Walter Dew's section on JtR in his book

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't know whether or not Dew, or many of the other police officers, would have seen the photographs that were taken in the room. but he knew it was one of the most awful scenes and said that it still haunted him. he also said that her eyes were wide open, which is something that you cannot really tell from the grainy photograph. there's nothing he's said that makes me think he was lying. if he was really going to lie about being at one particular crime scene, he may as well have said that he was at 4 of them and literally chased JtR for half a mile before losing sight of him.


also, he said that they didn't take seriously that you could see the killer in the eyes of the victim, but that they made close-up photos of Mary Kelly's eyes just in case. I wonder if they really took these photos and if so, where are they now?

Andy Williams was the last person to have them just before he wrote his hit song "cant take my eyes off you"

[Pontius2000]

I think he made up a lot of it, and/or based it on newspaper cuttings, to boost his profile in the Ripper case, specifically with regard to the Kelly murder. His claim to having been one of the first on the scene, his defying Inspector Beck's dramatic instruction not to look through the window, his slipping in the "awfulness" on the floor, all seem to be concocted for dramatic effect. Quite how - or whether - one should allow that to influence one's perception of his memoirs is up to the individual, of course. Whilst I acknowledge that Dew is by no means the worst braggart in the world of contemporary "Ripper-squad" memoirs, I'm inclined to treat his account with a great deal of caution.

I don't know whether or not Dew, or many of the other police officers, would have seen the photographs that were taken in the room. but he knew it was one of the most awful scenes and said that it still haunted him. he also said that her eyes were wide open, which is something that you cannot really tell from the grainy photograph. there's nothing he's said that makes me think he was lying. if he was really going to lie about being at one particular crime scene, he may as well have said that he was at 4 of them and literally chased JtR for half a mile before losing sight of him.


also, he said that they didn't take seriously that you could see the killer in the eyes of the victim, but that they made close-up photos of Mary Kelly's eyes just in case. I wonder if they really took these photos and if so, where are they now?

[Sam Flynn]

so what do you think about it? I think you really have to forgive some of the smaller points that he may have gotten wrong. but do you think he got most of it right?

I think he made up a lot of it, and/or based it on newspaper cuttings, to boost his profile in the Ripper case, specifically with regard to the Kelly murder. His claim to having been one of the first on the scene, his defying Inspector Beck's dramatic instruction not to look through the window, his slipping in the "awfulness" on the floor, all seem to be concocted for dramatic effect. Quite how - or whether - one should allow that to influence one's perception of his memoirs is up to the individual, of course. Whilst I acknowledge that Dew is by no means the worst braggart in the world of contemporary "Ripper-squad" memoirs, I'm inclined to treat his account with a great deal of caution.

[DVV]

Hi Pontius,

I too admire Dew's pages about the Ripper.

This said, the spot where Nichols has been killed is quite far from where Smith said she had been assaulted.
But Emma Smith lied.
She's probably been attacked by a client, and certainly not at the junction of 4 streets (Brick Lane, Osborn St, Wentworth St and Old Montague St).

Was that client the Ripper ?
As you said, we lack evidences, and there is no knife used...

Who could do such a horrible thing to a woman, in Whitechapel 1888 ?
Several bastards, including the Ripper.

Amitiés,
David

[Pontius2000]

the other night, for the first time, I read the Ripper section from Dew's book here on the casebook. it is, quite honestly, one of the best things I've ever read on the subject. why it's not talked about more, I don't understand. If you've not read it, I strongly encourage it.

I believe he most definitely got some dates wrong, which he apologizes for in the beginning of the writing. but it's understandable since it was written and edited 50 years after the fact. and others have criticized it for him seeming to pat himself and the police on the back or maybe trump up how much of a role he actually played in the investigation. I don't care about any of that. there are several points that really stand out to me:

1. instead of writing as someone on the outside looking in, like a documentary, he writes from the point of view of someone who was actually there on the streets.

2. whether or not he trumped up the role that he played in the investigation, one thing is clear.....where many of his contemporaries were arrogant enough to say they KNEW who the Ripper was, Dew was man enough to say that he had no earthly clue who the Ripper was and that it was one of his greatest disappointments.

3. He painted a fantastic picture of the East End. The story of "Squibby", who was mistaken as the Ripper and nearly lynched before the police saved him. The story of the policeman who was not afraid to go into any part of the East End to get a wanted suspect. the clergyman who went into a lodging house and was stripped naked and sent out into the streets. these stories are classic when trying to imagine the times and situations.

4. Dew put the whole "Ripper frenzy" into a better perspective. with almost any Ripper book you read, you'll see that nothing much was thought of a killer on the loose until after Chapman was killed. that's the impression I've always gotten. when in actuality, according to Dew, the public were already getting nervous after the murders of Emma Smith and Martha Tabram. and after the Nichols and Chapman murders, the public went into an all out panic. I put most of the blame for my previous misconceptions on MacNaughtenn, who so brazenly said there were only 5 Ripper victims. and I think a lot of modern Ripper writers go by this same thing and paint it that way. but as violent as the East End was, murders weren't as common as you'd think. So Dew really hits it home that there was already a little bit of unease before the first "canonical" was even killed.

5. Emma Smith. I had never even remotely considered her to be a Ripper victim until reading Dew's book. for one thing, the MO didn't match. for another, I've always been led to believe that she told the police that she was attacked by 3 men. Now, I don't know if Dew is right or not, but he says that she arrived at the hospital in a state of bleeding to death and that once inside, she never regained consciousness. He also states that she made no statements whatsoever to police. He points out also that the site where she was attacked was almost at the precise location where Nichols body was found.

6. the wall graffitti. he appears to not believe that the "Juwes are the men" graffitti had anything to do with the Ripper and says there were wall graffitti close to all the murder sites. He also does not seem to believe that any of the letters were real either.

so what do you think about it? I think you really have to forgive some of the smaller points that he may have gotten wrong. but do you think he got most of it right?

to me, he seems to have been a very good and knowledgable cop. it's important to wonder if he got most of it right or wrong. because he seemed to believe that the Ripper was being helped or hidden by his family, but never actually comes out and accuses anyone.