Announcement

**Stewart P Evans** · 10-31-2009, 10:14 AM

Hi...

Hi Phil, hope you are keeping well, don't the years fly by?

I am not sure exactly what you have in mind here - or who you have in mind. If you have a gripe with anyone in particular, surely it would be best to take it up with them? I am sure that your own motives are born of a deep interest in the case and nothing more. You seem to have specific examples in mind, so why not address your query to the individual(s) in mind?

I am sure that when someone is writing a book, or an essay, on the case he will keep his 'new' information, and source, to himself until he publishes, surely that is natural and comes under the heading of common sense and not dishonesty.

I am sure that there are documents (some of the missing official files for instance) in private hands, but I have no idea who might be sitting on them, even if they know their relevance, which may not be the case. Please give an example of this 'secrecy'.

Ripperworld is quite insular in many ways, and the names of the hard core of followers are well known to us all and many are doing a great job of research and writing. Although there is a tendency to try to gain acclaim by being the first to publish a particular fact, theory, photo, idea - what you will, this is really just the human need for some sort of recognition in what is perceived as a competitive field of expertise. Many are at it - and I have done the same myself. It is a human trait.

You are not the only one with a genuine interest, there are many, and most are honest and straightforward and publish what they find as soon as they find it if they have no future publication in mind. At present, as regards the actual murders, I believe that all the known facts are 'on the table.'

You should not criticise published authors of books or articles for having motives of money or personal interest. Why shouldn't they have? Some authors rely on the income from writing to supplement their living costs. This is not a sin, nor is it wrong in any way - and it is true of any area in the field of writing or particular expertise - not just Ripperology.

By the same token there will always be the element that you describe as 'in this for the sake of good old historical fact and truth finding', as there should be, and there are many excellent people amongst these, several of whom I know and find to be very, very good people. Not everyone is interested in publishing and/or recognition.

The people you describe as 'Ripperologists who have deliberately de-bunked other Ripperologist's theories, in order to keep their own theories burning brightest' is confined mainly to those espousing a particular suspect theory and is a natural thing. Boosting one's own theories whilst attacking those of others is not confined to Ripperology. And I see that as an essential element. it encourages alternative thinking, deeper examination of one's own theories and, indeed, deeper examination of the theories of others. This can, and does, result in new information coming to light.

So, although you may despair of this 'in-fighting', as you see it, I feel it is a necessary part of the study, although it should never sink to personal abuse or derogatory treatment of others. (I know it does sometimes - but that's human too). Those with any sort of intelligence at all should recognise such things for what they are anyway.

There will always be those who bend or invent their 'facts', but they soon get recognised for what they are doing - don't they? And many enjoy the very activity of exposing such inexcusable behaviour.

I don't know to whom you are addressing your 'charge' to produce their 'evidence or documents relating to the case (official or otherwise)', perhaps you should name who you have in mind so that they can explain themselves.

Again, I repeat, any author planning a book or article would be foolish to reveal his information freely before he publishes, such an act is self defeating and makes the idea of writing a book or article a pointless exercise. And many look forward to the books and articles that are published.

Philip Sugden is a close and valued friend of mine and his book is worthy of your praise. But even Philip kept his work to himself until it was published, indeed, I met him just before his book appeared. He wrote in the copy he gave to me "Well, Stewart, this is my book on Jack the Ripper...you will know what I mean when I bid you: 'Go thou and do likewise'!..." He encouraged and helped me along the way to do just that.

I know what you mean about being turned down by officialdom when wishing to see some documentation or other and I'm sure that there aren't many, if any at all, who can gain access to such material. You are correct when you say there is no 'higher echelon of "guardians" over who sees what or who should know what' nor a 'higher echelon of researchers or writers.' Heaven forbid. I do know that some have that perception as I have been accused of it in the past, but I am merely a Ripper enthusiast (if that's the right word) who has written a few books.

It does matter who 'purloined in the past from where' - theft is a criminal offence with no limitation on proceedings if the evidence can be procured. So if someone nicked an official file back in the seventies and they are still 'sitting on it' then they could be prosecuted. But, as I have said before, there is no undiscovered document that is going to reveal the identity of Jack the Ripper. They didn't know (despite what Anderson said) 120 years ago, and we ain't going to find it today.

The Ripper bandwagon will always continue to roll (and in some ways that may not be an altogether bad thing) and hack writers will always make a bob or two from it. They do in other fields, so there's no reason why it shouldn't happen in Ripperworld. Cynicism comes (or deepens with age) - don't resist it.

But remember this - no one will ever know for sure the identity of the killer who stalked the East End back in 1888.

**Phil Carter** · 10-31-2009, 11:09 AM

Hello Stewart,
My goodness, we must be getting on a bit eh? Hope you are well, under all considerations.

Of course, I am the first to recognise the diffence between those genuine enthusiasts (as yourself) and "charlatans". And please, whatever you do, this isnt an attack on any one individual. Reasearcher, writer or whoever.
Ive "been doing this lark" over 40 years now.. and I still wish my Nan, who as you know, was born and bought up in the area in Aug 1888.... been 10 years older, so she was actually 10 years old at the time and not 10 days old!

The purpose of the posting came out of one trawl through the Casebook site, which was needed after a long illness that has kept me out of the limilight a while.... I thought of the newbies reading the articles etc. I found one clear example of a person admitting to having knowledge of another in posession of "unseen" documents. Also having produced one example of the above himself. I refer here to Mr. Trevor Marriott, in his own words, upon his interview with the Casebook Editor.

The argument that witholding documents so that a book can be published first, of course, I can see. However, the actual POSESSION of them, if they are official documents, is basically dishonest.

But his comment isnt the reason why I wrote it. Yes, you are correct that it is born out of dedication, a lifelong dedication, to the case.
No, I don't think we ever will find the ultimate answer as to who JTR was, but I would like to , perhaps born out of frustration I admit, take the JTR a step closer. We all recognised the need for something to be done, as a "group", many years ago, to try to put JTR onto a serious level, as it was getting silly at times, and the mockery from the general community began to rise.
I admire your view on the in-fighting as healthy. Perhaps, sojourned out in the sticks in Norway, I have memories of some pretty vicious stuff in mind, from years ago. Perhaps the tone has been lowered.. and all well and good if it has!..In which case...argue on!

I just thought, at this time of "lull", to try and see if someone from within the community, which is indeed insular, could throw us all into action again.
Plus, I just believe that witholding official documents is wrong..it may take 10 years for a book to be put together.

In Norway, the hunt for Mr Folgelma is still moving, albeit slowly (thats the English version of his name) forward. As I said in Ripperana a while ago. As soon as I discover something, I will let all know.. reading Norwegian from the 19th century strains the eyes.

Again, it wasn't an attack... more of a prod. If anyone has documents lying around, from whenever they came into their posession, and haven't done anything about them, and don't intend to either, however trivial.. please.. give them up. Thats all. Pas them on for us all to dive into.

There are SO many really nice, good and well meaning people within Ripperia..
and dedication is the order of the day indeed!

best wishes to all

Phil

**Stewart P Evans** · 10-31-2009, 11:52 AM

Old Fart

Yes Phil, I guess that like me you now qualify as an 'Old Fart', I have passed the magical 60 mark now and there's no hope for me.

We all have our 'spats' in Ripperworld, and the years you hark back to are those when the 'diary' acrimony was at its height. The real problem there, though, was the fact that there was quite a bit of dishonesty involved. I have been involved in some acrimonious exchanges myself but feel that my comments have been valid when something untoward has been stated or suggested (but I would wouldn't I?). You simply cannot change human nature.

I am sorry to hear that you have not been well and I hope that you are better now. I do hope that Trevor won't mind me saying so, but he is actually an honest researcher and has useful police contacts having been a police officer himself. Obviously there will be examples such as you cite but this may be in connection with Special Branch documentation which, probably, no one will ever get to see.

With such a vast subject as this; with such a varied spectrum of interests; with such a diverse group of writers, researchers and simple enthusiasts (and undoubtedly the oddball or two) there never will be a consensus of opinion on the best way forward, nor a concerted effort to work together. You might find the group or two that endeavours to work to a common purpose, the authors of the A-Z being an example, but I doubt that you will ever get a true accord with all.

We all have egos, that's part of our human make up and some are more developed than others. Hence there is quite a bit of ego building involved in Ripperology - individuals strive for recognition in the field and this may be seen particularly well on the message boards. Some actually do not have much to offer but become involved in convoluted arguments and theorising in their efforts to establish themselves and gain recognition in an overcrowded field. So be it. Individuals vie and jostle for recognition and praise for finding a particular piece of information, a photo or new suspect theory. It's an incredible mosaic of personalities and characters.

Indeed, it is Ripperology of today. A far cry from the 'Ripperology' I experienced in the early sixties. All has also been totally transformed by the Internet, the changes since 1995 (when I wrote my first book) are incredible. Mere authors are held in esteem as icons and some even become 'legends' of a sort (I know that's the wrong word). We can all take heart in the solid base of persistent researchers, to be found on the boards, who reward all with their often relevant, and sometimes very significant, finds.

**Phil Carter** · 10-31-2009, 12:41 PM

Stewart,
Thanks again for your reply, much repected it is too.

The Special Branch stuff you refer to, has of course, has a "life of it's own". Whilst in most cases I can see the need for it never being opened to the General Public, this case HAS got specific connections with it. IF, and I assume not, but IF there are articles within those files, which directly refer to the JTR problem, I put this to you.
If they, specifically, are witheld, then there MUST be a reason for it. Because the actions of 120 years ago surely have no bearing on today's climate? Fenianism included. Perhaps I am blind, but I can see no logical reason for witholding Special Branch material for 120 years! Unless it is political perhaps?
OK, JTR, politically, was a hot potato at the time. Heads rolled.
I have nothing against Trevor Marriott, who I am sure is every bit as honest as you say. I just saw the quote and thought of every newbie, sitting there wondering..."hey, whats going on here?".

Nothing at all against Mr Marriott, believe me. It was a glaring example. And Im sure his motives are very well intentioned.

You and I, amongst many others, remember pleading with librarians almost on our hands and knees for access to old documents at the "local library" all those years ago, they were guarded like a grave!..The internet generation have no idea what "trudging through the archives" really means!
(God, I AM sounding like an OLd Fart now!)

Again, best wishes

Phil

**Stewart P Evans** · 10-31-2009, 01:31 PM

Special Branch

Special Branch files are held as confidential in perpetuity. Historians of the Special Branch and subjects such as Fenianism have come up against this problem in the past. It is not peculiar to information on the Whitechapel murders. It is official policy and such a policy will not make exceptions. Simple as that, nothing of a conspiratorial nature or a cover up at all. It has more to do with protecting informants and their descendants than anything else.

**Trevor Marriott** · 10-31-2009, 01:32 PM

Hi Phil
My interview you refer to with casebook editor was many years ago.

I full endorse everything Stewart has written on the topic but I will for your benefit put things in perspective to explain my own personal actions in relation to the matter you refer to which effects me.

The document i beleive you are referring to was a letter/statement which Sir Charles Warren had taken from a man who gave his name as Charles de La ree Bott who wanted to volunteer some information regarding the Whitechapel murders. This wasnt just a hoax letter because Warren was instructed by a much higher authority to have this man spoken to and the statment obtained. The content of that statement has been fully documented so i wont go through it again.

Through the course of my investigation i came across the statement/letter. The document i can say has not been stolen the owner has lawful possession. The reason why i was asked not to make public its whereabouts was in order to protect the owner from what might amount to persistent intrusion from researchers. The owner was more than happy for me to make public the existence of the document and to publish its contents which I did so there is no mileage to be gained for reserachers to go examining this document because the contents have been made public already. It will not take the Ripper mystery any further,

I hope this now makes things clearer to you.

Trevor Marriott

**Phil Carter** · 10-31-2009, 03:10 PM

Hello Trevor,

Thank you indeed for taking the time to reply.
I must make this clear, as it seems that this has become a little "one-way" slanted against your name...
I had, and have, no intension of stigmatising any one individual, be he researcher, writer, historian or whatever. The interview referred to was I believe from 2005, and I reiterate that I was only trolling through casebook myself after a long absence, and it struck me, that if I, having not seen this particular interview before, found the "unseen" document situation as in any way strange, then any newbie reading the same would think "hey, whats this?"..
As you can see from my correspondance with SPE above, I specifically don't hold anything against ANY individual imparticular, and as I am sure you realise, am fully respectful of every individual involved in the chasing down, sorting through, discovery and publishing of any new material that comes to light.
As SPE himself replies...

"Obviously there will be examples such as you cite but this may be in connection with Special Branch documentation which, probably, no one will ever get to see."
As far as the particular document is concerned, I have no qualms about that at all, and I am glad, and grateful that the info re Charles de La ree Bott has come to light. Please excuse me, but having never been a policeman, source disclosure, which you mention in the same interview, is a foreign world to me. I DO accept the reason given above, without question, and I support that in every way.

I suppose that the original purloining of the archives in the 70's and before, is probably the source of my gripe, if I realistically think about it. I was hoping that those who have got material, having done nothing with it, may decide that it could be returned now so we can all benefit from it.

The combination of that and the siting of your example isn't I admit, a particularly good marraige, and if in any way you feel I have connected you with such, please be assured that was NOT my intention.
However, and this has to be said, because I am honest in my thoughts, quoting in an interview that x has got material is of particular disfortune in my opinion, whatever x has. It only serves for researchers to enquire, even now, after 4 years, what has been done with it and when will we, the general public, have the privilige of seeing and sharing it, as the interviewer Mr. Ryder indeed asked and indicated.

As I pointed out before, it isnt the name of JTR that will be revealed certainly upon these documents, but further background info that may help to dot another "i" and cross another "t".
There being a "lull" at the moment with JTR, and with so many now interested, by actively giving their time for research, the more stuff we can tie down, the better.

In summing up, I realise I may have crossed a line when airing my gripe, and perhaps, it was badly written, which I will fully accept. It was the general principle of dishonesty that I object to, and that perhaps someone, if only ONE person, may get a pang of concience by reading it and think..."hmmm, time is right to return the document"

I hope you are now clear as to MY intention.

best wishes

Phil

**Phil Carter** · 10-31-2009, 03:36 PM

Special Branch Files

Hello Stewart.

I too, am absolutely sure, like you, that the Special Branch files concerned certainly have no "cover up" and "conspiration" connection. I am certainly NOT hinting that at all. The nearest I can get to that idea is the destruction of material on a personal basis as admitted by MacNaghten about his "personal info" re his contact's own family suspicions.

Whilst I, like you no doubt, wish that official policy wasn't quite so rigid, and that there were exceptions or a change in policy, I begin to ask myself, 4 or 5 generations down the line, what the need for family name/person/informant name protection is, in ANY situation.

Surely, and again perhaps I am being totally green here, excuse me, the attempts, for example, on Queen Victoria's life, no doubt the latter of which were handled by the Special Branch, have absolutely no bearing on today's relatives in any way, whatever info "x" the informant gave at the time. Therefore I fail to see why "in perpituity" should apply.

Lets take it a little further.. in 80 years time, the JTR case is 200 years old. If the reason you give for witholding the files 200 years afterwards that MAY, or MAY NOT have some connection with JTR, then we are talking of people who 8 generations later would somhow be affected by what someone in their family was connected to 200 years earlier. The principle is, in my opinion, totally outdated and in dire need of a review.

You correctly note that this has been a problem for historians and researchers in the past. Banging the head against a brick wall. I would sincerely love someone at an official level to explain why in perpituity MUST be exactly that. Surely there is a time limit for informant name protection?

best wishes

Phil

**Cap'n Jack** · 10-31-2009, 06:55 PM

Well... this is some nice hard black pepper for me ol' grinder.
My own position on this has always been absolutely clear, and that is new documents or information should be available on these message boards as soon as they are found or 'discovered'; and not squirrelled away for commercial profit and ego gain. Which is what happens most of the time round here.
The argument that a writer or researcher would be foolish to release such material before their work is published is I think a weak one. For if a new book or article is relying on one piece of information alone to sell it, then it won't sell anyway... and surely it is up to the writer to make that volume readable and enjoyable enough without the false glamour of a previously unpublished photo, or piece of vacant information, that in final analysis changes nothing anyway.
I do remember the general 'hoo-haa' when I pipped RJ Palmer at the post with his much vaunted 'undiscovered interview' with Tumblety which he had in the latest Rip rag, and I posted it on the boards a week before publication.
See how they run... Lady Madonna.
I remember Phil's famous photo, oh yes, but best forgotton, as it now apparently is.
Let sleeping dogs lie, old man Wolf.
And now here I sit, some old drunk, with a history of mayhem and chaos behind me, with folks sending me discoveries which I must keep privy, for the purse you'll understand, and I itch with the bald effort of not posting such material here, but you see they must post it, not me, for the good of the community they should send it to the community, not me, and not you, but here.

**Monty** · 10-31-2009, 07:52 PM

Surely its down to the individual of how and when new 'finds' are released.

They have endeavoured and, in some cases, invested monies. Their work therefore their right. And if someone else comes across the same info, well thats the risk.

Who are we to dictate?

However, I dont think thats the kernal of Phils point.

Monty

**Cap'n Jack** · 10-31-2009, 09:14 PM

But the voices speak outside the box as well, here is such a voice from late 2008, a Martin Meenagh, who has a right old ding dong at me in particular - the Spanish Brandy gives me away - but then gives such ego and gain its rightful place. Enjoy!

'The second thing that the internet won points with me for this week was the cheerfully insane page on the Jack the Ripper caseboook dealing with Thomas Hayne Cutbush. I think that it's probably the lingering British combination of misogyny, riddling and fascination with madness on the part of the highly repressed that draw so many to the case. Repression is sometimes the other side of great success and discipline, after all.

Anyway, I've long thought that the solution to a mystery no one will ever solve was that some local nutter committed some or all of the crimes. Cutbush is just such a person. His triple barrelled name has been the subject of vast flights of research and fancy, as it refers back to a seventeenth century anti-catholic, and to Webster's famous reply that Abraham Lincoln adapted into the Gettysburg Address.

With the application of a little imagination masquerading as naive realism, and the aid of what seems to be a good sip of supermarket Spanish brandy, various writers on the casebook have sought to connect Cutbush to this intellectual sump, on the basis of very very little evidence indeed. Only one of the victims was a catholic; there were no catholic references in any of the supposed notes from the murderer, most of which were almost certainly written by journalists; and no one has suggested it before. So, all engines ahead on that theory.

Just about the only connection that works between the Lincoln assassination and Ripper suspects is one that is contradictory to the Cutbush theory anyway. Francis Tumblety was a nasty weirdo who collected womens' wombs (known in the past as matrices). He was in London in 1888 and may have been also close to the assassin of President Garfield, Charles Guiteau. Wild rumours once connected him to John Wilkes Booth.

It is one of the minor regrets of my life that I had too much shame to write a book under a pseudonym making all these sorts of links and selling it to idiots at airports and train stations for cash. Perhaps it could have led to the heights of, say, this Weird Chicago website. If you ever are in such a station, save your brain the effort and buy a John Connolly book instead.

How can speculation over such sad things as deranged lawsuits or the whitechapel murders of over a century ago lift the heart? I feel more confident in humanity muddling through its troubles when I see the determination not to deal with facts, reality, or disappointment on the part of some, and the capacity of law and historical method to restrain them on the other. Human nature doesn't change. If a species as daft as us can survive this far, what could ever really stop us?

Here's a video of Sarah Palin babbling on whilst a man slaughters Turkeys in the background.'

**Ally** · 10-31-2009, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by Monty View Post

Surely its down to the individual of how and when new 'finds' are released.

...
Who are we to dictate?

I do absolutely agree to the fact that it is every person's "right" to decide when and how their discoveries will be shared. People absolutely have the right to play "I know something you don't know" and peekaboo games and the rest have the right to think they are petulant dicks and mock them relentlessly both behind their backs and to their faces. Most people just choose to exercise their right to mock behind the back though.

Just because you have the RIGHT to do something, doesn't mean the rest of the world isn't going to judge you viciously for exercising that right. If people want to keep new discoveries to themselves, then they ought to follow that to the letter and ACTUALLY keep it to themselves. Dropping leading hints and nyah nyahs is not only childish but you tend to lose whatever credibility you might have gained from the research if you can't go about presenting it in adult manner.

**Monty** · 10-31-2009, 11:38 PM

Judgement is made one way or the other.

Simple fact is that no one has a devine right to information in this field.

People get off their arses and work tirelessly to find information, how they present it is entirely their call. And your, mine or anyone elses opinion on that call is, quite frankly, irrelivant.

You may think they're dicks..yeah, and?

Lots of people want it on their lap, and even when its presented they question, query and deny.

Damned if you do...

Monty

**Ally** · 10-31-2009, 11:48 PM

You may think they're dicks..yeah, and?

...and don't bitch if you act like a dick and people call you a dick.

Lots of people want it on their lap, and even when its presented they question, query and deny.

Wait...so are you claiming that just because someone works and researches something, no one has the right to question, query it or deny it? Just because someone worked on something doesn't make it right or accurate or plausible.

Damned if you do...

That's usually what people say when they do something dumbass and get called on it. It's rarely true or accurate but the complaint of whiners who make the wrong call and get soundly smacked for it.

Announcement

In the name of honesty...

In the name of honesty...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment