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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

suzi
25th March 2006, 11:24 AM
DEAR GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is making Ms Cornwell look positively CREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Come in Jenni!!!

For once am what passes for speechless!!!!!!

Suzi
________________________________________
bobhinton
25th March 2006, 11:30 AM
Dan,

Would you like to email your thoughts to the editor?
________________________________________
dannorder
25th March 2006, 11:37 AM
Dan,

Would you like to email your thoughts to the editor?

Oh yes, and I'd send along a couple of articles proving that it has been challenged and that he knew about it too.
________________________________________
suzi
25th March 2006, 12:59 PM
Hi Bob-
Doing the 'Thoughts to the Editor' as I type! -The thrust, must of course ,(apart from the ridiculous points throughout the article.!!!),be the lines re:

'He is determined not to get bogged down in the Ripper industry(!) and is researching his next book on religion'!!!!!!Am eagerly awaiting PROOF of the existence of God!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm back to the SWEP email!

Suzi
________________________________________
suzi
25th March 2006, 01:18 PM
Right chaps!

Have sent my email- This is the address for the Editor
spencer.feeney@swwp.co.uk

Suzi
________________________________________
supe
25th March 2006, 01:41 PM
Folks,

Thanks for the find Bob and by all means let us inform the editor that the duplicity of Mr. Williams has been exposed yet again in this latest interview. But, I would hope that anyone writing a letter will do so in the spirit of Jenni's investigation: serious-minded and dispassionate. We will only hurt the cause of Ripperology and this particular expose with invective and hyperbole.

Don.
________________________________________
Mr Poster
25th March 2006, 01:50 PM
Howdy

I just have to ask, while agreeing that its a bit of a shame that such as this was printed, what is writing to the editor of what must be assumed is a relatively small evening paper, is going to achieve, given that such papers regularly print inaccuracies,other than making it appear that the man is being pursued by what will appear to he general public as most probably a bunch of cranks? Oooooh....that was a long sentence.

Mr P
________________________________________
Ally
25th March 2006, 02:22 PM
Well I won't be writing a letter to the editor, but my god, what liars some people are.
________________________________________
dannorder
25th March 2006, 02:41 PM
Hi Mr. P,

Hey, any paper that picks it up and runs with it has an opportunity to make headlines all over the world if others follow suit. Considering that the Yorkshire Ripper hoax is big news all over right now, perhaps the Uncle Jack Ripper hoax can make it too.

We've had a few reporters request more info on this previously, so I think it's just a matter of time before someone decides to splash it all over. If the staff of the South Wales Evening Post are the ones who do it, all the more power to them.
________________________________________
How Brown
25th March 2006, 02:43 PM
Mr.Poster is correct,in my book...

Let this guy ramble on all he wants.....whats the loss or hurt? Its not like every month someone comes out with a new solution..well,maybe once a year.

Here are the positives:
___________________

Through Jennifer's efforts,we have all the counter arguments to the contention Williams was the Ripper we need....just don't buy the book.

Interest in the Whitechapel Murders will increase....from people with new viewpoints...look at all the Maybrick and Sickert folks that came here.

More people read Casebook and The Forums and the articles in the magazines...A.P.Wolf will be a household name in 5 years....and not as a supermarket chain.

Steve can sell more Casebook CD's and the sales help the site...

Don Souden is right....to put what he said in a different way, when one argues with an idiot,a casual observer will have trouble figuring out which one is the idiot....if they don't have the facts or really don't care.

Use it like a rented mule.....

Hey....when in Rome !!...

Always thinkin' over here.
________________________________________
suzi
25th March 2006, 02:48 PM
Hi all-

'New 'solutions' come out every year'.. they may well do..........and they do...... BUT if they continue to do that without comment then the lunatics WILL take over the asylum!

Suzi
________________________________________
Mr Poster
25th March 2006, 02:49 PM
Howdy

Well are we sure that this interview or whatever wasnt recorded/taken months ago for example and just filed as "filler" to be printed whenever nothing else was happening in South Wales?

The argument still stands that its not true right now but are we not forgetting that probably absolutely no one outside of 40 or 50 people really cares or will even remember in the morning?

mr p
________________________________________
dannorder
25th March 2006, 02:57 PM
are we not forgetting that probably absolutely no one outside of 40 or 50 people really cares or will even remember in the morning?

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.
________________________________________
Sam Flynn
25th March 2006, 03:04 PM
are we sure that this interview or whatever wasnt recorded/taken months ago for example and just filed as "filler" to be printed whenever nothing else was happening in South Wales?
Possibly. The story appeared in the Western Mail when the book came out in hardback. My Carmarthenshire mate was flicking idly through the pages of the Western Mail in the pub, when his eyes alighted on the article. "What the hell is this about Dr John Williams?" he asked. He read further. "Sh*t - says here that he was Jack the Ripper!". I asked if he'd heard of him. "Heard of 'im - I'm bloody related to 'im! He was my great great great uncle or something!!!" Must have been a large family.
The argument still stands that its not true right now but are we not forgetting that probably absolutely no one outside of 40 or 50 people really cares or will even remember in the morning?
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.

[Ash]

sirrobert
11th March 2006, 03:46 AM
you might at least look at The Same ... Only Different by Don Souden.

Don.

A very nice read, IMHO.
________________________________________
sirrobert
11th March 2006, 04:32 AM
Debunking the Maybrick Diary, the Lewis Carroll theory, 'Uncle Jack,' the Royal theory, and the latest version of the Wally Sickert story may well be necessary tasks (as far as the general public is concerned), but these were all rather obvious no-goes anyway.



Ahem. I wouldn't light that self congratulatory cigar just yet.

There are probably lessons to be gleaned from this on how NOT to 'debunk' a 'hoax', but for now we can at least be grateful Williams isn't on the list.


Results are currently sorted by average rating.

# name (http://www.casebook.org/suspects/sus...llname&way=ASC) average (http://www.casebook.org/suspects/sus...erage&way=DESC) votes (http://www.casebook.org/suspects/sus...votes&way=DESC) graph 1. Maybrick, James (http://www.casebook.org/suspects/jam...brick/may.html) 5.878 9845
________________________________________
jason_connachan
11th March 2006, 04:43 AM
One word sums up this whole saga - Shysters.
________________________________________
Ally
11th March 2006, 12:04 PM
So now that we know the handwriting for the suspect M. Nichols entry is *not* found in the rest of the book and that the author apparently had no shame whatsoever about inventing 'evidence' out of thin air as per the "big book of girls" receipt, I am going back to my original position that I believe the Library of Wales copy was altered after the book was going to press when they realized that it might be checked.

Mr. Williams, Mr. Price, care to comment?

No? Color me surprised!
________________________________________
bobhinton
25th March 2006, 10:57 AM
This appeared in the South Wales Evening Post. I have already written to the editor expressing my views, perhaps others might like to do the same.


RELATIVE PENS THEORY THAT JACK THE RIPPER ROAMED SWANSEA



10:00 - 13 March 2006
The mutilated body of Mary Jane Kelly was discovered in her lodgings by a man sent to collect back rent. Pushing back a curtain, the sight that greeted him took his breath away - the 25-year-old prostitute had been slashed, hacked and organs had been cut away. The date was November 1888 and it was immediately clear that Kelly, who had grown up in Wales, was the latest victim to fall foul of Jack the Ripper.

The discovery was the latest in a string of brutal murders around Whitechapel and, fuelled on the pages of the nation's burgeoning newspaper industry, it fanned near-hysterical panic on the streets of London's East End.

Yet time would prove that Kelly was the Ripper's final victim.

Sometime shortly after, meanwhile, a renowned doctor moved from Whitechapel to return to his native country of Wales.

Sir John Williams is now remembered for two significant roles he played in public life - as a medical adviser to the royal family and for the establishment of the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth.

He was also, if you believe one of his modern day descendants, Jack the Ripper himself.

The theory belongs to Swansea author Tony Williams, whose previous published work is restricted to the world of travel. He became drawn to the search for the elusive Victorian killer after beginning to research the life of his grandmother's great-great-uncle, Sir John.

And it was while undertaking his research that he realised he may have uncovered the killer whose identity has eluded generations of 'ripperologists'.

His study and theories are contained in Uncle Jack, which has been published in paperback by Orion Books, and has divided expert opinion by identifying a potential suspect previously overlooked.

"If people want to discredit it, then I am happy for them to do so," said Tony.

"I wanted someone to come along and disprove it but no-one has come forward.

"If they can say that it doesn't add up, or if they can disprove any of the evidence, then that is fine.

"After all, it would mean that my ancestor was not associated with the Ripper story.

"But so far, no-one has come forward to challenge it, not one person.

"I have just come out with evidence from my research and it is up to them to come to their own conclusions".

If correct, Tony's hypothesis would mean that Swansea is drawn into the macabre folk-legend that has grown up around one of the most notorious killers of modern times.

Sir John was born in Blaenllynant, Carmarthenshire, in 1840, but as a child he was educated in Swansea.

He attended the Normal School, which stood on the site now occupied by Superdrug, and after qualifying as a doctor he established a practice at number 13 Craddock Street in the city.

But first he married Lizzie Hughes, daughter of Morriston industrialist Richard Hughes, who employed 1,000 people at Landore tinplate works, and it was thanks to his wealth that Sir John and his wife could afford to move to London where he trained as a doctor.

The pair set up home in Harley Street - just a few miles from London's East End where Sir John would work in Whitechapel infirmary, around the same time as the murderous activities of the ripper.

"I started researching Sir John because I was proud he was my relation," says Tony.

"I read his diaries and medical notes in the national library and it became obvious that he was in the area at the time, he knew the victims and he had treated them.

"He had also written a lot of papers about infertility and was searching for a cure as he was desperate for his wife to have children."

The injuries suffered by Jack the Ripper's victims have long been thought to be the work of an experienced medical hand.

Each had some internal or reproductive organs skilfully removed in a dark environment with just minutes to spare, suggesting skill and physiological knowledge on the killer's behalf.

"None of the women were raped but they had their reproductive organs removed," says Tony.

"They were the same age as his wife, in their 40s, with the exception of Mary Jane Kelly.

"And remember, he was desperately searching for a cure for infertility, to help his wife."

Shortly after the final murder, Sir John returned to Wales, the timing of which raises further questions for Tony.

"He was a strong man, at the peak of his career, so why did he suddenly decide to leave London?" he asks.

"He was the founder of the National Library of Wales but he insisted on it being built in Aberystwyth, not Cardiff, which would have seemed an even longer way from London back then.

"Was it to get as far away from the scene as possible?"

He also points to the discovery of a broken surgical knife and three smear-type samples in Sir John's belongings and has called for them to be DNA tested by modern forensic techniques.

But like most suspects for the Ripper story, Tony's theory has its critics, among them the National Library of Wales, where a spokesman dismissed the allegations, stating: "The library thinks there's no basis for it at all.

"We're very proud of the contribution Sir John Williams made in bringing the national library to Aberystwyth."

The book is already history for Tony, who is determined not to get bogged down within the Ripper industry and is already researching his next book, on religion.

And like most Ripper stories, his theory is likely to remain unresolved. It leaves the intriguing prospect that one of the 19th Century's most notorious killers was, in fact, a (Swansea) Jack the Ripper.
________________________________________
dannorder
25th March 2006, 11:16 AM
"But so far, no-one has come forward to challenge it, not one person."

Wow, that's a pretty outrageous lie.

Yeah, I got tired of talking around it. Tony Williams is a liar. He intentionally says things that he knows are wrong. He includes outright falsehoods and frauds in his book. And from the looks of things Humphrey Price and Malcolm Edwards were active participants in these lies, either making up new lies to try to cover up the old ones or passing along what turned out to be lies that they had to have known were coming from a source that could not be trusted on these matters.

And their inability to even try to stick to the truth after 6 months of having their mistakes and deceptions exposed shows a blatant disregard for even pretending to be fair and honest in their statements.

[Ash]

supe
15th February 2006, 10:34 PM
Howard,

A salient point by you -- and my advice to you and everyone else is DON'T BUY IT as that just supports chicanery. Find a library that has already (sigh) purchased it or wait until it's available at Bucks County fleamarkets.

Don.
________________________________________
jdpegg
15th February 2006, 10:37 PM
I suppose i should say something more concrete here, shouldn't I?

Of course i did post a summary repsonse to the statements made here because it really is impossible to have any kind of discussion accross three different formats (here, the Rip and of course RN). I feel the right place to publish my latest findings is in Ripper Notes. This is for obvious reasons, there is the best place to show properly all the latest info.

It was the publishers and authors who decided to start this thread and make these claims on a public forum. One can only wildly speculate as to why that was, and of course this would be foolish to do.

I'm not one to rest when there is still time to find out more, and nor will I leave a stone unturned. You guys know me well enough by now to realise how things go in my mind.

the truth has a funny way of coming out in the end.

Anyway, ra ra,
don't get me started right now!

Jenni

ps i could drop hints but that would be unwise
________________________________________
dannorder
15th February 2006, 11:00 PM
What is more interesting is that none of the Ripper journals particularly cares to touch the Swanson Marginialia with a twenty-foot pole, even though it is without question one of the most important documents among serious students of the case.
If someone thinks he or she can make a sound argument for believing that part or all of the Swanson Marginalia was forged, he or she can probably get some Ripper journal or another interested in publishing it. Until then it's a non-issue.

We don't really print articles about "Newsflash: Macnaghten Memorandum was apparently actually written by Macnaghten", "We have reason to believe that some of the police files in MEPO records were actual police documents" or "The newsclips on Casebook professing to have come from the Times really were from that paper", and I think it's safe to say that the other Ripper journals wouldn't touch those topics with 20-foot poles either.

Now the Casebook boards certainly can revisit those sorts of things, just to be safe and because it has more room to go back over those things again and again and doesn't charge for those things, but then the Swanson Marginalia was already tackled here quite well recently.
________________________________________
Magpie
16th February 2006, 03:21 AM
Magpie:

Very nice move on your part. Nice website that you have,by the way...

.

Thanks How Brown

I'm just blowing the cobwebs off and starting work on a complete overhaul
________________________________________
Magpie
16th February 2006, 11:50 PM
I posted something but it apparently has yet to go through, maybe they are blocking mine? I swear I didn't use ANY cuss words or anything.

Hey Ally your review's up now. Very nice, I must say
________________________________________
Magpie
17th February 2006, 12:10 AM
I notice that the publisher has (re?)classified the book as fiction.

Error or admission, do you think?

http://www.orionbooks.co.uk/MP-35459/Uncle-Jack.htmv
________________________________________
supe
17th February 2006, 12:23 AM
Magpie,

Yes, I discovered that a while ago, but since it also shows up when you search under "non-fiction" I think it is a website glitch or else Orion doesn't care under what category it flogs its books.

Don.
________________________________________
Ally
17th February 2006, 12:24 AM
Hey there Magpie,

About time, I was wondering if my reputation had preceded me. Told you there were no cuss words.
________________________________________
Magpie
17th February 2006, 01:03 AM
Magpie,

Yes, I discovered that a while ago, but since it also shows up when you search under "non-fiction" I think it is a website glitch or else Orion doesn't care under what category it flogs its books.

Don.

That's what I thought too, so I checked under several of the books under the "non fiction" page--all of them appeared with a "non-fiction" header, except Uncle Jack
________________________________________
supe
17th February 2006, 01:15 AM
Magpie,

Self-criticism is often the most accurate and so I would say Orion knows its products the best, eh?

Don.
________________________________________
caz
18th February 2006, 12:33 PM
Sorry to be harsh, but I feel it may be playing into Uncle Jack's hands to write hastily thought-out stuff like:

While not of the magnitude of the infamous Ripper Diaries [sic] of the '90 [sic], the controversy surround [sic] the discovery of this latest Ripper chicanary [sic] has been woefully underreported.

Love,

Caz
X
________________________________________
jdpegg
8th March 2006, 12:31 PM
I have indeed been a had a look and i just wanted to say the following thing re the paper back edition of this book delightfully in Waterstones this morning,
the audacity of some people is quite quite astounding.

This book has all the same problems as the hardback edition.

The image of item 320 reproduced within it is problematic (and different to the hardback) since the MAN line is not in the same handwriting as the rest of the page it remains highly problematic.

One wonders to oneself - what they were thinknig when they published this.

i would not recomend it to anyone (surprise)

Jenni
________________________________________
dannorder
8th March 2006, 10:31 PM
Further, while the name of Mary Anne Nichols is certainly in a different hand from other entries on that page, it is in the same hand as entries on the facing page of the journal. If Ms Pegg had troubled to do this extremely basic piece of research she would have known this was the case.
It's worth noting here that Jennifer Pegg had, in fact, done "this extremely basic piece of research" and that Malcolm Edwards had not. Both these pages of Sir John Williams' notebook are reproduced in Ripper Notes issue #25 on pages 54 & 55.

It's rather bizarre that the publisher and the authors of Uncle Jack, despite having been already caught with an altered version of that document in the hardcover edition of their book and having claimed originally that the version they printed was correct even after it had been shown that it clearly was not, would then compound their error by making a rather aggressive statement like the above that could be disproven so easily.
________________________________________
supe
11th March 2006, 02:11 AM
It seems to me that in addition to removing what the authors still claim was just a "wrong copy" of a document from their paperback edition they ought also to have included a "thank you" to Jennifer Pegg for pointing out their error. Or else they might eventually have had to apologize not only to all those who bought the hardback edition but the paperback as well.

And some day pigs will fly.

If nothing else, this whole sordid business has demonstrated the appalling arrogance of a major publishing firm and two of its authors. Not only were they caught in an embarrassingly stupid document fiddle, but they compounded their errors by uttering more nonsense while trying to defend themselves and simultaneously cast false aspersions on Jennifer's research.

Tony, Humphrey: be men and admit you were wrong and Jennifer was right. She has already demonstrated the several false statements in your previous joint statement on this thread in her recent article [Ripper Notes, No. 25]. Will you respond graciously or simply skulk away and hope the general public never gets wind of how poorly researched your literary effort was?

The words of a great American boxer, the late Joe Louis, are perhaps apt to consider: Louis once said of an opponent "He can run, but he can't hide." Neither can authors who play fast and loose with the truth.

Don.

[Ash]

Magpie
15th February 2006, 06:58 PM
Anyway, isn't there anyone out there with some friends in the media and who could tip said friends off to what is at least an interesting story?

Don.

Hmmm....maybe a little more "direct action" could be more effective?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/075...lance&n=283155
________________________________________
Ally
15th February 2006, 07:10 PM
ROFLMAO! Magpie what a fantastic idea. That was great. I shall add my two cents in a moment.
________________________________________
dknott
15th February 2006, 07:31 PM
Nice one Magpie .. but three stars?? What a generous soul you are! I wouldn't have given it that BEFORE Jenni went to work!
________________________________________
mikey559
15th February 2006, 07:33 PM
What an excellent idea. I posted my review as well and we will see if our attampts catch any notice.

Mikey
________________________________________
supe
15th February 2006, 07:36 PM
Magpie,

Yes, a good idea indeed and I would hope others besides Ally will follow suit. And (personal plug here, but it has been a long time now since I got a royalty check) while you are there you might at least look at The Same ... Only Different by Don Souden.

Don.
________________________________________
Whitechapel Student
15th February 2006, 07:40 PM
As for Magpie's query about what the National Library of Wales may be doing I have no way of knowing. However, I do know that for many such institutions the threat of being sued for libel by a major coporate entity can have a very chilling effect.
All they have to do is ask the police to investigate the offence. The police are hardly going to be sued for libel.

In fact nobody's going to sue anybody for libel, bearing in mind what happened to Oscar Wilde, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitken et al...
________________________________________
Magpie
15th February 2006, 07:41 PM
Thank you, everyone *slight bow*

If anyone decides to join the crusade, I would suggest you not overlook Amazon.co.uk, .ca, and the various other Amazons out there.
________________________________________
Ally
15th February 2006, 07:49 PM
I posted something but it apparently has yet to go through, maybe they are blocking mine? I swear I didn't use ANY cuss words or anything.
________________________________________
tom_wescott
15th February 2006, 07:52 PM
It would appear that S. Robert Goulet is wrong. Jennifer Pegg has today determined that Dr. Bond's report is in the hand of Tony Williams.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
________________________________________
mikey559
15th February 2006, 07:52 PM
Ally, my Goddess,

Not even one cuss word? Not even a "Frak"? How will we know it's really from you???

Mikey
________________________________________
supe
15th February 2006, 07:56 PM
Tom,

Leave this to the grownups will you? Jenni already asked you not to make frivolous posts on this subject.

Don.
________________________________________
Ally
15th February 2006, 07:59 PM
I know Mikey can you believe it? And I made stirring comparisons to the pervasive problems of research fraud. I pulled in south korean stem cell research, James Frey and small scale fraud on the daily school wide basis. It was a stirring saga of declining ethics and intellectual rot.

Okay it wasn't that great but there was nothing in it worthy of being blocked either. Maybe because I have never reviewed anything on Amazon before?
________________________________________
rjpalmer
15th February 2006, 08:07 PM
Supe writes:

"I fear that Ripperologists deserve Case Closed and Uncle Jack and the next fraud thrust upon them because, with a few notable exceptions, they really don't care. Sad, really."

That's one way of looking at it.

Another way of looking at it is that people do care, but it is of minor concern.

Debunking the Maybrick Diary, the Lewis Carroll theory, 'Uncle Jack,' the Royal theory, and the latest version of the Wally Sickert story may well be necessary tasks (as far as the general public is concerned), but these were all rather obvious no-goes anyway.

I think Mr. Sugden gave the Maybrick Diary two or three sentences in his 400+ page study, and about as much to the Royal conspiracies. That's about all they warranted.

In retrospect, it may have done more harm than good to give the Maybrick fiasco endless publicity, by the continued efforts to "debunk it," --though, here again, I admit that it was a necessary task to address it (as Rendell, Harris, and Nickell all did in print).

What is more interesting is that none of the Ripper journals particularly cares to touch the Swanson Marginialia with a twenty-foot pole, even though it is without question one of the most important documents among serious students of the case.

This is in no way meant to down-play Ms. Pegg's work for a job well done, but these barmy theories often supply thier own antidote.
________________________________________
tom_wescott
15th February 2006, 08:20 PM
RJ,

Yo! Check your private messages!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
________________________________________
Ally
15th February 2006, 08:25 PM
Don,

I understand where you are coming from, but a stir right now would be going off half-cocked. The fact that the copy in the book is forged is known, but in and of itself, there's not much there. If Jenni can prove who did it or that the library books were forged as well..or that the publishers are clearly lying when they say that it was a "mistake" (which I agree, duh, we know they're lying already) then that gives more to work with.

I mean look at the whole Oprah Winfrey/Frey thing. That took almost a full year of perculation before the fraud case went everywhere...and that book had a much larger audience and target than does Uncle Jack.
________________________________________
jdpegg
15th February 2006, 08:39 PM
i feel the need to bite my tongue. your reviews made me smile

Jenni
________________________________________
Magpie
15th February 2006, 08:45 PM
This is in no way meant to down-play Ms. Pegg's work for a job well done, but these barmy theories often supply thier own antidote.

On the otherhand, rj, if the fuss does nothing more than encourage people to check out the excellent Ripper Notes to read the other side of the story then that's not a bad thing.
________________________________________
How Brown
15th February 2006, 10:18 PM
Magpie:

Very nice move on your part. Nice website that you have,by the way...

Supe:

You made a excellent point pal...but maybe its partly because many of us [ I haven't purchased the book based on what you and Jen and Dan have stated and the responses from the other side ] have not bought it,that this sense of apathy appears to exist. After a bit of time,then there will be no excuse to not have an opinion one way or the other.

[Ash]

supe
2nd February 2006, 07:59 PM
It has now been more than a week since Williams and Price issued their statement through Orion books and there has yet to be an explanation for why an altered copy of a document in the National Library of Wales was inserted in their book and falsely identified as the original. We know they monitor this message thread because there was a further message, a windy warning about libel, and yet we are still waiting for an explanation about the document.

In their original statement Williams and Price called it a "wrong copy" and seemed to treat their error as if it were little more than a typo. In fact, it was a deliberately altered document that at least one person must have known was false and misleading. Provide a full explanation of how and why an altered document was published, gentlemen, and then -- and only then -- is there any point to discussing the rest of your research.

Have you no shame?

Don.
________________________________________
jdpegg
2nd February 2006, 10:06 PM
I take it that the authors and their publisher stand by their original statement and have nothing further to add at this stage and no response to make to my summary?

I look forward to sending them my follow up article after publication and hope they will respond in a prompt manner either here on the boards or directly to myself

cheers
Jenni
ps Dave yes that's the one, feel free to pm me!
________________________________________
Ally
2nd February 2006, 11:58 PM
Who thinks Jenni's got something good? I think Jenni's got something good.

I bet it's something good.


What is it?? I promise not to tell Jenni, you can tell me, go ahead.
________________________________________
tom_wescott
3rd February 2006, 12:39 AM
Jennifer found out that Tony Williams hoaxed the Swanson Marginalia.
________________________________________
jdpegg
3rd February 2006, 11:46 AM
Tom

don't be silly!

Ally,

why -what makes you say that?

Jenni
________________________________________
mariag
3rd February 2006, 08:58 PM
Ally--

Jenni's got THE goods---even better!
________________________________________
supe
15th February 2006, 05:48 PM
Ah, the world of Ripperology never ceases to amaze me. We have a case of forgery (yes, Malcom, the "wrong copy" was a forgery -- by person or persons unknown) in a recent Ripper book that sold well enough to merit being issued soon in a paperback edition and no one seems to care. Instead of there being any clamor for an explanation of this, these boards are awash in . . . well things like ever more gleeful discussions of what can be "seen" in photographs in which nothing can be clearly seen.

Of course, that is exactly what the authors and publishing house have been banking on -- that if they stonewall long enough the paperbook edition will appear, the general public will buy many copies and they will all make money because even most of the supposed Ripper experts on Ripperology's premier website couldn't care less.

I fear that Ripperologists deserve Case Closed and Uncle Jack and the next fraud thrust upon them because, with a few notable exceptions, they really don't care. Sad, really.

Don.
________________________________________
Ally
15th February 2006, 06:03 PM
Heya Don,

I really think we are just all pausing and waiting for the next round to (eventually) be published in Ripper Notes. While I respect Jenni not wanting to spill the beans before publication date, I have to admit I am dying to know what she's got. I bet the boards will really start to sing once RN (finally) gets here.



Say Dan, did you get my subtle hints there?
________________________________________
Magpie
15th February 2006, 06:04 PM
Ah, the world of Ripperology never ceases to amaze me. We have a case of forgery (yes, Malcom, the "wrong copy" was a forgery -- by person or persons unknown) in a recent Ripper book that sold well enough to merit being issued soon in a paperback edition and no one seems to care. Instead of there being any clamor for an explanation of this, these boards are awash in . . . well things like ever more gleeful discussions of what can be "seen" in photographs in which nothing can be clearly seen.



Don.

Has there been any word on the Libraries investigation of the the vandalism to their records? That would strike me as the place where whoever did the forgery is the weakest--the Library should be encouraged to press charges.
________________________________________
supe
15th February 2006, 06:29 PM
Ally & Magpie,

Hmmm, having trouble typing. Just came in from outdoors and I'm half snow-blind at the moment -- the sun off the heaps of snow is wicked.

Anyway, I can understand Ally wanting to wait for the next installment from Jenni (which has gone through three rewrites as things kept happening), but the fact is we already have a forgery in a book issued by a major publishing house in England as well as a statement from the authors in which they were shocked the "wrong copy" saw print.

That by itself is quite newsworthy -- but only becomes "news" when picked up by something besides the specialized Ripper media. I guess I had hoped there would be enough buzz generated here that the news about an "error" in a book that was well-publicized when first issued would make it to the mainstream media. If that happened, the MSM could better demand an explanation for the forgery and as a bonus Jenni's efforts would be deservedly recognized.

Otherwise, no matter how many errors and factual inaccuracies Jenni unearths Uncle Jack (the initial forgery notwithstanding) will be much the same as Case Closed -- a fatally flawed book that will probably sell well because the fatal flaws are only recognized by a select few.

As for Magpie's query about what the National Library of Wales may be doing I have no way of knowing. However, I do know that for many such institutions the threat of being sued for libel by a major coporate entity can have a very chilling effect.

Anyway, isn't there anyone out there with some friends in the media and who could tip said friends off to what is at least an interesting story?

Don.

[Ash]

GCW
29th January 2006, 04:47 AM
I haven’t really followed the Dr Williams line with much enthusiasm - until now. Reading through the recent posts on this subject there doesn’t seem to be much discussion in regard to content – I’m sure this has taken place somewhere in the multitude of threads but I’ll throw my thoughts into the argument. The material is referred to as a notebook – it may be in notebook form but the material appears to be a consolidated index listed by medical procedure in chronological order. The letter preceding the number after each name is ‘p’ and not ‘L’ - these references are page numbers. In the original the entry for Mary Ann(e) Nichols this is ‘p do’ = ‘page ditto’, that is page 709, the same as the previous entry. Why the ‘Uncle Jack’ Mary Ann(e) Nichols entry is given as ‘p718’ is something of a mystery. Given the high page numbers, the references appear to be related to a large registry – any thoughts on what this registry might be and where it may be located (if it survives). If this matter has been discussed at length before please disregard.

Graham W.
________________________________________
Whitechapel Student
29th January 2006, 10:27 AM
Okay...pondering in light of Mr. Edwards latest revelations. He asserts that the odd handwriting at the bottom can be found on the preceding pages and that the original copy in the library is unaltered.

I am completely willing to take his word for it at this time and believe that the original has NOT been tampered with.

I don't think anyone is obliged to take what Malcolm Edwards says at face value until he explains his own grossly misleading statement on the old boards (April 22, 2005):
<<
First, the extract from Williams’s notebook – naming Mary Ann(e) Nichols -- reproduced somewhere in this thread is indistinct there (presumably it’s a videograb from the TV) but it perfectly clear in the original, and as reproduced in the book.
>>

Had he seen the original? If so, how could he fail to notice the obvious difference of handwriting? If not, he was not in a position to post what he did before, and his word now is not worth much - particularly as he is simply passing on an uncorroborated claim by one of the authors.

This sabre-rattling over libel on Edwards's part is obviously just a shabby little manoeuvre to distract attention from the unquestionable fact that someone closely concerned with the production of the book has deliberately doctored the evidence in an attempt to mislead.

The handwriting of the entry in the original document certainly looks like a modern attempt to imitate that on the rest of the page - carried out with very limited success.

The honest course for the publishers, if they are going to reissue the book, would be not just silently to substitute the correct image for the fake one, but to add a clear statement that someone closely associated with the production of the book had tried to mislead the readers of the previous edition.

But obviously honesty is not a priority of the publishers (to take a trivial example, they still describe the author on their website as the "great-great-nephew of the killer" [!]). If they won't correct a straightforward factual error, what chance is there of them handling properly this much more serious question of the faking of evidence?
________________________________________
Ally
29th January 2006, 12:17 PM
Oh don't think I feel obliged to do anything. I have just decided to whittle it down as simply as possible for the time being in the hopes of getting one straight answer to a direct question, with the hopes of proceeding from there. I am going to temporarily jettison the remainder of the questions until this one is answered:

How does the author/publisher explain the forged copy of the index that appears in their book?


That is all.
________________________________________
suzi
29th January 2006, 02:19 PM
Hi all-
Having trawled though all of this and been forced back to check 'The Book'.....the main thing I CANNOT accept are the 3 TOTALLY different manners of the character A.
A is one of the few letters that people tend to have as an identifiable letter in their handwriting for example here is mine
374

Then here are the 3(!) allegedly from Dr Williams

Next post!!!

Suzi
________________________________________
suzi
29th January 2006, 02:22 PM
375

376

377

ALMOST impossible!!!

Suzi
________________________________________
jcoram
29th January 2006, 02:41 PM
As Suzi has brought this up......(well spotted by the way Suzi....ever thought of taking up forging for a living?)

It is odd that the A in the date in the letter to Morgan attributed to John Williams is totally different in character to the 'a' in the word 'abortion' and 'Anne' in the notebook, both in John Williams undisputed writing and in the name of Mary Anne Nichols allegedly written by someone else.)

There is actually a detailed document analysis in hand comparing all of the samples reproduced in the book Uncle Jack.

I'm sure that is hardly a revelation to anyone as any author and publisher using documents in a book of this sort would expect all documents reproduced to receive the most careful scrutiny as almost all of the evidence relies on them being genuine.

Of course as the publishers are certain that the documents in their publication are genuine this will cause no concern to them or the authors, in fact the report would be welcomed by them as it would consolidate their case.

I am sure Jenni will disclose the findings when she feels it is the opportune time and there is a great deal of information in the report that will really clear up this matter once and for all, with no question of misinterpretation.

I'm sure that the publishers will welcome such a report and in fact might wish to have their own conducted to prove their claim that all of the documents reproduced in their book are genuine.

Jane
________________________________________
Whitechapel Student
29th January 2006, 06:41 PM
I understand that Malcolm Edwards has "moved on" from Orion Books, but while he is posting here perhaps he could find out for us why, judging from Orion's website, Humphrey Price, having been billed as co-author of the hardback edition of "Uncle Jack", is not going to be credited as an author of the paperback edition due out in March:
http://www.orionbooks.co.uk/MP-35459/Uncle-Jack.htm

Perhaps this is just incompetence on the part of Orion's marketing department. But, if not, is Orion trying to tell us something?

Mr Edwards has already told us that the only difference between the editions is that the faked version of the NLW document will not appear in the paperback. Is the disappearance of Humphrey Price's name just a coincidence?
________________________________________
dknott
2nd February 2006, 07:53 PM
Jenni,

In your article you referred to a suggestion that I made on a previous casebook thread regarding the Denbigh Mary Kelly possibly having married a Griffith Jones in 1886, and still being alive in 1901.

I have checked it out, and this is correct. The Mary Kelly identified in Uncle Jack from the 1881 census was actually a Mary Ann Kelly, not a Mary Jane Kelly, and she was married to Griffith Jones at St Marys Catholic Church on February 27th 1886. They were still together at the time of the 1901 census.

(Although I realise that inadequate research is the least of the charges being levelled at the authors!!)

David

[Ash]

dannorder
28th January 2006, 11:56 PM
Lots of what I was going to say has apparently (upon preview) already been posted by others, but here are some things left to say:

I don't put much stock in Humphrey Price claiming that the document was not tampered with, when, at least according to Tony Williams' earllier statement, he was just a couple of months ago vouging that the document in the book matched the one in the library, which we now know isn't true. We have had more than one individual personally inspect the original, and I'll go with what outside observers have to say.

And of course anyone tampering with the one entry could easily add other tampered entries elsewhere, especially on a facing page... I mean, come on. And if someone went back to do this to try to cover it up recently, boy are they going to be in trouble when the copies of the originals come out and prove it was altered.

Regarding the libel threats, I have not accused any specific person of forging the document, but then the only people who could give information on who is responsible are the same people who stand to profit from the sales of the book. Knowing this, I am shocked... no, make that shocked and dismayed that they are not being more forthcoming in identifying who the culprit was just to prove that they had nothing to do with it. Because if (and I of course now am saying if) the person responsible for the forgery is someone who profited off the book, that's a criminal act. And if the forger also forged lines in the original records, that is too. Instead of threatening lawsuits against other people they should be doing whatever it takes to clear this all up... and, instead, the three public statements so far have been contradictory and unhelpful.
________________________________________
Ally
29th January 2006, 12:07 AM
Hiya Dan,

As I said in my preceding post, I am going to take Mr. Edwards word that the handwriting on the bottom of the page matches other entries at this time.

I would hope that RN is following up this story and will provide and publish copies of the preceding pages that contains the additional entries of the handwriting? If all of the entries are at the end...well, hmm. If they are scattered throughout, then that would prove at least marginally that the original source was not tampered with, which I do feel is something that should be undertaken.

It still leaves the question: why was the copy in the published book forged. Because no matter how you slice the original, forged or not forged, the copy that appeared in print was forged. Period and end of story. And they can claim libel all they want, but a simple examination of the documents show that the one they printed was forged.

It's like a car thief screaming libel because the newspaper printed he stole a Hyundai when in actuality he stole a Honda. Big freaking whoop.
________________________________________
jcoram
29th January 2006, 12:11 AM
Hi Ally,

Very pertinent points. There is no question that the neither of the 'Mary Anne Nichols' entries are in John Williams handwriting. That is patently obvious even to a layman. There are however more similarities in the entry in Uncle Jack than there are in the original document.

This is merely a statement of fact, not opinion. Any document analyzer will state without reservation that the name 'Mary' particularly is a simulation of John Williams writing. If an assistant wrote it, then he was without doubt attempting to write in the same style as John Williams. The 'M' used by John Williams is very distinctive and so is the 'A' in the word abortion.

The chances of his assistant having a very similar handwriting to John Williams in the first two words, and then suddenly to have a totally different style in the last name of Nichols, is thought provoking to say the least.

This coupled with the fact that the name of 'Nichols' in the notebook entry reproduced in Uncle Jack is extraordinarily similar in nature to the 'Nichols' in the original entry, without being an exact copy is also worth pondering.

It would be enlightening to see the other entries written in a different hand in the notebook to the entry of Mary Ann Nichols to see if they were written in the same hand. Perhaps it would be possible for copies of these other entries to be made public, so that a document analyzer could compare all of the entries, with a view to solving this conundrum?

Jane
________________________________________
dannorder
29th January 2006, 12:30 AM
Hey Ally,

Jenni, as always, is on the case... which means there are people both at the library and outside researchers who have already examined documents previously can take another look... this could be highly illuminating.

Press deadlines are a bother though. Looks like it'll be a continuing saga.
________________________________________
ash
29th January 2006, 01:54 AM
Quite frankly, Mr Edwards is pissing in the wind here. Because I have gone baack over this thread and nobody at all has committed libel. All that has been said is, please explain.

The fact is, the copy of the document in the book is different to the one in the library. And no explanation has been forthcoming as to why a copy of the document that is different to the one in the library should have ever existed, regardless of how it ended up in the book.

Somebody, at some point, has created a fake copy of this document. Note very carefully, I have not said who this was. Simply that it was somebody.

Assuming the copy in the library has not been tampered with or faked in any way, I can now go further. That person has not only faked an entry in that document, but they have first gone to the trouble of erasing the original entry before creating the fake entry.

Everything I have said so far is absolutely logical. I have no need of proving it in order to provide a defence against libel. There is no other possible explanation for the fake document that appeared in the book existing, other than that some unnamed person took a copy of the document, erased the original entry assuming it ever existed in the first place, and fabricated a new one in its place.

And once again I say, until the authors give a reasonable explanation of how this happened, why should anybody in their right mind accept any other information which has emanated from the same source.

[Ash]

jdpegg
27th January 2006, 06:55 PM
All the evidence suggests that the line on the document in the National Library of Wales in no way resembles the other entries in the notebook.
________________________________________
Ally
27th January 2006, 06:57 PM
Jenn,

Will this be elaborated in your RN article or could you go into more detail here? As in, does the ink appear not to match, etc?
________________________________________
jdpegg
27th January 2006, 07:13 PM
Hiya,

yes there will be some elaboration - I was refering to the handwriting of the entry not what it was written with/ in. i have yet to be able to view the document first hand.

Jenni
________________________________________
spryder
28th January 2006, 10:49 PM
Malcolm Edwards has asked me to post this - from an email dated yesterday:



People who are saying that Humphrey and Tony have tampered with the original document are, straightforwardly, committing libel. I haven't discussed this point with Humphrey and Tony, but in my view this is a very serious libel indeed, and the people responsible had better be prepared to substantiate their accusations or withdraw them.

One of the reasons for the delay in posting the reply was that Humphrey paid a further visit to the library at my behest to re-examine the document, something neither Jennifer Pegg nor any of your other correspondents seems to feel under any obligation to do.

It is clear that the document has not been tampered with, and as far as can be ascertained, all the entries appear to be contemporaneous with one another. Further, while the name of Mary Anne Nichols is certainly in a different hand from other entries on that page, it is in the same hand as entries on the facing page of the journal. If Ms Pegg had troubled to do this extremely basic piece of research she would have known this was the case.

The paperback edition of the book will appear as scheduled, with the correct image of the document. No other changes will be made, because as has been pointed out, the argument of the book places no reliance on the handwriting itself being of any significance. The name is there: that's all that matters.

I am also quietly astonished by the outbreaks of piety on behalf of John Williams's reputation. A great many people are named as suspects on your website and elsewhere. It's pretty obvious that all but one of them are being falsely accused.


Best wishes

Malcolm
________________________________________
Sam Flynn
28th January 2006, 11:09 PM
Malcolm Edwards has asked me to post this - from an email dated yesterday:

I am also quietly astonished by the outbreaks of piety on behalf of John Williams's reputation. A great many people are named as suspects on your website and elsewhere. It's pretty obvious that all but one of them are being falsely accused.

All but one? Mr Edwards misses the very likely possibility that all of us - Tony Williams included - are peeing in the wind
________________________________________
jdpegg
28th January 2006, 11:09 PM
Very, very interesting,

thanks Stephen.

Thanks Malcolm.
________________________________________
Ally
28th January 2006, 11:13 PM
Hi Malcolm,

We are giving our opinion on how the two completely different versions of the document could have occurred.

Our opinion, which is all we have to go on, considering there is STILL no explanation from the author/publisher as to how else a ****-up of such monumental proportions could have occurred.

So if the speculations and opinions as to how the screw up occurred aren't to your liking, then tell us once and for all how exactly it did occur.

And you know, I have noticed that the ones who immediately starty moaning about libel, are generally the ones who are terrified to have the truth uncovered.

If their reputation is such a fragile thing that it can't withstand speculation, I could understand the fear.

Once again: The authors/publishers have yet to provide an explanation for what exactly occurred. We are speculating as to what might have happened given they are unwilling to go on record with an explanation.
________________________________________
supe
28th January 2006, 11:14 PM
Mr. Edwards,

When will Mr. Williams and Mr. Price explain how the "wrong copy" made it into the hardcover version of Uncle Jack? That serious researchers would have such a spurious document in their possession creates a penumbra of doubt and one would think they would wish to dispel any questions as quickly as possible with a full explanation of the genesis of the "wrong copy."

Don.
________________________________________
Ally
28th January 2006, 11:21 PM
And let's also make one thing PERFECTLY clear. Someone FAKED or FORGED at least one of the entries.

I notice you are only saying they didn't fake the original and to suggest that they forged the original is libel.

So are you saying they did fake the copy that appeared?

Because someone did. There is no "wrong" copy. Wrong suggests that there were actually two copies and you 'whoops" put the wrong one in. That's not the case. There was, at best, an original and a forged copy. If the one in the library is the orginal and as it appeared, then someone faked/forged the one that appeared in the book.

Explanations, please?
________________________________________
Sam Flynn
28th January 2006, 11:23 PM
That serious researchers would have such a spurious document in their possession creates a penumbra of doubt ...

"Penumbra of doubt" - lovely use of the English language, Supe. Whether you minted that phrase or not, thanks for using it.
________________________________________
supe
28th January 2006, 11:35 PM
Gareth,

Thank you, really. Perhaps Orion would like to publish my next novel . . . don't hold my breath, eh?

Don.
________________________________________
Ally
28th January 2006, 11:36 PM
Okay...pondering in light of Mr. Edwards latest revelations. He asserts that the odd handwriting at the bottom can be found on the preceding pages and that the original copy in the library is unaltered.

I am completely willing to take his word for it at this time and believe that the original has NOT been tampered with.

So that leaves the copy that appeared in the book, which clearly was tampered with. So why?

Let's look at it. The handwriting doesn't match. Obviously in looking at it, the authors/publishers are going to say, "the handwriting doesn't match, that's going to look odd".

Did they decide to fake the line in a closer handwriting to make their case seem more credible, only to have it blow up in their face? Why would they have changed the number if they had done so, why not keep it the same as it appeared in the original?

Anyway, given my new willingness to believe that the original was not tampered with, that leaves only the question, why was the copy in the book forged?

[Ash]

oberlin
27th January 2006, 12:03 AM
Long dead people cannot speak out to defend themselves from accusations of murder. However, through the living it may be possible, from historical documentation left behind, to give such people voice. I hope this is what I am able to do
Jennifer, I think that is well said.

Dave
________________________________________
Whitechapel Student
27th January 2006, 12:20 AM
Has the National Library of Wales brought to the attention of the police the fact that a document in its custody has - to all appearances - been tampered with?

If not, why not?

This would be a serious criminal offence, as seen in the (less serious) case of fake documents concerning Himmler inserted into files in the National Archives.
________________________________________
supe
27th January 2006, 01:00 AM
Whitechapel Student,

Obviously, Jennifer Pegg is the one who can speak with the most authority on the subject, but it is my understanding that a document in the NLW was not tampered with. Rather, a copy of that document was altered and then published in a book as if it were the original. The legal implications I leave to others to sort out.

The ethical implications of that would, however, seem apparent to anyone. That serious researchers would have a "wrong copy" of any document of this kind strains credulity and that the "wrong copy" bears -- as pointed out by Jane Coram -- a greater similarity to the rest of the writing on the document is certainly . . . well, suggestive.

The authors were aware that Jennifer was preparing a critical article for many months and her findings have been public knowkledge since mid-October and that makes one wonder why it took the authors so long to reveal their shock at the inclusion in their book of a "wrong copy" of a singular document from the National Library of Wales.

Don.
________________________________________
dannorder
27th January 2006, 02:01 AM
Don,

I have to disagree with you here, as I believe it's all but certain that the original at the library was tampered with, but what I believe and what I can prove right now are two different things.

Whitechapel Student,

Rest assured that the National Library of Wales is fully aware of everything going on, and they are the ones who would have to choose to pursue such a matter with the police or efforts to prove tampering. From the very beginning when the Uncle Jack book came out a spokesperson stated that the library normally tries to stay out of such public controversies. Of course what they may or may not be doing behind the scenes, and what their response is to the announcement that the publisher intends to go forward with a paperback edition of the book containing the image in question, remains to be seen.

We will of course let people know if there comes a time when there is something to say on that front.
________________________________________
jdpegg
27th January 2006, 09:43 AM
It is clear that there are many questions that remain unanswered - since Williams and Price have posted their comments here on a public forum I hope they will now answer the questions raised by Casebook posters

Jenni
________________________________________
Ally
27th January 2006, 12:29 PM
Supe,

I really don't see how the document in the library could *not* have been tampered with--as in, I think it must have been.

Of course this is just speculation on my part, but if you look at the two images, kindly provided by Norder on another thread, you will see that BOTH of the Mary Nichols entries are MUCH more legible than anything else written on that page.

If there had actually been a Mary Nichols entry there, why not use it? Why not use the exact numbering of the entry? Because there was never one there to start?

If I had to lay money, I'd lay my money like this (and of course this is only my opinion, rampant speculation as to what might have occurred): There never was a Mary Nichols entry. The page was photocopied, the entry added, the book went to be published, realizing the original source might be checked, an approximation was then added to the original.

I can't get over the fact that if there had actually been a Mary Nichols entry, they would have used it.

Now of course, all of that is purely speculation and opinion on my part. And if the author would like to explain that I am completely wrong, and that is not what happened, I would love to hear his explanation of what did happen, but in light of the fact that they aren't trying to explain what happened, I am afraid I am left with only my speculation and imagination to answer for them.
________________________________________
Whitechapel Student
27th January 2006, 01:45 PM
If I had to lay money, I'd lay my money like this (and of course this is only my opinion, rampant speculation as to what might have occurred): There never was a Mary Nichols entry. The page was photocopied, the entry added, the book went to be published, realizing the original source might be checked, an approximation was then added to the original.
Perhaps, but if it happened this way round I don't understand why they wouldn't have written the more plausible number [?]L 718 in the original.

It seems more likely that the original was (badly) doctored first, and that later an improved version was produced at the fakers' leisure, with a better imitation of the original handwriting and a reference number that matched the others.
________________________________________
Ally
27th January 2006, 01:58 PM
Yes it could have gone either way, but I lean towards the second only because I have this (foolish) notion that they might have been hesitant to mar the library copy at first. And if they marred the library copy first, and then had a photocopy of it, I would have thought they would have just gone with it, or kept the number the same the second time they copied it. My feeling was they went to "fix" the library copy after the fact, once they realized it would be checked and didn't bring a copy of the book, so they didn't have the exact number they had used.

It really could have gone either way; either way is equally stupid.
________________________________________
supe
27th January 2006, 03:19 PM
Dan and Ally,

You may be right, but if you are then we are looking at not only a serious crime but an example of monumental stupidity as well. As Jennifer has written, the only ones who know what really happened are the authors and one would hope they will soon recover from their "shock" and bout of "the vapors" engendered by Jennifer's discovery and provide us with a full explanation.

Don.

[Ash]

ash
25th January 2006, 12:50 AM
I'm afraid that as soon as Jenni found that the genuine document in the National Library of Wales differed from the one published, there was only one question to be answered. And it wasn't how a wrong copy of the document found it's way into the book. It was why a wrong copy of the document should ever have existed in the first place. Until this question is answered, there is really no other argument these authors can make to defend their work.
________________________________________
How Brown
25th January 2006, 01:35 AM
Alan:

You hit the nail on the head.

Allow me to add this to the above remarks..



"As to Sir John’s place in history, Tony has publicly stated that no-one would be more pleased than he should he be proved to be wrong, as then the reputation of his illustrious ancestor be restored. As yet, we have no reason to doubt the case we’ve put forward."

The first emboldened [and bold] statement seems to indicate that Dr. John's culpability had been considered a viable possibility. Where ? Certainly not here,where it counts.....Mr. Williams had never been considered proven right.

The second emboldened part refers to a reputation that Mr. Williams and Mr. Williams alone was responsible for in its denigration. There's no need for a restoration. Dr.John is as safe as milk. I can think of someone else's rep that may have suffered... Dr.Williams can't lose what he never had...the status of JTR.

This sort of doublespeak works on rubes at a carnival...
________________________________________
jcoram
25th January 2006, 02:31 PM
Interesting that the copy in the Uncle Jack book is slightly closer in style to the undisputed entries above, than the one in the original notebook in the National Library of Wales....both nothing like the above writing of course, but a slightly better match nonetheless.

They do say.......'Practice makes perfect,'

well less dreadful anyway.

Jane

xxx
________________________________________
tom_wescott
26th January 2006, 09:33 PM
Let's pretend for a moment that they a document wasn't doctored to bolster the theory. Let's even pretend that the document in question was unquestionably legit....there's STILL absolutely no argument made for Sir John having been Jack the Ripper. Not a shred of suspicion attaches to him. For this reason alone I'd love to see this matter dropped and the entire matter disappear, ala Sickert. I certainly hope the journals and books won't be wasting too many pages on this. If Williams and Price had instead turned their focus towards writing a book detailing the life of a Victorian doctor - without any wild notions of infamy - then I've no doubt they would be held to a much higher esteem and their work would be highly recommended and not highly questionable.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
________________________________________
jdpegg
26th January 2006, 10:18 PM
After some consideration I fell that it is necessary to post some form of reply to the above statement by Williams and Price here on the boards. This is due to the fact that this response to my final article (this contained the serious discrepancy which was discovered following the sending of a draft version of my article to the authors for response) having been posted here on the boards where it is not necessarily the case that people viewing it have read my RN article. Orion (the publishers) have since November (and prior to the publication of RN) been aware of the final version of the article as a PDF of it was sent to Malcolm Edwards at that time.

I feel that a result of this statement from the authors being published here may be that authors have, unintentionally, caused some confusion in relation to some of the points raised for those who may come to this public message board and have read this response without having read my article detailing the problems at length.

As well as posting this summary here there will be a response in the next RN detailing my response to this and the letter in Rip 62 more fully. Incidentally my forthcoming article will also update readers as to my latest research findings.

I feel it is now necessary to make this brief summary to the boards for the sake of clarity as well as because I do not want people to think the response above is unanswerable when this is not the case.

This is by way of an explanation as to the following summary.

Summary

The authors mention that the wrong copy of the document appeared on page 16 of Uncle Jack. I am somewhat baffled as to how a wrong copy could have come about at all. There is only one source for the information at the National Library of Wales (NLW) that is item 320 of the Sir John Williams Collection. It is clear that the copy in Uncle Jack is an altered version of this original image. I was merely pointing out this discrepancy – the authors fail to explain how this discrepancy occurred. Furthermore, perhaps the authors would like to explain why they fail to provide any reference for this notebook entry in Uncle Jack, including in the bibliography?

I would like to point out that I did not suggest, nor have I ever suggested, that the handwriting on this, or any document in the NLW, should be compared with the letters supposedly written by Jack the Ripper. Indeed I believe this would be a worthless exercise since there is no evidence that Sir John Williams was Jack the Ripper.

I would like to state here that the death of Mr T. Westhorp is in no way a flaw in my theory. A simple look at the T in PTO at the bottom of the page (see Uncle Jack pp 127) shows that the letter mistaken for a J by the authors is in fact a T. The images reproduced in October’s RN and found by Rob Clack show this beyond any doubt. This entry cannot therefore refer to John Williams. Nor is there any evidence at all he ever worked in the Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary.

I recommend Peter Higginbotham’s excellent website for more information about Workhouses www.workhouse.org.uk (http://www.workhouse.org.uk/)

Diary – full details in relation to this issue will appear in January’s RN. I maintain here that there was no semblance of normaility to maintain as Sir John did not have a diary for every year.

In Uncle Jack the authors state that the operation ovariotomy was exactly the operation carried out by JtR on Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes. This was not the case. The authors implied strongly in the book that they were referring to more than the exterior cuts.

Letters – these issues will be raised in better detail in January’s RN.
I am still working on tracing the letter in the archive; clearly the reference number will be helpful in this endeavour. Why did the authors not provide this reference in their book?

In relation to point 8 of the authors statement I did not claim they had found an unlikely reason for Sir John’s retirement. I simply stated that their reason for disbelieving that he retired due to ill health was strange.

In relation to point 9 above, I did not claim Sir John returned to Wales because he was under contract to do so. I merely suggested an alternative reason could be put forward to that given in Uncle Jack.

In relation to point 11, I was not casting doubt on George Hutchinson’s testimony I was merely pointing out that it did not relate directly to the description of John William mentioned in the book.

For the original Casebook discussion on MJK see this link
http://casebook.org/forum/messages/4925/17529.html (http://casebook.org/forum/messages/4925/17529.html)

I also want to say this - the maxim goes innocent until proven guilty. The arguments in Uncle Jack do not prove Sir John was the Ripper. Any systematic analysis of that book cannot fail but to come to the conclusion that it contains within it some serious problems in relation to making such a case. Most of these cannot be resolved in a way that would aid the argument that Sir John Williams should be remembered for anything other than his obstetrics, his delivery of Royal babies and his great contribution to the Welsh people in founding the National Library of Wales.

That the reputation of Tony Williams’ first cousin seven times removed should in any way need restoring is down solely to his own book. I hope my own research to the present date has served to aid the removal of any such link in the minds of people who have seen it. As the nature of my research is ongoing I hope to one day be able to remove fully any lingering doubts.

Long dead people cannot speak out to defend themselves from accusations of murder. However, through the living it may be possible, from historical documentation left behind, to give such people voice. I hope this is what I am able to do

Jennifer Pegg