A Re-read of the JtR Literature

[Phil H]

After McCormick's name arose to thought recently, I have decided to to embark on a re-read of the JtR books in my possession, in the rough order that they were written. Some I have only dipped into in decades, if even opened them. (The publication of books like the A-Z mean that it's often easier to consult them rather than go back to the original.)

The initial agenda is to review:

Donald McCormick
Tom Cullen
Dan Farson
Rumbelow (earliest p/back edition)
Barlow and Watt series book by Elwyn Jiones and John Lloyd
Stephen Knight

After that, I'll probably turn to all the books that came out in 1888 (or slightly before) such as Fido; Odell and Wilson; Howell & Skinner etc.

I shall be looking in particular at:

* how they approached the subject
* insights
* claimed new material
* oddities
* anything that stikes as odd given the time that has passed
* advances they may have made
* to "rate" them in some way.

My question for my fellow Casebook posters is - would this be useful to you? Would it be helpful if I post my notes for you to comment on or ask questions?

Grateful for your thoughts.

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

I'd rather not...

I'd rather not...

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Phil

How about Robin Odell...His "Jack the Ripper in Fact and Fiction" was, I think, the first JtR book I ever read back in the late 60s...did you ever read that one in those palmy far off days before "The Final Solution" ?

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

I did. In the National Library of Wales literally under the feet of a statue of the man later to be claimed as "Uncle jack".!

odell was one of the books that impressed me most.

The "early" book I have not read (and dearly want to) is Whittington-Egan's much-praised Casebook, which is I believe to have a new edition shortly.

Stewart, if you think it a bad idea I'll certainly not proceed.

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Phil

Amazon's already taking orders for a late September release at £25...not a fortune but it'd better be good!

All the best

Dave

[Stewart P Evans]

Very Good Idea

I think that this thread is a very good idea - but not for me.

A re-reading of all the old works on the subject can be both rewarding and revealing. For with a greater knowledge than when you first read them you will find that you find more of interest and also stimulate interest in other areas.

Bearing in mind that my first reading of Robin's excellent book (and Cullen's which was published almost simultaneously) was back in 1965, and I've read them again since, I really don't want to overdo my Ripper reading.

[Phil H]

I didn't think for a moment that you'd want to participate, Stewart. But thanks for the comments.

Starting with McCormick has already taken me back - to an era where none of the files were available (let alone having your Ultimate at the elbow). In about 1973 when I began serious reading on the case, I would never have dreamed that such a volume would be published.

My first steps were to obtain then out-of-print works - Odell, Stewart, Matters and I think one other from the National Library and try to work out the "facts" as best one could along with the theories. I was never a Dr Stanley or a Jill man, but Odell impressed me.

Younger posters may not realise that, back then, before the internet, those interested in JtR had almost to await each new book to carry the discussion forward. Unless you had the time, resources or inclination to work in the newspaper libraries - and I recall going through bound editions of The Times and maybe one other paper in the basement of the National Library - there was little one could do.

So deconstructing (say) the case against Druitt by questioning the evidence was not really a practical proposition. I was a Druittist for several years (young an naiave as I was) and the experience has left me with a reluctance to embrace any single suspect.

But the books then took on a specific style, usually with:

a) an outline, in greater or less detail, of the case - selecting material on how well it supported the contentions to come;

b) a rubbishing of previous suspects to clear the field; and

c) the revelation of new material and the new suspect, with the "definitive" case made and signed off.

It was (b) that I always looked forward to.

The "game" of authors it always seemed to me was to try to guess whom the officials files would finger/name when finally opened. The unspoken assumption seemed to be - especially after the Aberconway version - that there would be a name on the file. Presumably that came from Anderson's hints in his various memoirs that the authorities knew whem the killer was.

Already reading McCormick, I am amazed how far we have come since 1959 (when his book first appeared) in knowledge, sophistication and approach. I think that can sometimes be overlooked. The advances are indeed remarkable.

Phil

[TomTomKent]

Just one quick question... How will you decide which edition of which books to read? I can't see it will make any real difference to the thread, and realistically will be "what ever is on my bookshelf or in the charity shop", but if you are reviewing books and looking for pecular things of note, would changes between editions be one of the topics of discussion?

Ok, I admit selfish motives here: If you reviews spark my interest in a book I want to hunt for the recommended edition...

[Phil H]

It'll be the edition I have on my shelves.

For instance I'm reading the 1970 edition (revised) of McCocmick's 1959 book at the moment.

[Jonathan H]

I think a review of the secondary sources, from the beginning of the post-war era, is a brilliant idea.

I'm a big advocate of textual analysis, for what that is worth.

I'm ashamed to say that my research is incomplete as I do not have access to all the books listed.

For example, I don't know if the faker McCormick mentioned the Dutton-Backert tale--his hoax about the drowned suspect--in his 1959 book, or only supplied it to Tom Cullen in 1965, post-Farson's 1959 TV revelations, and the American Marxist, in a fateful decision for the subject,went with that as his 'clincher' pre-Macnaghten source.

[Cogidubnus]

Degree

Not sure that a complete review of every edition of every single thing ever issued would even be possible....never mind...what Phil proposes is interesting enough...a review of everything in his own library...

Apart from any other consideration, it's a review of all the literature that ever suggested to him the beliefs he holds...so in itself fascinating!

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

Donald McCormick: Identity of JTR (1970) PART 1A

I will try to provide this in bite sized chunks.

Donald McCormick's book was originally published in 1959, my copy is the revised version of 1970 (p/back) which I bought at the time it came out. I think I had an earlier copy (probably of the origianl version which I lost - probably lent and not returned. This was a replacement and my first REAL source of information on the case.

In checking McCormick's facts and statements, I have - for ease of reference - used the A-Z (latest edition), the "Ultimate" and Sugden as up-to-date.

First: the book is brilliantly readable and flows well. the style is confident, relaxed and aimed at a lay reader. It is far more accessible that Sugden (though for reasons we'll come too, less praiseworthy overall). McCormick's journalistic experience serves him well. For UK readers, it is a style represntative of "Sun" journalism.

McCormick makes it clear that he has been reliant on press reports of inquests (especially The Times). he was writing and reseraching, of course, well before the official files were expected to be released (in fact access was allowed in the early 70s but not in time for this book) so we have to take into account that the author did not have access to the most reliable sources or all the information available today.

This first report covers the initial 155 pages of the book - essentially the background covering the murders, letters etc. I give page numbers for reference in the form pXX).

There is a good clear sketch map at the front of the book.

p11. McCormick claims that until his 1959 book, no serious attempt had been made to identify the murderer. To me this rather dismisses Leonard Matters and his Dr Stanley theory.

He observes that "when crimes are of a sexual nature the quest for motive may obscure the truth". Not sure what this actually means, but I think it is intended to sustain his eventual revelation!

In the 1970 edition, he refers to Odell, Cullen and Farson as prompted in their work by his 1959 volume.

He saw the Aberconway (Macnaghten Memorandum) papers in re-writing the book. These had been recognised since 1959.

McCormick (hereafter McC) admits that his first person narratives are open to criticism, but says he is trying to recapture the atmosphere of 1888 and that they are literally transcribed from the statements made. I am not sure that this is true and in some cases can be shown not to be.

Tabram

There is a long - 3-4 pages - recreation of the pubs visited by soldiers that Bank Holiday - including one in Limehouse. I can find no source for this. Leary's movements (Brixton, Billingsgate) do not include Limehouse (Sugden p24). A contemporary song is changed to include Martha's name!

p18. Tabram was a "notorious local prostitute who solicited custom in the vicinity of the Tower of London". P 22 He gives her age as 35. She was actually 39 (or 40) - Ultimate p20.

Dr Killeen's name is given by McC as "Keleene".

Sugden is highly critical, p29, of the "remarkable statements" McC puts into the mouth of Dr Kileen. These were not the Dr's views especially about the weapons used.

p21. Martha lay on the landing with her bodice torn open.

p24. He points to certain similarities between Tabram and Smith (both slain on Bank Holidays) but claims four men followed Smith (most accounts say 3) and he is right in saying she was set upon and robbed.

This is where the vexed question of the "Old Nichol Gang" first appears. The Ultimate (p30) refers to the police as looking into the doings of certain gangs. It does now appear that McC may have had a source of the gang name he gives (see appropriate Casebook thread).

In the end McC concludes that Tabram was probably not a Ripper victim.

Polly Nichols

This murder (p 28ff) has the same mixture of relative accuracy mixed with mistakes as that on Tabram. He gets Cross' name wrong (William - not Charles - but that was always an issue until I think Begg resolved it).

Strangely, in one of his invented dialogue's (p 31) McC has Cross concluding that Nichols was dead "Blimey she's bleeding from the throat... and he "turned the body over". Sugden has both Cross and Paul being less certain (Sugden p 36).

PC Thain is for McC (PC Haine) - p 32) (The Times reports "Phail"!) Personally, I well remember the surprise when the files gave the real names. In particular for me the well-known PC "Nisen" proved to be a misreading of the handwritten "Mizen".

p33. There is an implication that Cross and Paul returned to the body with PC Neil. PC Haine suggests the murder is the work of the "Old Nichol Gang" and Cross is ordered to go to Whitechapel Police Station to inform them; Paul is sent to fetch Dr Llewellyn. (In most sources the Dr is called out by PC Thain - Sugden p38; Ultimate p24.)

p35. Much is made of Robert mann stripping the body without instructions.

p36. Police are stated to have been "certain" Smith was murdered by the "Old Nichol Gang".

I'll take a breather at this point, simply noting that McCormick has many (probably inevitable and unavoidable) mistakes given the restricted sources he was forced to use. But I think his account shows somewhat how our focus, our knowledge and our interpretation has changed.

More soon.

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Don't think I read McCormick...

...but he sounds strangely familiar...

Fascinating so far Phil...I only hope your stamina holds out!

All the best

Dave

[The Good Michael]

Simply marvelous stuff. Thanks Phil.

Mike

[Phil H]

McCormick :"Identity of JtR" - PART 1 B

Chapman - he calls her "Dark Annie"

Sugden (p 106) makes an interesting point, that until 1939 (Stewart's book) no one doubted Chpaman was a prostitute. Sugden then goes on to dismiss McC's account of Annie's past - except for the single fact of her one time residence in Windsor.

p40. Leather Apron. McC has Abberline say: "Never mention that blasted nickname again!" [Does anyone have a reference to Abberline EVER saying such a thing?]

p41. A clear statement that Leather Apron was a title given to a whole series of suspects and never applied positively to any one of them.

p42: McC has 16 people living in No29 Hanbury St. Sugden (p17) and Rumbelow have 17.

Cadosche is not mentioned until p 61 - when it is said he heard a "scuffle".

The description of the body is strange. On p 43 McC talks of "so many STAB wounds"!! There is no mention of cutrs or of the intestines over her shoulder! [Was this 1950s/70s prudery, or did his sources not tell him?]

On p 50 McC says it is clear that the same killer (as of Nichols) was at work. He then mentions "2 incisions on left side of the spine, parallel and half-an-inch apart". He concludes that this was to allow for the removal of a kidney. In the Ultimate (p 97) these cuts are mentioned by Bagster Phillips, but seemingly in the context of Chapman's NECK wounds.

p51. McC says that the wepon could again have been a BAYONET. At the inquest Dr Phillips said EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE! (Ultimate p 97.)

Sugden (p 113) discusses McC's strange use of Mrs Long and Mrs Darrell to substantiate each other. We now know, of course, that these were the same woman. But McC puts their sightings half an hour apart - one at 5am, one at 5.30am. Sugden checked the Times account, which is 5am for BOTH. McC either copied it down wrongly or (one has to conclude) deliberately falsified this for effect.

Leather Apron

p53. Forbes Winslow - who will feature later - is introduced.

p 55. A Polish Jew named Pizer appears and is immediately linked to Sir Robert Anderson's (Sir RA) later comments on a Polish Jew. McC then criticises Sir RA for not explicitly exonerating Pizer in making his later comments.

Here's something I'd appreciate advice on. In one of his invented conversations (p57) McC has Insp Chadler produce a tiny piece of leather from John Richardson's boot. Anyone know where that comes from?

p58. Donovan (the lodging house keeper) new Leather Apron well, but not Pizer.

p62/63. Mc C criticises the description issued by police of "a man who entered a passage". Sugden has a whole chapter on this. McC calls the description "slip-shod".

Chapter Five

Here we get many social issues described.

There is a comment (p 69) that on at least four occasions (in the context of JtR and 1888 presumably) constables wished to detail members of the middle or upper classes on strong grounds but station superintendents declined to take action. McC later (p 89) discusses Robert Spicer's story which fits this, but what were the other three? [As an aside, Spicer's story is dated as given in 1931 - Daily Express - but in 1937 a few lines earlier - printer's error?]

p69. Warren discussed - he is McC's villain, thoroughly incompetent, likened to Colonel Blimp, unsuitable for his post etc etc. Sir RA is written off as "hysterical and ill".

P 71. McC refers to the Official Secrets Act. Did that or any equivalent exist in 1888?

Double Event

He calls this (p 75) the zenith of the ripper scare.

p76. Diemshutz has help from Zozebrodski (now Kozebrodski - Sugden) or Isaacs. interesting how spellings can change. Probably McC's source here was at fault. It threw me for a minute.

Sugden says Stride's clothing not disturbed by murderer (p 171). McC has her bodice open at top (p76).

Sugden (p229) comments on how McC uses and misinterprets Mrs Mortimer's testimony, so that she is portrayed as having seen JtR. [I recall from my early teenage years this story being used in articles I read related I think to Farson's TV programme.]

p77. Enter McC's hero in a white hat. Major Smith of the City Police - everything Warren and Sir RA are not.

p79 - according to McC and major Smith - Eddowes should have been followed by police on her release. This was on Smith's orders - but surely Eddowes was on Met Police territory (or have I missed something)?

p80. GSG spelling given as "Jewes". - The jewes are not the men to be blamed for nothing.p85. One of McC's poetic phrases - Flower and Dean St is called " a notorious hive of harlotry"!

p85 - McC doubts Stride's "Princess Alice" story.

Here endeth this lesson. Next installment is a biggie - McC on the Ripper Letters: NOT TO BE MISSED!

Phil