Sir John Williams - A Response From Tony Williams and Humphrey Price (recovered)

[Ash]

spryder
24th January 2006, 02:11 PM
Following is a response from Tony Williams and Humphrey Price to comments made in Ripper Notes concerning various possible discrepancies within the text of their book, Uncle Jack. It was sent to me by Malcolm Edwards of Orion Books and it is reprinted here with no edits.

__________________________________________________ ______________


We have recently received a copy of an article written by Jennifer Pegg for Ripper Notes. In her article, she makes a number of points about the evidence in Uncle Jack and we would like to take the opportunity here of responding to her comments.

The criticisms made of Uncle Jack in Ms Pegg’s article can be summarised into the following points:


Mary Anne NicholsMs Pegg has found that the copy of the page with Mary Anne Nichols’ name on it, in Sir John Williams’s notebook in the National Library of Wales, does not correspond to that printed in Uncle Jack.


The Whitechapel Workhouse InfirmaryMs Pegg suggests that we have mistakenly identified Sir John Williams in the Infirmary accounts; and that we have wrongly stated that he could not legally work there.


The 1888 diaryMs Pegg suggests that the fact the pages have been removed is not in itself a revealing detail.


Ovariotomies and the Ripper mutilationsMs Pegg says that the operation often carried out by Sir John Williams was not exactly as that carried out by the Ripper.


A secret in a letterIt is suggested that the letter addressed to his best friend’s wife is not to be found in the National Library.


The Morgan letterMs Pegg wonders about the provenance of this letter; about the assumption that it is addressed to Dr Morgan Davies; and that the timing implied in it rules him out of suspicion for the murder of Annie Chapman.


Changing work hoursMs Pegg suggests that Sir John did not increase his hours of work shortly after the Ripper killings ceased.


Retiring due to ill-healthIt is suggested that we have found an unlikely reason as to Sir John’s early retirement.


Unliked in LondonMs Pegg writes that Sir John returned to Wales because he was under contract to do so.


Away from work It is alleged that the catalogue of museum exhibits compiled by Sir John does not demonstrate he was not in the hospital at the time.


The red stoneDoubt is cast on the testimony of George Hutchinson.


Mary Kelly identification Doubt is cast on our identification of Mary Kelly.

We would like to respond to each of these points in turn, but should start by saying that we have already corresponded with Jennifer Pegg on these issues, and that she indicated our responses would be included in her article; sadly this was not the case. We would like to make it clear that we do not now, nor have in the past, nor will in the future, hide anything, so these responses include material already made available to Jennifer Pegg.

1.
The first point we would like to make is an apology; an apology to our readers for the fact that a wrong copy of a document found its way into Uncle Jack. We are both shocked and dismayed by this error. Clearly we shall ensure that the correct version of the document is reproduced in the paperback edition of our book; equally clearly, this is the only correction on this matter required. No textual alterations of any kind are necessary, as we have never made the style of John Williams’s handwriting an issue in our book.

John Williams’s handwriting was never a part of our argument because we never felt that the sources could be entirely trusted. Most of the letters supposedly written by Jack the Ripper have been discounted as hoax letters, so which of the letters would we have to compare his handwriting to? Whichever one(s) we chose would be an issue of some controversy. And we cannot be certain that John Williams himself wrote in his notebooks; he would have had an assistant (at UCH, he had a number of them), and perhaps some patient interviews required an assistant to take notes. So to have based a large part of our argument on comparing the styles of handwriting, which we felt could not be entirely trusted, seemed to us to be a weak route to go down.

2.
There is a flaw in Ms Pegg’s argument, which is that she has ignored the fact that Theophilus Westhorp, the oakum manufacturer she refers to, was dead by the time this record was made; he died in early 1885. William Westhorp, his brother, became the oakum manufactory manager, and we know that he lived in Bromley. He had a son, Joseph Westhorp, aged 34, who also lived in Bromley. Does this not mean the note in the book could be J Westhorp, as it was clearly a family business?

The article in Ripper Notes goes on to say that we are wrong in our claim to say that it was not possible for John Williams to have worked there, legally. As we said in Uncle Jack, John Williams – like most doctors of the period – worked in a number of institutions, not only to fulfil obligations of service towards the communities in which the institutions were based but also to increase the range of his experience. As Ms Pegg acknowledges, it was not legal for a doctor to carry out research at the Infirmaries – and as this is what we have alleged about John Williams, it is therefore clear that he was not legally free to carry out research at the institution. Given the fact stated in the source that is referred to in both Uncle Jack and Ripper Notes, M A Crowther’s book on the workhouse system, that working in a workhouse infirmary would not enhance a doctor’s status and earning potential, it is clear to us that John Williams would not wish to give up working elsewhere in order to be able to work at the Infirmary.

[Ash]

cont...

3.
We are of course only able to rely on what remains in Sir John’s archive at the National Library to consult his diaries. It is highly likely, though, that a man who kept a diary as full and well-used as the 1888 diary, would have had similar ones for every year in which he worked in London. His working practices – at private homes as well as institutions throughout London – would have made this essential. We feel this is a reasonable assumption and that it is on this basis we have argued that he kept his diary so as to have a semblance of normality in his collection at home. Why did this particular diary survive his death? For exactly the same reason as the slides, and the knife.


4.
Ovariotomy involved the same exterior cuts to the abdomen, as the surgeon opened the body to allow access, as the attacks carried out on some of the victims. Given the conditions that the Ripper worked in, we felt this was clear enough to the reader.

5.
The letter referred to is probably not in the online catalogue that Ms Pegg has consulted, but it exists in the National Library’s archives and we have a copy of the letter. The reference number on our copy is 448.


6.
It is clearly stated in the book that the letter is in the possession of Tony’s family and that it is in fact held by Tony’s brother. It is because the letter is not on public view that it has been reproduced in the book.

We state in the book that we at first thought that the letter had been addressed to his brother Morgan – who did indeed know much about John Williams’s working life, as he was also a contributor to the funds for University College Hospital – but realised that it was very unlikely to have been him as he was living in Connecticut. Once we had established that John Williams and Morgan Davies knew each other, it seemed reasonable to suggest that he and ‘Morgan’ were one and the same.

As to the matter of timing, perhaps we should have written that he was prepared for an excuse whatever time of day he might bump into Dr Davies, who would be well aware that John Williams would ‘attend’ clinic at a time to suit himself.


7.
A Victorian doctor made his living – in John Williams’s case, a good living – from his extensive private work. He would not have cut into his private hours in order to work longer at UCH, particularly as he was shortly to seek retirement from hospital work. Working on a Saturday would have cut into his private work, so he would have arranged that instead for weekdays. Simply gauging the extent of his hospital attendance from his clinic hours is not enough; ward duties, committee meetings and teaching commitments have to be considered as well.


8.
It is not that strange an argument, surely, to suggest that as a healthy baby – and as a boy who valued his health highly, and wrote and talked about it years later – John Williams was a healthy adult. We have recorded what evidence we have here so as to show the basis on which we have made out judgement. In indicating the baptism dates were important, Jennifer Pegg is agreeing with the point we have made.

9.
It can indeed be argued this way; although in John Williams’s absence in London Dr Davies’s practice had changed, with a new partner and with new duties of his own. The practice had changed so much, that it could be argued that John Williams was not expected to return After all, it can be shown that Dr Williams was not following the path prescribed for Victorian doctors; why?

10.
It might well mean that Dr Williams supervised Dr Spencer, but he does not say so, so we should not assume that he did do so. The fact that he didn’t mention himself in the notes is not a reflection of his arrogance (which stands unchallenged; see the impartial view of the Gentlewoman magazine) but simply an accurate record in a document that would have been an important one for UCH. If he wasn’t there, then where was he?

11.
The red stone – whether on a pin, or a seal – seemed to us an important point, worth mentioning. We note that as to the matter of the seal’s placing, Ms Pegg is very reliant on George Hutchinson’s evidence – evidence she then goes on to dispute in her next paragraph. In his testimony to the police, Hutchinson did make reference to a ‘horse shoe pin’ in his statement to the police.

12.
Mary Kelly’s identification remains something of a Holy Grail for writers on the Ripper story, and we are no different. The family we have described comes probably closer than any so far identified to fit the description Mary Kelly gave about her past. Whether or not that description is true – and therefore whether or not one can take every fact she gave to Barnett as gospel truth – is another matter. After all, a contemporary journalist sought out Mary Kelly’s past and family at the time of the inquest into her death, and found nothing. Coupled with this is the fact that we are reliant on Barnett’s recollection of this conversation, as noted down in court, and the opportunity for error creeps in still further. Similarly this casts doubt on what can and can’t be said about Jonathan Davies; we do not know whether or not Mary Kelly had a brief affair with her neighbour, Jonathan Davies, and then found it more expedient to tell everyone that he’d died rather than admit the truth. We have simply outlined for readers what we came across in the course of our researches, and drawn our conclusions from that evidence.




Finally, we would like to say that we welcome comment and criticism of our work and we hope that readers will continue to explore the relationship between Sir John Williams and Jack the Ripper for some time to come. We do, however, object to any suggestion or hint that documents on which we have based our deductions have in any way been deliberately altered by ourselves, and will take very seriously indeed any allegation of the same. We realise that the nature of the theory proposed in Uncle Jack meant that our book would come in for robust questioning, but we have only sought to place before readers interested in this most famous of true crimes evidence that we believe has never before been considered. As to Sir John’s place in history, Tony has publicly stated that no-one would be more pleased than he should he be proved to be wrong, as then the reputation of his illustrious ancestor be restored. As yet, we have no reason to doubt the case we’ve put forward.
________________________________________
spryder
24th January 2006, 02:44 PM
The first point we would like to make is an apology; an apology to our readers for the fact that a wrong copy of a document found its way into Uncle Jack.

What exactly was the "wrong copy of a document" which was published in Uncle Jack? How was it procured and why is it so substantially different when overlayed with the version currently held at the Nat'l Library of Wales?

That's the central question here, and unfortunately the above response does nothing to address it.

[Ash]

supe
24th January 2006, 03:29 PM
Stephen is absolutely right -- what is important is that Williams, Price and ultimately Orion Publishing issued a book with a fradulent document and refuse to explain how and why they did so.

This is not an instance of simply publishing the "wrong" document. There is only one ducument, that which is in the possession of the National Library of Wales, a copy of which Jennifer obtained and which was subsequently printed in Ripper Notes. The last line of that document does not correspond at all with the last line of the document printed in Uncle Jack.

The inescapable conclusion must be that the document Williams and Price used in their book was a forgery -- there are no alternate documents for that page at the NLW. This is, certainly, a serious charge to level but the evidence is overwhelming that a fraud was committed.

Until Williams, Price and Orion explain how a forged document was created and inserted in their book there is no point in even considering the rest of their quibbles with Jennifer's critique.

Explain the forgery gentlemen and then your other comments may be worthy of debate.

Don.
________________________________________
monty
24th January 2006, 03:43 PM
.......the above response does nothing to address it.

Sums it all up pretty well to me.

Monty

________________________________________
jdpegg
24th January 2006, 04:52 PM
I would like to acknowledge that I have read the above post but will not be responding more fully at present.

the nature of my research is ongoing and there will be an update in the next issue of Ripper Notes .

At present i have no further comments to add about the above statement except to say that Orion Books have been promising one on these boards since my article was first published and i cannot understand why it has taken so long for them to produce such a response. Especially considering the seriousness of what was found.

Jenni
________________________________________
dannorder
24th January 2006, 05:06 PM
Stephen, Don and Monty,

You are, of course, right that the central question of just how does an incorrect document (as is apparently admitted here) with altered handwriting apppear in a book is completely unanswered...

...worse than that though, I understand that the authors wrote to Ripperologist and swore up and down that the version they printed in their book was the correct version and that they were both there at the Library and saw it and can vouge for it, and that they had no idea where the "other version", i.e. the one actually at the National Library of Wales, came from.

So which official statement by the authors are we supposed to believe? They appear to directly contradict each other. I note this one came directly from the publishers, and I was led to believe the one in Ripperologist came direct from the authors without being approved by the publisher first. Makes me wonder...

Regarding the rest, Well, the "J" they think stands for "John" very clearly is not a "J" but a "T" unless the day of the week in the same records is a "Juesday" and so forth and so on... and... well, to be honest, I didn't read the rest of it yet because, frankly, I am in shock. We waited all this time -- nearly four months since the discrepancy was first brought to their attention -- only to get a statement that raises even more troubling questions than we had originally.
________________________________________
spryder
24th January 2006, 05:31 PM
The following is an extract from the letter published in Ripperologist #62, from Tony Williams and Humphrey Price, dated November 2 2005.



Dear Rip,

Thank you for sending through the press release from Ripper Notes.

It won’t come as any surprise to you to learn that we are both shocked and dismayed by this discrepancy. How it came about is as baffling to us as it must be to your readers.

I [Tony Williams] first visited the National Library of Wales in January 2001 and ordered a photocopy of the page in the medical notebook that carries Mary Ann Nichols’ name, and it is this copy that has been reproduced in Uncle Jack. Humphrey [Price] came to the library with me in August 2002 to see the archive there for the first time, and neither of us noticed anything about the page in the notebook that appeared in any way different to the photocopy I held.

Since then we have only on occasion looked again at the page but without noticing the changes apparent in the document obtained by Jennifer Pegg. Naturally we are as keen as your readers will be to learn how this came about and we will be looking further into it.
________________________________________
George Hutchinson
24th January 2006, 05:31 PM
Am I alone here in thinking of Christie, who only admitted to each of his crimes when confronted with overwhelming evidence?

Jenni - you KNOW what we think!

PHILIP

[Ash]

jdpegg
24th January 2006, 05:53 PM
e would like to respond to each of these points in turn, but should start by saying that we have already corresponded with Jennifer Pegg on these issues, and that she indicated our responses would be included in her article; sadly this was not the case. We would like to make it clear that we do not now, nor have in the past, nor will in the future, hide anything, so these responses include material already made available to Jennifer Pegg..

“Mary Ann Nichols, on whom my Uncle Jack had performed an abortion …” (Williams and Price, 2005, pp 16).

JP: The 1881 Census that there were over 100 people of that name just four years previously.

Just who are these hundreds of Mary Ann Nichols? Are they M. A. Nichols, or Mary A. Nichols? And are they all of the right age? And why would we imagine anything other than ‘Abortion’ since that is what was written at the top of the page in the book that John Williams used? And just what does she suggest about the handwriting in the book, held by the National Library of Wales? That it was altered, although it has been in the library’s possession since it was left to the library?

Point 2.
“We came across two records of payments to J. Williams” (Williams and Price, 2005, pp 128).

JP: There is no evidence to link Sir John Williams to the Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary as he is not mentioned in the records of that institution.

Theophilus Westhorp, Oakum Manufacturer, died in early 1885; William Westhorp, his brother, was the oakum manufactory manager, he lived in Bromley. He had a son, Joseph Westhorp, aged 34, who also lived in Bromley. Does this not mean the note in the book could be J Westhorp, as it was clearly a family business? The top of the page shows A M Champneys, not given his title of ‘doctor’, as could be the case with John Williams. We had John Williams’s own word for the fact he was in Whitechapel then; we were always looking for a record of John Williams’s involvement at the Workhouse Infirmary but knew, as we demonstrated, that it was not legal for him to be employed there.


Point 3.
“His 1888 diary, for instance, …” (Williams and Price, 2005, pp 15).

JP: The catalogue of the National Library of Wales shows that Sir John Williams did not have a diary for every year and furthermore that the diaries he had were scarcely written in and some were not used for the conventional purpose.

The National Library of Wales’s on-line entry regarding the diaries is incomplete. But if you take that thought further, and bearing in mind that the blotting pages in the 1888 diary indicate it was used extensively, what possible explanation does she give for the systematic removal of the diary’s pages, and for the retention of an otherwise useless diary?

Point 4.
“At the end of the following year, in the meeting of 17 December 1890, …” (Williams and Price, 2005, pp 120).

JP: However, the claim that an ovariotomy is exactly the operation performed by the Ripper on Chapman and Eddowes is false.

Ovariotomy involved the same exterior cuts to the abdomen as the surgeon opened the body to allow access. Given the conditions that the Ripper worked in, we felt this was clear enough to the reader.

Point 5.
“I had another letter to show him …” (Williams and Price, 2005, pp 24-5).

JP: No mention of this letter can be found on the National Library of Wales online catalogue.

It may not appear in the online catalogue, but it exists in the National Library’s archives and we have a copy of the letter.

Point 6.
Letter to Morgan dated 23rd Aug. 1888

JP: The authors claim this letter links Sir John to Whitechapel on the day of the Chapman murder. There is no established provenance for this letter.

Yes there is; it was left to the family. Within the family, it’s owned by Tony Williams’s brother, as we stated in the book. Incidentally, Tony’s brother is not happy about John Williams’s association with John the Ripper.

Point 7.
“We know from his own hand that John Williams was working in Whitechapel” (Williams and Price, 2005, pp 142).

JP: The letter states Sir John was attending not running a clinic.

We can assume he was attending the clinic to work there rather than present some medical problem of his own.

Point 8.
“If he should by chance meet Dr Davies …” (Williams and Price, 2005, pp 142).

JP: This implies that Sir John must have planned the murder of the 8th of September on the 23rd of August and before the first murder on the 31st of August.

No; it implies that Dr Williams had some reason to be prepared with an excuse should he encounter Dr Davies. We cannot impute any reason as to why this should be so.

Point 9.
“Dr Davies must have been the Morgan to whom John Williams wrote about his ‘clinic’ … ” (Williams and Price, 2005, pp 178).

JP: This is an assumption. We have no idea what his brother would and would not have known about in relation to any clinics Sir John Williams may or may not have been attending.

Indeed. Would/would not, may/ may not - but we would be wrong not to put forward any suggestion of our own, wouldn’t we?

Point 10.
“If he should by chance meet Dr Davies in Whitechapel on that evening …” (Williams and Price, 2005, pp 142)

JP: Annie Chapman was not murdered in the evening, but was in fact already dead by approx. 5.30 am. Any chance meeting in the evening would not suggest the murder of that morning. The Dear Morgan letter does not appear to read correctly.

Perhaps we should have written that he was prepared for an excuse whatever time of day he might bump into Dr Davies, who would be well aware that John Williams would run his clinic at a time to suit himself and his other commitments.

Point 11.
“His private practice had grown during his career …” (Williams and Price, 2005, pp 119).

JP: He did not increase his hours; he simply changed the days on which he ran clinics.

These hours are added to his workload; he would not have cut down on his private practice hours to allow for the extra hours he would have been working on a Saturday. This is someone who sought additional working time at a point in his life when he would have been expected to work less at the hospital and shortly before he retired from the hospital claiming ill-health.

[Ash]

jdpegg cont...

Point 13.
“John’s birth was registered nearly a month after his birth …” (Williams and Price, 2005, pp 27-8).

JP: It was baptisms not birth registrations which were hastened if a child was considered sickly. Therefore the fact that John Williams’ birth was not registered until a month after he was born does not indicate he was a healthy child. It is the date of his baptism which is important. Even then just because someone is a healthy child this does not mean they will not be susceptible to disease as an adult.

We concede the last point – it is not a definitive indicator of well-being. But it’s not a bad one, either. And in the small area of the country where John Williams spent his first few weeks of life, baptisms and registrations would have been undertaken almost simultaneously.

Point 14.
“John Williams returned to Swansea to seek work …” (Williams and Price, 2005, pp 43).

JP: It could be argued that in returning to Wales between 1867 and 1872 to work with Dr Davies to whom he had been apprenticed to Sir John was paying back for the missed years because he felt he ought to.

It can be argued this way; although in John Williams’s absence in London Dr Davies’s practice had changed, with a new partner and with new duties of his own; it could be argued that John Williams was not expected to return After all, it can be shown that Dr Williams was not following the path prescribed for Victorian doctors; why?

Point 15.
“Items 4122 and 4091 were removed but not by John Williams” (Williams and Price, 2005, pp 79).

JP: Dr Spencer could have removed them under Sir John’s supervision, for instance.

It might well mean that Dr Williams supervised Dr Spencer, but he does not say so, so we should not assume that he did do so. The fact that he didn’t mention himself in the notes is not a reflection of his arrogance (which stands unchallenged; see the impartial view of the Gentlewoman magazine) but simply an accurate record in a document that would have been an important one for UCH. If he wasn’t there, then where was he?


Point 16.
“Herbert R. Spencer wrote about the doctor” (Williams and Price, 2005, pp 201).

JP: Anyone familiar with the text of Hutchinson’s statement made to the police on 12 November 1888 will know that he made no such reference.

Anyone familiar with the statement made by Hutchinson to the Times and the Star on 14th November 1888 will know that he did indeed mention a red stone.

Point 17.
Mary Kelly

JP: She could not have been the Mary Kelly killed by Jack the Ripper in 1888.

After a long search for Mary Kelly, we discovered that John Williams, with no known connection to the district himself, had denigrated the area around Denbigh. Our search there turned up Mary Kelly, probably the closest anybody will find that fits the description she gave about her past. Whether or not that description is true – and therefore whether or not one can take every fact she gave to Barnett as gospel truth – is another matter. After all, a contemporary journalist sought out Mary Kelly’s past and family at the time of the inquest into her death, and found nothing. Coupled with this is the fact that we are reliant on Barnett’s recollection of this conversation, as noted down in court, and the opportunity for error creeps in still further. We remain confident of our identification of the woman.

The above is the authors’ response in full to my October article.
We only included in the article certain of these answers, mainly because the version they saw turned into a substantially earlier draft since it was sent prior to certain key findings most importantly in relation to the notebook. The final draft included information which may have made some of Mr Williams and Mr Price's answers look strange or even foolish. As well as this, as our readers are aware, Octobers RN was our biggest yet and editorially it was decided we could lose some comments without it affecting the flow of the article. It was my original intention to include all answers as people I spoke to in Brighton will no doubt realise. Now or at any point in time I am quite happy to share this or any other correspondence with the authors, their publisher (Mr Edwards) or agent which I have in my possession, with anyone who so wishesto see it.

My upcoming RN article will now also take on board the comments made.

I will seek to address all the points raised by the authors in that article.

Jenni
________________________________________
needler
24th January 2006, 07:06 PM
While I hate diving in here, you all know me well enough to understand that sometimes I CANNOT keep my big mouth shut! This is one of those times.

Two points, and in this argument, I'm not certain they even are a ripple:

OOPHORECTOMY is the word, NOT "ovariotomy"; it's possible that ovariotomy was used at the time, so OK, color me a nit-picker!

Why is it "...highly likely, though, that a man who kept a diary as full and well-used as the 1888 diary, would have had similar ones for every year in which he worked in London......... We feel this is a reasonable assumption and that it is on this basis we have argued that he kept his diary so as to have a semblance of normality in his collection at home."

Myra Hindley kept a diary detailing her love for Ian Brady right up to the point they got together...after that, nothing. Finding the one might imply there were others, but this doesn't fall into the "reasonable assumption" range used here as a proof. I'd rather have a stronger hook onto which I would hang this argument.

Yup, I am a nit-picker, but when something as serious as this comes along, each brick in the wall must be examined for strength and accuracy; if one brick is defective, the rest of the wall is perilously close to collapse.

Judy

[Ash]

ash
25th January 2006, 12:50 AM
I'm afraid that as soon as Jenni found that the genuine document in the National Library of Wales differed from the one published, there was only one question to be answered. And it wasn't how a wrong copy of the document found it's way into the book. It was why a wrong copy of the document should ever have existed in the first place. Until this question is answered, there is really no other argument these authors can make to defend their work.
________________________________________
How Brown
25th January 2006, 01:35 AM
Alan:

You hit the nail on the head.

Allow me to add this to the above remarks..



"As to Sir John’s place in history, Tony has publicly stated that no-one would be more pleased than he should he be proved to be wrong, as then the reputation of his illustrious ancestor be restored. As yet, we have no reason to doubt the case we’ve put forward."

The first emboldened [and bold] statement seems to indicate that Dr. John's culpability had been considered a viable possibility. Where ? Certainly not here,where it counts.....Mr. Williams had never been considered proven right.

The second emboldened part refers to a reputation that Mr. Williams and Mr. Williams alone was responsible for in its denigration. There's no need for a restoration. Dr.John is as safe as milk. I can think of someone else's rep that may have suffered... Dr.Williams can't lose what he never had...the status of JTR.

This sort of doublespeak works on rubes at a carnival...
________________________________________
jcoram
25th January 2006, 02:31 PM
Interesting that the copy in the Uncle Jack book is slightly closer in style to the undisputed entries above, than the one in the original notebook in the National Library of Wales....both nothing like the above writing of course, but a slightly better match nonetheless.

They do say.......'Practice makes perfect,'

well less dreadful anyway.

Jane

xxx
________________________________________
tom_wescott
26th January 2006, 09:33 PM
Let's pretend for a moment that they a document wasn't doctored to bolster the theory. Let's even pretend that the document in question was unquestionably legit....there's STILL absolutely no argument made for Sir John having been Jack the Ripper. Not a shred of suspicion attaches to him. For this reason alone I'd love to see this matter dropped and the entire matter disappear, ala Sickert. I certainly hope the journals and books won't be wasting too many pages on this. If Williams and Price had instead turned their focus towards writing a book detailing the life of a Victorian doctor - without any wild notions of infamy - then I've no doubt they would be held to a much higher esteem and their work would be highly recommended and not highly questionable.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
________________________________________
jdpegg
26th January 2006, 10:18 PM
After some consideration I fell that it is necessary to post some form of reply to the above statement by Williams and Price here on the boards. This is due to the fact that this response to my final article (this contained the serious discrepancy which was discovered following the sending of a draft version of my article to the authors for response) having been posted here on the boards where it is not necessarily the case that people viewing it have read my RN article. Orion (the publishers) have since November (and prior to the publication of RN) been aware of the final version of the article as a PDF of it was sent to Malcolm Edwards at that time.

I feel that a result of this statement from the authors being published here may be that authors have, unintentionally, caused some confusion in relation to some of the points raised for those who may come to this public message board and have read this response without having read my article detailing the problems at length.

As well as posting this summary here there will be a response in the next RN detailing my response to this and the letter in Rip 62 more fully. Incidentally my forthcoming article will also update readers as to my latest research findings.

I feel it is now necessary to make this brief summary to the boards for the sake of clarity as well as because I do not want people to think the response above is unanswerable when this is not the case.

This is by way of an explanation as to the following summary.

Summary

The authors mention that the wrong copy of the document appeared on page 16 of Uncle Jack. I am somewhat baffled as to how a wrong copy could have come about at all. There is only one source for the information at the National Library of Wales (NLW) that is item 320 of the Sir John Williams Collection. It is clear that the copy in Uncle Jack is an altered version of this original image. I was merely pointing out this discrepancy – the authors fail to explain how this discrepancy occurred. Furthermore, perhaps the authors would like to explain why they fail to provide any reference for this notebook entry in Uncle Jack, including in the bibliography?

I would like to point out that I did not suggest, nor have I ever suggested, that the handwriting on this, or any document in the NLW, should be compared with the letters supposedly written by Jack the Ripper. Indeed I believe this would be a worthless exercise since there is no evidence that Sir John Williams was Jack the Ripper.

I would like to state here that the death of Mr T. Westhorp is in no way a flaw in my theory. A simple look at the T in PTO at the bottom of the page (see Uncle Jack pp 127) shows that the letter mistaken for a J by the authors is in fact a T. The images reproduced in October’s RN and found by Rob Clack show this beyond any doubt. This entry cannot therefore refer to John Williams. Nor is there any evidence at all he ever worked in the Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary.

I recommend Peter Higginbotham’s excellent website for more information about Workhouses www.workhouse.org.uk (http://www.workhouse.org.uk/)

Diary – full details in relation to this issue will appear in January’s RN. I maintain here that there was no semblance of normaility to maintain as Sir John did not have a diary for every year.

In Uncle Jack the authors state that the operation ovariotomy was exactly the operation carried out by JtR on Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes. This was not the case. The authors implied strongly in the book that they were referring to more than the exterior cuts.

Letters – these issues will be raised in better detail in January’s RN.
I am still working on tracing the letter in the archive; clearly the reference number will be helpful in this endeavour. Why did the authors not provide this reference in their book?

In relation to point 8 of the authors statement I did not claim they had found an unlikely reason for Sir John’s retirement. I simply stated that their reason for disbelieving that he retired due to ill health was strange.

In relation to point 9 above, I did not claim Sir John returned to Wales because he was under contract to do so. I merely suggested an alternative reason could be put forward to that given in Uncle Jack.

In relation to point 11, I was not casting doubt on George Hutchinson’s testimony I was merely pointing out that it did not relate directly to the description of John William mentioned in the book.

For the original Casebook discussion on MJK see this link
http://casebook.org/forum/messages/4925/17529.html (http://casebook.org/forum/messages/4925/17529.html)

I also want to say this - the maxim goes innocent until proven guilty. The arguments in Uncle Jack do not prove Sir John was the Ripper. Any systematic analysis of that book cannot fail but to come to the conclusion that it contains within it some serious problems in relation to making such a case. Most of these cannot be resolved in a way that would aid the argument that Sir John Williams should be remembered for anything other than his obstetrics, his delivery of Royal babies and his great contribution to the Welsh people in founding the National Library of Wales.

That the reputation of Tony Williams’ first cousin seven times removed should in any way need restoring is down solely to his own book. I hope my own research to the present date has served to aid the removal of any such link in the minds of people who have seen it. As the nature of my research is ongoing I hope to one day be able to remove fully any lingering doubts.

Long dead people cannot speak out to defend themselves from accusations of murder. However, through the living it may be possible, from historical documentation left behind, to give such people voice. I hope this is what I am able to do

Jennifer Pegg

[Ash]

oberlin
27th January 2006, 12:03 AM
Long dead people cannot speak out to defend themselves from accusations of murder. However, through the living it may be possible, from historical documentation left behind, to give such people voice. I hope this is what I am able to do
Jennifer, I think that is well said.

Dave
________________________________________
Whitechapel Student
27th January 2006, 12:20 AM
Has the National Library of Wales brought to the attention of the police the fact that a document in its custody has - to all appearances - been tampered with?

If not, why not?

This would be a serious criminal offence, as seen in the (less serious) case of fake documents concerning Himmler inserted into files in the National Archives.
________________________________________
supe
27th January 2006, 01:00 AM
Whitechapel Student,

Obviously, Jennifer Pegg is the one who can speak with the most authority on the subject, but it is my understanding that a document in the NLW was not tampered with. Rather, a copy of that document was altered and then published in a book as if it were the original. The legal implications I leave to others to sort out.

The ethical implications of that would, however, seem apparent to anyone. That serious researchers would have a "wrong copy" of any document of this kind strains credulity and that the "wrong copy" bears -- as pointed out by Jane Coram -- a greater similarity to the rest of the writing on the document is certainly . . . well, suggestive.

The authors were aware that Jennifer was preparing a critical article for many months and her findings have been public knowkledge since mid-October and that makes one wonder why it took the authors so long to reveal their shock at the inclusion in their book of a "wrong copy" of a singular document from the National Library of Wales.

Don.
________________________________________
dannorder
27th January 2006, 02:01 AM
Don,

I have to disagree with you here, as I believe it's all but certain that the original at the library was tampered with, but what I believe and what I can prove right now are two different things.

Whitechapel Student,

Rest assured that the National Library of Wales is fully aware of everything going on, and they are the ones who would have to choose to pursue such a matter with the police or efforts to prove tampering. From the very beginning when the Uncle Jack book came out a spokesperson stated that the library normally tries to stay out of such public controversies. Of course what they may or may not be doing behind the scenes, and what their response is to the announcement that the publisher intends to go forward with a paperback edition of the book containing the image in question, remains to be seen.

We will of course let people know if there comes a time when there is something to say on that front.
________________________________________
jdpegg
27th January 2006, 09:43 AM
It is clear that there are many questions that remain unanswered - since Williams and Price have posted their comments here on a public forum I hope they will now answer the questions raised by Casebook posters

Jenni
________________________________________
Ally
27th January 2006, 12:29 PM
Supe,

I really don't see how the document in the library could *not* have been tampered with--as in, I think it must have been.

Of course this is just speculation on my part, but if you look at the two images, kindly provided by Norder on another thread, you will see that BOTH of the Mary Nichols entries are MUCH more legible than anything else written on that page.

If there had actually been a Mary Nichols entry there, why not use it? Why not use the exact numbering of the entry? Because there was never one there to start?

If I had to lay money, I'd lay my money like this (and of course this is only my opinion, rampant speculation as to what might have occurred): There never was a Mary Nichols entry. The page was photocopied, the entry added, the book went to be published, realizing the original source might be checked, an approximation was then added to the original.

I can't get over the fact that if there had actually been a Mary Nichols entry, they would have used it.

Now of course, all of that is purely speculation and opinion on my part. And if the author would like to explain that I am completely wrong, and that is not what happened, I would love to hear his explanation of what did happen, but in light of the fact that they aren't trying to explain what happened, I am afraid I am left with only my speculation and imagination to answer for them.
________________________________________
Whitechapel Student
27th January 2006, 01:45 PM
If I had to lay money, I'd lay my money like this (and of course this is only my opinion, rampant speculation as to what might have occurred): There never was a Mary Nichols entry. The page was photocopied, the entry added, the book went to be published, realizing the original source might be checked, an approximation was then added to the original.
Perhaps, but if it happened this way round I don't understand why they wouldn't have written the more plausible number [?]L 718 in the original.

It seems more likely that the original was (badly) doctored first, and that later an improved version was produced at the fakers' leisure, with a better imitation of the original handwriting and a reference number that matched the others.
________________________________________
Ally
27th January 2006, 01:58 PM
Yes it could have gone either way, but I lean towards the second only because I have this (foolish) notion that they might have been hesitant to mar the library copy at first. And if they marred the library copy first, and then had a photocopy of it, I would have thought they would have just gone with it, or kept the number the same the second time they copied it. My feeling was they went to "fix" the library copy after the fact, once they realized it would be checked and didn't bring a copy of the book, so they didn't have the exact number they had used.

It really could have gone either way; either way is equally stupid.
________________________________________
supe
27th January 2006, 03:19 PM
Dan and Ally,

You may be right, but if you are then we are looking at not only a serious crime but an example of monumental stupidity as well. As Jennifer has written, the only ones who know what really happened are the authors and one would hope they will soon recover from their "shock" and bout of "the vapors" engendered by Jennifer's discovery and provide us with a full explanation.

Don.

[Ash]

jdpegg
27th January 2006, 06:55 PM
All the evidence suggests that the line on the document in the National Library of Wales in no way resembles the other entries in the notebook.
________________________________________
Ally
27th January 2006, 06:57 PM
Jenn,

Will this be elaborated in your RN article or could you go into more detail here? As in, does the ink appear not to match, etc?
________________________________________
jdpegg
27th January 2006, 07:13 PM
Hiya,

yes there will be some elaboration - I was refering to the handwriting of the entry not what it was written with/ in. i have yet to be able to view the document first hand.

Jenni
________________________________________
spryder
28th January 2006, 10:49 PM
Malcolm Edwards has asked me to post this - from an email dated yesterday:



People who are saying that Humphrey and Tony have tampered with the original document are, straightforwardly, committing libel. I haven't discussed this point with Humphrey and Tony, but in my view this is a very serious libel indeed, and the people responsible had better be prepared to substantiate their accusations or withdraw them.

One of the reasons for the delay in posting the reply was that Humphrey paid a further visit to the library at my behest to re-examine the document, something neither Jennifer Pegg nor any of your other correspondents seems to feel under any obligation to do.

It is clear that the document has not been tampered with, and as far as can be ascertained, all the entries appear to be contemporaneous with one another. Further, while the name of Mary Anne Nichols is certainly in a different hand from other entries on that page, it is in the same hand as entries on the facing page of the journal. If Ms Pegg had troubled to do this extremely basic piece of research she would have known this was the case.

The paperback edition of the book will appear as scheduled, with the correct image of the document. No other changes will be made, because as has been pointed out, the argument of the book places no reliance on the handwriting itself being of any significance. The name is there: that's all that matters.

I am also quietly astonished by the outbreaks of piety on behalf of John Williams's reputation. A great many people are named as suspects on your website and elsewhere. It's pretty obvious that all but one of them are being falsely accused.


Best wishes

Malcolm
________________________________________
Sam Flynn
28th January 2006, 11:09 PM
Malcolm Edwards has asked me to post this - from an email dated yesterday:

I am also quietly astonished by the outbreaks of piety on behalf of John Williams's reputation. A great many people are named as suspects on your website and elsewhere. It's pretty obvious that all but one of them are being falsely accused.

All but one? Mr Edwards misses the very likely possibility that all of us - Tony Williams included - are peeing in the wind
________________________________________
jdpegg
28th January 2006, 11:09 PM
Very, very interesting,

thanks Stephen.

Thanks Malcolm.
________________________________________
Ally
28th January 2006, 11:13 PM
Hi Malcolm,

We are giving our opinion on how the two completely different versions of the document could have occurred.

Our opinion, which is all we have to go on, considering there is STILL no explanation from the author/publisher as to how else a ****-up of such monumental proportions could have occurred.

So if the speculations and opinions as to how the screw up occurred aren't to your liking, then tell us once and for all how exactly it did occur.

And you know, I have noticed that the ones who immediately starty moaning about libel, are generally the ones who are terrified to have the truth uncovered.

If their reputation is such a fragile thing that it can't withstand speculation, I could understand the fear.

Once again: The authors/publishers have yet to provide an explanation for what exactly occurred. We are speculating as to what might have happened given they are unwilling to go on record with an explanation.
________________________________________
supe
28th January 2006, 11:14 PM
Mr. Edwards,

When will Mr. Williams and Mr. Price explain how the "wrong copy" made it into the hardcover version of Uncle Jack? That serious researchers would have such a spurious document in their possession creates a penumbra of doubt and one would think they would wish to dispel any questions as quickly as possible with a full explanation of the genesis of the "wrong copy."

Don.
________________________________________
Ally
28th January 2006, 11:21 PM
And let's also make one thing PERFECTLY clear. Someone FAKED or FORGED at least one of the entries.

I notice you are only saying they didn't fake the original and to suggest that they forged the original is libel.

So are you saying they did fake the copy that appeared?

Because someone did. There is no "wrong" copy. Wrong suggests that there were actually two copies and you 'whoops" put the wrong one in. That's not the case. There was, at best, an original and a forged copy. If the one in the library is the orginal and as it appeared, then someone faked/forged the one that appeared in the book.

Explanations, please?
________________________________________
Sam Flynn
28th January 2006, 11:23 PM
That serious researchers would have such a spurious document in their possession creates a penumbra of doubt ...

"Penumbra of doubt" - lovely use of the English language, Supe. Whether you minted that phrase or not, thanks for using it.
________________________________________
supe
28th January 2006, 11:35 PM
Gareth,

Thank you, really. Perhaps Orion would like to publish my next novel . . . don't hold my breath, eh?

Don.
________________________________________
Ally
28th January 2006, 11:36 PM
Okay...pondering in light of Mr. Edwards latest revelations. He asserts that the odd handwriting at the bottom can be found on the preceding pages and that the original copy in the library is unaltered.

I am completely willing to take his word for it at this time and believe that the original has NOT been tampered with.

So that leaves the copy that appeared in the book, which clearly was tampered with. So why?

Let's look at it. The handwriting doesn't match. Obviously in looking at it, the authors/publishers are going to say, "the handwriting doesn't match, that's going to look odd".

Did they decide to fake the line in a closer handwriting to make their case seem more credible, only to have it blow up in their face? Why would they have changed the number if they had done so, why not keep it the same as it appeared in the original?

Anyway, given my new willingness to believe that the original was not tampered with, that leaves only the question, why was the copy in the book forged?

[Ash]

dannorder
28th January 2006, 11:56 PM
Lots of what I was going to say has apparently (upon preview) already been posted by others, but here are some things left to say:

I don't put much stock in Humphrey Price claiming that the document was not tampered with, when, at least according to Tony Williams' earllier statement, he was just a couple of months ago vouging that the document in the book matched the one in the library, which we now know isn't true. We have had more than one individual personally inspect the original, and I'll go with what outside observers have to say.

And of course anyone tampering with the one entry could easily add other tampered entries elsewhere, especially on a facing page... I mean, come on. And if someone went back to do this to try to cover it up recently, boy are they going to be in trouble when the copies of the originals come out and prove it was altered.

Regarding the libel threats, I have not accused any specific person of forging the document, but then the only people who could give information on who is responsible are the same people who stand to profit from the sales of the book. Knowing this, I am shocked... no, make that shocked and dismayed that they are not being more forthcoming in identifying who the culprit was just to prove that they had nothing to do with it. Because if (and I of course now am saying if) the person responsible for the forgery is someone who profited off the book, that's a criminal act. And if the forger also forged lines in the original records, that is too. Instead of threatening lawsuits against other people they should be doing whatever it takes to clear this all up... and, instead, the three public statements so far have been contradictory and unhelpful.
________________________________________
Ally
29th January 2006, 12:07 AM
Hiya Dan,

As I said in my preceding post, I am going to take Mr. Edwards word that the handwriting on the bottom of the page matches other entries at this time.

I would hope that RN is following up this story and will provide and publish copies of the preceding pages that contains the additional entries of the handwriting? If all of the entries are at the end...well, hmm. If they are scattered throughout, then that would prove at least marginally that the original source was not tampered with, which I do feel is something that should be undertaken.

It still leaves the question: why was the copy in the published book forged. Because no matter how you slice the original, forged or not forged, the copy that appeared in print was forged. Period and end of story. And they can claim libel all they want, but a simple examination of the documents show that the one they printed was forged.

It's like a car thief screaming libel because the newspaper printed he stole a Hyundai when in actuality he stole a Honda. Big freaking whoop.
________________________________________
jcoram
29th January 2006, 12:11 AM
Hi Ally,

Very pertinent points. There is no question that the neither of the 'Mary Anne Nichols' entries are in John Williams handwriting. That is patently obvious even to a layman. There are however more similarities in the entry in Uncle Jack than there are in the original document.

This is merely a statement of fact, not opinion. Any document analyzer will state without reservation that the name 'Mary' particularly is a simulation of John Williams writing. If an assistant wrote it, then he was without doubt attempting to write in the same style as John Williams. The 'M' used by John Williams is very distinctive and so is the 'A' in the word abortion.

The chances of his assistant having a very similar handwriting to John Williams in the first two words, and then suddenly to have a totally different style in the last name of Nichols, is thought provoking to say the least.

This coupled with the fact that the name of 'Nichols' in the notebook entry reproduced in Uncle Jack is extraordinarily similar in nature to the 'Nichols' in the original entry, without being an exact copy is also worth pondering.

It would be enlightening to see the other entries written in a different hand in the notebook to the entry of Mary Ann Nichols to see if they were written in the same hand. Perhaps it would be possible for copies of these other entries to be made public, so that a document analyzer could compare all of the entries, with a view to solving this conundrum?

Jane
________________________________________
dannorder
29th January 2006, 12:30 AM
Hey Ally,

Jenni, as always, is on the case... which means there are people both at the library and outside researchers who have already examined documents previously can take another look... this could be highly illuminating.

Press deadlines are a bother though. Looks like it'll be a continuing saga.
________________________________________
ash
29th January 2006, 01:54 AM
Quite frankly, Mr Edwards is pissing in the wind here. Because I have gone baack over this thread and nobody at all has committed libel. All that has been said is, please explain.

The fact is, the copy of the document in the book is different to the one in the library. And no explanation has been forthcoming as to why a copy of the document that is different to the one in the library should have ever existed, regardless of how it ended up in the book.

Somebody, at some point, has created a fake copy of this document. Note very carefully, I have not said who this was. Simply that it was somebody.

Assuming the copy in the library has not been tampered with or faked in any way, I can now go further. That person has not only faked an entry in that document, but they have first gone to the trouble of erasing the original entry before creating the fake entry.

Everything I have said so far is absolutely logical. I have no need of proving it in order to provide a defence against libel. There is no other possible explanation for the fake document that appeared in the book existing, other than that some unnamed person took a copy of the document, erased the original entry assuming it ever existed in the first place, and fabricated a new one in its place.

And once again I say, until the authors give a reasonable explanation of how this happened, why should anybody in their right mind accept any other information which has emanated from the same source.

[Ash]

GCW
29th January 2006, 04:47 AM
I haven’t really followed the Dr Williams line with much enthusiasm - until now. Reading through the recent posts on this subject there doesn’t seem to be much discussion in regard to content – I’m sure this has taken place somewhere in the multitude of threads but I’ll throw my thoughts into the argument. The material is referred to as a notebook – it may be in notebook form but the material appears to be a consolidated index listed by medical procedure in chronological order. The letter preceding the number after each name is ‘p’ and not ‘L’ - these references are page numbers. In the original the entry for Mary Ann(e) Nichols this is ‘p do’ = ‘page ditto’, that is page 709, the same as the previous entry. Why the ‘Uncle Jack’ Mary Ann(e) Nichols entry is given as ‘p718’ is something of a mystery. Given the high page numbers, the references appear to be related to a large registry – any thoughts on what this registry might be and where it may be located (if it survives). If this matter has been discussed at length before please disregard.

Graham W.
________________________________________
Whitechapel Student
29th January 2006, 10:27 AM
Okay...pondering in light of Mr. Edwards latest revelations. He asserts that the odd handwriting at the bottom can be found on the preceding pages and that the original copy in the library is unaltered.

I am completely willing to take his word for it at this time and believe that the original has NOT been tampered with.

I don't think anyone is obliged to take what Malcolm Edwards says at face value until he explains his own grossly misleading statement on the old boards (April 22, 2005):
<<
First, the extract from Williams’s notebook – naming Mary Ann(e) Nichols -- reproduced somewhere in this thread is indistinct there (presumably it’s a videograb from the TV) but it perfectly clear in the original, and as reproduced in the book.
>>

Had he seen the original? If so, how could he fail to notice the obvious difference of handwriting? If not, he was not in a position to post what he did before, and his word now is not worth much - particularly as he is simply passing on an uncorroborated claim by one of the authors.

This sabre-rattling over libel on Edwards's part is obviously just a shabby little manoeuvre to distract attention from the unquestionable fact that someone closely concerned with the production of the book has deliberately doctored the evidence in an attempt to mislead.

The handwriting of the entry in the original document certainly looks like a modern attempt to imitate that on the rest of the page - carried out with very limited success.

The honest course for the publishers, if they are going to reissue the book, would be not just silently to substitute the correct image for the fake one, but to add a clear statement that someone closely associated with the production of the book had tried to mislead the readers of the previous edition.

But obviously honesty is not a priority of the publishers (to take a trivial example, they still describe the author on their website as the "great-great-nephew of the killer" [!]). If they won't correct a straightforward factual error, what chance is there of them handling properly this much more serious question of the faking of evidence?
________________________________________
Ally
29th January 2006, 12:17 PM
Oh don't think I feel obliged to do anything. I have just decided to whittle it down as simply as possible for the time being in the hopes of getting one straight answer to a direct question, with the hopes of proceeding from there. I am going to temporarily jettison the remainder of the questions until this one is answered:

How does the author/publisher explain the forged copy of the index that appears in their book?


That is all.
________________________________________
suzi
29th January 2006, 02:19 PM
Hi all-
Having trawled though all of this and been forced back to check 'The Book'.....the main thing I CANNOT accept are the 3 TOTALLY different manners of the character A.
A is one of the few letters that people tend to have as an identifiable letter in their handwriting for example here is mine
374

Then here are the 3(!) allegedly from Dr Williams

Next post!!!

Suzi
________________________________________
suzi
29th January 2006, 02:22 PM
375

376

377

ALMOST impossible!!!

Suzi
________________________________________
jcoram
29th January 2006, 02:41 PM
As Suzi has brought this up......(well spotted by the way Suzi....ever thought of taking up forging for a living?)

It is odd that the A in the date in the letter to Morgan attributed to John Williams is totally different in character to the 'a' in the word 'abortion' and 'Anne' in the notebook, both in John Williams undisputed writing and in the name of Mary Anne Nichols allegedly written by someone else.)

There is actually a detailed document analysis in hand comparing all of the samples reproduced in the book Uncle Jack.

I'm sure that is hardly a revelation to anyone as any author and publisher using documents in a book of this sort would expect all documents reproduced to receive the most careful scrutiny as almost all of the evidence relies on them being genuine.

Of course as the publishers are certain that the documents in their publication are genuine this will cause no concern to them or the authors, in fact the report would be welcomed by them as it would consolidate their case.

I am sure Jenni will disclose the findings when she feels it is the opportune time and there is a great deal of information in the report that will really clear up this matter once and for all, with no question of misinterpretation.

I'm sure that the publishers will welcome such a report and in fact might wish to have their own conducted to prove their claim that all of the documents reproduced in their book are genuine.

Jane
________________________________________
Whitechapel Student
29th January 2006, 06:41 PM
I understand that Malcolm Edwards has "moved on" from Orion Books, but while he is posting here perhaps he could find out for us why, judging from Orion's website, Humphrey Price, having been billed as co-author of the hardback edition of "Uncle Jack", is not going to be credited as an author of the paperback edition due out in March:

http://www.orionbooks.co.uk/MP-35459/Uncle-Jack.htm

Perhaps this is just incompetence on the part of Orion's marketing department. But, if not, is Orion trying to tell us something?

Mr Edwards has already told us that the only difference between the editions is that the faked version of the NLW document will not appear in the paperback. Is the disappearance of Humphrey Price's name just a coincidence?
________________________________________
dknott
2nd February 2006, 07:53 PM
Jenni,

In your article you referred to a suggestion that I made on a previous casebook thread regarding the Denbigh Mary Kelly possibly having married a Griffith Jones in 1886, and still being alive in 1901.

I have checked it out, and this is correct. The Mary Kelly identified in Uncle Jack from the 1881 census was actually a Mary Ann Kelly, not a Mary Jane Kelly, and she was married to Griffith Jones at St Marys Catholic Church on February 27th 1886. They were still together at the time of the 1901 census.

(Although I realise that inadequate research is the least of the charges being levelled at the authors!!)

David

[Ash]

supe
2nd February 2006, 07:59 PM
It has now been more than a week since Williams and Price issued their statement through Orion books and there has yet to be an explanation for why an altered copy of a document in the National Library of Wales was inserted in their book and falsely identified as the original. We know they monitor this message thread because there was a further message, a windy warning about libel, and yet we are still waiting for an explanation about the document.

In their original statement Williams and Price called it a "wrong copy" and seemed to treat their error as if it were little more than a typo. In fact, it was a deliberately altered document that at least one person must have known was false and misleading. Provide a full explanation of how and why an altered document was published, gentlemen, and then -- and only then -- is there any point to discussing the rest of your research.

Have you no shame?

Don.
________________________________________
jdpegg
2nd February 2006, 10:06 PM
I take it that the authors and their publisher stand by their original statement and have nothing further to add at this stage and no response to make to my summary?

I look forward to sending them my follow up article after publication and hope they will respond in a prompt manner either here on the boards or directly to myself

cheers
Jenni
ps Dave yes that's the one, feel free to pm me!
________________________________________
Ally
2nd February 2006, 11:58 PM
Who thinks Jenni's got something good? I think Jenni's got something good.

I bet it's something good.


What is it?? I promise not to tell Jenni, you can tell me, go ahead.
________________________________________
tom_wescott
3rd February 2006, 12:39 AM
Jennifer found out that Tony Williams hoaxed the Swanson Marginalia.
________________________________________
jdpegg
3rd February 2006, 11:46 AM
Tom

don't be silly!

Ally,

why -what makes you say that?

Jenni
________________________________________
mariag
3rd February 2006, 08:58 PM
Ally--

Jenni's got THE goods---even better!
________________________________________
supe
15th February 2006, 05:48 PM
Ah, the world of Ripperology never ceases to amaze me. We have a case of forgery (yes, Malcom, the "wrong copy" was a forgery -- by person or persons unknown) in a recent Ripper book that sold well enough to merit being issued soon in a paperback edition and no one seems to care. Instead of there being any clamor for an explanation of this, these boards are awash in . . . well things like ever more gleeful discussions of what can be "seen" in photographs in which nothing can be clearly seen.

Of course, that is exactly what the authors and publishing house have been banking on -- that if they stonewall long enough the paperbook edition will appear, the general public will buy many copies and they will all make money because even most of the supposed Ripper experts on Ripperology's premier website couldn't care less.

I fear that Ripperologists deserve Case Closed and Uncle Jack and the next fraud thrust upon them because, with a few notable exceptions, they really don't care. Sad, really.

Don.
________________________________________
Ally
15th February 2006, 06:03 PM
Heya Don,

I really think we are just all pausing and waiting for the next round to (eventually) be published in Ripper Notes. While I respect Jenni not wanting to spill the beans before publication date, I have to admit I am dying to know what she's got. I bet the boards will really start to sing once RN (finally) gets here.



Say Dan, did you get my subtle hints there?
________________________________________
Magpie
15th February 2006, 06:04 PM
Ah, the world of Ripperology never ceases to amaze me. We have a case of forgery (yes, Malcom, the "wrong copy" was a forgery -- by person or persons unknown) in a recent Ripper book that sold well enough to merit being issued soon in a paperback edition and no one seems to care. Instead of there being any clamor for an explanation of this, these boards are awash in . . . well things like ever more gleeful discussions of what can be "seen" in photographs in which nothing can be clearly seen.



Don.

Has there been any word on the Libraries investigation of the the vandalism to their records? That would strike me as the place where whoever did the forgery is the weakest--the Library should be encouraged to press charges.
________________________________________
supe
15th February 2006, 06:29 PM
Ally & Magpie,

Hmmm, having trouble typing. Just came in from outdoors and I'm half snow-blind at the moment -- the sun off the heaps of snow is wicked.

Anyway, I can understand Ally wanting to wait for the next installment from Jenni (which has gone through three rewrites as things kept happening), but the fact is we already have a forgery in a book issued by a major publishing house in England as well as a statement from the authors in which they were shocked the "wrong copy" saw print.

That by itself is quite newsworthy -- but only becomes "news" when picked up by something besides the specialized Ripper media. I guess I had hoped there would be enough buzz generated here that the news about an "error" in a book that was well-publicized when first issued would make it to the mainstream media. If that happened, the MSM could better demand an explanation for the forgery and as a bonus Jenni's efforts would be deservedly recognized.

Otherwise, no matter how many errors and factual inaccuracies Jenni unearths Uncle Jack (the initial forgery notwithstanding) will be much the same as Case Closed -- a fatally flawed book that will probably sell well because the fatal flaws are only recognized by a select few.

As for Magpie's query about what the National Library of Wales may be doing I have no way of knowing. However, I do know that for many such institutions the threat of being sued for libel by a major coporate entity can have a very chilling effect.

Anyway, isn't there anyone out there with some friends in the media and who could tip said friends off to what is at least an interesting story?

Don.

[Ash]

Magpie
15th February 2006, 06:58 PM
Anyway, isn't there anyone out there with some friends in the media and who could tip said friends off to what is at least an interesting story?

Don.

Hmmm....maybe a little more "direct action" could be more effective?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0752867083/ref=cm_rv_thx_view/104-9605843-8122364?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155

________________________________________
Ally
15th February 2006, 07:10 PM
ROFLMAO! Magpie what a fantastic idea. That was great. I shall add my two cents in a moment.
________________________________________
dknott
15th February 2006, 07:31 PM
Nice one Magpie .. but three stars?? What a generous soul you are! I wouldn't have given it that BEFORE Jenni went to work!
________________________________________
mikey559
15th February 2006, 07:33 PM
What an excellent idea. I posted my review as well and we will see if our attampts catch any notice.

Mikey
________________________________________
supe
15th February 2006, 07:36 PM
Magpie,

Yes, a good idea indeed and I would hope others besides Ally will follow suit. And (personal plug here, but it has been a long time now since I got a royalty check) while you are there you might at least look at The Same ... Only Different by Don Souden.

Don.
________________________________________
Whitechapel Student
15th February 2006, 07:40 PM
As for Magpie's query about what the National Library of Wales may be doing I have no way of knowing. However, I do know that for many such institutions the threat of being sued for libel by a major coporate entity can have a very chilling effect.
All they have to do is ask the police to investigate the offence. The police are hardly going to be sued for libel.

In fact nobody's going to sue anybody for libel, bearing in mind what happened to Oscar Wilde, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitken et al...
________________________________________
Magpie
15th February 2006, 07:41 PM
Thank you, everyone *slight bow*

If anyone decides to join the crusade, I would suggest you not overlook Amazon.co.uk, .ca, and the various other Amazons out there.
________________________________________
Ally
15th February 2006, 07:49 PM
I posted something but it apparently has yet to go through, maybe they are blocking mine? I swear I didn't use ANY cuss words or anything.
________________________________________
tom_wescott
15th February 2006, 07:52 PM
It would appear that S. Robert Goulet is wrong. Jennifer Pegg has today determined that Dr. Bond's report is in the hand of Tony Williams.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
________________________________________
mikey559
15th February 2006, 07:52 PM
Ally, my Goddess,

Not even one cuss word? Not even a "Frak"? How will we know it's really from you???

Mikey
________________________________________
supe
15th February 2006, 07:56 PM
Tom,

Leave this to the grownups will you? Jenni already asked you not to make frivolous posts on this subject.

Don.
________________________________________
Ally
15th February 2006, 07:59 PM
I know Mikey can you believe it? And I made stirring comparisons to the pervasive problems of research fraud. I pulled in south korean stem cell research, James Frey and small scale fraud on the daily school wide basis. It was a stirring saga of declining ethics and intellectual rot.

Okay it wasn't that great but there was nothing in it worthy of being blocked either. Maybe because I have never reviewed anything on Amazon before?
________________________________________
rjpalmer
15th February 2006, 08:07 PM
Supe writes:

"I fear that Ripperologists deserve Case Closed and Uncle Jack and the next fraud thrust upon them because, with a few notable exceptions, they really don't care. Sad, really."

That's one way of looking at it.

Another way of looking at it is that people do care, but it is of minor concern.

Debunking the Maybrick Diary, the Lewis Carroll theory, 'Uncle Jack,' the Royal theory, and the latest version of the Wally Sickert story may well be necessary tasks (as far as the general public is concerned), but these were all rather obvious no-goes anyway.

I think Mr. Sugden gave the Maybrick Diary two or three sentences in his 400+ page study, and about as much to the Royal conspiracies. That's about all they warranted.

In retrospect, it may have done more harm than good to give the Maybrick fiasco endless publicity, by the continued efforts to "debunk it," --though, here again, I admit that it was a necessary task to address it (as Rendell, Harris, and Nickell all did in print).

What is more interesting is that none of the Ripper journals particularly cares to touch the Swanson Marginialia with a twenty-foot pole, even though it is without question one of the most important documents among serious students of the case.

This is in no way meant to down-play Ms. Pegg's work for a job well done, but these barmy theories often supply thier own antidote.
________________________________________
tom_wescott
15th February 2006, 08:20 PM
RJ,

Yo! Check your private messages!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
________________________________________
Ally
15th February 2006, 08:25 PM
Don,

I understand where you are coming from, but a stir right now would be going off half-cocked. The fact that the copy in the book is forged is known, but in and of itself, there's not much there. If Jenni can prove who did it or that the library books were forged as well..or that the publishers are clearly lying when they say that it was a "mistake" (which I agree, duh, we know they're lying already) then that gives more to work with.

I mean look at the whole Oprah Winfrey/Frey thing. That took almost a full year of perculation before the fraud case went everywhere...and that book had a much larger audience and target than does Uncle Jack.
________________________________________
jdpegg
15th February 2006, 08:39 PM
i feel the need to bite my tongue. your reviews made me smile

Jenni
________________________________________
Magpie
15th February 2006, 08:45 PM
This is in no way meant to down-play Ms. Pegg's work for a job well done, but these barmy theories often supply thier own antidote.

On the otherhand, rj, if the fuss does nothing more than encourage people to check out the excellent Ripper Notes to read the other side of the story then that's not a bad thing.
________________________________________
How Brown
15th February 2006, 10:18 PM
Magpie:

Very nice move on your part. Nice website that you have,by the way...

Supe:

You made a excellent point pal...but maybe its partly because many of us [ I haven't purchased the book based on what you and Jen and Dan have stated and the responses from the other side ] have not bought it,that this sense of apathy appears to exist. After a bit of time,then there will be no excuse to not have an opinion one way or the other.

[Ash]

supe
15th February 2006, 10:34 PM
Howard,

A salient point by you -- and my advice to you and everyone else is DON'T BUY IT as that just supports chicanery. Find a library that has already (sigh) purchased it or wait until it's available at Bucks County fleamarkets.

Don.
________________________________________
jdpegg
15th February 2006, 10:37 PM
I suppose i should say something more concrete here, shouldn't I?

Of course i did post a summary repsonse to the statements made here because it really is impossible to have any kind of discussion accross three different formats (here, the Rip and of course RN). I feel the right place to publish my latest findings is in Ripper Notes. This is for obvious reasons, there is the best place to show properly all the latest info.

It was the publishers and authors who decided to start this thread and make these claims on a public forum. One can only wildly speculate as to why that was, and of course this would be foolish to do.

I'm not one to rest when there is still time to find out more, and nor will I leave a stone unturned. You guys know me well enough by now to realise how things go in my mind.

the truth has a funny way of coming out in the end.

Anyway, ra ra,
don't get me started right now!

Jenni

ps i could drop hints but that would be unwise
________________________________________
dannorder
15th February 2006, 11:00 PM
What is more interesting is that none of the Ripper journals particularly cares to touch the Swanson Marginialia with a twenty-foot pole, even though it is without question one of the most important documents among serious students of the case.
If someone thinks he or she can make a sound argument for believing that part or all of the Swanson Marginalia was forged, he or she can probably get some Ripper journal or another interested in publishing it. Until then it's a non-issue.

We don't really print articles about "Newsflash: Macnaghten Memorandum was apparently actually written by Macnaghten", "We have reason to believe that some of the police files in MEPO records were actual police documents" or "The newsclips on Casebook professing to have come from the Times really were from that paper", and I think it's safe to say that the other Ripper journals wouldn't touch those topics with 20-foot poles either.

Now the Casebook boards certainly can revisit those sorts of things, just to be safe and because it has more room to go back over those things again and again and doesn't charge for those things, but then the Swanson Marginalia was already tackled here quite well recently.
________________________________________
Magpie
16th February 2006, 03:21 AM
Magpie:

Very nice move on your part. Nice website that you have,by the way...

.

Thanks How Brown

I'm just blowing the cobwebs off and starting work on a complete overhaul
________________________________________
Magpie
16th February 2006, 11:50 PM
I posted something but it apparently has yet to go through, maybe they are blocking mine? I swear I didn't use ANY cuss words or anything.

Hey Ally your review's up now. Very nice, I must say
________________________________________
Magpie
17th February 2006, 12:10 AM
I notice that the publisher has (re?)classified the book as fiction.

Error or admission, do you think?

http://www.orionbooks.co.uk/MP-35459/Uncle-Jack.htmv

________________________________________
supe
17th February 2006, 12:23 AM
Magpie,

Yes, I discovered that a while ago, but since it also shows up when you search under "non-fiction" I think it is a website glitch or else Orion doesn't care under what category it flogs its books.

Don.
________________________________________
Ally
17th February 2006, 12:24 AM
Hey there Magpie,

About time, I was wondering if my reputation had preceded me. Told you there were no cuss words.
________________________________________
Magpie
17th February 2006, 01:03 AM
Magpie,

Yes, I discovered that a while ago, but since it also shows up when you search under "non-fiction" I think it is a website glitch or else Orion doesn't care under what category it flogs its books.

Don.

That's what I thought too, so I checked under several of the books under the "non fiction" page--all of them appeared with a "non-fiction" header, except Uncle Jack
________________________________________
supe
17th February 2006, 01:15 AM
Magpie,

Self-criticism is often the most accurate and so I would say Orion knows its products the best, eh?

Don.
________________________________________
caz
18th February 2006, 12:33 PM
Sorry to be harsh, but I feel it may be playing into Uncle Jack's hands to write hastily thought-out stuff like:

While not of the magnitude of the infamous Ripper Diaries [sic] of the '90 [sic], the controversy surround [sic] the discovery of this latest Ripper chicanary [sic] has been woefully underreported.

Love,

Caz
X
________________________________________
jdpegg
8th March 2006, 12:31 PM
I have indeed been a had a look and i just wanted to say the following thing re the paper back edition of this book delightfully in Waterstones this morning,
the audacity of some people is quite quite astounding.

This book has all the same problems as the hardback edition.

The image of item 320 reproduced within it is problematic (and different to the hardback) since the MAN line is not in the same handwriting as the rest of the page it remains highly problematic.

One wonders to oneself - what they were thinknig when they published this.

i would not recomend it to anyone (surprise)

Jenni
________________________________________
dannorder
8th March 2006, 10:31 PM
Further, while the name of Mary Anne Nichols is certainly in a different hand from other entries on that page, it is in the same hand as entries on the facing page of the journal. If Ms Pegg had troubled to do this extremely basic piece of research she would have known this was the case.
It's worth noting here that Jennifer Pegg had, in fact, done "this extremely basic piece of research" and that Malcolm Edwards had not. Both these pages of Sir John Williams' notebook are reproduced in Ripper Notes issue #25 on pages 54 & 55.

It's rather bizarre that the publisher and the authors of Uncle Jack, despite having been already caught with an altered version of that document in the hardcover edition of their book and having claimed originally that the version they printed was correct even after it had been shown that it clearly was not, would then compound their error by making a rather aggressive statement like the above that could be disproven so easily.
________________________________________
supe
11th March 2006, 02:11 AM
It seems to me that in addition to removing what the authors still claim was just a "wrong copy" of a document from their paperback edition they ought also to have included a "thank you" to Jennifer Pegg for pointing out their error. Or else they might eventually have had to apologize not only to all those who bought the hardback edition but the paperback as well.

And some day pigs will fly.

If nothing else, this whole sordid business has demonstrated the appalling arrogance of a major publishing firm and two of its authors. Not only were they caught in an embarrassingly stupid document fiddle, but they compounded their errors by uttering more nonsense while trying to defend themselves and simultaneously cast false aspersions on Jennifer's research.

Tony, Humphrey: be men and admit you were wrong and Jennifer was right. She has already demonstrated the several false statements in your previous joint statement on this thread in her recent article [Ripper Notes, No. 25]. Will you respond graciously or simply skulk away and hope the general public never gets wind of how poorly researched your literary effort was?

The words of a great American boxer, the late Joe Louis, are perhaps apt to consider: Louis once said of an opponent "He can run, but he can't hide." Neither can authors who play fast and loose with the truth.

Don.

[Ash]

sirrobert
11th March 2006, 03:46 AM
you might at least look at The Same ... Only Different by Don Souden.

Don.

A very nice read, IMHO.
________________________________________
sirrobert
11th March 2006, 04:32 AM
Debunking the Maybrick Diary, the Lewis Carroll theory, 'Uncle Jack,' the Royal theory, and the latest version of the Wally Sickert story may well be necessary tasks (as far as the general public is concerned), but these were all rather obvious no-goes anyway.



Ahem. I wouldn't light that self congratulatory cigar just yet.

There are probably lessons to be gleaned from this on how NOT to 'debunk' a 'hoax', but for now we can at least be grateful Williams isn't on the list.


Results are currently sorted by average rating.

# name (http://www.casebook.org/suspects/sus...llname&way=ASC) average (http://www.casebook.org/suspects/sus...erage&way=DESC) votes (http://www.casebook.org/suspects/sus...votes&way=DESC) graph 1. Maybrick, James (http://www.casebook.org/suspects/jam...brick/may.html) 5.878 9845
________________________________________
jason_connachan
11th March 2006, 04:43 AM
One word sums up this whole saga - Shysters.
________________________________________
Ally
11th March 2006, 12:04 PM
So now that we know the handwriting for the suspect M. Nichols entry is *not* found in the rest of the book and that the author apparently had no shame whatsoever about inventing 'evidence' out of thin air as per the "big book of girls" receipt, I am going back to my original position that I believe the Library of Wales copy was altered after the book was going to press when they realized that it might be checked.

Mr. Williams, Mr. Price, care to comment?

No? Color me surprised!
________________________________________
bobhinton
25th March 2006, 10:57 AM
This appeared in the South Wales Evening Post. I have already written to the editor expressing my views, perhaps others might like to do the same.


RELATIVE PENS THEORY THAT JACK THE RIPPER ROAMED SWANSEA



10:00 - 13 March 2006
The mutilated body of Mary Jane Kelly was discovered in her lodgings by a man sent to collect back rent. Pushing back a curtain, the sight that greeted him took his breath away - the 25-year-old prostitute had been slashed, hacked and organs had been cut away. The date was November 1888 and it was immediately clear that Kelly, who had grown up in Wales, was the latest victim to fall foul of Jack the Ripper.

The discovery was the latest in a string of brutal murders around Whitechapel and, fuelled on the pages of the nation's burgeoning newspaper industry, it fanned near-hysterical panic on the streets of London's East End.

Yet time would prove that Kelly was the Ripper's final victim.

Sometime shortly after, meanwhile, a renowned doctor moved from Whitechapel to return to his native country of Wales.

Sir John Williams is now remembered for two significant roles he played in public life - as a medical adviser to the royal family and for the establishment of the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth.

He was also, if you believe one of his modern day descendants, Jack the Ripper himself.

The theory belongs to Swansea author Tony Williams, whose previous published work is restricted to the world of travel. He became drawn to the search for the elusive Victorian killer after beginning to research the life of his grandmother's great-great-uncle, Sir John.

And it was while undertaking his research that he realised he may have uncovered the killer whose identity has eluded generations of 'ripperologists'.

His study and theories are contained in Uncle Jack, which has been published in paperback by Orion Books, and has divided expert opinion by identifying a potential suspect previously overlooked.

"If people want to discredit it, then I am happy for them to do so," said Tony.

"I wanted someone to come along and disprove it but no-one has come forward.

"If they can say that it doesn't add up, or if they can disprove any of the evidence, then that is fine.

"After all, it would mean that my ancestor was not associated with the Ripper story.

"But so far, no-one has come forward to challenge it, not one person.

"I have just come out with evidence from my research and it is up to them to come to their own conclusions".

If correct, Tony's hypothesis would mean that Swansea is drawn into the macabre folk-legend that has grown up around one of the most notorious killers of modern times.

Sir John was born in Blaenllynant, Carmarthenshire, in 1840, but as a child he was educated in Swansea.

He attended the Normal School, which stood on the site now occupied by Superdrug, and after qualifying as a doctor he established a practice at number 13 Craddock Street in the city.

But first he married Lizzie Hughes, daughter of Morriston industrialist Richard Hughes, who employed 1,000 people at Landore tinplate works, and it was thanks to his wealth that Sir John and his wife could afford to move to London where he trained as a doctor.

The pair set up home in Harley Street - just a few miles from London's East End where Sir John would work in Whitechapel infirmary, around the same time as the murderous activities of the ripper.

"I started researching Sir John because I was proud he was my relation," says Tony.

"I read his diaries and medical notes in the national library and it became obvious that he was in the area at the time, he knew the victims and he had treated them.

"He had also written a lot of papers about infertility and was searching for a cure as he was desperate for his wife to have children."

The injuries suffered by Jack the Ripper's victims have long been thought to be the work of an experienced medical hand.

Each had some internal or reproductive organs skilfully removed in a dark environment with just minutes to spare, suggesting skill and physiological knowledge on the killer's behalf.

"None of the women were raped but they had their reproductive organs removed," says Tony.

"They were the same age as his wife, in their 40s, with the exception of Mary Jane Kelly.

"And remember, he was desperately searching for a cure for infertility, to help his wife."

Shortly after the final murder, Sir John returned to Wales, the timing of which raises further questions for Tony.

"He was a strong man, at the peak of his career, so why did he suddenly decide to leave London?" he asks.

"He was the founder of the National Library of Wales but he insisted on it being built in Aberystwyth, not Cardiff, which would have seemed an even longer way from London back then.

"Was it to get as far away from the scene as possible?"

He also points to the discovery of a broken surgical knife and three smear-type samples in Sir John's belongings and has called for them to be DNA tested by modern forensic techniques.

But like most suspects for the Ripper story, Tony's theory has its critics, among them the National Library of Wales, where a spokesman dismissed the allegations, stating: "The library thinks there's no basis for it at all.

"We're very proud of the contribution Sir John Williams made in bringing the national library to Aberystwyth."

The book is already history for Tony, who is determined not to get bogged down within the Ripper industry and is already researching his next book, on religion.

And like most Ripper stories, his theory is likely to remain unresolved. It leaves the intriguing prospect that one of the 19th Century's most notorious killers was, in fact, a (Swansea) Jack the Ripper.
________________________________________
dannorder
25th March 2006, 11:16 AM
"But so far, no-one has come forward to challenge it, not one person."

Wow, that's a pretty outrageous lie.

Yeah, I got tired of talking around it. Tony Williams is a liar. He intentionally says things that he knows are wrong. He includes outright falsehoods and frauds in his book. And from the looks of things Humphrey Price and Malcolm Edwards were active participants in these lies, either making up new lies to try to cover up the old ones or passing along what turned out to be lies that they had to have known were coming from a source that could not be trusted on these matters.

And their inability to even try to stick to the truth after 6 months of having their mistakes and deceptions exposed shows a blatant disregard for even pretending to be fair and honest in their statements.

[Ash]

suzi
25th March 2006, 11:24 AM
DEAR GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is making Ms Cornwell look positively CREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Come in Jenni!!!

For once am what passes for speechless!!!!!!

Suzi
________________________________________
bobhinton
25th March 2006, 11:30 AM
Dan,

Would you like to email your thoughts to the editor?
________________________________________
dannorder
25th March 2006, 11:37 AM
Dan,

Would you like to email your thoughts to the editor?

Oh yes, and I'd send along a couple of articles proving that it has been challenged and that he knew about it too.
________________________________________
suzi
25th March 2006, 12:59 PM
Hi Bob-
Doing the 'Thoughts to the Editor' as I type! -The thrust, must of course ,(apart from the ridiculous points throughout the article.!!!),be the lines re:

'He is determined not to get bogged down in the Ripper industry(!) and is researching his next book on religion'!!!!!!Am eagerly awaiting PROOF of the existence of God!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm back to the SWEP email!

Suzi
________________________________________
suzi
25th March 2006, 01:18 PM
Right chaps!

Have sent my email- This is the address for the Editor
spencer.feeney@swwp.co.uk

Suzi
________________________________________
supe
25th March 2006, 01:41 PM
Folks,

Thanks for the find Bob and by all means let us inform the editor that the duplicity of Mr. Williams has been exposed yet again in this latest interview. But, I would hope that anyone writing a letter will do so in the spirit of Jenni's investigation: serious-minded and dispassionate. We will only hurt the cause of Ripperology and this particular expose with invective and hyperbole.

Don.
________________________________________
Mr Poster
25th March 2006, 01:50 PM
Howdy

I just have to ask, while agreeing that its a bit of a shame that such as this was printed, what is writing to the editor of what must be assumed is a relatively small evening paper, is going to achieve, given that such papers regularly print inaccuracies,other than making it appear that the man is being pursued by what will appear to he general public as most probably a bunch of cranks? Oooooh....that was a long sentence.

Mr P
________________________________________
Ally
25th March 2006, 02:22 PM
Well I won't be writing a letter to the editor, but my god, what liars some people are.
________________________________________
dannorder
25th March 2006, 02:41 PM
Hi Mr. P,

Hey, any paper that picks it up and runs with it has an opportunity to make headlines all over the world if others follow suit. Considering that the Yorkshire Ripper hoax is big news all over right now, perhaps the Uncle Jack Ripper hoax can make it too.

We've had a few reporters request more info on this previously, so I think it's just a matter of time before someone decides to splash it all over. If the staff of the South Wales Evening Post are the ones who do it, all the more power to them.
________________________________________
How Brown
25th March 2006, 02:43 PM
Mr.Poster is correct,in my book...

Let this guy ramble on all he wants.....whats the loss or hurt? Its not like every month someone comes out with a new solution..well,maybe once a year.

Here are the positives:
___________________

Through Jennifer's efforts,we have all the counter arguments to the contention Williams was the Ripper we need....just don't buy the book.

Interest in the Whitechapel Murders will increase....from people with new viewpoints...look at all the Maybrick and Sickert folks that came here.

More people read Casebook and The Forums and the articles in the magazines...A.P.Wolf will be a household name in 5 years....and not as a supermarket chain.

Steve can sell more Casebook CD's and the sales help the site...

Don Souden is right....to put what he said in a different way, when one argues with an idiot,a casual observer will have trouble figuring out which one is the idiot....if they don't have the facts or really don't care.

Use it like a rented mule.....

Hey....when in Rome !!...

Always thinkin' over here.
________________________________________
suzi
25th March 2006, 02:48 PM
Hi all-

'New 'solutions' come out every year'.. they may well do..........and they do...... BUT if they continue to do that without comment then the lunatics WILL take over the asylum!

Suzi
________________________________________
Mr Poster
25th March 2006, 02:49 PM
Howdy

Well are we sure that this interview or whatever wasnt recorded/taken months ago for example and just filed as "filler" to be printed whenever nothing else was happening in South Wales?

The argument still stands that its not true right now but are we not forgetting that probably absolutely no one outside of 40 or 50 people really cares or will even remember in the morning?

mr p
________________________________________
dannorder
25th March 2006, 02:57 PM
are we not forgetting that probably absolutely no one outside of 40 or 50 people really cares or will even remember in the morning?

A lot more people than that already care, and most of the rest of them simply don't even know about it yet. People who alter facts in order to try to sell books is a hot button issue all over, it's just a matter of getting this particular example to gather steam.
________________________________________
Sam Flynn
25th March 2006, 03:04 PM
are we sure that this interview or whatever wasnt recorded/taken months ago for example and just filed as "filler" to be printed whenever nothing else was happening in South Wales?
Possibly. The story appeared in the Western Mail when the book came out in hardback. My Carmarthenshire mate was flicking idly through the pages of the Western Mail in the pub, when his eyes alighted on the article. "What the hell is this about Dr John Williams?" he asked. He read further. "Sh*t - says here that he was Jack the Ripper!". I asked if he'd heard of him. "Heard of 'im - I'm bloody related to 'im! He was my great great great uncle or something!!!" Must have been a large family.
The argument still stands that its not true right now but are we not forgetting that probably absolutely no one outside of 40 or 50 people really cares or will even remember in the morning?
40 or 50 people? The Evening Post has a circulation in excess of 60,000 - more so, I'd have thought, on Fridays, weekends and Mondays due to the sport coverage.