Sir John Williams - A Response From Tony Williams and Humphrey Price (recovered)

[Ash]

Mr Poster
25th March 2006, 03:05 PM
Howdy

A lot more people than that already care, and most of the rest of them simply don't even know about it yet. People who alter facts in order to try to sell books is a hot button issue all over, it's just a matter of getting this particular example to gather steam.

Fair enough. After the Oprah fiasco, its a fair point.

But, and I am not being obstrep...or...ous (?), maybe this guy :

1) doesnt take JDP/ripper journals seriously?

2) feels the point wasnt proved?

3) knows that a two line retraction buried on the bottom of page 29 in two weeks wont be read by anyone

4) wrote this interview 6 months ago.

I dont know. I reckon its easier to pick the battles worth fighting than to try and fight all of them.

Plus, I wasnt exactly overwhelmed with acres of newsprint pointing out all the flaws in Cornwells book despite the huge coverage she got when she published?

I just reckon that says "Mr X he identified the Ripper" will always be more newsworthy than "Ripperologists say Mr X is a liar and did not identify the Ripper" so are the chances of seeing the latter worth risking appearing as a crank?

Mr P

Mr P
________________________________________
suzi
25th March 2006, 03:05 PM
Mr Poster-
If people ignore this sort of piece in whatever newspaper then things will only go from bad to worse!!!!
As to this piece being used as a 'filler' due to' lack of news'....you have obviously never lived in South Wales!!!!!!

Suzi
________________________________________
Mr Poster
25th March 2006, 03:08 PM
Howdy Sam Flynn

40 or 50 people? The Evening Post has a circulation in excess of 60,000 - more so, I'd have thought, on Fridays, weekends and Mondays due to the sport coverage.

I didnt mean the readership in general. I meant the fraction of the readership who care about JtR, bought that edition, actually read the article, then actually finished it, then actually gave a damn.. Its got to be less than 60'000 or I have underestimated the appeal of unidentifiable maybe serial killers from over a hundred years ago to people in South Wales

Mr P
________________________________________
How Brown
25th March 2006, 03:11 PM
Sammy:

Exactly. If that article was in my neighborhood's paper,which are usually distributed free the day after they are sold,being a week behind already with news....thats over 90,000 people who would or rather,could see it. Just my neighborhood.

Multiply all the neighborhoods by all the "little newspapers" and voila !
________________________________________
Mr Poster
25th March 2006, 03:12 PM
Howdy Suzi

If people ignore this sort of piece in whatever newspaper then things will only go from bad to worse!!!!
As to this piece being used as a 'filler' due to' lack of news'....you have obviously never lived in South Wales!!!!!!

Look no offence......but going from bad to worse is making Ripperology (and I reckon that name doesnt help) look even more like a description for slightly bonkers.

Never lived in South Wales but I do live in a place where th eheadline in the local newspaper yesterday (circulation: 70000) was the police reminding people that they should lock their front doors at night.

Mr P
________________________________________
jdpegg
25th March 2006, 07:47 PM
Thanks Bob,

I missed this.

Jenni
________________________________________
suzi
25th March 2006, 08:19 PM
Go Jenni!!!!!!!!!!!!

It just needs the odd email extra to make em sit up and notice rather than think we're a group of loonies!

Suzi x
________________________________________
johnr
26th March 2006, 05:34 AM
Greetings All,
Being a man-on-a-galloping-horse myself, I rarely notice the difference in spelling when I see mention of words like "spoilation" and "spoliation".
Apparently an emerging field for legal argument (in the U.S. only?) is in the area of "spoliation".
Would anybody with U.S. legal connections please tell us what "spoliation" is?
And just what it just might, repeat might, have to do with the Dr John Williams bookcase?
Is there a South Wales equivalent?
________________________________________
JMenges
26th March 2006, 08:32 AM
spoliation |?sp?l??? sh ?n|
noun
1 the action of ruining or destroying something : the spoliation of the countryside.
2 the action of taking goods or property from somewhere by illegal or unethical means : the spoliation of the Church.

DERIVATIVES spoliator |?sp?l???t?r| noun ORIGIN late Middle English (denoting pillaging): from Latin spoliatio(n-), from the verb spoliare ‘strip, deprive’ (see spoil ).
________________________________________
suzi
26th March 2006, 10:44 AM
There's a South Wales equivalent for most things!!!!!!!!!!
The meanings posted below are OK as far as I can see
(Not that far on a Sunday afternoon!)

Suzi
________________________________________
bobhinton
26th March 2006, 01:02 PM
The reason why this story was printed was the release of the paperback version of the book.

I cannot agree with Mr Poster's view that we just let these things lie. If Williams et al are willing to use the press to push their views then I think it is up to those who do not agree with them to use the same media to publish theirs.

As for the paper not bothering I think you underestimate the way local papers work. This could be turning into a big story for the Evening News with argument and counter argument.

I believe that whenever someone like Williams shamelessly uses the papers to sell his book, which is full of inaccuracies, he should expect people to reply - after all isn't that the thrust of his article? No one has come forward to challenge his views?
________________________________________
Mr Poster
27th March 2006, 09:13 AM
Hey ho Bob Hinton

All valid points indeed.

But I absolutely certain that stirring up this story will only serve to sell more of his book.

Cornwells book was just as sloppy as this one and I dont remember anyone rushing to write letters to the press about that.

And if they did and I missed it, it hardly seems to have dented sales much?

I'm not against the principle of taking him to task, assuming it can be proved that something nefarious was afoot with his book; I just wonder to whom is the greater damage done?

Him, when it will probably serve to increase his exposure and sales and I have never seen a precedent to suggest otherwise or Ripperologists, whom people do not understand anyway and may be seen to be just slightly crazy/jealous ?/promoting their own candidates/whatever.

Even though it was pointed out previously that other books were slightly inaccurate (Knight comes to mind), it never seems to dampen enthusiasm on th epart of the book buying public.

Of course it may pan out completely different.

Mr P

[Ash]

johnr
27th March 2006, 10:04 AM
Thanks J Menges for supplying us with a dictionary meaning for "Spoliation"..
(According to Google one of the most misspelt words currently -along with "definitely" - often displayed as "definately").
I suscribe to a (free) website called "A.Word.A.Day" which is conducted by an extremely erudite and fair-minded lady named Anu Garg. (She is American of -continental Indian extraction). Her site, as the name implies, supplies me with a fresh word to contemplate every day. It provides a dictionary definition, a piece of prose from a newspaper or book in which that word is used, and finishes off with a separate quote of the day.
Apparently, Anu Garg is regarded as one of the best anagram solvers in the U.S.
Yesterday's word was -you've guessed it- "spoliation".
The dictionary definitions were three in number: The first two concurred with J. Menges above.
However, a third definition was supplied which -for some strange reason made me think of South Wales!
The first two definitions were: "spoliation: (1) The act of pillaging and plundering"; (2): " Seizure of neutral ships at sea at time of war";(3): " The deliberate destruction or alteration of a document" .
Unfortunately, I cannot now call up the complete entry, but, there then followed a discussion of the increasing number of cases coming before courts in the U.S., in which "spoliation" - as in the third definition above- were the subject of litigation.
I would be interested if some legal website or "legal honcho" could advise me if a charge of "spoliation" under the third definition could likely, be brought in say, a Welsh court?
JOHN RUFFELS.
________________________________________
bobhinton
27th March 2006, 03:27 PM
Hi Mr Poster,

Yes I agree with what you say to a certain degree. The difference here is one of content of article. Cornwell admitted that people disagreed with her theory but insisted she is right anyway. That's fine by me - that's called sticking to your guns - no matter how spiked they are.

What Williams is doing is entirely different. He is telling the world ( or at least that part of the world that reads the Evening Post) that he has written this book and nobody has come forward to challenge it.

In other words he is implying that because none of the experts on the subject have spoken against him they are accepting that he has cracked the case. That to my way of thinking is just plain dishonest - and is not acceptable.
________________________________________
dannorder
27th March 2006, 04:04 PM
But I absolutely certain that stirring up this story will only serve to sell more of his book.
You are probably right on that count. On the other hand, stirring up the story more importantly gets the truth out, impacts any future book deals, and might even lead to legal action. As John cautiously points toward above, altering documents in order to profit off of resulting falsehoods, if that's what happened (I'm still waiting for them to give a reasonable account to explain the false image of the documented printed in the book, let alone the one key line being in the wrong handwriting), is the sort of thing that has, I believe, led to prosecution in similar past cases.

Cornwells book was just as sloppy as this one and I dont remember anyone rushing to write letters to the press about that.
OK, first, there's a substantive difference between being really sloppy and deluding oneself and being really sloppy and lying to other people. Second, actually, lots of people talked to the press about Cornwell's theory, and that's precisely why so many reports about it now whenever it is brought up point out that art experts and others (I guess we are lucky to be mentioned at all even roundaboutly that way) disagree strongly. That's also why when a number of large and influential newspapers mention Cornwell these days it's to ridicule her theory.

I mean, really, what you seem to be saying is that we should just ignore even the most outrageous lies and bad information about this field out of sheer apathy and fear that people might not like a tattletale or something. Perhaps I've always been a little naive, but, to me, the truth means something and it should be defended. We want the info to get out so people can decide for themselves, as up until now the press and the public have for the most part only gotten the side of the person selling a book on deliberately distorted facts... and, in fact, he is apparently claiming that there is no other side. That's just wrong.
________________________________________
Mr Poster
28th March 2006, 07:18 AM
Hey ho

NIce points from everyone. But heres one or two more:

1. I dont expose myself to the press very often but there is the not-very-remote chance that whats in the paper only vaguely resembles what the interviewed person actually said.

2. I admit that this piece came out on the publication of the paperback but that does not mean it was not recorded much earlier.

3. I mean, really, what you seem to be saying is that we should just ignore even the most outrageous lies and bad information about this field out of sheer apathy and fear that people might not like a tattletale or something. Perhaps I've always been a little naive, but, to me, the truth means something and it should be defended.

NO but if we chose to fight even the most ludicrous battles we could begin to appear obsessive or just plain odd. And anyway, we dont know the truth so how do we do defend it? As far as I know, there has still been no explanation of the anomalies by anyone so what is the truth in this case?

And, no offence to anyone although Im going to get it in the neck for this, if it hadnt have been someone/people from this community who had discovered the "possible" problems in this instance and it had been, I dont know, Fred McTwit from Minnesota, would we still be rushing to this paper with letters of indignation?

Is it not a simple case of this community promoting itself by attacking the other guy?

It has to be weighed up: Our desire to defend the truth or our desire to push/promote ourselves/our interests?

Mr P
________________________________________
bobhinton
28th March 2006, 08:57 AM
Mr Poster,
"Is it not a simple case of this community promoting itself by attacking the other guy?"

That's akin to saying the police only promote themselves by confronting criminals.

I think the danger here is that if we all shrug our shoulders and let it pass the wider community as a whole will believe what Williams is saying is correct.

For example I'm sure if you went to the public and conducted a survey you would find one of the widest held beliefs about JTR is that promulgated by Stephen Knight. Why because his book received a lot of publicity and very little counter publicity.
________________________________________
JMenges
28th March 2006, 08:59 AM
A quick aside, to follow up, I think that whoever alters or in any way damaged the original document in the library would only be subject to whatever penalties the institution levys against anyone who has agreed to the terms set out. The "borrower" is held accountable by the institution if they damage a document. If they decide to publish for profit what they have altered or damaged, I do not believe (at least in the USA) they can be subject to legal prosecution.

Spoliation in US law mostly involves the alteration of documents already considered as evidence in a case. Or the alteration of documents that could one day be evidence in a case. So, if lets say, another descendent of the accused in this case sues for slander (if that would even be possible), or if there are harsher penalties set out by the lender of the document in case of damage, and someone erases or re-alters the document in question, they would then be breaking the law.

Excuse any misspellings, I'm in a hurry!

JM

[Ash]

JMenges
28th March 2006, 09:03 AM
PS-

I think this case is legally different than if someone created a phoney Hank Aaron baseball card and sold it for $100,000. Then that person would have to return the money and pay whatever damages my exist, of course.
________________________________________
Mr Poster
28th March 2006, 09:20 AM
Howdy BobHinton

That's akin to saying the police only promote themselves by confronting criminals.

Surely its more akin to the police very publicly confronting minor criminals whose confrontation would serve very little towards the overall good?

But I do appreciate your point. BUt, and believe it or not I agree with your point of view is essence, if I was the chap in question and people wrote in, my defence would be:

"Ha! Where were you people when every other innaccurate book was written/promoted? Every book is innaccurate if promoting one suspect...yet you guys only show up when one of your club thinks they have identified something they cannot prove. I am being victimised and the very act of victimisation shows that my theory is right as these people are worried that their livlihoods will dissappear if I am right and they are worried so I must be"

We've seen it before. Its the standard response. Lots of rhetoric and nonsense that the buying public swallow and once again Ripperology for want of a better word appears completely negative and closed-shop.

Can you picture another scenario?

Mr P
________________________________________
suzi
28th March 2006, 01:35 PM
Hi-
With regard to suspects....every book published to date,must in the absence of actual FACT ,be by nature- innacurate!

Stephen Knight had a lot of people in his thrawl when 'The Final Solution' was first published,myself included...it was for a time entrancing ,and at first looked a plausible theory,it was only when taking more than a few steps backwards and reading an awful lot more, and then looking again that the glaring madness of it all became obvious.(However it still has it's place in Ripper writing lets be honest, and is quoted ,either rightly or wrongly in many places on the boards ancient and modern!)

Now Stephen ,with 'Hobo' and their inventions/misunderstandings or whatever, are one thing...Cornwell and her ' Sickert did it' view, complete with totally flawed DNA(!) evidence is something else- and deserved nay courted the bad press she received.I can't help but feel that Mr Williams may be doing just that!
Now, as to Ms C not receiving bad press ,or at least that which questioned her theory ,and in some cases her sanity you must have missed the press! There were articles whick likened her 'revelation' to the 'Hitler Diaries' etc which in itself is indictment enough!

So- In the light of that- ANY publicity with regard to Uncle Jack will bring it to the notice maybe of the man in the street who is still tossing up between whether Ms C or Mr K was right!

I would urge you to email the editor and express your views.....even if it's only to warn him of Ripper Extremeists!!

Suzi
________________________________________
suzi
28th March 2006, 01:39 PM
Failing that!-Extremists!!to
spencer.feeney@swwp.co.uk

Suzi
________________________________________
needler
28th March 2006, 04:55 PM
Mr Poster,

At great risk, I'm going to dive into this puddle. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I, as you ALL, have a right to pop off on any damn thing I please ....besides, I just turned 60, so I am entitled to be officially labelled "eccentric"!

Frankly, I have no viable suspect; not one name offered by ANY author has convinced me that he makes a stronger case than any other. NOR DO I CARE! We are responding to an insoluble mystery with typical human emotions; we feel that it MUST be solved...guess what? It won't be.....that is, of course, unless that missing Polaroid of Jack standing over Mary on the bed, knife raised and covered in gore, is found. THEN we can all go home.

In defense of those of us who enjoy the chase, the research, the seeking of a small truth, I think MOST Ripperologists are serious about this case, and MOST are offended when anyone comes along and says "I KNOW WHO DUNNIT AND YOU'RE ALL NUTS FOR NOT BELIEVING ME". Cornwell did that in her TV promos for her "book". I saw the ads, and her body language, alone, showed her opinion of all of us. Arms folded across her chest, she defied us to object to her conclusions. We did, and she ran.

Cornwell's failing, as well as Knight's (and so many others I'm NOT gonna name) is that she decided who the Ripper was FIRST, and then tried to build a case with "probably", "assume, "obviously", etc. That's like deciding that Bush is a liar and then trying to go backwards to prove it...NO WAIT, that's far too easy, and has been done more than once! NEVER MIND...bad analogy. It's like deciding that Victoria did it (in lifts and a moustache) and then trying to create the proof.

I THINK what I'm trying to say, and badly, is that most of us are serious about discovering any available truths about this series of murders. Any unsolved mystery is just TOO tantalising to ignore, but when "evidence" is created, altered, canoodled (gotcha with THAT one), or disregarded because it doesn't fit the theory, most of us get upset and begin to sound off. There IS harm in presenting lies as truth, accepting lies as truth damages us all; when a book hits the stalls and pretends to offer truth within its' covers, then is proven to be based on an altered document, I think we SHOULD cry "foul". We've done it before, and will do it again.... anytime someone lies to us, and we can prove the lie.

This doesn't mean that the UNCLE JACK book won't sell...it will; it DOES mean, however, that it will be filed in our book collections in the "fiction" section. That's where my copy is, along with a whole load of other "non-fiction" presentations.

Cheers,

Judy
________________________________________
JMenges
28th March 2006, 05:22 PM
We are responding to an insoluble mystery with typical human emotions; we feel that it MUST be solved...guess what? It won't be.....that is, of course, unless that missing Polaroid of Jack standing over Mary on the bed, knife raised and covered in gore, is found. THEN we can all go home.



Don't be so sure!
________________________________________
dannorder
28th March 2006, 05:22 PM
Hi Mr. P,

I must really say that I am flabbergasted by your comments here.

First up, if you are still talking about "possible problems" as if there were some way that all the many and varied distortions, errors and outright hoaxes could be explained satisfactorily if the author or publisher would just decide to talk about it, you really have not been paying attention very well. You say that they haven't given an explanation yet and imply that we can;t judge them... Hello, with that strategy you're are just playing into the hands of any con man who comes along. They were caught in some major outright lies about altered documents, so why are you still trying to give them the benefit of the doubt?

Secondly, if you think that the only people who would bother to bring the truth to other people's attention are ones out for self-promotional purposes, you're showing a level of cynicism that simply does not mesh with the facts. I've worked to expose the truth on various topics in this field and others when there was no connection to anything I was doing or selling, and Bob and Suzi here are not connected with Ripper Notes and the articles exposing Uncle Jack's errors in any way. As I said before, the truth matters. Apparently you don't get that.

Thirdly, well, yes, perhaps the magazine that printed the articles exposing the problems might get some publicity in the process, but why on earth would you consider that a bad thing? So it's OK for an author to lie and hoax materials if it's for self-promotion but it's not OK for anyone at all to get any sort of recognition for uncovering the truth? I can't even begin to tell you the time and money Jenni has sunk into this, so don't you dare try to tell me that Tony Williams is justified in promoting himself and that none of us ought to do anything to try to get her work into the mainstream press.

I mean, seriously here, think about what you are saying before you say bizarre things like that.

[Ash]

Magpie
28th March 2006, 05:34 PM
It won't be.....that is, of course, unless that missing Polaroid of Jack standing over Mary on the bed, knife raised and covered in gore, is found.

Didn't you mean to say "until" rather than "unless"

THEN we can all go home.



I wouldn't count on that....





________________________________________
suzi
28th March 2006, 05:34 PM
Mr P-

The one thing that people who take themselves seriously enough to languish under the name of 'Ripperologists' have in common is

a) a sense of humour

b) a serious 'You have to be joking' thing when looking at a post like that and

c)When you think you have a 'viable suspect' be so good (sensible) as to keep schtuum till you have the basis of a book!

d) A sense of 'I may be wrong but I can roll with the punches!'

At least Knight and Cornwell did that!(Ok they were a tad noisy after that but hey they got press coverage!)

Suzi
________________________________________
apwolf
28th March 2006, 05:59 PM
I think Mishter Poster should place himself in the nearest privy where we all might throw rolled up copies of The Times at him until he says ‘ouch’.
I haven’t even bothered to look at this Uncle Jack stuff yet because it is just so untenable that I can’t see it worthy of comment or critic.
I’ve come across some barrels of the brown stuff in my time but this one takes the biscuit.
________________________________________
needler
28th March 2006, 07:37 PM
Nope, Magpie, I really meant "until", and even when it turns up, it won't be accepted by even a small portion of people...that's 'cause we are all skeptics, and quite rightly. Just look at what is being printed as truth. Codswollop!

J
________________________________________
suzi
28th March 2006, 08:06 PM
AP-
That sounds a tad kind!!!!!!

Seriously though,let Mr W publish and very possibly be damned.......that's the way of publishing eh!!!!

Suzi
________________________________________
suzi
28th March 2006, 08:09 PM
Judy!

-I think we're coming from the same angle here..us eccentrics shoud stick together I say!

Suzi
________________________________________
needler
28th March 2006, 08:19 PM
Absolutely, Suzi! I'm loving being old and weird and getting away with it!

Cheers,

Judy
________________________________________
Mr Poster
29th March 2006, 07:32 AM
Hey ho Dan

Give me second and I will try and un-gast your flabber.

First up, if you are still talking about "possible problems" as if there were some way that all the many and varied distortions, errors and outright hoaxes could be explained satisfactorily if the author or publisher would just decide to talk about it, you really have not been paying attention very well.

Look, Im not exactly rushing out to buy the book but Im fair minded enough to, having actually read all th eproblems with the thing, wait until an explanation or an attempt at one is given before finally saying "case proven". The Ripperologist or any other journal is hardly some kind of judge-jury-executioner. Im stuffed if Im taking anything as given just because it appears in one of these and without hearing from the other side. Although the silence (or lack of it) speaks volumes. But I will keep using "possible" and "alleged" if you dont mind as in the heel of the hunt a crime may have been actually committed by someone.

The rest of your post appears to assume I made a personal attack on you, yours or your publication. Which I didnt.

But remember this. Despite the fact that some publications call theselves "journals", a name which carries connotations of august periodicals in specific fields, in this case they are not really. The content is not peer reviewed, has not undergone the pre-publication critiques typical of "journals" and they are more magazines. Im stuffed if Im hanging someone and then doing it in the public press based on an un-reviewed magazine article, the truth or veracity or which having nothing to with the time or money having been spent on it as you seem to suggest. And I still dont think its a good idea.

Since when was the quality of a piece of work judged by time or money (re: Cornwell) spent on it.

Write to the paper. I dont care. But dont suggest Im cynical, gullible or anything else just because I wont condemn/accuse in public someone based on a limited distribution magazine article. Someday you might be glad if others would extend the same courtesy to you.

Anyway, since when is T.Williams or anyone else answerable to Ripperology? IF you think he's committed a crime, do the right thing and report him to the authorities who will decide.

Jeez. Since when did Ripperology get so self righteous? Especially as we have nothing to be self righteous about. There is barely a post here or a Ripper book on sale that hasnt bent the truth, selectively ignored the truth, tweaked the facts or half a dozen other tricky subterfuges. Williams' may have been more grandiose than most (MAY HAVE!) admittedly but I dont like being part of self-appointed Commitees for Integrity or whatever.

So good luck in your endeavours!

Mr P
________________________________________
bobhinton
29th March 2006, 07:46 AM
Dear Mr P,

Re your last post. I'm sorry but I believe you are now straying too far. You say.

"Anyway, since when is T.Williams or anyone else answerable to Ripperology?"

No one is suggesting that he is answerable to any specific group, but surely he is answerable to society as a whole not to go to press making statements that are not only false but that he well knows to be false - with the sole intention of profiting from them?

If he demands the right to use the press in this way, surely others have the right to use the press to put an opposing point of view?

I don't see that as being " part of self-appointed Commitees for Integrity", simply as a person trying to correct something that is so obviously wrong.

Doing something wrong does not necessarily mean you are committing a crime.

[Ash]

Mr Poster
29th March 2006, 09:17 AM
Hey ho Bob

I'm obviously treading on thin ice but I'll have a go anyway:

1. There is no evidence that Tony Williams is guilty of anything. At all. Ever. No body has produced evidence that he manipulated anything, forged anything what so ever. None of the institutions involved appear to have bothered proceeding with any kind of charge or anything. His material may be bogus, it may dodgy but I havent found anything that is evidence that HE did anything. Bar ignore questions which is hardly a crime coming from the type of environmnet they did. Which is hardly regarded as the last bastion of cool headed logic and argument.

2. The "charges" levelled against him appear in a limited circulation, non-peer reviewed periodical.

3. Once more...it still has not been established when he was interviewed or if the interview was accurate as reported (at least to my knowledge). It was published on release of his paperback, it may have been recorded ages ago.

4. If he demands the right to use the press in this way, surely others have the right to use the press to put an opposing point of view?


Who said he demanded to use the press in this way? Maybe he was sought out. Do people have the right to put opposing points of view if they, as they stand, are unproven allegations (which, no matter how we gloss them up or how we feel about them, is what they are at the moment). No amount of indignation makes them anymore substantive than they are right now. An unpleasant reality but reality nonetheless.

5. His use of the press is not really hurting anyone (except his relatives maybe). Effectively countering his claims must, almost by necessity, level accusations against him. It seems to me that he is hurting no-one but countering his claims may include the possibility of damaging his integrity based on, once again, allegations made in a periodical. His claims are no worse than a car firm saying their car "is the best in the world".

6. Again, his response will most probably be as I have described before (if he is not too busy getting lawyered up) which will make his book sell and damage the credibility of Ripperology.

7. An alternative is that he is approached on the lie that no-one has attacked his theory without mentioning any of the allegations re: more serious matters. And thats OK I suppose. If a little petty.

As I said before, he will be forgotten when the next book comes out. If there is a pile of dirt on the pavement, the logical thing is too ignore it and step around. Or you can stand in it to make it bigger so people will notice and avoid it, thereby doing your bit for society but getting crap all over your self. Or you can stand there and point out th ecrap to people so they can avoid it and be regarded as well meaning lunatic. Noble I suppose.

Mr P
________________________________________
dannorder
29th March 2006, 03:47 PM
Hi Mr. P,

When you say there is no evidence, no proof, yada yada yada, let's be clear here. You are completely and utterly wrong. Only someone who has not looked at this thread -- or someone with an axe to grind -- could possibly say something so outlandishly bizarre.

And when I talked to some people about your posts here, I learned that "Mr. P" is really just someone from the old boards who threatened to leave and never come back unless I was banned, all because you were upset that I pointed out some errors of yours and you flipped out. Now you are back with a new name and continuing on.

Of course you sure picked a really bizarre topic to try to raise a fuss over... Not to mention you seem to be attacking just about everyone in the field in the process. How dare we criticize someone's errors? Yeah, I guess you would prefer thing if people like you could get away with saying whatever they want without any pesky people around to point out the truth... and if that means supporting Tony Williams' ability to lie and so forth, hey, whatever it takes I guess.

I mean, seriously, the document in the book was clearly forged. If you can't agree on that, you are just hopeless. And instead of questioning the motives of people setting the record straight, you should really question your own strategy here.
________________________________________
Sam Flynn
29th March 2006, 04:23 PM
I mean, seriously, the document in the book was clearly forged.
Dan,

On a point of detail, isn't "forged" a bit strong to describe the situation?

Things may have moved on since I last looked at the "Uncle Jack" stuff, but wasn't it merely a case of one entry - and then just the letter "A" - in the document being altered to resemble Dr Williams' alleged handwriting?

That strongly indicates that the document had been doctored (pardon pun) to suit the "Uncle Jack" story, sure, and that's serious enough in itself. But that needn't lead to the conclusion or implication that the entire document was a forgery.
________________________________________
Mr Poster
29th March 2006, 04:28 PM
Now hang on a minute.

I am Lars Poster. Always have been. Posting under the name of Lars and Mr Poster. I have had beefs with JV Omlor, Caz and everyone on th eDiary threads. But have never actually threatened to "leave".

I have never conversed with you and do not often frequent anywhere but the Diary threads.

I do not know you, have never addressed you, never PMed you, dont really care about you.

Believe it or not.

I have read all the stuff about Tony Williams. I dont care if he did it or not. I just question why make a fuss over it.

But again: I have never threatened to leave, I dont care if you are here or not, and whoever you have been talking to seems to have succeeded in rising your hackles.Which was obviously their game. And there seems to be other people out there who make it their lifes work to get a rise out of you.

Good luck to them.

Your self importance however is remarkable.

MR P
________________________________________
Mr Poster
29th March 2006, 04:31 PM
Howdy Sam Flynn

Indeed. Of course Im not allowed say that as it indicates that I have been stalking Dan Norder or something.

Mr P
________________________________________
caz
3rd April 2006, 10:58 PM
I'd just like to point out that I have no 'beefs' with either Mr P or Dan, both of whom I've often admired for their plain speaking and common sense.

If Mr P had a 'beef' with me, I assume it was because I didn't share his admiration for the now departed John Omlor, with whom I had only negative experiences from about four years ago. At his worst, John's emails to me could be perfectly vile. I hope Mr P never has the misfortune to be on the receiving end of one, and I do hope Jenni Pegg wasn't, during her recent attempts to discover if diary testing in Florida was currently viable.

Jenni was cut no slack over delays due to her university studies, and over the thankless, unpaid process she alone volunteered to go through, in order to reach her decision. So I'm not sure why we are being asked to cut the Williams people any slack, when we now have a frankly inexcusable delay - assuming a delay is all it is - in explaining a painfully obvious alteration to a document they were hoping might (in some way, shape or form I've yet to understand) support their published theory. And what's more, it was Jenni whose careful research discovered the alteration and allowed us to see how painfully obvious it was.

One thing about Jenni is that she is without ego but at the same time she is her own person - she thinks what she thinks and does what she does, and trying to impress others (or keep them happy for a quiet life) just doesn't come into it. And that's quite a rare commodity around here.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ash]

rjpalmer
3rd April 2006, 11:33 PM
Dan Norder writes: "I mean, seriously, the document in the book was clearly forged. If you can't agree on that, you are just hopeless. And instead of questioning the motives of people setting the record straight, you should really question your own strategy here."

I do wonder what Caz's response would have been, had there been an electronic glitch and this post had been accidently transposed to the Maybrick Diary thread??!!??
________________________________________
Mr Poster
4th April 2006, 08:45 AM
Howdy Caz

It is more an indication of my generally placid nature that I could consider any less-than-polite words with yourself as a beef than it is a reflection on yourself. So I apologise. I dont think Ive had a row with you actually.

BUt we could have one if you keep talking about my "admiration for JVO". Because I have actually had cross words with him, about him, his profession and a host of other things. But I still think he had skills to offer and its a shame he is gone.

Mr P
________________________________________
jdpegg
4th April 2006, 05:29 PM
Just a quick oneThe authors themselves admitted that the so called wrong copy got into the hardback edtion of their book. Anyone in any book shop can open the two books and see the two images are now different in the two editions.As for how this happended - well that is speculation - but someone who had something to do with the book must have made the altered copy that appeared in the hardback edition. hey must have had a reason for so doing, it is not the kind of thing one does 'by accident' is it? The case against John Williams is clearly based on mistakes and misunderstandings, to put it mildly. Much of the research is factually wrong. I do hope that one day it may yet be possible to put this particular theory beyond all doubt rather than discredited the book itself - but that is for laterJenni
________________________________________
How Brown
4th April 2006, 07:24 PM
I do hope that one day it may yet be possible to
put this particular theory beyond all doubt rather than discredit the book
itself...-Jennifer

Well Jenni....doesn't the new page placed in the second edition of the book sort of spell it out anyway?

In other words,whatever criticism of the premise that Williams was the Ripper is one thing...but the new page is indicative of embellishment to encourage belief in the original premise in the first place?

It may be a well written book full of information on Williams....but this revision doesn't sound kosher.



"Don't pee on my back and tell me it is rain".---Hungarian Proverb
________________________________________
supe
4th April 2006, 08:35 PM
Howard,

It may be a well written book full of information on Williams....

Nope, it's not even that. It is riven with factual errors and the research was appallingly bad. An an example, as Jenni reported in Ripper Notes No. 25, the authors of Uncle Jack cast suspicion upon Sir John Williams by quoting from a letter [translated they claimed from the Welsh] he purportedly wrote to Annie Roberts. Neither Jenni nor the staff at the National Library of Wales were able to locate that letter.

When Jenni pointed this out, the authors (in a response they posted anove on this thread) suggested that Jenni's own researching skills (not to mention those of the NLW staff) were deficient. They added they had a copy of the letter and even gave a reference number for the item.

Fine, except that the document corresponding to that reference number was a receipt (in English) for the purchase, in 1921, of books like Big Book for Girls. This howler is typical of the authors' research throughout.

The book is discredited, but the theory remains and I think that there are people who would like to do for the seemingly fine Victorian gentleman, Sir John Williams, what his "somethingth cousin" refused to do -- provide exoneration of his name and reputation.

Don.
________________________________________
How Brown
4th April 2006, 10:04 PM
The book is discredited, but the theory remains and I think that there are people who would like to do for the seemingly fine Victorian gentleman, Sir John Williams, what his "somethingth cousin" refused to do -- provide exoneration of his name and reputation.

Don:

But isn't Tony Williams the guy who cried "Fire !" in the theatre in the first place? "Uncle Jack's" reputation isn't an issue if this is true.
________________________________________
caz
9th April 2006, 03:05 PM
Howdy Caz

But I still think he had skills to offer and its a shame he is gone.

Mr P

I admire you for your bravery in holding firm to your neutrality and objectivity when giving testing advice in (often very) testing circumstances. But you’ll be able to guess from which side of the ‘fence’ I most often hear the view that JVO’s contribution has been the single worst thing to have happened to the ‘anti-diary’ cause in recent years.

In my view, one very positive outcome of JVO repeating ad nauseam, for example, that Mike Barrett 'lies all the time' was that it made me look again at one of the few unverified stories coming from Mike’s mouth that had been assumed true by both ‘sides’. And I now believe that story was a load of old cobblers too.

So eventually, something positive can come from everyone’s pen, if they write for long enough, though it won’t always benefit the writer him/herself!

Dan Norder writes: "I mean, seriously, the document in the book was clearly forged. If you can't agree on that, you are just hopeless. And instead of questioning the motives of people setting the record straight, you should really question your own strategy here."

I do wonder what Caz's response would have been, had there been an electronic glitch and this post had been accidently transposed to the Maybrick Diary thread??!!??

Hi RJ,

Yes, most amusing.

Wonder no more. I would have said:

'The argument here (at the Maybrick Diary thread) is, and has been for several years, when the document could have been written. No one is questioning the motives of those who think they are ‘setting the record straight’ by insisting it was written after 1987 (and possibly as late as March/April 1992). I for one am questioning how strong their evidence is. I don’t feel any need to question my own strategy in this regard. The call for more forensic tests from all ‘sides’ demonstrates how little has actually been proved yet about the document’s origins.'

There’s a difference with the altered Uncle Jack document that is about as subtle as a sledgehammer. No one needs to come here bragging about their own personal lack of gullibility - everyone can see for themselves that the document has been altered and how it has been altered. I see no one expressing the slightest need for forensic testing to prove a thing.

"A lie runs until it is overtaken by the truth." Cuban Proverb

"Don't pee on my back and tell me it is rain".---Hungarian Proverb

Both sayings are very apt, for people still swallowing Mike’s old claims to inside information concerning the creation of the diary.

I find it ironic that while exercising your need to announce to the world, and keep on announcing, that you haven’t been conned by the obvious and shoddy modern fake that you believe the diary to be, you are showing everyone just what a doddle it was for Mike to con you into believing he had a hand in it.

If you let Mike pee all over you and tell you it’s Diamine, don’t blame anyone else for the funny smell - Cazarian Proverb

Love,

Caz
X
________________________________________
mwr
23rd September 2006, 05:59 PM
Good afternoon,

I have read previous comments on the accuracy of facts presented in "Uncle Jack", and the dispute on the documents contained within. Having just completed reading this book, I would like to address something that I have come across that does not seem to be mentioned previously.

There is a copy of a letter, attributed to Dr Williams, indicating he was to be attending a clinic in Whitechapel on September 8th, 1888....opposite page 85...and I have compared some of the characters with characters in the generally accepted as authentic Ripper letters. I have looked specifically at the "I", the crossing of the letter "T" and the sytle of handwriting in the word "Whitechapel".

I am in no way an expert in handwriting analysis, but to my eye there is a strong similarity in these items to ones in the acknowldged Ripper letters. Most striking I see that the style of the "I", with the left curl at the bottom and the manner of the loop at the top to be very similar.

Has anyone used this letter by Dr Williams to compare with Ripper handwriting samples previously? I used copies of letters in Patricia Cornwells book, as well as the book on the so-called Maybrick Diary....are there better resources that I could refer to use as comparatives?

Thanks for any help on this,
Michael R

[Ash]

jdpegg
23rd September 2006, 06:21 PM
Sorry,

I don't seem to understand what you are saying?

Thanks
Jenni
________________________________________
dannorder
23rd September 2006, 06:31 PM
Hi Michael,

Welcome to the boards.

Cornwell's book and the Maybrick Diary have probably given you a little bit of a skewed idea of what is generally accepted in the field and what isn't. Both of those books (and Uncle Jack to boot) fall strongly into the "isn't" category, so be wary of trusting anything they claim.

The reason I bring that up is there aren't really any Ripper letters that are accepted as having come from the killer. About the best anyone can say is that maybe one or more of them were, but I think overall that most people remain quite doubtful. Certainly the police at the time quickly became convinced that they were all hoaxes and thought they knew who was responsible for the most famous ones.

There's also the problem that this letter allegedly from Sir John Williams also has no known provenance. It's not particularly incriminating, but it is one of two main pieces of evidence serving as the foundation of the entire case the authors of Uncle Jack try to make against Sir John, and the other one is clearly fraudulent. Add in to that that a great number of other claims made in the book have been shown to be highly misleading or in error, in some cases in ways that would almost have to be purposefully so, and I wouldn't put much faith in this letter being legitimate either.

That said, if you are interested in comparing handwriting of various Ripper letters, the best source for such things would be the Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner book Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell, which has plenty of large color photos of all sorts of alleged communications from the killer, including the ones you are probably referring to.
________________________________________
mwr
23rd September 2006, 09:06 PM
Hi Dan,

First off thank you for your response. I am, as you recognized, rather new to not only this forum, but also to the study of this mystery. To have some guidance from someone who is very knowledgeable such as yourself is precisely why I joined up....I really appreciate the help.

So you know, I am quite sceptical of many of the "facts" found in the books I mentioned, and it was good to hear that I should be....and I will get the book you mentioned so I can see better examples of the supposed Ripper Letters.

In fact my preferred suspect at this time is not any of the gentlemen featured in these books anyway....but I was quite taken with the character similarities in the supposed Williams note and the letters some believe to be written by the killer.

It would seem that a lot of the arguments made by the authors mentioned are in fact conjecture that is used to validate an opinion already held....so I am sifting all the "facts" through a filter. But I am of the belief that there is a strong possibility he did communicate with the authorities, as taunts, in the same way that he taunted police by committing some of these crimes so brazenly in the open.

Im looking forward to learning a great deal from people like yourself Dan, thanks again.

Best Regards,
Mike R
________________________________________
teleman
26th September 2006, 02:09 AM
I found these on ebay.
This is from the Arizona Daily Star, March 18,1892
__________________________________________________ _______
Startling Theory
______________

That "Jack The Rippers" is now under arrest
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

London, March 16.- It is thought by many that the man Williams
recently arrested in Melbourne, Australia is "Jack the Ripper," who committed the Whitechapel murders.
A plausible theory has sprung from the discoveries. The further the affair is investigated the stronger grows the belief that Williams is none other than the well known Jack the Ripper. Williams, while resident of Liverpool, made frequent visits to London. The Police traced movements between the two places. It has been found that the visits to London corresponded with the same unfortunate woman in Whitechapel district were found with their throats cut and bodies mutilated in this shocking manner that characterized the crimes of the "Ripper." It will be recalled that a description was given the police of the appearance of the man seen in the company of several unfortunate women whose bodies were subsequently found lying in pools of blood in the streets of Whitechapel. This description tallies exactly with the appearance of Williams aas given by the people of Liverpool.
__________________________________________________ _____________
I sent copies of this to a member of the content management of the site and it hasn't been issued so I just thought that I would issue it myself. The spelling errors are directly from the article.
I don't know if this ties in with Dr. Williams or not.
________________________________________
supe
26th September 2006, 03:17 AM
Teleman,

No, not the Dr. Williams from Uncle Jack, but interesting nonetheless. Were there any follow-up articles on this fellow? As it is, I begin to believe that eventually every male between 16 and 60 who was resident in the UK during the fall of 1888 will be named as a suspect. That does mean that most likely we will name JtR -- we just won't realize it.

Don.
________________________________________
rjpalmer
26th September 2006, 03:45 AM
Teleman--The article refers to Frederick Deeming. ''Williams" was an alias Deeming used. RP

PS. Indeed, strangely, "Williams" seems to be the alias of choice for Ripper pretenders in the Liverpool/Merseyside area.
________________________________________
teleman
26th September 2006, 04:36 AM
Thanks for the replies.
Supe-I am currently corresponding with the Star to see if there were any follow-ups. Nothing as of yet. If I get any I will post them.
rjpalmer-I hadn't read the web's description of Dr. W in the Suspects page(Duh). Clearly not the same but as you say is Deeming.
I have a lot of reading to do to get caught up.
Thanks again.
________________________________________
wendy
6th July 2007, 10:59 PM
The Jonathan Davies Of Brymbo Described In The Above Book As Being The Lover/husband Of Mary Kelly, His Neighbour In Brymbo, Denbighshire Did Not Die In A Mining Accident As Surmised/imagined.
Jonathan, In Fact, Married Sarah Wynne And Remained In Brymbo For Many Years Working As A Stationary Engine Driver. In 1901 He Has Two Daughters And One Son.
Mary Kelly Did Not Leave The Village Either, She Lived With Her Brother And His Wife.
I Am Really Amazed How These Two Authors Have Totally Bent The Facts To Fit Their Hypothesis. The Research Is Just Appalling.

The Jonathan Davies Who Died In The Mining Accident At Cwm Park Colliery Rhondda Was Probably The One Listed At 14 Nixons Villa, Merthyr Aged 25 In 1881 - A Coal Miner.

The Murder Victim, Mary Jane Kelly Was Supposed To Have A Father Who Worked In An Iron Foundry. Might This Not Then Point To The Mary Kelly Born 1863 At Dowlais, Merthyr - World Famous In Those Days For Its Iron Foundries. The Same Mary Kelly Then Worked In St. Mary Street, Cardiff As A Nursemaid To A Wealthy Family. Didn't Mary Jane Kelly Have Contacts In Cardiff?

I Sincerely Believe These Two 'authors' Should Openly Apologise To The Descendants Of Jonathan Davies And Mary Kelly Of Brymbo. These Two Have Wrongly Been Described As Being Lovers Or Married. That He Could Have Died In A Mining Accident While She Went On To Prostitution And Death. I Imagine The Brymbo Couple Were God Fearing Chapel Goers Who'd Be Horrified At What Their Names Have Been Dragged Into For The Convenience Of People Who Can't Manage To Look At More Than One Census At A Time And Make Sense Of It.
________________________________________
tom_wescott
7th July 2007, 12:03 AM
Wendy,

We Would All Agree That These Authors Owe An Apology To A Lot Of People, But For Them To Do So Would Require Admitting A Very Serious Wrong And It Appears They're Not Up For It.

As For Mary Having Connections In Cardiff, That's Up In The Air As Everything We Know About Her Is Hearsay.

Yours Truly,

Tom Wescott
________________________________________
bobhinton
8th July 2007, 11:12 AM
Why has everyone started every word with a capital letter? It makes reading the post very difficult.
________________________________________
robert
8th July 2007, 11:51 AM
It's what's known as capital punishment.
________________________________________
wendy
8th July 2007, 01:27 PM
I didn't actually write it with every word starting with a capital letter, so no idea why it's turned out like that.

Love the remark about capital punishment - quick thinking. The real Jack (whoever he was) should have had capital punishment I reckon.
________________________________________
Ruin
8th July 2007, 06:53 PM
I didn't actually write it with every word starting with a capital letter, so no idea why it's turned out like that.


Some forum software has a function to capitalize all words in subject lines and titles etc. Could be that your text accidentally was passed through such a function (have seen that happen elsewhere). Could be a glitch or someone fiddling with the board software.

Another mystery to solve...
________________________________________
caz
9th July 2007, 02:51 PM
So in fact it was only Tom who went through the laborious process of starting every word with a capital letter?

Mockery doesn't always pay then.

Love,

Caz
X
________________________________________
tom_wescott
10th July 2007, 01:45 AM
Spoken like a true forums mod.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

I see a revised edition of this drivel is going to be published:

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/need-to-read/2011/08/14/author-claims-my-grandmother-s-great-great-uncle-was-jack-the-ripper-91466-29225899/

The most astonishing thing is that the National Library of Wales appears to have cooperated in his "research." Quite amazing in the circumstances.

[Supe]

Chris,

That is just outrageous news. Williams and his original co-author, Humphrey Price, were caught forging documents by Jennifer Pegg Shelden so I would think any decent library wouldn't give either the time of day. And clearly I would be wrong. Sad.

Don.

[Chris]

It is possible to leave comments on that web page. I've just left one, and perhaps others would like to as well.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/need-to-read/2011/08/14/author-claims-my-grandmother-s-great-great-uncle-was-jack-the-ripper-91466-29225899/

[Supe]

Chris,

Thanks for the suggestion about leaving a comment. Registration only takes a minute and it would really make a statement about charlatan writers and their uncaring publishers if we buried the newspaper in comments--sensible and civil, of course.

Don.

[Robert]

Well, I've tried several times to register, but the verification won't let me in.

It seems that Sir John had planned to have dinner before dawn on Sept 8th. Someone that crazy is crazy enough to do anything.

[Supe]

Robert,

I got hung up at first because the password must contain numerals and at least one UPPER CASE letter. Other than that it seemed straightforward enough.

Don.

[robhouse]

Thought I would repost this so people could see the handwriting in question. I missed this whole discussion first time around, and had to go looking for it. It is surprising that no one is following this up in the media.

RH

[Supe]

Rob,

Thanks. I am sure that a lot of people ae new to this and have no idea what Williams and Price did in the book. This was just one of many discrepancies and misstatements Jennifer uncovered.

Don.