Jack The Ripper solved?

[Stewart P Evans]

No...

Stewart,
It sounds like you regret writing and publishing The Lodger.
... Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

No, I don't regret writing The Lodger, it had to be done. If I hadn't someone else would have done and it was I who 'discovered' Tumblety. Until 1995, when the book was published, his name was unknown in Ripper circles.

However, that said there were great obstacles to overcome. First we were on a publishing deadline of only ten months as I had foolishly said too much in a TV documentary that I participated in in 1994. From the clues I had given the TV people (based in New York) were able to identify Tumblety and were going to include him in the documentary meaning we had to get the book out either first or contemporaneously with the release of the documentary in 1995. There were no digital newspaper sources to search back in 1995 and we had to rely on Keith Skinner, visits to Colindale and Paul Gainey's research trip to the USA. Even then were able to locate only a fraction of the available material on Tumblety. Also, at this time, the dreaded 'diary' was emerging on an unsuspecting 'Ripperworld'.

The plus side was that we received a five-figure sum (each) as an advance from the publishers, we were working on a genuine 1888 suspect and had unpublished primary source material on the suspect (the Littlechild letter).

Our book was published just in time and contained much new material on the case as well as the 'new' suspect. I am not sure of the exact figure but around 47,000 copies of the book have sold. Of course I would have preferred not to have written a book that was presenting the case for a single suspect. But that was how it was.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Stewart,

10 months in which to research and write a finished manuscript sounds very grueling. I take it both you and Paul were already retired by that time? Let me ask you this - had you not discovered Tumblety and were therefore compelled to write that book, do you think you would have ever written a Ripper book, let alone half a dozen of them?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hunter]

Back to the original post on this thread...
Excerpts from the article and Trevor Marriott's quotes are in bold and quotation marks:



“ 'The facts of this case have been totally distorted over the years,' said Mr Marriott. 'The general public have been completely misled by any number of authors and publishers.' "

This is true to a large extent.

“ 'Jack is supposed to be responsible for five victims, but there were other similar murders before and after the ones attributed to him, both in this country and abroad in America and Germany.' ”

This is true, too.


"In total Mr Marriott has discovered 17 unsolved Ripper-like murders committed between 1863 and 1894. He believes a German merchant seaman called Carl Feigenbaum was responsible for some, but not all of those killings.
Feigenbaum was a crew member on ships that regularly docked near Whitechapel. He was executed in New York in 1896 after being caught by US police fleeing the scene of a Ripper-style murder there."

Has it been established through the records that Feigenbaum, or 'Zahn' as was sometimes his surname, was a crew member of any of these ships at the time of the murders in Whitechapel?... supposition does not count. As you say, Trevor, let's deal with facts.

“'The reality is there was just a series of unsolved murders and they would have sunk into oblivion many years ago, but for a reporter called Thomas Bulling,' said Mr Marriott. Bulling was a drunken journalist with many police contacts at Scotland Yard, who in 1888 was working for the London-based Central News Agency. He was paid to supply crime stories for newspapers.
'Police got a letter that Bulling had written about the murders which he signed ‘Jack the Ripper’, said Mr Marriott. 'It was the most ingenious piece of journalism that has kept this mystery alive for 125 years. Even now any modern-day serial killer is called a ‘Ripper’.' "

This was apparently the view of certain top SY officials. You are mainly referring to Jack Littlechild's impression in his letter to Sims, found by Stewart P. Evans. So, how is any of this some new revelation? This article, to anyone not familiar with the history of the case, implies that this is a new deduction made by you. Either by accident or by design that is a deception.

“ 'You have to ask yourself if ‘Jack’ is an urban myth. Around 80 per cent of the books about him have a picture of a chap on the front stalking the streets of London in a long black cape and a top hat. They were the clothes of an upper class, wealthy man. But back in 1888 if someone dressed like that had actually walked around Whitechapel in the dead of night they wouldn't’t have lasted five minutes. It wasn't’t just one of the most crime-riddled areas of London, it was one of the worst areas in the country. It’s a false image that has been created by the likes of Hollywood film makers.' "

I don't know if the former would be completely likely or not, but the 'myth of Jack the Ripper' has been out there. But the very Ripperologists who you now accuse of having 'blinkers on' are well aware of these myths and regularly debunk them.

“ 'New facts have come to light, we’ve now disproved the claim that the killer removed organs from the victims at the scenes of the murders, the organs were removed later once they were in a mortuary.' "

You have produced no new facts, but have disregarded contemporary evidence such as Dr. Phillips testifying that Annie Chapman had organs removed at the scene. This is disregarding direct contemporary evidence for the sake of a theory.

“ 'There just isn't a Jack The Ripper as such.' ”

That is probably true. And I would go so far as to include many Ripperologists' perceptions of what 'Jack' should be and do in their inclusion or exclusion of certain victims - just look at the Stride thread - but evidence does strongly suggest that a serial murderer may have been at large at the time. Even you apparently concede that several of these murders could have been committed by the same person.

So, how have you solved this case?

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

Hi Stewart,
10 months in which to research and write a finished manuscript sounds very grueling. I take it both you and Paul were already retired by that time? Let me ask you this - had you not discovered Tumblety and were therefore compelled to write that book, do you think you would have ever written a Ripper book, let alone half a dozen of them?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Yes it was very gruelling, and no, neither nor Paul nor I were retired at the time which made it even more difficult.

Until I purchased the Littlechild letter I had no intention of writing a Ripper book but on realizing I had stumbled upon a 'new' and genuine suspect I had little option but to write one. It was at a time when commercial publishers were really accepting only sensational books on the subject, preferably offering a fresh suspect.

However, books such as Don Rumbelow's and the A-Z had already begun to pave the way as had, to a degree, Phil Sugden.

[Stewart P Evans]

Is Trevor a pot?

Back to the original post on this thread...
Excerpts from the article and Trevor Marriott's quotes are in bold and quotation marks:
“ 'The facts of this case have been totally distorted over the years,' said Mr Marriott. 'The general public have been completely misled by any number of authors and publishers.' "
This is true to a large extent.
...

This is true of just about any cult subject you care to delve into. It is also a fact that should be obvious to any reader with common sense who looks a little more deeply into the subject.

It is amusing to see Trevor running on about how past authors and publishers have been misleading when he is carrying on in the same tradition himself, the words pot and kettle spring to mind.

[Stewart P Evans]

Image

Back to the original post on this thread...
Excerpts from the article and Trevor Marriott's quotes are in bold and quotation marks:
...
“ 'You have to ask yourself if ‘Jack’ is an urban myth. Around 80 per cent of the books about him have a picture of a chap on the front stalking the streets of London in a long black cape and a top hat. They were the clothes of an upper class, wealthy man. But back in 1888 if someone dressed like that had actually walked around Whitechapel in the dead of night they wouldn't’t have lasted five minutes. It wasn't’t just one of the most crime-riddled areas of London, it was one of the worst areas in the country. It’s a false image that has been created by the likes of Hollywood film makers.' "
I don't know if the former would be completely likely or not, but the 'myth of Jack the Ripper' has been out there. But the very Ripperologists who you now accuse of having 'blinkers on' are well aware of these myths and regularly debunk them.
...

The image of 'Jack the Ripper' wearing a top hat, a long black coat or cape, and carrying a Gladstone bag dates right back to the time of the murders and is thus one of the contemporary images of him.

With the doctors frequenting the London Hospital, and their surgeries, in Whitechapel, late night theatre-goers attending the Pavilion Theatre and wealthy Jews, as well as 'toffs' slumming, there were people dressed that way on the streets.

[Stewart P Evans]

I try...

Stewart,
...
And I suppose you're being facetious when you say you're not a nice person. I don't believe that's true at all.
...
Tom Wescott

I try not to be facetious.

[booth]

hmmm....

I'm not looking for these...When I Google Jack The Ripper it seems lots of people are keen to review Mr Marriot's show...

http://www.whtimes.co.uk/what-s-on/spending_an_evening_with_jack_the_ripper_1_2992060

Best wishes ,

Booth

[HelenaWojtczak]

When I search eBay for JACK THE RIPPER BOOK I get

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/jack-the-ripper-book-/151161905698?pt=Non_Fiction&hash=item2331f3a222

... Mr Marriott's!

[Stewart P Evans]

Top-Hatted

Top-Hatted image of Jack the Ripper of 17 November 1888.

[Trevor Marriott]

Back to the original post on this thread...
Excerpts from the article and Trevor Marriott's quotes are in bold and quotation marks:



“ 'The facts of this case have been totally distorted over the years,' said Mr Marriott. 'The general public have been completely misled by any number of authors and publishers.' "

This is true to a large extent.

“ 'Jack is supposed to be responsible for five victims, but there were other similar murders before and after the ones attributed to him, both in this country and abroad in America and Germany.' ”

This is true, too.


"In total Mr Marriott has discovered 17 unsolved Ripper-like murders committed between 1863 and 1894. He believes a German merchant seaman called Carl Feigenbaum was responsible for some, but not all of those killings.
Feigenbaum was a crew member on ships that regularly docked near Whitechapel. He was executed in New York in 1896 after being caught by US police fleeing the scene of a Ripper-style murder there."

Has it been established through the records that Feigenbaum, or 'Zahn' as was sometimes his surname, was a crew member of any of these ships at the time of the murders in Whitechapel?... supposition does not count. As you say, Trevor, let's deal with facts.

“'The reality is there was just a series of unsolved murders and they would have sunk into oblivion many years ago, but for a reporter called Thomas Bulling,' said Mr Marriott. Bulling was a drunken journalist with many police contacts at Scotland Yard, who in 1888 was working for the London-based Central News Agency. He was paid to supply crime stories for newspapers.
'Police got a letter that Bulling had written about the murders which he signed ‘Jack the Ripper’, said Mr Marriott. 'It was the most ingenious piece of journalism that has kept this mystery alive for 125 years. Even now any modern-day serial killer is called a ‘Ripper’.' "

This was apparently the view of certain top SY officials. You are mainly referring to Jack Littlechild's impression in his letter to Sims, found by Stewart P. Evans. So, how is any of this some new revelation? This article, to anyone not familiar with the history of the case, implies that this is a new deduction made by you. Either by accident or by design that is a deception.

“ 'You have to ask yourself if ‘Jack’ is an urban myth. Around 80 per cent of the books about him have a picture of a chap on the front stalking the streets of London in a long black cape and a top hat. They were the clothes of an upper class, wealthy man. But back in 1888 if someone dressed like that had actually walked around Whitechapel in the dead of night they wouldn't’t have lasted five minutes. It wasn't’t just one of the most crime-riddled areas of London, it was one of the worst areas in the country. It’s a false image that has been created by the likes of Hollywood film makers.' "

I don't know if the former would be completely likely or not, but the 'myth of Jack the Ripper' has been out there. But the very Ripperologists who you now accuse of having 'blinkers on' are well aware of these myths and regularly debunk them.

“ 'New facts have come to light, we’ve now disproved the claim that the killer removed organs from the victims at the scenes of the murders, the organs were removed later once they were in a mortuary.' "

You have produced no new facts, but have disregarded contemporary evidence such as Dr. Phillips testifying that Annie Chapman had organs removed at the scene. This is disregarding direct contemporary evidence for the sake of a theory.

“ 'There just isn't a Jack The Ripper as such.' ”

That is probably true. And I would go so far as to include many Ripperologists' perceptions of what 'Jack' should be and do in their inclusion or exclusion of certain victims - just look at the Stride thread - but evidence does strongly suggest that a serial murderer may have been at large at the time. Even you apparently concede that several of these murders could have been committed by the same person.

So, how have you solved this case?

No I haven't solved the case far from it simply dispelled many of the myths and wild speculative theories that have propped this mystery up and kept it alive all of these years.

There is no denying that a serial killer was at work but not one whose name was Jack the Ripper. It is that name that has helped to keep this mystery alive from the public's perception. They picture a man with a black hat, black bag etc, killing women and removing organs which clearly is a false image created by television and authors and the press over the years.

Had it not been for that name and the myths that have surrounded this what would be left? Nothing more than a series of similar unsolved murders that had it not been for the aforementioned would have drifted into obscurity many years ago.

As far as Dr Phillips and Annie Chapman why do you continue to raise this same issue despite clearly several times being told and shown that what you suggest is totally wrong. Do you only see what you want to see and accept what you think is correct?

[lynn cates]

Mything the mark.

Hello Trevor.

"There is no denying that a serial killer was at work . . . "

Indeed? Whilst dispelling myths, shall we focus on this one?

Cheers.
LC

[Siobhan Patricia Mulcahy]

Hi all,

Found this today:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/431148/Jack-the-Ripper-mystery-solved-by-top-detective-after-125-years

Apparently we don't need to talk about it anymore, it's all been solved.

Rich

The writer claims that the womens' organs were removed in the mortuaries tending the bodies. If that's true, it really throws a spanner in the works!

[caz]

Hello Trevor.

"There is no denying that a serial killer was at work . . . "

Indeed? Whilst dispelling myths, shall we focus on this one?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

If you have 'solved' the murders of Nichols and Chapman, do you believe their killer had never attacked a woman previously, and would never have killed a third time, given the chance?

While he might not perfectly fit the somewhat arbitrary definition of serial killer (must have at least three victims), wouldn't that only be because you don't know what else he may have done in the past, or would have gone on to do, if not for circumstances beyond his personal control?

If Ian Brady had fallen under a bus, or Peter Sutcliffe crashed his lorry, before they could kill the magic three times, would they have been any less the serial 'monsters' we know them to have been?

It's a fine line, isn't it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Jenni Shelden]

On the one hand, known plagurist and self confessed liar Trevor Marriott

on the other, the incomparable fountain of knowledge and sense that is Mr Stewart P. Evans

that is all
Jenni