Robert Louis Stevenson

[Lechmere]

Phil – if you were to unwittingly mention to a Richard III obsessive that you thought Edward IV was a ‘good king’ or that Elizabeth I was admirable in any way, then you had better don your battle bowler and take to the trenches. The amount of 15th century rumour or modern day speculation that is passed off as cast iron fact makes the Hutchinson debate look perfectly tame.

[Jonathan H]

It is sometimes put here that there is a strict, even doctrinal demarcation between studies of the Jack the Ripper mystery and something called 'suspect'-based Ripperology.

I think that the latter term has some validity when modern, secondary sources attempt to pin the murders on a suspect totally unknown to the authorities of the time -- with little or no complelling 'evidence'.

On the other hand, I think that when it comes to those men suspected by policemen of that era, their claims are as much a part of the Ripper mystery as the crimes themselves; that it cannot be split from the subject without deforming the mystery itself.

It is the 'second act', if you like, from the point of view of the incomplete surviving sources, and not an afterthought or an adendum.

Anderson, Swanson, Abberline, Macnaghten, and Littlechild, all pointed to specific suspects. That for each of them -- to arguably differing degrees -- the Ripper mystery was not a mystery from their point of view.

That they favoured different suspects is the fascinating and frustrating mystery left for us.

One possible, provisional solution is that the very lack of a consensus means that they all cancel each other out.

Another possible, provisional solution is that one, or more, of these policeman is a more reliable source than the others (eg. Anderson because he appears to be backed up by Swanson, whereas Macnaghten was not even at the Met at the time of the murders).

Thus to argue for a provisional solution -- because these police, to varying degress, thought it was solved -- means that you have to come up with a theory, or working paradigm, as to why they disagreed and yet still argue why one, or more, is a more valuable source than the others (eg. Abberline was the most experienced detective and he made no self-serving claims about solving the case in 1888, only belatedly and redundantly in 1903, and plus he comments directly on, and pointedly dismisses, competing suspects).

The importance of Robert Louis Stevenson to the Ripper case is that his blockbuster novella, 'The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde' (1886) becomes intertwined with the Whitechapel murders of 1888 to 1891 in highly suggestive ways, and was even, arguably, made to be interwined.

From the start the press depicted the killer as a potential, real-life Edward Hyde, as if the author's work had eerily prophesised the real crimes -- arguably a grotesque, tabloid exaggeration. Nonetheless, a theatrical adapation of the novella had to be shut down at the height of the scare to calm public sensibilities.

An even stronger connection to the classic novella is that in the late Victorian and Edwardian Eras two writers -- one very famous and widely-read -- and both with top police contacts, claimed that the chief suspect was indeed a figure who, by heavy implication, resembled Stevenson's fictional creation.

That of an English, middle-aged, affluent, reclusive, physician, with no patients but with hovering, concerned friends, who takes his own life as he is finally overcome by his own bestiality, just as the forces of justice inexorably close around him (Dr Jekyll meet 'Dr D').

This is one of the most tanatlizing and peculiar aspects of the entire mystery, as for many Edwardians there was no Ripper mystery as he was a real-life Jekyll and Hyde -- he was even a a doctor!

Yet in the same era there were significant cracks, even fissures, to challenge this too-cosy consensus. For example, there was the open scoffing by the retired field detectives, and at the other end of the class/rank food chain the memoirs of a very senior police chief who strongly advocated the guilt of a figure about as far removed from Stevenson's sci-fi melodrama as you could get: foreign, mad, poor, and obscure.

In the modern era, we know, as Edwardians did not and could not know, that this Stevensonian-adopted profile of 'Jack' as the Drowned Doctor Super-suspect, in significant ways, does not match the historical figure who lies beneath this perhaps literary-inspired profile.

[Phil H]

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...

And precisely how will plucking the name of RLS out of the sir and accusing him assist in answering any of those questions.

The proposal denigrates a great writer, without basis.

You have still to address my questions in an earlier post:

- where do experts on RLS or biographers suggest that there is a "hole" in his life that your "theory"(hah!) would fill?

- have you consulted the drafts of Ebb Tide or base your comments on the published version?

- what is the publishing history of Ebb Tide - did RLS ever revise it?

- is there any indication from a writer (other than you) that RLS might have had murderous intent or psychological problems?

- in which language did you read Ebb Tide?

- are there any other indications in RLS's wider published or unpublished writings that he was JtR?

- have you ever consulted RLS surviving papers? where are they kept? what do they indicate?

- where was RLS in the period August - November 1888 based on his surviving records, diaries, letters etc etc?

Phil

[jsantos]

Before I even try to answer any of your questions...

"The proposal denigrates a great writer, without basis."

Why??? As Patricia Cornwell denigrates the image of a great painter?
No. Certainly not. Walter Sickert will always be a great painter.
Has nothing to do one thing with another.
RLS was a great writer and will always be. One of the best writers of the XIX century.
Good attempt to dissuade me from what I think.

[Phil H]

Because one misguided writer acts in a reprehensible and misguided way, that provides licence for anyone to follow her, does it?

In fact Ms CornwEll, might be said to have more justification than yo do - Sickert identified himself with the murders in his own day and in his own way. Others have elaborated that over the years and there have been books discussing oral reports passed down from friends of his, as well as allegations by people like Joe Gorman which were picked up by Knight and Fairclough and resulted in books.

As far as I know, no one has ever discussed RLS before, until you decided to sully his name and reputation with wholly unfounded allegations and circumstantial smears. Not only do you assist in giving ipper studies a bad name, you pillory a man greater than you who cannot defend himself.

Phil

[jsantos]

"As far as I know, no one has ever discussed RLS before, until you decided to sully his name and reputation with wholly unfounded allegations and circumstantial smears. Not only do you assist in giving ipper studies a bad name, you pillory a man greater than you who cannot defend himself."

What a joke!

Before someone speak for the first time or write for the first time about James Maybrick no one spoke about him.

Before someone speak for the first time or write for the first time about Walter Sickert no one spoke about him.

Before someone speak for the first time or write for the first time about Francis Tumblety no one spoke about him.

Mr. Phil, with the greatest respect, what a great discovery!

Do you mean, if my theory is all about RLS, I should talk about someone else, for not hurt feelings.

If RLS is better writer than I, undoubtedly!
I repeat, because you don`t understand, RLS was and will always be one of the best writers ever!

And I`ll be better in anything else.

What does it matter!

[Phil H]

There are none so blind as those that cannot see.

Before someone speak for the first time or write for the first time about James Maybrick no one spoke about him.

Pardon me, but Maybrick was an alleged murder victim. Further, it was the so-called "Diary" which plunged him into the fray. I carry no brief for nor belief in the document, but forgery or not, there was a direct cause for Maybrick's involvement in the JtR case.

Before someone speak for the first time or write for the first time about Walter Sickert no one spoke about him.

Read my previous post, sir. Sickert himself talked about the murders and seemed to identify with them. Those who knew him seem to have passed down stories and Joe Gorman brought Sickertr into the frame in the early 70s. This was NOT a case of a Ripperologist simply picking his name out as a suspect and then seeking to attach suspicion in a loose and unsupported/unsustainable way. I do not believe that Ms Cornwell's book is significant or well-argued, but she did not pin the name "suspect" to Sickert.

Before someone speak for the first time or write for the first time about Francis Tumblety no one spoke about him.

Tumblety was researched and written about following the discovery of the Littlechild letter. Further, Tumblety appears to have been a contemporary suspect. SPE and others did not simply take him from thin air.

There may be a language issue here, and I want to be clear that I am talking about the status of the named individuals BEFORE they were explored as suspects in the modern era. In all cases there is an older shadow over the names. In your case, I see no prior association of RLS with the JtR case.

For your information, I am a great admirer of RLS - hence my dislike of your unsubstantiated smearing of a great writer.

Phil

[jsantos]

I repeat, because it seems difficult to understand. RLS is in my opinion one of the best writers ever! And Phil admires RLS as a writer! Or Phil lived in the XIX century?

[Phil H]

jsantos wrote: RLS is in my opinion one of the best writers ever!

So why besmirch his reputation and memory without cause or evidence?

By the way you have still failed to answer my highly pertinent questions:

- where do experts on RLS or biographers suggest that there is a "hole" in his life that your "theory"(hah!) would fill?

- have you consulted the drafts of Ebb Tide or base your comments on the published version?

- what is the publishing history of Ebb Tide - did RLS ever revise it?

- is there any indication from a writer (other than you) that RLS might have had murderous intent or psychological problems?

- in which language did you read Ebb Tide?

- are there any other indications in RLS's wider published or unpublished writings that he was JtR?

- have you ever consulted RLS surviving papers? where are they kept? what do they indicate?

- where was RLS in the period August - November 1888 based on his surviving records, diaries, letters etc etc?

[jsantos]

I think it has nothing to see the fact if RLS whether or not a great writer.

About your questions:
As I already said, "The Ebb-Tide" is a fictional story. I read several editions of the book, all in English and I doubt that the essence of this history is changed.

Is there any indication from a writer (other than you) that RLS might have had murderous intent or psychological problems?
First I`m not a writer and I just wrote things about RLS life that I read from other authors. If Phil understand that Robert had some psychological problem... What is proven is that RLS understands that every human being is duo. Many of his works speak about it. And that our good side can live regardless of what the bad do.

Are there any other indications in RLS's wider published or unpublished writings that he was JtR?
Like all other theories, someone has to be the first...

Have you ever consulted RLS surviving papers? where are they kept? what do they indicate? Where was RLS in the period August - November 1888 based on his surviving records, diaries, letters etc etc?
In my opinion, the only pertinent questions.
Of course I consulted several RLS books, several RLS letters, etc.
I answer with a simple question: Why do you think Jack was never caught and Jack`s identity remains unknown?

[TomTomKent]

Are there any other indications in RLS's wider published or unpublished writings that he was JtR?
Like all other theories, someone has to be the first...

I assume there is a problem with translation here, as that answer makes no sense regarding the question. The question asks if there is any indication in the writings of RLS, published or otherwise, to suggest he was JtR (or by extension any form of mental illness that could be suggestive of psychopathic tendencies in general). The answers should be "Yes" (with evidence) or "No".

The answer given was "Someone has to be the first". To do what? To interpret the writings? To have read them? It appears to be answering a different question. Sorry.

I answer with a simple question: Why do you think Jack was never caught and Jack`s identity remains unknown?

This is also a non-answer. You may well have read any number of letters, biographies, or papers. But you have supplied nothing that answers the question either way. Again there should be a simple "Yes he was in the area" with evidence, or a "no, I do not know if he was there".

Suggesting a conspiracy with a "well why do you think..." answer weakens the case. It suggests you will attempt to use a lack of evidence as evidence itself, and smacks of the sheer unbridled sillyness of your earlier suggestion that Mac might have protected RLS because he was Scottish and a bit famous.

The null hypothosis for your question "Why do you think Jack was never caught and Jacks identity remains unknown" is not that Jack was somebody famous, influential, or any form of conspiracy. It is that Jack was one of several million residents of London who did not happen to be famous, and the Police investigation was unable to identify with enough evidence to prosecute.

Of course I have to add the caveat that depending how you interpret the documents available written by varying officers related to the case the identity could be understood as being "unknown" only to the wider public. The documents we do have, such as the marginalia, that were written for personal use (and have no reason to lie or promote any conspiracy) lean away from your "theory", suggesting that RLS is a bad fit for the case in general.

What does seem to underpin this argument, and many of the attributes you apply to RLS being "like" JtR does suggest you are cherry picking evidence from the Ripper end to fit the theory, as well as cherry picking which aspects of the life of RLS you think sounds somehow sinister. One of your points was that RLS had known prostitutes. And we are surprised at this? How many other men of his age in his time took illicit trade? Should we suspect them as well?

[jsantos]

"I assume there is a problem with translation here..." - Tom
You have absolutely right, I don`t understand the question. I`m Sorry.

"This is also a non-answer. You may well have read any number of letters, biographies, or papers. But you have supplied nothing that answers the question either way. Again there should be a simple "Yes he was in the area" with evidence, or a "no, I do not know if he was there"." - Tom
Again, you have right.
"Why do you think Jack was never caught and Jacks identity remains unknown?" I`ll try to explain what I mean by this question.
In my opinion, "The Ebb-Tide" is a confession. In this book are several references to the fact that RLS has committed the crimes and his escape to Samoa in a boat. Once again, in my opinion, there are too many coincidences with events that have happened in reality. And I don`t believe in these coincidences. So if RLS was Jack the Ripper, is evident that he was in Whitechapel from August to November 1888, and their escape to samoa was a hoax. Why do you think Jack was never caught and Jacks identity remains unknown? Because RLS made everyone believed that he was going to samoa at the time that Jack committed the crimes. If RLS would never be caught, no one would suspect them. There is no better alibi. But in "The Ebb-Tide", it leaves the idea that the trip to Samoa was a hoax and he escaped by boat only when he was close to be arrested.

[TomTomKent]

O of course they may not be coincidences because RLS was a writer, who like everybody else had read about the most publicised murders in human history. He, like several other writers before and since, took inspiration from real events.

There is a chain of logic here that you have yet to follow. You seem to be suggesting that RLS could ONLY have based his writings on the JtR murders if he was JtR. Yet you have failed to show thaat he had any knowledge that could not have been gained from simply reading a newspaper.

You go further by suggesting that if RLS was not in Samoa it was an alibi for being JtR, with out proving he was not in Samoa, that he was in Whitechappel, or any of the steps in between. Each step takes us further from the Null, and each is based on increasing speculation and fewer facts.

Assume for a second that RLS was in Whitechappel. Does that make him JtR? Or is it equally possible that if he happened to be hanging out with other literay types in London when the JtR killings hit their stride he might do what writers do, and make notes, do research, and get all the "coincidental knowledge" with out having to kill the prostitutes himself? That itself ignores the very real possibility that he may have simply read about the case in the deluge of press cover. The coverage was world wide. It was exactly the kind of subject we would expect RLS to taake an interest in, so why not?

As with Sickert you are basing your case on evidence of knowledge that only Jack, and anybody who read a newspaper, could possibly have had. Making it far from exceptional, and it is something we have seen before and since with other writers. Harris did not have to be Ted Bundy to use traits from that case when creating the "Tooth Fairy" in Red Dragon. Robert Bloch did not have to be John Wayne Gacy to write Psycho. And so forth.

[jsantos]

No one can convince me that Jack the Ripper has nothing to do with the story of Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde.

As I already said "Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde" contains many coincidences with Jack`s story. And these coincidences are not bigger because RLS was forced by his wife to burn his first version of the "Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde". Then he committed the crimes and then it can talk about them in the form of a fictional story, without being censored. Writing a confession - "The Ebb-Tide".

In the last chapter of the book "Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde" is also dedicated to a confession.

And this is not just a coincidence. Jack used to say he loved games and would continue to play...

[GregBaron]

Love of Literature...

Robert Bloch did not have to be John Wayne Gacy to write Psycho

I believe Psycho was based on Ed Gein TomTomKent but I otherwise accept your position...

I must congratulate jsantos on one thing, I now intend to read the 'Ebb-Tide'
as this is one I'd neglected...

One can read 'The Picture of Dorian Gray' as a confessional of sin enacted in low life places...........this brings Oscar Wilde into the suspect picture.......although I don't recall anyone seeing a rotund dandy prancing about in blue velvet...

Also, like nearly everyone writing in the 19th century, RLS was influenced by Edgar Allan Poe who wrote tale(s) of dual identity.......off the top I think William Wilson may have been one.........anyway, I'd put Poe on the list except that he died in 1849.......this I would expect hurts his candidacy....


Greg