A Re-read of the JtR Literature

[andy1867]

Very well put, Andy!

Nobody has to research this subject, or share their knowledge or opinions on the message boards, if it all gets too much for them. Mostly people do what they want to do and share what they want to share.

Luckily we all have a voice here as long as we can manage to abide by our host's rules. Long may that continue.

Love,

Caz
X

I can understand the irritation caused by new folk posting, in fact i did a "D'Onson for dummies" thing or something to keep my particular naive enquiries in one place, mainly so people could laugh at them.
But the more informed people on the message board maybe ought to have a look at what brought them into the field, in most cases I bet it wasn't "The Unknown local man" theory, it was probably something more outlandish.
I freely admit I first got interested after the Michael Caine film, I thought that was brilliant, and I still think its brilliant, but treat it as mainly fiction now , simply because ive listened to the rippercasts and read the reams on here.
I honestly do not think that the folk who have researched, read ALL the books, and been on this site for a while actually realise how vast it is, because there are whole sections that they regard as "seen the film, read the book , bought the Tshirt"
The rest of us are bamboozled by Broad shouldered man (BSM) Pipe man, Lipski, Trotsky Kaminski, Kominski (no doubt Nijinski in time) Louis Carrol, Astrakan man, Jewes, Jews, Jues, Graffitti Graffit....O, Theres Barnetts an' Barretts, several "Long Liz's" Mary Jane Kellys...aka Mary Jane Kelly...Eh?...
I mean the lipskis endless .
Thats why Phils thread while anathema to some, might have brought a wealth of knowledge...all in the same bloody place...to such as me.

[Stewart P Evans]

Opinion

...
I honestly do not think that the folk who have researched, read ALL the books, and been on this site for a while actually realise how vast it is, because there are whole sections that they regard as "seen the film, read the book , bought the Tshirt"
The rest of us are bamboozled by Broad shouldered man (BSM) Pipe man, Lipski, Trotsky Kaminski, Kominski (no doubt Nijinski in time) Louis Carrol, Astrakan man, Jewes, Jews, Jues, Graffitti Graffit....O, Theres Barnetts an' Barretts, several "Long Liz's" Mary Jane Kellys...aka Mary Jane Kelly...Eh?...
I mean the lipskis endless .
Thats why Phils thread while anathema to some, might have brought a wealth of knowledge...all in the same bloody place...to such as me.

I do not disagree with all you say and, if you look at my posts, I did not say that Phil H should not be doing it. I merely put in my opinion about McCormick when a slightly acrimonious exchange took place between Phil H and Jonathan Hainsworth.

My point is that everyone, if they are that interested in the subject, should read all the books in order to understand it better and to be aware of the accretion of myth that has attached over the years. Also there are books that have covered all the suspects and their various degrees of credibility. However, it is important, in my opinion, to be aware of any caveats that attach to some of the past authors where they have been responsible for much myth and error.

My posts were aimed at McCormick and the fact that despite his book being published back in 1959, he was still spinning the same yarns in 1995. My words were mere words of warning. Phil H then decided that -

1. I was implying that he should have started his review by rubbishing the author. I implied no such thing.

2. He should have done this by putting a warning ahead of each post. I implied no such thing.

3. Or the book should be ignored completely. I implied or said no such thing.

4. I posted before 'allowing' him to post his conclusion. I didn't realize that I should not have posted before he finished.

5. I regard him as some sort of apologist. I said no such thing.

6. I had some sort of agenda. I have no agenda at all.

7. He finished, after deciding to abandon the thread, by asking 'Have you now achieved your objective?'. I had no such objective.

I was really surprised at his rather strange response and that is when I responded with my 'sensitive souls' post.

[DVV]

I was really surprised at his rather strange response and that is when I responded with my 'sensitive souls' post.

Indeed the response was strange.
But I wasn't really surprised.

[andy1867]

I do not disagree with all you say and, if you look at my posts, I did not say that Phil H should not be doing it. I merely put in my opinion about McCormick when a slightly acrimonious exchange took place between Phil H and Jonathan Hainsworth.

My point is that everyone, if they are that interested in the subject, should read all the books in order to understand it better and to be aware of the accretion of myth that has attached over the years. Also there are books that have covered all the suspects and their various degrees of credibility. However, it is important, in my opinion, to be aware of any caveats that attach to some of the past authors where they have been responsible for much myth and error.

My posts were aimed at McCormick and the fact that despite his book being published back in 1959, he was still spinning the same yarns in 1995. My words were mere words of warning. Phil H then decided that -

1. I was implying that he should have started his review by rubbishing the author. I implied no such thing.

2. He should have done this by putting a warning ahead of each post. I implied no such thing.

3. Or the book should be ignored completely. I implied or said no such thing.

4. I posted before 'allowing' him to post his conclusion. I didn't realize that I should not have posted before he finished.

5. I regard him as some sort of apologist. I said no such thing.

6. I had some sort of agenda. I have no agenda at all.

7. He finished, after deciding to abandon the thread, by asking 'Have you now achieved your objective?'. I had no such objective.

I was really surprised at his rather strange response and that is when I responded with my 'sensitive souls' post.

I totally understand where you are coming from Stewart, but as I said before a lot of us were drawn in by books that were for the most part fiction, now i'm not bothered so much, because I thoroughly enjoy the mystery and probably owe them debt of thanks for actually drawing me into it.
But having then had access to facts, you can feel a bit of a fool for believing the fiction. Still i don't have a problem, its a learning curve.
There is no way I can get into a an argument between you and Phil H, I simply don't know enough, nor in all honesty care enough, my post was not directed at anyone, it was simply a summing up of how folk relatively new to the whole case, and it is a massive case, with piles of evidence to sift feel .
I'm sorry if I seemed to be coming down on one side or the other, I honestly was not, I respect anyone who is selfless enough to post their knowledge on here for the rest of us

[Tecs]

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.

Dear all,

It's always dangerous to speak off the top of your head without checking your facts, but what the hell!

Didn't some lady of good character say that she had seen the Chronicles of Crime and testified to their existence?

Sure I read that somewhere...

regards,

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tecs,

Hermione Dudley.

For further details see Robin Odell's excellent book "Ripperology".

Regards,

Simon

[Mayerling]

Has anyone read McCormick's book, "The Red Barn Mystery"? It was the first book of his that I read, and I liked it. Now, I figure that it is not quite as good as I first thought. His take on the Maria Martin - William Corder tragedy of 1827 included that Corder was a close friend (in London) of Thomas Griffiths Wainewright, and included comments Wainewright made to an actress named Caroline Palmer in their correspondence. I just wonder if that is true now.

He also wrote a volume "Blood on the Sea" about the "Mignonette" shiprwreck cannibalism case of 1884. It was not highly regarded by two better subsequent studies of that incident.

McCormick wrote the entry on "Jack the Ripper" for the Encyclopedia Canada (I think that is the proper name of that Encyclopedia), and (isn't it surprising) mentioned the solution to the killer's identity was "Dr. Alexander Pedachencko"! Fancy that!

I don't know what to make of McCormick - possibly the same that was said of his contermporary Frank Edwards, who wrote a serieis of books on odd happenings like "Stranger Than Science" and "Stranger Than Fate". Also a proponent of UFOs. Someone once said of Edwards that he was a nice guy, but an ex-newspaper reporter who loved a good headline and story even if it was not true. I suspect the same "inventiveness" with McCormick.

By all means read McCormick (or Edwards, for that matter). They are fun, and now and then they write something valuable.

By the way, did you know that a man was once grisley murdered by a clock?
Edwards talks about that in one of his books.

Jeff

[Stewart P Evans]

Dr Dutton

Apropos of the mention of Dr. Dutton in this thread, and McCormick building a tale around him about his fabled Chronicles of Crime, I thought the following may be of interest.

My old friend and researcher Nick Connell has supplied interesting new information on this character. Dutton was living in the Whitechapel area (Aldgate) at the time of the murders. He took a great interest in the crimes from a medical point of view, and had his own idea on the identity of the murderer.

Dutton was a surgeon in the mercantile marine and had been impressed by the dexterity of the shipboard butchers. He therefore felt that a ship's butcher was a likely identity for the murderer.

This story will be explored in the shortly to be published book by Richard Whittington-Egan.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

Most interesting! Thank you!
Good to hear that RWE is in good health and has been actively writing again.


Phil

[Tecs]

Hi Tecs,

Hermione Dudley.

For further details see Robin Odell's excellent book "Ripperology".

Regards,

Simon

Thanks Simon,

Indeed it was.

regards,

[RavenDarkendale]

Phil H

Sorry to see this happen. I get a lot of the same crap, you know? Never like anything I post and are so condescending that it reeks. Oh, wait, that included you, amigo. What goes around, comes around in the end. Yet I am truly sorry that it happened, I really am. Take care.

Darkendale

[crberger]

Due across the pond on 28 October for 25.57USD.

[crberger]

THAT was supposed to be somewhere else in talking about the pre-order for Whittington-Egan.

[crberger]

My ha'penny...

I was enjoying this thread as I consider myself to be not qualified even as a newbie.
This is why I went over to pub talk and asked for a list of "must read"! I was taught that even primary sources will be contaminated, thus the necessity to not only read those, but read analyses of the sources: how is the source contaminated, what was the original intent of the source, for whom was it provided, it's also the relation of the facts and the source to one another that is itself a fact.
If I do not have access to the primary source, in this case McC, then I must rely on what others say, particularly if his work is repeated by someone else. Unless one of you gentle beings wishes me to become a part-time lodger so that I can read all your material, I must beg that you allow me to read what you post here; preferably without recriminations or personal feelings becoming part of the facts.