Robert Louis Stevenson

[TomTomKent]

In "The Ebb-Tide" RLS writes a fictional story based on moments of your life as Jack he Ripper and the reasons that led him to commit such atrocities. I truly believe it`s a confession.
There are too many coincidences with his life and the Jack`s story. But let`s see...
Refers to, in this case, 6 crimes, 3 letters, 1 message on the wall, an alias, the word Whitechapel. Also refers to his illness, tuberculosis, his escape by boat to Samoa and the farce that involves his escape. Their feelings of loneliness, despair, and the fact that he hates women. Beyond Samoa, also refers to London, California, San Francisco, Tahiti, places where Robert was present. Phrases like "cut your throat" or "...the disfigured corpse" demonstrate an extremely violent language. The duality of his character, and so much more...
How ridiculous is trying to compare this story with others from other writers who may also have coincidences with the Jack.
I challenge someone to find a story that has much in common with the Jack`s story like "The Ebb-Tide". Is impossible and why? Because "The Ebb-Tide" was written by Jack the Ripper.
I don`t have explained many aspects of this theory, because my English is very bad. I`m sorry for that.

It was also written six years after the fact. The story may well have much in common with the "facts", but they were not facts that only the Ripper knew. They were facts that had been widely reported.

Your conjectures of the duality is an assumed aspect you have applied to Jack to make your theory fit, not something we know about Jack a suspect must have. You could as easily assume that Jack has to dislike Mondays or read penny dreadfuls. It is not proof.

To say it is impossible for somebody to use their imagination and write a story that has some simalarities to what you think the perpetrator of the mostly widely publicised murders in the world at the time is just silly. You have proven that either RLS or his co-author and stepson Lloyd Osborne were interested in the murders. Hardly a surprise.

The thing you have to prove is not that it is ridiculous to make simaler comparrisons to equally valid authors who also wrote stories with simalarities to the murders. It is up to you to prove thaat there are reasonable grounds why this is not a silly comparrison itself. Why only Jack the Ripper could have written this.
You have yet to do so, except in your opinion.


Let's go back to an example that somebody else mentioned before: There is a comparable conspiracy theory that suggests the Titanic sank not after an accident but a deliberate scuppering. The entire basis of the theory is this book:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futility,_or_the_Wreck_of_the_Titan

Just like your theory it is based on the idea that somebody has to know something, because nobody could just imagine the fine details. Unlike your theory it at least had somebody imagining the events fifteen years before the event, not six years after the events had become known to the vast majority of the population.

Just like your theory it falls down on the basis that all it proves is the author happens to be the sort of person who would be interested in the case. Not commit it. We can say for sure that Morgan Robertson was the kind of writer who would enjoy speculating what would happen if the new breed of proposed super liners hit a tragedy. Stephenson, writing macarbre stories would be the sort of person who would have taken an interest in the Ripper case. But that does not mean we can trawl through his past picking aspects we then claim "Just like Jack!" Especially when they fall into one of two groups:
1) Something that might be true of Jack, but is in no way exclusive of Jack.
2) Something we are only assuming about Jack to suit a theory.

Every single one of the reasons you give for RLS as a suspect falls into those categories. By those standards we could literally make a case about anybody in the popular eye.

[jsantos]

Mr. Tom,
Your words are, one more time, an attempt to bring down this theory.

Titanic again???
This is not the titanic story, this is the Jack the Ripper story.
As I said many posts ago...
There was a book published, some years before the Titanic sank.
The Ebb-Tide was a book published, some years after the Jack the Ripper murders.
It`s different. But ok, in your opinion is the same thing.

Lloyd Osbourne again???
As I said many posts ago...
"MY DEAR COLVIN, - Your pleasing letter RE THE EBB TIDE, to
hand. I propose, if it be not too late, to delete Lloyd's
name. He has nothing to do with the last half. The first we
wrote together, as the beginning of a long yarn. The second
is entirely mine; and I think it rather unfair on the young
man to couple his name with so infamous a work." - RLS words
Lloyd just helped RLS with some ideas for the story.
Are you kidding me? Who is Lloyd? Some writer? I don`t think so...

I read "The Ebb-Tide" for the first time after I study in depth the life and work of RLS. It was no surprise to me. In the beginning, what caught my attention was the "Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde" story.

[TomTomKent]

Yes, the Titan was written BEFORE the events, which is the only reason that theory was given credence. The timing was the only reason a claim could be made (wrongly) that the author had information that was only available to the conspiracy.

As you point out, your claim is based on a book that was published six years later. WHICHMEANS YOUR CLAIM ONLY THE MURDER WAS ABLE TO KNOW SOMETHING ARE WRONG. You have supplied no data in any work that was not publically available.


RLS writing about the murders based on information anybody else might have isnot good grounds for a theory.

Santos, I assume you posted your theory here for critique and peer review. If that is so, then look at the criticism offered and acknowledge the areas you would need to address to make the theory viable. Simply saying other theories are weak, or complaining that people remind you off the holes doesn't remove them. The same issues will keep coming back because they are big problems you haven't addressed with suitable proof. (Gosh Jack the Ripper can lie about not killing people, but is telling the absolute truth about his co-author? how do you know his demand was intended to remove the name of the real killer?)

You cant put RLS in the area, the knife in his hand, or prove him to be anybody other one of the thousands who read about the case. Ebb and Tide is no more a confession than Treasure Island.

[jsantos]

"Yes, the Titan was written BEFORE the events, which is the only reason that theory was given credence. The timing was the only reason a claim could be made (wrongly) that the author had information that was only available to the conspiracy." - "Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde" was also written BEFORE the crimes. It also contains many coincidences with Jack`s story. And you know why the coincidences are not bigger? Because RLS was forced by his wife to burn his first version of the "Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde". And why "The Ebb-Tide" was made after the crimes? Because he committed the crimes and then it can talk about them in the form of a fictional story, without being censored.

"Santos, I assume you posted your theory here for critique and peer review." - Absolutely yes. But I must admit that the jokes don`t help any theory.

[TomTomKent]

"Yes, the Titan was written BEFORE the events, which is the only reason that theory was given credence. The timing was the only reason a claim could be made (wrongly) that the author had information that was only available to the conspiracy." - "Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde" was also written BEFORE the crimes. It also contains many coincidences with Jack`s story. And you know why the coincidences are not bigger? Because RLS was forced by his wife to burn his first version of the "Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde". And why "The Ebb-Tide" was made after the crimes? Because he committed the crimes and then it can talk about them in the form of a fictional story, without being censored.

"Santos, I assume you posted your theory here for critique and peer review." - Absolutely yes. But I must admit that the jokes don`t help any theory.

Pure speculation. You have absolutely no evidence for there being more references in the first draft. No evidence that the simalarities are any more than coincidence. No evidence that the Ebb tide is anything other than fictional. RLS did not have to commit the crimes to be inspired to write about them (by that virtue we would have to seriously consider Sickert for simply "knowing too much" when he painted the Room).

Your theory is utterly with out substance or evidence, it is based entirely upon your assumption, then a confirmation bias looking for "supporting evidence" to confirm what you "know", and nothing that actually moves us away from the null hypothosis.

The Wreck of the Titan was fiction that "predicted" a tragedgy coincidentally. The "Lone Gunmen" TV series did the same for 9/11. Hundreds of other works of fiction seem to predict future events when we read them in hindsight. Jekyll and Hide is no different, and neither it, nor the Ebb Tide prove RLS was anything other than a writer of fiction.

[jsantos]

"The Wreck of the Titan was fiction that "predicted" a tragedgy coincidentally. The "Lone Gunmen" TV series did the same for 9/11. Hundreds of other works of fiction seem to predict future events when we read them in hindsight. Jekyll and Hide is no different, and neither it, nor the Ebb Tide prove RLS was anything other than a writer of fiction."

I have no doubt, RLS is a writer of fiction. But sometimes writers relate "things" from their lives in their stories. "The Ebb-Tide" is full of experiences about RLS life. And this is not any speculation, much less any coincidence.

"Yes, the Titan was written BEFORE the events, which is the only reason that theory was given credence. The timing was the only reason a claim could be made (wrongly) that the author had information that was only available to the conspiracy." - Tom words

If the fact that the "Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde" was written before the events of jack have bothered Tom, I apologize, but RLS is who was the blame.

Soon I tell you more facts about this theory.
greetings

[Phil H]

What saddens me about this thread is that it demonstrates that, as a group, we have not yet evolved from the "let's pick a famous person and see whether we can make the evidence fit", school of Ripperology.

Frankly, I thought that after the Lewis Carroll, Dr Barnardo and similar theories, we had grown out of this nonsense - apparently not.

The features of the genre, which appear to appeal to some, are;

a) the utter lack of actual evidence of involvement;

b) total reliance on circumstantial (usually written/literary) connections which are imprecise; and

c) using a famous name as something of their movements can be known (A N Other would be more difficult).

But the theories are never based on full, detailed and convincing study and analysis of the individual chosen, but on selective extracts from generally available sources.

In this case, have earlier (manuscript) versions/drafts of the "Ebb Tide" been examined to see how RLS's mind changed as he worked? Or is this based simply on the published version - because, if so, that would be unsatisfactory?

Have there been more than one version of the published work? What is its history? How does it relate, in style and content to other RLS works?

When will people learn that pointing fingers and making puerile associations, is neither useful or realistic. When I see the research and attention to detail being devoted to subjects like Le Grand, or Tumblety, Kosminski or even Druitt, I despair that anyone should want to promote such a flimsy trinket as this.

The amazing thing is to me that, at this point in 2011 we have spent PAGES of Casebook discussing this nonsense as if anyone but the originator took it seriously!!

Phil

[Phil H]

can I just add that, in these cases where a famous person is "plucked from the crossbar" as a "suspect", their biographers - whom one suspects have done their research and know their subjects - have never said:

* there's a vacuum at the centre of this person's life;

* they were clearly mentally disturbed;

* something made them remorseful in their later years;

* we have found some papers that make no sense; etc etc.

In other words, the EXPERTS on the individual have found no basis for hypotheses that have no evidence of their own.

Sorry for posting twice in succession,

Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

What saddens me about this thread is that it demonstrates that, as a group, we have not yet evolved from the "let's pick a famous person and see whether we can make the evidence fit", school of Ripperology.

Frankly, I thought that after the Lewis Carroll, Dr Barnardo and similar theories, we had grown out of this nonsense - apparently not.

Hi Phil

With due respect, who is the "we" that you are talking about? I think it probable that there will always be individuals who pursue a theory about a certain suspect, despite the weight of evidence against their particular theory. As usual with such theories, certain aspects are promoted to "prove" that the suspect must have been the killer and other facts that would argue that the suspect could not have been the murderer are either ignored or dismissed.

Such advocates of a particular suspect will argue for their theory even though those who have studied the case don't see anything in their arguments. They persist because they are convinced that they are right. There were examples of such people at the time of the murders such as customs employee Edward Larkins and alienist L. Forbes Winslow. Their ideas were readily dismissed by the policemen of the day. Same type of thing, different era.

Best regards

Chris

[Phil H]

Chris,

The "We" was intended as a recognition that there is a society of Ripper enthusiasts that seeks advancement in study and a raising of thresholds.

I don't question that there are those still in a sort of "kindergarten" drinking milk, not yet ready for the red meat (sorry if that pun is rather inappropriate) of mature study. As an illustration, I am aware that there are children's history books, but I would not approve if that was the limit of a prospective undergraduate's reading. He would neither grasp nor benefit from discussions at the higher level.

Surely all of us should aim to encourage newcomers to this subject to leave the shallows as quickly as possible.

I am always fascinated by the contrast between Ricardians (those with an interest in rehabilitating Richard III) and "Ripperologists".

The former have banded together to put up memorials at places associated with Richard and his family (Middleham, Leicester etc) and created foundations to support academic study of the C15th and publication of period sources such as Richard's wardrobe accounts. as a result C15th syudies are now taken immeasurably more seriously by the wider historical world than they were even 30 years ago.

I see no equivolence of that here or in "Ripper-studies" generally, and the tolerance of the mad-cap and puerile is frankly one reason why that is true.

Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Phil

I would argue contrary to what you are saying that there has been a raising of standards in the field, with the publication for example of Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner's The Ultimate and Philip Sugden's The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. Both those works are of academic standard. Even in the realm of suspect-driven books Evans and Gainey's Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer aka The Lodger about Tumblety and Robert House's Jack the Ripper and the Case for Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect about Aaron Kosminski are immeasurably better books and more carefully written than other suspect books. Both provide a solid discussion of the case, even if we disagree with the authors' views about the particular suspect.

Best regards

Chris

[TomTomKent]

I have no doubt, RLS is a writer of fiction. But sometimes writers relate "things" from their lives in their stories. "The Ebb-Tide" is full of experiences about RLS life. And this is not any speculation, much less any coincidence.

And sometimes they write things that are not based on their experiences.

Unless you can prove RLS was Jack the Ripper with actual tangible evidence how can your suspicion be anything other than speculation? You can prove anything else, or indeed everything else, an author wrote was based on experience. But unless you can prove otherwise you are left to speculate he was JtR.

The Ebb Tide may well draw on experiences, but that does not stop it being fiction, and is no way evidence that "if X was drawn from experience then Y must have been too." What you are actually doing is saying "because X was drawn on his experience I speculate that Y was also drawn from experience".

If you are basing your "theory" on speculation, don't pretend it is anything else or you lose credence.

[TomTomKent]

If the fact that the "Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde" was written before the events of jack have bothered Tom, I apologize, but RLS is who was the blame.

And that is why I said it was no difference from those other "predictions", which were entirely coincidental and did not require the author of Wreck of the Titan to be responsible for the Titanic, or the script editor of "Lone Gunmen" to actually fly a passenger jet in to the World Trade Centre.

[Phil H]

I entirely agree that the books are of "worth", but they are the products of individuals. I could add a few volumes to your list too: the A-Z (which while flawed has more than proved its usefulness to me); From Hall - the letters, which I bracket with the Ultimate; Neil Sheldon's work...

Ripperology has found no real vehicle for harnessing all the enthusiasm, and all too often what I see is in-fighting (as frequent resignations from Casebook or the arguments over the most recent documentary sometimes seem to indicate).

We do not seem to have developed any framwork in which students of this case can work in greater harmony and to promote the overall subject. Neither really have we brought on board established Victorian social historians or shown Ripper studies to be a valid subject for university study. I believe that the difference to Richard III studies is that Ripperologists are still commercially motivated in many cases - though I am aware that proceeds from books on the subject may not be lavish.

Phil

[jsantos]

It`s true Phil, we are in 2011. 123 years after the Jack the Ripper crimes. And what has been learned about Jack? Nothing, only speculation. After all, how many victims Jack made? What are the reasons that led him to commit such atrocities? Where he was hiding, where he lived? How could escape without being caught? And most important of all, what is your identity? Who was Jack the Ripper...
If someone comes up with a new theory and to answer these and other questions will never be taken seriously. If you can answer all these questions will always be on the basis of assumptions, then, is not credible.
If the suspect is someone famous, then it`s not credible.
If anyone ever discovered the true identity of jack is evident that was not taken seriously.
Regardless of the sadness that Phil feels about this theory, I will try, with my bad English, describing several points that caught my attention for RLS as suspect in the ripper case.