A Re-read of the JtR Literature

[Cogidubnus]

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

Did not Edward Johnston, the Doctor's assistant testify that the dress was buttoned up until he, himself, unbuttoned the top to feel if the chest was warm? It follows that depending on which witness saw what and when, either might be true...so this at least is understandable.

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

Thanks Dave.

I recognise that McC was dependent upon his (very much) secondary sources. Your comment is most helpful in trying to divide a wrong source from a blatant tampering with the facts. I noted earlier that he had Tabram's bodice torn open.

With McC one always has to be alert that he is not choosing facts and words which will bolster his "solution". This could have been one of those moments - maybe it isn't.

Thanks again,

Phil

[Phil H]

McCormick: "Identity of JtR" PART 1C

LETTERS

This is one of the most controversial parts of McC's book - for reasons that will emerge... Sugden says that some of McC's view held saw for 15 years (i.e. from 1959).

p93. McC describes the Ripper as "certainly a prolific and entertaining letter-writer".

p97/98. Attribution of key letters to a journalist is mentioned but McC found the "hoax theory" unsatisfactory. [I read that as - the letters are key to my theory so I have to make them real"!]

p99. McC's hero, Major Smith, cited as thinking some of the letters genuine. Indeed, he is praised (p109) for taking the letters seriously.

p100. Verses also attributed to "Jack".

p102 and 106/7 and following. Forbes Winslow brought in again.

p103. Now we come to Dr Thomas Dutton. He REALLY existed and died in 1935. However, McC places great emphasis on the Dr's "Chronicles of Crime" (covering over 60 years) from which McC claimed to have take notes in 1932. BUT no one else has ever seen this document.

Dutton is claimed to have been a member of a microscopic society (I assume it means one interested in miscscopes not a very tiny society!! ) and as interested in microphotography (whatever that was/is).

He claimed to have photographed 128 specimens of JtR correspondence, of which he said he had proved 34 to be in the same handwriting. And that was a MINIMUM number!

Dutton also claimed to have photographed the GSG BEFORE it was erased.

NOTE: Sugden (footnote p 510) says this is demonstrably untrue and cites several cogent reasons for his statement.

It is unclear what any of McC's material here is based on. Numerous authors since have rubbished the idea - what benefit would there have been in such photographs?

One could go on asking which letters were involved? How were they chosen.

Certainly the police records make no mention of Dutton or his involvement in the case.

Where the Ripper letter from Liverpool is concerned, the earliest known text is from J Hall Richardson in 1927. There is no trace of this letter in MEPO files. But McC takes one letter, comprising the letter and a postscript (PS) and prints it as TWO separate letters, changing the dates in the process!!!

Still on Dutton, he is claimed as a close friend of Abberline who consults him (in fictional dialogue) on several occasions. According to McC, Dr D pointed Abberline towards Poles or Russians who could pass as English. (Note; this is closely connected to McC's solution.] On p 116, Abberline is given the view that the killer was foreign, but NOT a Jew. By page 119, Dr Brown and Dutton had persuaded Abberline to focus his attention on foreigners with surgical knowledge and skill.

p113. McC downplays anti-semitism in the East End and says there is no suggestion in the press or riots based on such views. He roundly accuses senior Met Police officials of anti-semitism (especially Sir RA), but seems to exclude Warren from this.

p114. Warren is said to have "detested" Anderson.

p115. The double negative in the GSG is said to be typical of Russian grammar.

p117 - I have yet to check this, but Bagster Phillips is reported as saying that the method of killing Stride was markedly different from Chapman.

The arrangement of Eddowes body formed a pattern - done by design. McC was aware (p118) of Dr Brown's sketch of the body in situ but did not reproduce it.

Lawende (not named) is described as a German (sic) who had left a foreigners' club close to Mitre Square.

I think that does it for today. Back tomorrow when I'm fresh.

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Phil

I have yet to check this, but Bagster Phillips is reported as saying that the method of killing Stride was markedly different from Chapman.

Yes according to the 6th October 1888 Times account of the Stride Inquest, when Bagster-Phillips is recalled on 5th October he does, under questioning by the Coroner, say that there is a "great dissimilarity" citing the depth of the cut down to the spinal column in the Chapman case.

This is proving interesting Phil...thanks very much

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

No thank you, Dave. I should have checked that myself. Most useful.

Phil

[Phil H]

McCormick: Identity of JTR PART 1D

Not sure whether anyone is reading this stuff... But moving on

p121. Abberline starts to show interest in a barber called Ludwig - whom he initially thinks is called Schloski but is really actually Klosowski.

p122. McC fictionalises a discussion of what a "Feldscher" is. On p 126 there is a fictionalised discussion about an unnamed foreigner who lives in the Walworth area (south of the Thames). Needless to say, this all ties in with McC's eventual revelations.

Mary Jane Kelly

Note that Sugden (p11) is VERY critical of McC's handling of the MJK murder in particular that he does not question the issue of her being pregnant when killed. (This had been crucial to Stewart's earlier book which cast the killer as a midwife.)

p130. We get a bit about Queen Victoria's interest in the case, a description of Dorset St, McCarthy and Joe Barnett (p 132) is sketched in.

pp132-133. MJK's story is told as fact. Fleming and Morganstone both get a mention.

p 134. McC comments "if George Hutchinson's story is to be accepted"...

p137. The discovery of the body is fictionalised dialogue yet again.

p138. Bowyer is stated to have cut his hand on the broken window glass - a point I have been unable to substantiate. There is absolutely no mention I can find in his Inquest testimony (Ultimate p411).

Note that McC was writing BEFORE the discovery of the picture of MJK's body. As with the other murders the physical horror is played down somewhat compared to later writers.

Warren Resigns

p141. There is a strange (printer's mistake) statement that Dr Duke of Spitalfield and Dr Duke of Westminster were in attendance at No 13. the A-Z refers to a Dr Dukes (singular). Odd.

p142. Warren orders a photograph of MJK's eyes (which was done) based on a belief that the image of the last person she saw would be retined there. I think this would have been more germane to McC and some of his readers than it is today because they would recall a case (still well-known when I was young) of a policeman who had both eyes shot out for the same reason!

p142. McC discusses the fact that the inquest was taken away from Wynne Baxter.

p143. McC alleges that this crime provided more clues than all the others put together.

p144. Two women claim to have seen Kelly after 8am. One is unnamed the other Mrs Maxwell. McC has Abberline rush off to discuss this with Dr Dutton - this provides the opportunity to discuss "Jill the Ripper" and Stewart's book.

p150. Discussion of the fire and light in No 13.

p151. the book provides a chronological account of the night of MJK's death.

p152. The conclusion is that MJK died before 5am and no later than 5.45am - probably at around 3.30 when Prater heard the cry of "Murder".

Alice Mckenzie and Carroty Nell

p155. McC discusses how many women "Jack" killed. He says that he examined some 14 cases from Jan 1887 to feb 1891, omitting some that did not appear relevant.

He notes that Forbes Winslow believed there had been 8 murderrs - insisting that the first was an unknown woman near Osbourne St and Wentworth St in Christmas Week 1887. [NOTE: This must surely be a reference to the mythical Fairy Fay.] McC dismisses this without explanation.

There is an odd thing here. The A-Z says Forbes Winslow died in 1913, it also says that the first mention of "Fairy Fay" was by a journalist in 1950. So I don't understand how this pans out. [I have double-checked what McC wrote.]

Incidentally, the A-z points out that McC suggested that the police briefly suspected F-W as JtR, but that a recent author can find no supprt for McC's claim. In fact, what McC wrote (at least in 1970) was that F-W's "ubiquity at the scene of the crimes caused [detectives] to check up on his movements". They found nothing to link him to the murders. The A-z seems a tad out of order in its statement therefore.

McC notes that Macnaghten excluded Tabram and Smith, while Chief Constable Wensley thought there were five, maybe six. McC dismisses Stewart's four murders as too low (Stewart dthought Stride a coincidence).

Turning to later murders, McC mentions Annie farmer, the Thames torso killings (name-checking Elizabeth Jackson) and then gives some space to Mckenzie and Coles.

p157. On McKenzie, McC says munro thought this Ripper work (with support of an alleged letter), but post-mortem did not sustain this view (p 158) as no particular surgical skill was shown.

p159. The discovery of Coles' body is fictionalised, including the magical words: "It's a Jack the Ripper job! said Thompson."

p166 has an interesting story about a lawyer named Harry Wilson, with a man who said he was "Jack".

p166. McC avers that there was no murder in Britain (at least - see p 168) within 20 years after Coles that can be compared to the Ripper crimes.

p 167. he concludes that it is just possible one man killed eight women, but four seems to cautious. McC adds that with Tabram (he calls her Turner) and stride the killer might have been disturbed. This is interesting as I was led to believe McC dismissed Tabram as a Ripper victim much earlier in the book!

p 168. He turns briefly to US parallels, including Texas and Jersey City.

Drowned barrister

p169ff. McC runs through a list of those alleged to have been JtR before he wrote [this is an interesting sidelight on the state of the case around 1970]:

* an illegitimate son of British royalty (McC suggests this arose from suspicions of a hush-up over the case);
* George Gissing;
* Dr Barnardo;
* Walter Sickert;
* "cousin Frank" (p 172)
* Alonzo Maduro.

p174. McC had seen the Aberconway notes since 1959 and states that the police had told him there was a "relatively short memo" on the official file. [The official files were then, of course, closed to the public.]

p175. McC turns to Major Arthur Griffiths and his three suspects, which he says coincide "to some extent" with what Macnaghten wrote. In a fascinating insight into the way in which perceptions and knowledge can change withther release of documents, McC thought Griffiths wrote 13 years before Macnaghten went on record in print.

p177. Sir Basil Thomson said that CID officers believed murders the work of an insane russian doctor who committed suicide in late 1888. McC find this "categorical enough" as it comes from a distinguished police chief - but McC gives no basis for why he accepts this!

McC is confused because thomson mentions one other murder at the beginning of 1889 (but as McC can find no reports in the press, he concludes that Thomson was referring to Coles).

McC says suicide confuses the issue and cannt find any trace of a medical man committing suicide at the very end of 1888.

p178. McC notes that Cullen claims that the suicide was not of a doctor but of a barrister. MJ Druitt is named.

p180. Deeming and Cream's candidacy discussed and dismissed.

To be continued.

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

More of great interest Phil, and yes I can confirm that at least one Casebooker is "reading this stuff"! Sounds like in many ways he didn't do too badly from the secondary sources available to him...just a shame he felt the need (possibly publisher-driven commercial) to sex it up. Having said that, I don't recall ever reading this book, although it still feels familiar in part - I read a really oddball selection when I was a youngster, (got an adult library ticket at twelve or thirteen!)...

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

Thanks for the support Dave. I'm enjoying the re-read and taking notes so I can post here - it makes one read in a different way.

Sounds like in many ways he didn't do too badly from the secondary sources available to him...

I have been reflecting on my response to McCormick only today, I think I share your view, and I definitely think there is another way of looking at his work - a more sympathetic way, than some commentators have done. Sugden, for instance, I think miunderstands him completely.

I do think he missed some opportunities when writing originally in 1959 (presumably researching in the late 50s).

I see no indication, for instance, that McCormick visted the sites, though with the exception of Miller's Court (which Matters just caught before demolition in the late 20s) and Berners St/Dutfield's Yard, all must have been pretty intact. There are no pics done especially for the book for example. I see that as an opportunity missed - he discusses Tabram - what about a pic of the landing in George Yard Buildings where she was found. How we today would appreciate that!

Further, I see no indication that he tried to interview any locals - and in 1957-8, some older residents must surely have been able to recall the autumn of 1888. There are no anecdotes, no attempt to find something new.

But as I read, I certainly warm to the old fella....

Phil

[Jonathan H]

McCormick's significance is that he was a shameless faker.

He created the Dr Dutton archive which never existed, eg. he made the whole thing up.

Having been hustled from the grave by Sir Melville--McCormick asserted in 1959 that there was no Drowned Doctor suspect in contemporaneous newspapers--he now found the Albert Backert tale in the non-existent Dutton files, after Druitt's identity was established by Farson.

In a terrible mistake Tom Cullen, desperate for a clincher source, used this made-up story in 1965.

In the long run this helped to derail the truth about the subject, despite Cullen writing a classic book. the damage lasts to this day, despite Dr. Tumblety being rediscovered.

McCormick's other unintended legacy was that a bit of his hoax material infected--and discredited--the DNA of the 'Diary' decades later.

[Phil H]

Another McCormick hater, clearly. Good job he's dead and can't answer back!

I can see why that might be, but I think it harsh.

True, the Chronicles of Crime have never been seen other than by McCormick, but are we justified in dismissing them as "fake"? But until they are anything drawn from them remains unsubstantiated. They are no worse than (say) Leonard Matters' justification for his "Dr Stanley" where the reports etc he mentions have yet to be found. Matters makes factual mistakes in the earlier part of his work, but does not come in for the same harsh treatment/abuse as McCormick (nor does Knight,who flagrantly misused evidence).

Now I am no apologist for McCormick, but I would point out that as a post in a recent thread here showed, where McCormick was accused of "inventing" the "Old Nichol Gang" it now appears he did have a source prior to 1959 for his mention of the gang and its name. So can we so simply dismiss Dutton's alleged work?

I'll come to my considered opinions of McCormick in a future post, but my re-read to date makes me think that many of his mistakes flow from the fact that he had no choice but to use secondary and flawed sources. His fictionalised conversations and "reconstructions" are a reflection of the time he wrote and the audience he was writing for.

I don't think McCormick ever thought his little book would still be being discussed and debated over 50 years after he set down his pen. In my view he wrote for a popular audience, and seen at that level I repeat what I said in an earlier post - the book is a fantastic read (in every sense perhaps!) - lively, interesting and drawing one in.

Can McCormick be blamed if others were influenced by what he wrote? can he be blamed if his book became influential even controversial? I don't really think so. And if it has been influentialsurely the fault lies with those who allowed themselves to be influenced by it without checking their facts.

Phil

[Jonathan H]

A McCormick ... Hater??

What a very, eh, original way of assessing somebody else's assessment of patently bogus material?

McCormick engaged in a hoax with the Dutton material, as did Le Queux with his Rasputin-Dr. Pedachenko tale, and Matters with Dr. Stanley, as did the the person who confessed to faking the Maybrick 'Diary', and as did Gorman who hustled a willing Knight, and so on unto the end of the age.

As with most secondary sources, from 1923, the later primary sources of the Edwardian era were not understood, and often not even known to be misunderstood.

By the way, it is I who criticized Cullen for, in the previous post, for derailing the entire subject by buying into McCormick's sub-hoax about Druitt.

In 'Autumn of Terror' (1965) Cullen dismisses Macnaghten's assertion in his memoirs that [the un-named] Druitt was only found 'some years after' 1888 as yet another memory malfunction. Instead the American Leftist argues--via McCormick's hoax--that Druitt was known by the police to be the likely fiend when he was fished from the Thames, and that they stood down the police patrols.

It is simply untrue, if you have access to the relevant primary sources and Cullen, to give him the benefit of the doubt, had neither the time nor the money to make that journey into the archives. Instead he fatefully embraced the sexiness of McCormick's b.s.

[Phil H]

Read your posts, Jonathan - they reek of distaste and venom - not only of Donald McCormick. For instance, is it really necessary constantly to refer to "the American Leftist ". maybe they're your best friends and that's how you refer to people - but I think it rather over the top.

Then it's all down to "conspiracy"...

McCormick engaged in a hoax with the Dutton material, Prove it, frankly. You make a statement, but none of us can really say the Chronicles don't exist. we cannot!

Matters with Dr. Stanley, I have heard it said that Matters (the first part of who's book I admire greatly - was simply adhering to the literary conventions of his day. Now he might say - this is my theory - but he dressed it up. For other reasons, no one really takes his theory seriously now and hasn't for years. But that's based on internal evidence as much as lack of sources.

as did Gorman who hustled a willing Knight But it was not Joe Gorman who hid inconvenient material, and included things in the book that the author knew were wrong, was it?

We live in the age we do. We abide, largely, by its conventions. We make our living as best we can. McCormick was a journalist, I don't think he ever pretended otherwise. His book was a "pulp" filler - something to titillate the pre James Bond readership. I do think your criticisms are harsh and rather misplaced, though I do not seek to cover or excuse McCormick's faults.

Phil

[Jonathan H]

Hatred?

Venom?

Distaste?

You get away with so much that I cannot here, you're the Teflon poster.

I suppose I'll get into trouble for even writing that.

If you actually read my posts you would know that I adore Tom Cullen's book. I'm the only person left defending it; for the brilliance of its prose and the seductiveness of its Leftist argument (that Druitt was a deranged social reformer trying to bring attention to the poverty of the East End as he was inspired by the initial Rip Gang/Soldier murders of Smith and Tabram, respectively).

Like many non-Leftists you shallowly assume that 'Leftist' is a term of abuse and derision.

I'm left-wing. I'm an Australian socialist.

I simply recognize in Cullen that he was approaching the subject of Jack the Ripper from a Marxist-class point of view, and that is both bracingly dynamic and also has in-built, polemical limitations too. That Macnaghten, an upper class gent, had accused a fellow gent of being a serial killer. So he got it wrong about Druitt being a doctor rather than a lawyer. Big deal, says Cullen, what counts, the American argues, is that its still the British bourgeoisie at war with itself.

You also do not understand the meaning of the word 'conspiracy' which you toss around with abandon.

McCormick simply did it himself. Of course his archive is made-up. He has Dutton supposedly photographing the graffiti?!

Matters claimed that dinosaurs were still roaming the Amazon.

I'm not being 'harsh', just straight and balanced.

Especially as what these writers did--including Cullen--deformed and distorted this subject.

[Phil H]

McCormick simply did it himself. Of course his archive is made-up. He has Dutton supposedly photographing the graffiti?!

Again, The Chronicles may exist though Dutton made them up!!! There is a apparently a mention of the Chronicles in the Sunday Chronicle of 1935. Even if (as I believe I have seen asserted) the article was under a young McCormick's by-line, that is a long set up for a hoax. I also believe Melvin Harris claimed the solution referred to by Dutton's former housekeeper in 1935 was different to that given by McC in 1959. At any rate, not a straightforward hoax!!

Matters claimed that dinosaurs were still roaming the Amazon. Conan Doyle wrote about it. People have asserted there is a Loch Ness monster. I take at face value that you are a serious JtR enthusiast. It doesn't affect other things they might believe.

I'm not being 'harsh', just straight and balanced.

I just picked myself off the floor after that one.

Especially as what these writers did--including Cullen--deformed and distorted this subject.

But each writer surely is alone responsible for what they write? If they accept things as fact without question it is their concern.

Like many non-Leftists you shallowly assume that 'Leftist' is a term of abuse and derision.

You know nothing about my assumptions or views.

I'm left-wing. I'm an Australian socialist.

Sorry, I fell of my chair at that one!!!

Phil

[Stephen Thomas]

More of great interest Phil, and yes I can confirm that at least one Casebooker is "reading this stuff"! Sounds like in many ways he didn't do too badly from the secondary sources available to him...just a shame he felt the need (possibly publisher-driven commercial) to sex it up. Having said that, I don't recall ever reading this book, although it still feels familiar in part - I read a really oddball selection when I was a youngster, (got an adult library ticket at twelve or thirteen!)...

Hello Dave

Yes, I'm enjoying Phil's work here too. The thing about this 1959 book is that it's the first 'modern' Ripper book and all in all not a bad effort given when it was written. We can all be wise after the event as they say. Phil seems to be working from the rather horrid little 1970s paperback as opposed to the fine hardback First Edition which I read in the early 1960s which didn't include the Memorandum. I've just ordered this tonight on Amazon for a tenner though it doesn't have the rather stunning dust jacket unfortunately. Maybe Russian Secret Police were involved, maybe the Dutton Chronicles of Crime existed (and it is impossible to prove that they didn't, JH) and maybe George Chapman went about impersonating some Russian bloke for no apparent reason. But this is no dafter than people believing that the Maybrick Diary is authentic.