any reason whatsoever... declared that Stephenson faked this complaint and that as has been shown, that this complaint cannot be faked since it cannot be presented as an illness to a physician?

I understand the position, but I'm not sure I agree with it. I think Harris was probably wrong in thinking that Stephenson faked the ailment, but I also have not seen any convincing reason to believe that a patient couldn't have faked the symptoms or otherwise obtained a diagnosis he wanted for the purpose of staying in the hospital.

Perhaps its because of the belief or rationale that neurosthenics manifest their complaint/condition outwardly....and neurasthenics,inwardly.

I don't think we can meaningfully discuss what Harris thought now that he isn't alive to explain his reasoning. It seems reasonable to me to think that the sources he had available at that time might in one instance have described a "neurasthenia" with certain symptoms and in another a "neurosthenia" with enough ambiguity to think they were different. I am not 100% convinced yet that they aren't different in some way, though the sources I found suggest that they probably are exactly the same condition.

But what I do know is that the diagnosis as written in the hospital record is clearly "neurosthenia." Whether that's notable as a distinct diagnosis or just a spelling variant is less of a concern of mine right now than making sure that people report it accurately and do not try to present an incorrect report as if it shows that Harris was guilty of fraud.

[How Brown]

Thanks very much for the repl and honest critique.


One more thing in closing: Do you understand the position made here on this thread that Mr. Harris...without any reason whatsoever... declared that Stephenson faked this complaint and that as has been shown, that this complaint cannot be faked since it cannot be presented as an illness to a physician?--H.B.
I understand the position, but I'm not sure I agree with it. I think Harris was probably wrong in thinking that Stephenson faked the ailment, but I also have not seen any convincing reason to believe that a patient couldn't have faked the symptoms or otherwise obtained a diagnosis he wanted for the purpose of staying in the hospital. -D.N.

A couple of things here,Dan. Bear with me:

1. The most likely scenario is that Stephenson suffered from a symptom which a doctor diagnosed under that big umbrella known as neurasthenia/neurosthenia. There's no basis for any of us,including Harris, to suggest that Stephenson faked anything since we have no background on Stephenson's medical history save the 1868 shooting which would lead us to think that he might pull a stunt like that. The only reason that that was done was because it was a necessary part of the overall baseless development of Stephenson as a suspect, before George Marsh made him a 48 hour wonder.

2. Why would he pull a stunt like that if in fact he did fake a symptom,again not the compliant,since only a doctor can diagnose the complaint? That he may have been financially destitute in June-July of 1888 or unable to stay with family in London are two reasons that come to mind. There's also the possible aftereffects of him being on his own after 8 years of marriage to Anne Deary, who split on him or he on her.

3. It would be nice to know when Stephenson went to Brighton and if he attempted to stay at that one facility available ( Royal Sussex? Hospital...the name is on another thread ) and then was SENT to London, besides being lodged in the Cricketers Inn. Its like pulling teeth trying to get definite dates on the Cricketers stay,which should have been provided before.

Thanks for your input,everyone...and please keep firing away or at least talking about Stephenson.

[Mike Covell]

Don't confuse the issue by claiming that all three of those people saw the record and agree that it is neurasthenia. Spiro only went by what Evans wrote to him, and Mike is unclear on what he is getting at, other than saying that Evans argued that it should be neurasthenia. If Mike would like to claim that he saw the document and that the O in the photos as presented by two independent researchers was not an O but an A, maybe he should state that and, preferably, provide a photo of his own. He doesn't seem to be claiming that.

Hi Dan, During my visit to the Hospital Archives in January I was unable to take a picture, although I did ask before the visit if I could. The reading room is small and I was not alone. When I asked Mr. Evans if I could take a picture he told me "The flash could disturb the other readers" so I decided not to. Obviously I was pissed, but did not want to risk pissing off the other readers.

Evans was pretty sure the spelling was "A" not "O" and provided a contempory medical dictionary with the spelling alongside symptoms and recommended treatment.

My notes reflect this.

[Dan Norder]

Mike,

Well, the spelling in the dictionary only confirms what that dictionary said the spelling should be, not what the spelling in the document itself actually is. To me that'd be like trying to claim that the Lusk letter said "knife" because the dictionary spells it as "knife" while ignoring that it very clearly is written as "knif". Of course "knif" isn't a word, and it's obviously supposed to be what we spell as "knife"... but nonetheless it says "knif." If Melvin Harris had said it was spelled "knif" I would hope nobody would accuse him of purposefully trying to mislead people.

The photos of the document make it clear that the letter in the hospital record under dispute is an O, for a spelling of neurosthenia, just like Harris said. The O and the S are connected at the top by the cursive script. If it were an A and an S they'd be connected at the bottom and the A would have a vertical bar on its right. That's just how those two letters are written. I don't know how this could still be under dispute after seeing the photos.

[How Brown]

Dan:

Everything, from the beginning, back in the early 1860's, to the latter years of RDS's life has been "swept" nicely like they do on curling rinks in order to set up the blowhard as a bona fide suspect.

While I understand your position and analogy of the "knif", what alarmed me was that there was such a dogged determination on the part of Mr. H as to pushing the neurosthenia, when he had no way of knowing what symptom the doctor determined to be classified as that complaint. Yes, he is merely stating that Stephenson faked whatever symptom that was classified as neuro or neurasthenia...but considering his enormous gaffe that was the reason for this decision....his earlier book with the wrong date of registration by Donston in the LH...to me, and maybe to me alone, its a joke that he could then come up with something that professional skeptics don't do. Its unusual for the same theorist to try and fit 10 pounds of sand in a 5 pound bag twice for the same suspect in such a short span of time. Some of us,Dan, believed in the ability of someone to "fake" this complaint, thinking and not checking out for ourselves whether it was possible to do that...as well as some other areas of this saga. Then,when the other areas were checked into, the roof caved in on some of our beliefs.

I know SPE believes he was deluded. Fair enough. Lets leave it at that.

Or at least I will.

[Spiro]

Just to clarify.

Dan is a little mixed up about this issue and has clearly not done enough research on the matter. The image he has displayed on Casebook and on the Ripper Notes site is actually an uncredited copy, used without permission, of Ivor Edwards' photo of Donston's Hospital register he took in 1997.

I have never claimed that Melvin Harris fabricated the entry in D'Onston's alleged condition nor have I claimed any "ill intent" as Dan states with certainty. I have always considered that the term was used interchangeably in Victorian times from research, Harris said as much and there was no reason to question that. Andy Aliffe who conducted the research into D'Onston's London Hospital stay for Harris saw the entries first hand and that was good enough for me. Howard made the claim that Harris hoaxed the D'Onston material and we are yet to see his evidence for that assertion. Perhaps if the concern for hoaxes was that pressing the 'Maybrick Conspiracy' remains the best contender.

The scan that Rob Clark has kindly displayed on Casebook settles the matter. It is Neurosthenia although the email sent to me by the London Hospital archivist was transcribed incorrectly compared to Harris' book, I thought considering the source Mr Evans, it was reasonable to consider if a mistake had in fact been made.

I simply wanted to check the veracity of the published entries in Edwards' book to get a clearer idea of D'Onston's alibi in considering him as a suspect for the Whitechapel murders. What I found in 2006 surprised me and that is where there were to be found marked discrepencies. Dan has clearly confused the two issues but an understandable mistake to make.

The disputed and main issue for me at least, is not the condition of D'onston's
illness as there is supporting documentation on his 'tremours' by a reliable witness, Inspector Roots in his 26 December 1888 police summary report. The contested issue was D'Onston's ward placements and why they were not published accurately by Edwards as he was aware of D'Onston's letter to the City Police dated 16 October 1888 and showing the return address of the correct ward Currie. And we are yet to get a convincing response to this discrepency. Was it a mistake or was it simply suspect bias that clouded the issue in a published work on D'Onston?

We may never know if the debate remains fixated on ambiguous Victorian medical terminology at the exclusion of other considerations for his status as a suspect for the Whitechapel murders. I don't think he was the Ripper but a reasonable case can be made for the murder of Mary Ann Nichols close as it is to the London Hospital.

[How Brown]

Thanks ( at last !) for showing up ,Spiro.

"Howard" claims that the entire story of Stephenson as Jack The Ripper is... as I mentioned earlier...not what its cracked up to be. Howard is right.

"Howard" has demonstrated that there is nothing in the background of Stephenson's life according to available sources Harris HAD, to indicate Stephenson is any more violent, any more deviant, any more likely to be a candidate for the "title" of Jack The Ripper than the man in the moon.

There is no reference in the available sources...and there ARE sources that were used to convince the public and the Ripperological community that Stephenson was what he "was" cracked up to be. None. Zero. He's not even a suspect.

The Stephenson story never made it with the established or rather, long time, wisened Ripperologists for a couple of reasons. Stephenson's candidacy had already been generally rejected for reasons such as "He's too old"..."He's a fantasist"...and the like. Harris only knew RDS was sick while writing The Ripper File ( a very nice and informative book,by the way to all those who may not have it yet). Harris did not have or did not use a certain set of documents at that time either, which he used,once more,after the first books' release to further the cause of Stephenson being JTR. These documents provide two crucial elements of the Stephenson story which provide HIS perception for claiming Stephenson was the type of person we have been led to believe he was and to further the cause for Stephenson. The post-1994 presentation of Stephenson as Ripper had two new elements within the story to further along the argument for the man that didn't exist prior to 1994, when the "newbie" Stephenson crowd came into play, me being one of them...you, perhaps ,being another.

What Harris used...again, available source material, which many of us interested in the Stephenson saga whine about the pro-authors not providing, has been provided now, but collectively didn't or couldn't investigate or have available at that time. I didn't have the Customs House records back in 2006. I do now. I've called it a "hoax" in the past. since its hard to express exactly how this story is or rather why this whole story got to the point it did the minute someone really investigates what it is.

Whats a "hoax"...and it may be a matter of defining exactly what we should call it....a delusion, a self-delusion, a uncanny misreading of source material, you name it...no matter how you cut it or call it, its a baseless argument based on the available source material used to set this man up as the Ripper and/or suspect after 12/26/88. As I mentioned a little earlier, I'm personally going to call this whole affair a "delusion" by Harris and stick with that.

As I did for you two or three years ago when you requested I "hold back" on writing anything about RDS, since you intended to put something out yourself...I have to do again, since I gave my word to someone who is doing something in regard to Stephenson at this time. It will be worth the wait.

I didn't miss your point about the Currie Ward back then in 2006 and you were right,Spiro. It IS on that register and should have been noted, instead of being intentionally omitted from BOTH authors books. No one can, in all sincerity, claim that Harris "didn't have enough room in his True Face" to place the 13 letter,3 word addition of " The Currie Ward" in the address on page 111. No one can get Edwards to even comment on why he didn't mention the Currie Ward either or a myriad of other things, but he's not the issue here. The fact is, is that you and I do not need them anymore to put together the best history of this individual together. Add Mike Covell in there and a couple of others who are sincere,forthright researchers, and we have a helluva team. What do you say to that?

There were available sources used to foist RDS into the suspect list, aside from the doornail dead Marsh argument and the absurd Cremers memoirs. This is where the "true face" of Stephenson was incorrectly presented.

[How Brown]

The disputed and main issue for me at least, is not the condition of D'onston's
illness as there is supporting documentation on his 'tremours' by a reliable witness, Inspector Roots in his 26 December 1888 police summary report. The contested issue was D'Onston's ward placements and why they were not published accurately by Edwards as he was aware of D'Onston's letter to the City Police dated 16 October 1888 and showing the return address of the correct ward Currie. And we are yet to get a convincing response to this discrepency. Was it a mistake or was it simply suspect bias that clouded the issue in a published work on D'Onston?- Spiro

____________________
Harris obviously doesn't have the opportunity to answer why he didn't mention EITHER ward in his work. Edwards essentially took Harris's work and ran with it,so to speak.

Having suspect bias and claiming that Joe Barnett had echolalia or promoting that idea is one thing. There's no source for Barnett having echolalia...hence, its simply a theory. There IS a source for what ward(s) RDS was in and omitting them is something else,especially since the protocol of those wards is crucial to the overall theory in RDS's case.
________________________

We may never know if the debate remains fixated on ambiguous Victorian medical terminology at the exclusion of other considerations for his status as a suspect for the Whitechapel murders. I don't think he was the Ripper but a reasonable case can be made for the murder of Mary Ann Nichols close as it is to the London Hospital. -Spiro

Excuse me for pointing this out, but there is NO "reasonable case" against RDS for committing the Nichols murder.

You helped prove that.

He was in the Currie Ward up until October 16th at least...maybe beyond...but the protocol prevents that perambulation necessary for him to commit any crimes.

Because RDS was in the LH, which is near the Bucks Row murder site, is no reason to suspect him ,if he had no way of leaving at night.

There is just as much a 'reasonable case" against any man in the London Hospital or anywhere else in London who had two legs, the ability to hold a knife, and was not tied down on a hospital bed or jail to commit the Nichols murder.

Using the relative short distance between the LH and Bucks Row does not make him the perpetrator of this particular murder "reasonable", especially since Mike and you proved him incapable.

Only Harris's proposition, which you and others have used,including me in the past, made that notion worthy of consideration.

[How Brown]

The image he has displayed on Casebook and on the Ripper Notes site is actually an uncredited copy, used without permission, of Ivor Edwards' photo of Donston's Hospital register he took in 1997. -Spiro

Dan...is that true? Is the copy you have presented a copy of what Edwards had in his possession?

I know he sent Tyler Hebblewhite to the LH to get a copy back in 2006...this,after he had written he saw the discharge sheet in his book on Stephenson...and then stated just this year, that he recieved an apology from Jonathan Evans for Mr. Evans giving him incorrect information. Something is out of whack here....

Because if what Spiro says is true...that Edwards HAD the photo back in 1997 and ostensibly still had it up until recent years...then why did he send Hebblewhite back to the LH in 2006 to get another copy ?

[Dan Norder]

Dan is a little mixed up about this issue and has clearly not done enough research on the matter. [...]

This is the same nonsense he posted to the Casebook and which I already responded to there. Spiro is very clearly misrepresenting what he originally said now that it was proven to be wrong and trying to pretend that his faulty understanding of copyright law somehow justifies his bullheaded insistence that the original photo proving him wrong could be ignored for a 22 months.

The photo I posted was taken in 2006 and posted on the Internet. The page in question is in the public domain and freely distributable without special permission. Nobody who has seen the document has ever disputed that it is a true and accurate representation of what the page has written on it. The new photo confirms it. It's tiring to see people try to manufacture controversy where none exists to mask the real issues.

And as far as Howard's arguments about Harris having had no reason to assume that D'Onston faked the ailment goes, the more I research neurosthenia/neurasthenia the more clear it is that such a diagnosis could very easily be faked or diagnosed with little or no symptoms to back it up. It was not a debilitating disorder of any sort. The symptoms are basically what would today be equated with mere stress and perhaps mild depression. The cure was bed rest. It was a trendy diagnosis to allow people to sit around and take a load off for a while, not too different from the doctor's note that got Anderson sent off on vacation when the Ripper murder investigation was ongoing.

[How Brown]

And as far as Howard's arguments about Harris having had no reason to assume that D'Onston faked the ailment goes, the more I research neurosthenia/neurasthenia the more clear it is that such a diagnosis could very easily be faked or diagnosed with little or no symptoms to back it up. It was not a debilitating disorder of any sort. The symptoms are basically what would today be equated with mere stress and perhaps mild depression. The cure was bed rest. It was a trendy diagnosis to allow people to sit around and take a load off for a while, not too different from the doctor's note that got Anderson sent off on vacation when the Ripper murder investigation was ongoing.-Dan

Of course its not a debilitating disorder. Its also not possible that anyone can predict if a physician will diagnose neurasthenia... Harris included. He not only had no reason or basis to "guess" that Stephenson faked anything, but whatever he "guessed" Stephenson's symptom was that was eventually diagnosed as neurasthenia is impossible to prove one way or the other...and at best its a "guess" made to further soil an innocent man's character. And of course,another example of a baseless argument by the Melvinator.

By the way,Dan...is the source where you mentioned the discharge page still available online? Could you provide a link to it at your leisure? Thanks.

[How Brown]

Lets step this thread up a notch here...

Who could step forward and state that Donston faked neurosthenia with any degree of credibility? Could Dan Norder ? Could How Brown ?

We could state it if we knew Donston faked some illness previously.

We could state it if we knew he was seen waltzing around the East End when he was supposed to be bedridden.

We could state it if we knew that Stephenson faked some illness after his release from the LH on Dec.7th,1888.

We can't state it with any credibility if there is nothing in his history to suggest it. .

But we could state it if we led others to believe that neurasthenia was not as serious as its made out to be.

Earlier,I provided an analogy of 4 people and 4 different symptoms...all somewhat serious to the individuals suffering from them..and all potentially diagnosed as neurasthenics.

Stephenson was not a spring chicken. He had substance use issues...he apparently did not eat often...and did have that gunshot wound in his leg. These issues are not necessarily the ones that were the basis of the doctor's diagnosis at the LH. Yet, one may have been.

We're not dealing with a 25 year old,physically fit man...a number of whom undoubtedly suffered from some malaise that was diagnosed as neurosthenia, as was Stephenson. We're dealing with a man who a few months later was assessed as being a drug addict. He didn't just develop this habit.

[Chris G.]

Hi Howard

I have indicated before that I think D'Onston was in bad physical shape in 1888 and in 1889, and it appears that you agree with that view. I don't think he necessarily faked his condition, as Harris alleges. What does it matter what he was in the London for? The guy was a physical wreck for all the reasons that you state. On the other hand, he was a man who claimed medical knowledge, so he could have led the doctor to that diagnosis of neurasthenia or neurosthenia. Remember both these conditions amounted to a psychological condition, only recognized in that era and not today although today clinicians recognize similar conditions such as chronic fatigue syndrome. There were no major measurable physical symptoms. Ask yourself how a medical practitioner comes to such a diagnosis. By asking questions. If D'Onston answered the doctor in the correct way, he was likely to come to that diagnosis.

All the best

Chris

[How Brown]

Dear C.G.

I do not dispute a word you say. I could go to Doctor Covell and tell him I do not feel well. Hopefully the dialogue would go down this way:

Doc Covell: "Whats wrong,you putz?"
HB: "Oy,my head feels like its two hundred pounds and I am very sluggish" ( In reality, all HB wants is to get his hands on some heavy duty medication that he knows is perscribed for these two symptoms)
Doc Covell: "Hmm...sounds like you need some percocets and liquid vicodin for this complaint."
:kiss:

But C.G....what I am trying to point out is this,if I can use this analogy:

Bruce Paley suggested that Barnett had echolalia, based on the reference to Barnett repeating what the person speaking to him had just said. Thats not proof that its echolalia...its just an idea and not a bad one.

Melvin Harris suggested that Stephenson faked this complaint, but based on what? There is NO reference to Stephenson having some complaint or symptom or illness prior to this July 26th registration to base, in a way that Paley does with Barnett ( just one example )that allows for this wild speculation that Stephenson faked anything or was not as ill as he said he was.

This is the seminal problem with Stephenson... that he has some prior baggage that makes him appear suspicious. He has none whatsoever other than he liked to fabricate stories.

If you stripped away all the false claims and saw Stephenson without the false presentation and intentional,I might add, you would see a guy who is nothing more than a rank and file individual with a modicum of talent for writing stories and an above average knowledge of religious writings and esoterica. Thats it !

He resembles none of the attributes given him by those who have authored books on him. None,Chris.

I still feel some people "see" Stephenson with some of the false claims hanging on him like a cheap suit. This is why people argue that its "possible" that Harris may have been correct in stating he faked neurosthenia. If there was ONE attribute that Harris laid on him that WAS true, THEN perhaps the possibility would exist in a realistic way. Anyone can say that anyone is faking a disease or complaint or whatever...but if we KNOW that the attributes placed onto Stephenson make him something that he is not, then that argument is worthless.

Yes...Stephenson,as well as everyone who ever lived,could fake a complaint,C.G. But Harris had already built a house of cards that demanded that this "faking" be part of that shaky edifice.

You, yourself ,just said:

"Ask yourself how a medical practitioner comes to such a diagnosis. By asking questions. If D'Onston answered the doctor in the correct way, he was likely to come to that diagnosis."

The key word is "if". I know you are saying this hypothetically...but once more, this "if" in this context here is made under the assumption that he DID tell the doctor all the "right things". My point, once more ,is that we,all of us, do not know what Donston had that was diagnosed as neurosthenia. The idea of faking this complaint is part and parcel of the whole character assassination of Stephenson from the word go.

There's nothing "evil" or "malevolent" about the man,period,that we KNOW of.. If Stephenson was a rank and file civilian, and not the instrument which a suspect based book was written about,which are all, more or less, character assassinations in one way or the other, and he was a 'church goer" ( another point which Harris made is that Stephenson "left' Christianity, when Melvin KNEW Stephenson wrote pieces from time to time on religious themes), then the entire argument made by neutralists ( like you and Dan) or pro-authors would have never been argued in the first place.

[Chris G.]

Hi Howie

I can buy your argument that D'Onston did not fake the diagnosis to get into the London Hospital. As you recognize, I was only suggesting the hypothesis that he may have led the admitting physician to the diagnosis by admitting to the symptoms that were then said to constitute neurasthenia/neurosthenia. But he could as easily presented himself to the London and told the doctor, "Here I am, Doc, a total physical wreck in need of a rest cure" and the physician could have come up with the diagnosis without D'Onston's help. I take it that is what you do think is what happened, is that correct, Howie?

On the other hand, do you admit that D'Onston was a manipulative individual and appears to have faked parts of his biography? For example, no evidence that he actually had medical degrees, no evidence that he went to California and panned for gold or fought with Garibaldi (yes he was on the muster roll but did he actually go to Italy and fight?) or that he killed people in California or Africa. So perhaps if he was capable of faking all this, it is not too much of a leap of logic, is it, to think that he may have faked an illness as well?

I do think that Melvin Harris's writing on D'Onston and other topics contains a certain amount of bombast and leaps of faith that the facts don't always bear out.

All the best

Chris

[How Brown]

Dear C.G.

To what degree Stephenson was manipulative and in what respects might be added to your timely comments.

Of course, he was a b.s. artist.
Of course, he plagiarized Lytton and Haggard
Of course, he invented the Hoffman story which is in the Borderland ( April '96) issue.
Of course, he either misread or invented the story of necromancers or occultists using the organs of dead prostitutes in rituals ( Poor Dave Knott and I spent time looking independently for some evidence of this, but there is none).

On the other hand:

He didn't lie about the shooting incident in Flamborough. He could have because the only people who care about that incident are us....and we know the story.

C.G.: Sure he could have faked the symptom which was eventually diagnosed as neurosthenia. But what you or I might base that concept or theory on would NOT be the way Mr. Harris necessarily did...and what he based HIS theory on is entirely invention and ahem, out of self-delusion.

Mr. Harris based HIS "faked neurosthenia" concept on the "Bad D'Onston" and his non-existent sexual deviancy....his mythological propensity for hanging with prostitutes...his non-existent diseases he is alleged to have obtained...his non-evident savagery due to his war experiences and all that crap. His non-existent involvement with black magic, his non-existent hatred of prostitutes, ad nauseum. Stephenson isn't the only one,C.G., but the character assassination that had been done to this guy, as is done with virtually all suspects, is really astounding once you examine what the facts are.

Again, despite you or I being average or in your case,above average, Ripperologists who have a good 'street sense' when it comes to issues within the case, this is one instance where no matter how good our senses are, we cannot assume that we know WHAT specific symptom Donston had. It may have been "the most serious" symptom of this complaint...as well as the "least serious". I think that this fact was taken advantage of in the proposing that RDS faked the symptoms,subsequently the diagnosed complaint.

Harris proposed that Stephenson could have stayed in Brighton,where it was far more amenable or conducive to salubrious recovery for whatever ailed him.

This, once more, is not necessarily true. There are several possible reasons to why he didn't. The first is financial. He quite simply may not have been able to afford the cost of a local Brighton hospital room.

The second is whether they specialized in what symptom he had. He may not have "liked" that hospital,who knows? He may have needed aid from his brother in Islington in order to get ANY room in ANY hospital. He may have been sent to the LH by Brighton physicians. And so on and so forth.

The truth is, is that the conjecture made that he "could have" stayed in Brighton is based on an absence of necessary elements or parts within the reason for his decision to be admitted to the LH. Harris flubbed this one too.

[Chris G.]

Mmmmmmm.

Well could we say that you and I as Ripperologists do a lot of our reasoning about the case on gut feelings and what is reasonable or logical? Might we also say that Melvin Harris to an extent did the same thing but that perhaps he pushed some of the apparent facts or myths about D'Onston as far as he could take them to make this man into a viable suspect.

You do grant, don't you, that D'Onston is known to have dabbled in the case to the extent that he contacted both the City of London Police in his letter of 16 October 1888 and Scotland Yard around Christmas 1888 and that earlier in December he also wrote about the case for the Pall Mall Gazette in his anonymously article by "One Who Thinks He Knows"... and also that he apparently led Mabel Collins and Vittoria Cremers and W. T. Stead to think he could have been the Ripper.

Then, is it too much of a step to think that, given that D'Onston was a resident of the London Hospital during the whole time of the Whitechapel murders, there could be reason to think he could have been the murderer? Mind you, I am not necessarily saying he was the killer, just that Harris's case for D'Onston as Jack the Ripper is not as fabricated or as made out of thin air as you appear to be trying to convince us.

All the best

Chris

[How Brown]

Well could we say that you and I as Ripperologists do a lot of our reasoning about the case on gut feelings and what is reasonable or logical? Might we also say that Melvin Harris to an extent did the same thing but that perhaps he pushed some of the apparent facts or myths about D'Onston as far as he could take them to make this man into a viable suspect.

The last sentence says it all,C.G. That Mr. Harris pushed the "facts" and myths as far as he could to "make" this man as a suspect. After Dec. 26th, the only "push" we had came from the Cremers Memoirs, which are quite frankly absurd, filtered through Mr. O'Donnell. Crowley can't be taken seriously ( and Mr. Harris and Ivor were right on that count ), which leaves Mr. Harris as the main promoter of the theory that he was the Ripper & a bona fide suspect.
Go back and recall the late 1999 interview you had with him. All of the premises and "updates" which he provided or received from Andy Aliffe were and still are either irrelevant to his suspectworthiness or false.

You do grant, don't you, that D'Onston is known to have dabbled in the case to the extent that he contacted both the City of London Police in his letter of 16 October 1888 and Scotland Yard around Christmas 1888 and that earlier in December he also wrote about the case for the Pall Mall Gazette in his anonymously article by "One Who Thinks He Knows"... and also that he apparently led Mabel Collins and Vittoria Cremers and W. T. Stead to think he could have been the Ripper.

I think Stephenson was either still affected by whatever symptom that was diagnosed as neurosthenia or he had an interest in the events transpiring outside the walls of the LH in the extreme and that his interest may have been a result of his recent reading of Levi's book on magic. His letters to the police gave his address and had they been interested,they would have found him in the Currie Ward ( October 16th ) and at his new digs ( He gave the police his address...hardly the actions of someone avoiding detection or behaving suspiciously ) in late December. The bottom line with Collins is had she known that RDS was in the LH during the Fall of 1888, her statement which she allegedly made to Cremers would have been irrelevant. Anyone who has read what Cremers has offered on the matter will see that she is basically saying that she thought she knew and was sure who Jack The Ripper was...and yet, lent him money. This is beneath any adult-level discussion for its patent absurdity. Its probably as Mike Covell's contacts have mentioned, that Cremers wove this fiction to "get at" Crowley. Stead, of course, the humanitarian, despite suspecting RDS of being JTR, commissions him in 1889 TWICE to write articles. Again, this tongue in cheek comment has been used without thinking.

Then, is it too much of a step to think that, given that D'Onston was a resident of the London Hospital during the whole time of the Whitechapel murders, there could be reason to think he could have been the murderer? Mind you, I am not necessarily saying he was the killer, just that Harris's case for D'Onston as Jack the Ripper is not as fabricated or as made out of thin air as you appear to be trying to convince us.

C.G.. This whole saga or fiction of RDS being a suspect depends on the omission of one or two facts as well as the invention of two or three attributes. As I have mentioned before, I can't discuss the latter YET...because one of our community is working on an article about this issue.
I can simply point out that 1/3rd of the True Face is devoted to Maybrick and some other very decent contributions by Mr.Harris.
In pointing this out, I have to mention that he omitted one crucial bit of evidence in the book which would have had one of our community investigating this earlier than I did...or others have...and that is the omission of the ward on page 111 ( The address of the October 16th letter). There is no reason for this other than that the ward was somehow important enough to him that we be kept in the dark about it, until Spiro and Mike broke through the mystery. If Stephenson jumped up and down with a knife in the Currie Ward screaming that he would kill more prostitutes if he didn't get more oatmeal for breakfast and we knew that to be a fact, no one would have ever suggested that he was a suspect. Why? Because we would know where he was when he acted out in this hypothetical scenario. This also can be applied to when he wrote letters from the hospital because once more we KNOW where he was when he wrote them.
Because he had an inordinate interest in the Case or that he was "in London" doesn't mean...and Mr. Harris knew this...that he was a suspect. His suspectworthiness NEEDED the theory of his faked complaint, the omission of the Ward, and the layer upon layer of false attributes bestowed upon him in the True Face to "make" him a suspect.
Which he is clearly no longer in either thick or thin air.

[Chris G.]

Hi folks

I have come across some Google books hits on "neurasthenia" and "neurosthenia" that may not have been posted before. First a brief modern explanation, "Neurasthenia is a condition marked by nervous exhaustion, less precisely defined as 'weak nerves.'" This is in the book "Medical Meanings" by William S. Haubrich (http://books.google.com/books?id=8xCRO8ORO0EC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=cranky+%22word+origins%22&source=web&ots=sGwUWVAOpt&sig=X81IQ-T763t5joAugltCFJU54gU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA228,M1) published by the American College of Physicians.

Then a host of sources, many of them definitions from the 19th century, on both neurasthenia (http://books.google.com/books?q=neurasthenia) and neurosthenia (http://books.google.com/books?q=neurosthenia).

Chris

[Nemo]

This is a very long post -I came across some modern text posted by
Orthodox Christian clergy who put their faith in texts from the early
years of Christianity, up to approx 300AD

I can't believe no-one used something like the following in their support of the RDS theory.
If I was using the following I would put RDS as self-diagnosing himself as having hysteria (from the greek for uterus) (not the modern perception of the condition) but was diagnosed with neurosthenia - and he followed Agrippa Book 4 in that he would require that body part to treat his own illness - he would have come across the following ideas
due to his interest in the patristic gospel era as the text is from the
orthodox faith

His neurosthenia manifests as exitability, impotence, insomnia , hand
trembles etc but it derives from pride and the sufferer becomes
identified with the devil himself. He has been brought to this state
via occult practices and rejection of Jesus. He feels compelled to attack the source or object of desire of his vices. His only redemption would
be to return to Jesus and the true faith.

You think I'm making this up? Or been talking to KT? - peruse the
following if you will...

The description of an hysteric describes him to a T

I was going to underline the relevant bits but I think you can pick
them out for yourself...

In particular, we must mention the various types of fears (phobias),
which arise from the infatuation with occult practices. It is thought
that these fears tell a person that their soul is in a dire sinful
state. It is too bad that many have become the victims of occultism in
modern times.

Main forms of neuroses.

In medicine it is typical to single out three main classical forms of
neuroses: nervous breakdown, obsessive-compulsive disorder and
hysteria. We shall consider them in the order that they are generally
discussed in special literature.

Neurosthenia. This is considered to be the most frequent form of
neurosis. It was singled out in the 1880s as an individual nosological
entity. The American doctors Beard and Van Dusen, independently of each
other, first wrote about this neurosis in 1869. Since then the
diagnostics of neurosthenia have spread widely. Professor B.D.
Karvasarsky offers a curious example: during the First World War, a
special program of learning was created in the British army, upon
completion of which the doctor received the title "Expert in
Neurosthenia."

The given illness, as seen from its very name, is expressed by nervous
weakness right down to the deep exhaustion of a person’s living powers.
Sleeping hearths of infection become more acute, cholestitis,
gastritis, ulcers of the stomach or duodenum make themselves felt. The
illness appears to be a catalyst, highlighting the somatic pathology.
The portrait of a neurosthenic is typical — this is a person who is
quick-tempered, irritable, quickly wound up, "at the drop of a hat," in
whom the nerves are clearly giving out (hypersthenic form of
neurasthenia) or, just the opposite, lethargic, whining, feeling
tiredness and exhaustion in all of his life powers (hyposthenic form).
But it is interesting to note: the high irritability and irascibility
of the neurosthenic is not directed toward himself, but towards others!
Everybody and everything irritates him, he is often capricious, is
easily angered and enraged, but almost never rises to the spiritual
height of knowing his own imperfections, mistakes and sins. In this
way, neurasthenia is more or less an egotistical neurosis, nurtured by
the passion, which the holy fathers called pride or conceit.
Father Alexander Elchaninov wrote: "Nervousness and so on are
expressions of sin, and specifically, pride. The main neurasthenic is
the devil. Can one imagine a humble, kind, patient person as a
neurosthenic?" "Irritability comes from not knowing oneself, from
pride, and also from not realizing the depth of our nature’s damage,
and from not knowing the meek and humble Jesus." (Righteous St. John of
Kronstadt). "No one should justify irritability with some illness"
(Elder Ambrose of Optina).

The Archbishop Arseniy (Zhadanovsky) wrote the following concerning the
reasons for irritability and loss of spiritual peace: "Sometimes an
irritable state comes upon you suddenly, discontent with people around
you, an oppressed state of the soul, melancholy, disappointment. The
littlest thing — and your mood is ruined. Why? Apparently, your
spiritual ground was prepared for this mood previously. Irritability,
discontent are called out by envy, hostility towards them…"
Thus, we can infer, that neurasthenia is more or less the consequence
of departing from Christ, falling into neo-heathenism. It is an
expression of passions. Neurasthenia can be considered in its way the
opposite of meekness, humility, patience and a peaceful structure of
the spirit.
Priests of the Church paid particular attention to keeping peace of the
soul under any life circumstances. "I do not wish you riches, or fame,
or success, or even health, but only spiritual peace. This is the most
important. If you will have peace — you will be happy" (Ven. Alexis of
Zosima). A logical deduction follows: the best medicine for
neurasthenia is deep repentance, a Christian way of life, with patient
and humble carrying of one’s cross.

Now we will consider sleeplessness, since this complaint is found
among the majority of patients suffering from neurotic disorders. Sleep
is a sensitive moral barometer. It changes (worsens, improves)
depending on our spiritual and emotional states. One sleeps poorly
after hurtful conversations, from sins that torment the soul. The Lord
grants good, deep sleep.
Psychological suggestions can be the following. First of all, permit
yourself to not sleep, do not overload yourself with thoughts of sleep
and its rapid onset. Often a person suffers more from worrying about
not sleeping than from sleeplessness. Late evening is a time for quiet
activities and relaxed conversations. Take a walk before sleep, refuse
a large meal, air out the room. Take a warm shower or soak your feet in
warm water.


“The Great sham.”

The term "hysteria" is derived from the Greek word "uterus." During the
times this spiritual illness was first described, it was thought that
only women suffered from hysteria (later on it was found that men also
suffered from it).
Hysteria was first mentioned in the ancient past. Hippocrates and
Avizenna wrote about it. Later, hysteria was studied by famous
scholar-psychiatrists such as Jacques Charcot, Pierre Janet, and many
others. Psychoanalysts especially devoted a lot of attention to
hysteria. Still, the approach to studying hysteria was one-sided for a
long time. There were practically no spiritual-moral commentaries on
this subject.
So, hysteria. The spiritual evaluation of this psychopathological state
could be portrayed as showing off. Hysterical individuals are easily
noted for their emotional imbalance, which is expressed by stormy and
bright changes of mood. The speech of these people is full of images,
play-acting seeps in, pride. The hysteric thirsts for attention to
himself and suffers greatly in its absence. The hysteric
characteristically wants to seem greater than he is in real life.
According to the well-know Russian professor P.B. Gannushkin, the
behavior of hysterical people is filled with unnaturalness and
falseness. "Every action, every gesture, every movement is calculated
for the observer and for effect. They necessarily have to be original
and they do not reject any method of attracting attention."
"The hysteric, extremely subtly and acutely perceiving one thing,
remains insensitive to another, — wrote P.B Gannushkin. — Kind, gentle
in one situation, they later reveal indifference, egoism — in another."
Professor G. E. Sukhareva noted, that hysterical individuals have
behavioral difficulties from childhood. They are very capricious,
disobedient, love to play to leading role and express aggression, if
they are not able to. Their mood is noticeably very imbalanced.
Once these children go to school, they have trouble dealing with the
group, because they cannot match their interests with the interests of
others and always strive to be first, they cannot bear to have someone
else praised in their presence.

If they have a good intellect they can do well in school, but their
knowledge is superficial, their interests not constant.
Heightened irritability, a tendency toward lying makes these young
people harder to bring up. Still, when one can find an activity which
coincides with their interests, their condition is markedly improved.
Heightened volatility, constant desire to put oneself forward, to be
better than he is, the discrepancy between desire and actuality — all
of these are the source of conflicting tribulations. Hysterical
children often react inadequately to any life failure, and
characteristic signs of hysteria are part of the picture.

As mentioned before, the main feature of hysterical personalities is
the constant striving for attracting the attention of others. Pointed
affectation, unnaturalness, dishonesty shows in their actions. They
would do anything, would stoop to any trick to gain universal
attention, sometimes resorting to obvious falsehood and taking
advantage of the feelings of others.

Clear expressions of the attributes of hysterical individuals are
mental immaturity, infantilism, which are expressed in unbalanced
interests and attractions, easily changed moods. They are quickly
disappointed in friends and change them easily, even though at first
their friendship seemed eternal. For hysterics it is only a step from
love to hate.

Classical literature contains clear examples of hysterical individuals.
Gogol’s Klestakov can be considered a classic hysteric.
We often see the variation of so-called pseudologist among hysterical
people. Along with demonstrativeness, there exists in their behavior a
stormy game of imagination, a tendency to fantasize. And the subject
himself is usually the hero in those fantasies.
In some psychiatric classifications, the group called "narcissistic
(conceited) individuals" is mentioned. The main symptom of a
narcissistic individual, as Professor U.A Alexandrovsky points out, is
the belief, arising in one’s youth, in one’s particular significance,
in his talents, his unusually appealing appearance, which should arouse
universal delight. "The need for delight, the desire to see oneself
surrounded by admirers and worshipers, undoubtedly draws this type
nearer to hysteria, just like the inability of these subjects to be
compassionate, to show concern for others."

These individuals tend to fantasize, and the themes of their fantasies
involve their successes, achievement of unlimited power, might, wealth.
They love to talk a lot bout their famous friends — actors,
politicians, the powerful of this world, of their ties with secret
societies or very important organizations. And their stories are either
based on superficial, "nodding" acquaintance, or (more often) appear as
the product of an overactive imagination. In relating their
information, the narcissistic individuals not only expect special
delight in those surrounding them, but demand respectful attitudes for
no reason, submission, as to a person standing above those around
them," writes the same author.

Hysterics are sometimes sly, elusive. There are many swindlers among
them. They often possess great intuition.
Many founders of sects, such as, for example, Mary Baker Eddy
(Christian Science), undoubtedly had a hysterical character. The same
can be said of many other "charismatic" individuals. For example, it is
known that the founder of theosophy (1) Yelena Blavatskaya in her youth
was noted for amazing falsehoods and stormy fantasies, about which her
close relatives wrote.
The "conditional enjoyments or desires" mechanism of the sickly
symptoms is specific to hysteria. It is like a criteria for separating
hysteria from various other non-hysterical manifestations. Different
sickly manifestations can be pleasant and desired by the hysteric,
promising some sort of gain or freeing one from some kind of
responsibilities.

The hysteric needs an audience. For example, if Robinson Crusoe had
hysterical tendencies, they would never have developed, because there
was no one to see them.
They are easily suggestible. But their suggestibility is very
particular. The hysteric, as a rule, picks up on ideas if they are in
his favor.

Clinical manifestations of hysteria are tremendously varied. There can
be hysterical fits, paralysis. One sees hysterical hyperkinetics,
expressed in shaking body or separate parts. I have observed hysterical
deaf-mutes, blindness. In the past, one saw the so-called "hysterical
arc." At present, many psychiatrists point out that hysterical
reactions are now found in more subtle forms.
Jacques Charcot called hysteria "the great imitator," even though one
cannot say that hysteria and imitation are identical concepts. The
hysteric actually suffers; but his suffering is caused by conditional
desire. The imitator simply makes believe he is ill.
The range of hysterical behaviors are very wide and many-faceted. They
can be young people with earrings, for example, in their nose, and
green-red-blue hair. Or a politician, for whom conceit is dearer than
anything else.

Hysterical behavior can be found, unfortunately, in Orthodox circles. I
have seen such "matushkas" (as they call themselves) who with their
delights in a moment transformed a young priest into a "miracle-worker"
or "seer." The hysterical person immediately makes a "diagnosis,"
divides churches and hierarchs into those who "have grace" and "do not
have grace." The criteria in such cases is, of course, one’s
"instinct." Sometimes one gets the feeling, that such a person actually
thirsts for some kind of "hot" facts, sensational information or simply
gossip. And then he finds himself in his element. In addition, the
hysteric does not consider the very facts as important as their
personal interpretation of them.

The hysteric can stand out not only with their extravagant appearance,
theatrical mimicry or unique speech. They could be imperceptible in
appearance, but their speech will be filled with quotes, appearing
scientifically educated. If worst comes to worst, he could simply break
into a mysterious silence. But this is all posing. One can sense the
falsity and unnaturalness in his behavior.
The feelings of a hysterical person, while appearing warm and gentle,
are always mixed with a sense of coldness. The person himself is the
most important thing to that person.

Clinical psychiatry distinguishes between hysterical neurosis and
hysterical psychopathy. These states are separated by the depth,
expression and origin of the hysterical expressions. Hysterical
neurosis is generally characterized by personalization of conflict,
that is, the manifestation of hysteria in the form of different
physical ailments and sensations. Very often, for example, a hysterical
"knot" appears in the throat. Remember examples in classical
literature, when young ladies fainted from worry.

Psychopathy — is an individualized anomaly, which is characterized by
the disharmony of an individual’s mental structure. The criteria for
psychopathy are: 1) the expression of mental disorders, leading a
person to social disadaptation; 2) total alteration of the entire
mental image of the person; 3) the relative stability of mental
particulars (P.B. Gannushkin).
Psychopaths are divided into constitutional, which can arise as the
result of different illnesses, head traumas, infections etc., and
acquired. The second group of psychopaths are the result of upbringing,
environmental and situational conditions.
Unfortunately, our reality is often the "supplier" of psychopaths.
Psychopathy occupies the middle ground between psychoses and neuroses.
In some ways it does not "make it" as a psychosis (as a rule, ranting,
hallucinations and other expressions are missing from the clinical
picture), but it essentially differs from neurotic disorders. Also,
neuroses are usually connected with some sort of emotionally
significant experiences, distressing a person with events and life
conditions. But the psychopath, well, is always a psychopath. Of
course, in isolated moments his behavior may be worse, while in other
periods of life — one can observe relative compensations, but the
general anomalous psychopathic background remains.
If a person suffering from neurosis, speaking conditionally, hurts
himself, then the psychopath through his behavior hurts others around
him as well. Without question, the level of expression of psychopathic
traits in persons which have them, vary individually. There is also a
difference in the way various types of psychopathic disorders are
treated. For instance, as an example, the following types of
psychopaths are differentiated: excited, hysterical, reactive-volatile,
constraining, and others. In earlier classifications, we could see, for
example, the following variations: queers, fantastics, liars,
emotionally dull, irritable, neurotic, depressives.
The treatment of psychopaths is a long, difficult and often ineffective
process. The same can be said of the spiritual rehabilitations of
psychopathic personalities! But what is impossible for man is possible
for God.

A serious illness can be a powerful psychotraumatic factor.
Unfortunately, not many are capable of bearing illnesses like
Christians. Adequate, courageous reactions to illnesses are met rarely,
much oftener in such situations there is a neurotic reaction. Thus,
Professor V.P. Zaitsev delineates five types of similar reactions to
heart attacks, among which a hysterical reaction is described.
Egocentricism, demonstrativeness, desire to attract attention for
sympathy, are characteristic.

Again I repeat, two conditions must be present for hysteria to reveal
itself fully: benefit, and an audience; nothing hurts hysterics more
than the lack of attention to their person. In that case, life becomes
duller and loses its attraction.
The Bishop Varnava (Beliaev) uses the following expression — "living a
lie." Hysterics, in their extreme displays, live a lie.
Many hysterical personages are habitués of different manifestations,
demonstrations. To them it is not even important who or what they are
defending, which rights they fight for. They are attracted by the
ability to be in the public eye. With the onset of democracy in the
last decade, on the waves of the crisis of moral values resulting from
the lack of spirituality that had ruled the society 70+ years, a large
army is attacking the souls of people containing different types of
magis, sorcerers, mediums, magicians, bringing so many ills to the
people who come to them. Though I will not enter into the details of
describing this occult destruction, I will say only that in their
individual tenor the great majority of these "healers" — are hysterics,
desiring glory and recognition. Of course, there are conscious servants
of evil among them, having different levels of ordinations. But many of
them are simply swindlers, who have no knowledge of any occultism, but
simply take spiritual advantage of their compatriots, pumping no small
amount of money out of their pockets. Without a doubt, this
circumstance does not remove the responsibility from the person coming
for such "help," even to a swindler. It is a grave sin.
The desire to be seen, to be the center of attention is often connected
with vice. Hysterics, especially in their youth, are always in love,
are in an "ocean" of erotic fantasies. Hysterical women cannot resist
flirting, coquetry even for a short time. Often, hysterical people,
particularly psychopaths, are fully possessed by vice and lead a
corresponding way of life.

The Orthodox psychologist V. Rev. Boris Nichiporov justly writes: "The
ideals, which the social consciousness is cultivating today, are the
following. The first daily ideal — a girl as a photo-model. Beauty and
a figure are demanded, white teeth, external attraction and so on. In
general, the starting point of everything is not the heart or mind, but
the hip. Everything must come from the hip and no higher than the hip —
thoughts, and desires, and feelings."

Lunacy. Doctor V.K. Neviarovich truly points out that "beginning with
the end of the 19th century, atheistically oriented scholars tried to
prove that neither possession nor lunacy existed, but all of these were
simply manifestations of hysteria. V.M. Bekhterev (1857-1927), a major
Russian scholar, studying psychiatry, neurology and psychology,
unfortunately shared this opinion. But his experiments stemmed from
strictly materialistic positions, which could not avoid influencing his
scientific research. Thus, in one of his works he even attempted (o
horrors!) to assert that all the Gospel miracles of the Savior — the
healings and the resurrections from the dead — could be explained by
the hysterical sufferings of those people who believed in Christ.
Unfortunately, even now official medicine, to the joy of the entire
demonic world, does not discriminate between emotional illnesses and
spiritual, and tries to heal many possessed people with insulin, or
hypnosis, or chemical compounds, and lately even occult methods
(meditation, the method of Stanislav Groth and so on)."
The same author writes, "that hysteria and possession are not one and
the same, but there is no better preparation for possession than
hysteria, because the devil is the "father of lies," and all hysterics
lie; the devil, according to the words of the holy fathers, is an
"artist" and "monkey," and the characteristics of hysteria are
imitation, acting and a sickly artistic imagination. The fall of the
devil occurred because of vanity and pride — and the similarity is
obvious…"
Father Alexander Elchaninov wrote the following about this emotional
illness: "Hysteria is the decay of the personality, and it frees a
tremendous, ruinous (in its destructive power) amount of energy, like
in a splitting atom."
Pride and vanity, lying and posing — these are the spiritual essence of
hysteria.

So what is, in fact, hysteria: sin or illness? I think that hysteria —
is a sinful composition of the soul, which often results in sickly
sufferings.
What do I mean to achieve by writing this? In order to "look the enemy
in the eye," as we say, and to battle with him, rooting out the weeds
of hysteria in our own souls. And, also, to better see this sinful
illness in the reality surrounding us.

How should one react to hysterical behavior? First of all, it is not
worth following the hysteric’s lead. Keep your dignity and composure,
and if necessary, reasonable strictness. I will remind you once again,
that hysteria stops when there is no witness.

Sometimes the object attracts attention to itself by its novelty,
astonishment, but afterwards, when its impurity is realized, it must be
banished, otherwise it becomes ‘attention’. He who has banished a
sinful thought, has extinguished the internal war. ‘Pleasure’ from
sinful objects is already a sin. It is only a step from pleasure to
‘desire’. ‘Decisiveness’ comes from desire. The desiring person has
stated his permission to act, but has not yet thought up or done
anything to attaining his goal; the decided has already considered
everything and decided; the only thing left is to ‘act’.

[How Brown]

This is a very long post -I came across some modern text posted by
Orthodox Christian clergy who put their faith in texts from the early
years of Christianity, up to approx 300AD

I can't believe no-one used something like the following in their support of the RDS theory.
If I was using the following I would put RDS as self-diagnosing himself as having hysteria (from the greek for uterus) (not the modern perception of the condition) but was diagnosed with neurosthenia - and he followed Agrippa Book 4 in that he would require that body part to treat his own illness - he would have come across the following ideas
due to his interest in the patristic gospel era as the text is from the
orthodox faith

His neurosthenia manifests as exitability, impotence, insomnia , hand
trembles etc but it derives from pride and the sufferer becomes
identified with the devil himself. He has been brought to this state
via occult practices and rejection of Jesus. He feels compelled to attack the source or object of desire of his vices. His only redemption would
be to return to Jesus and the true faith.



The description of an hysteric describes him to a T
---------------------------------------------------------

Nemo:

This is very good material....and I hope that you or someone else is up to debate/discuss/analyze the material you've generously provided. I really appreciate this and I hope others do too.

Notice the underlined and emboldened sentence above in black.

Permit me to ask you...and anyone else for that matter... why someone would use this in support of the RDS-as-Ripper theory...since it would be more in line with Stephenson actually being sick as opposed to faking a complaint ? Thats my stance on the matter but I really hope to hear your counterpoint to this excellent material.

It is possible that Mr. Harris came upon this material at some point in the past...in my view...and has seen what you've provided. He was the major proponent of the concept of D'Onston self-diagnosing himself with neurosthenia. The blue line above sounds very much like a line I recall hearing Mr. Harris state about RDS returning to the faith after the murders upon meeting Mrs. Woodhull. I don't believe that Stephenson ever "left" the faith and Mike Covell may have something to add here about Stephenson's religious tract work prior to 1888 and earlier ( 1884,I believe).

We know Stephenson claimed to have had medical acumen. It didn't require medical acumen to self-diagnose ones self and it still doesn't. Yet, several elements of this story,which need to be taken one step at a time...and I hope you want to help segue into a discussion on this Nemo...should be brought out.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Father Alexander Elchaninov wrote: "Nervousness and so on are expressions of sin, and specifically, pride. The main neurasthenic is
the devil. [/COLOR]

What a great quote !

Nice find, Nemo !!

[How Brown]

In medicine it is typical to single out three main classical forms of
neuroses: nervous breakdown, obsessive-compulsive disorder and
hysteria. We shall consider them in the order that they are generally
discussed in special literature.

Several people who have read about RDS have mentioned the possibility of Stephenson being OCD. Something to chat up?

[Nemo]

I would say that anyone who would like to put forward the "black magic" ritual theory has an immense amount of material there

The interpretations of the nerve conditions connected with and including neurosthenia, if interpreted as "spiritual" disorders as in the quote, contains everything you "need" to understand the "occult" RDS - his motives - opinions - etc

It completely passed me over that the root of the word "hysteria" is the Greek for "uterus"

Agrippa recommends that in black magic undertaken for healing, the flesh/body part required in the operation would be connected with the affliction - veneral disease was forefront in my mind with the Ripper taking the vagina/uterus but this "fits" precisely

(I don't think/am not sure the Uterus was the main target of the real Ripper by the way)

The quote warns against occult practices and describes also how a vice turns to fantasy - then to action. Sexual vices are mentioned which may give an interpretation that the source of the vice, women/sex, are the root of the "patient's" condition

Note that the person afflicted would be quick tempered but would direct this anger to others

..the lies /exaggeration/secret societies/occult/connections and approaches to powerful people etc etc etc

There is a lot here to discuss - I think the quote needs dissecting

Although this is modern text, the interpretations of the religious texts go back a long way and are very conservative. It's such a coincidence(?) that these texts belong to the era of the Patristic Gospels of which RDS was practically an expert

This type of spiritual root to his illness would appeal to RDS I think, rather than a mundane medical explanation

I found it here...
http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/psychotherapy/forms.shtml

There is a lot more at this site than that which I have posted but these are the most relevant bits

[How Brown]

Nemo:

Once more,this is one heck of a body of data to analyze. I usually have too much to say or some quick reply handy to D'Onston related material....but I've met my match it appears:kiss:...and believe me,I appreciate that fact.

Nemo: "I would say that anyone who would like to put forward the "black magic" ritual theory has an immense amount of material there.."

I concur at first glance Nemo.

Here's a comment to consider:

"Thus, we can infer, that neurasthenia is more or less the consequence of departing from Christ, falling into neo-heathenism."

Here could be the basis of the late Mr. Harris's position on his opinion of Stephenson returning to Christ after the murders or returning to Christianity as a result of liasing with Mrs. Woodhull. Not necessarily this one line of course but something else very similar if not in the material you provided but in another non-Internet based source.

[How Brown]

They love to talk a lot bout their famous friends — actors,
politicians, the powerful of this world, of their ties with secret
societies or very important organizations. And their stories are either
based on superficial, "nodding" acquaintance, or (more often) appear as
the product of an overactive imagination. ( Maybe even to the point of plagiarism? HB)

The same
can be said of many other "charismatic" individuals. For example, it is
known that the founder of theosophy (1) Yelena Blavatskaya in her youth
was noted for amazing falsehoods and stormy fantasies, about which her
close relatives wrote.