"A Chance Meeting In Paris"

[Mike Covell]

It is an essay by E. Katharine Bates with the title 'A Travelling Borderlander in the Western World', sub-titled 'West Indian Magic and Keeley's Motor.'

Part I has the title 'Duppies, Obeah, and Other Specialities of the West Indies.' (Philadelphia March 22, 1897.) with sub-paragraphs 'Duppies and Their Ways'; 'Gliding Through the Air'; 'Hard on the Duppies'; 'Obeah'; 'Evil Auras'; 'A Case in Point'; 'Another Instance'; 'Psychic Influence'; 'The Use of Obeah'; 'Obeah Romanized'; 'A Miraculous Shower of Stones'; 'A Rainmaker Indoors'; 'The West Indian Vampire'; and 'Cannibalism in Hayti'.

Part II has the title 'Keeley and His Machine.'

It's certainly D'Onston style tosh, I'll give it that.

Couldn't agree more, but I am intrigued as to what "Duppies" are!
Ah, her we go, Duppies are Caribbean Malevolent Spirits!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duppy

[Mike Covell]

Yes! I have "Real Ghost Stories" but wish to get hold of "More ..."
I heard that Estelle Stead had mentioned her father had included a version of "Dead or Alive" in this edition!

To date I have,
“Dead or Alive Review of Reviews 1892“. (New Year's Extra Number)

“Man’s Survival After Death Vol 1“, Rev. Charles Tweedale, Psychic Book Club, 1909. (Parts 1 and 2)

"Phantasms of the Dead or True Ghost Stories", Hereward Carrington, American Universtities Publishing, 1920

"The Lovers of Porthangwartha", "Popular Romances of the West of England" London: John Camden Hotten, 1871

“Ghosts and Legends of Yorkshire” by Terence W Whitaker, Granada Publishing, 1983.

"Sorry You've Been Duped", Melvin Harris, George Weidenfield and Nicholson ltd, 1986

"Investigating the Unexplained", Melvin Harris, Prometheus books, 1986

Great Hull Stories, Len Markham, Fort Publishing, 2003

"Real Ghost Stories", William T Stead, 1st World Library, 2007

And the version in the O'Donnell, True Face of JTR and Black Magic Rituals.

[Stewart P Evans]

A Travelling Borderlander

Anyway, what is the article mentioned,
XII A Travelling Borderlander?
That looks quite interesting, in fact it all does.

It is an essay by E. Katharine Bates with the title 'A Travelling Borderlander in the Western World', sub-titled 'West Indian Magic and Keeley's Motor.'

Part I has the title 'Duppies, Obeah, and Other Specialities of the West Indies.' (Philadelphia March 22, 1897.) with sub-paragraphs 'Duppies and Their Ways'; 'Gliding Through the Air'; 'Hard on the Duppies'; 'Obeah'; 'Evil Auras'; 'A Case in Point'; 'Another Instance'; 'Psychic Influence'; 'The Use of Obeah'; 'Obeah Romanized'; 'A Miraculous Shower of Stones'; 'A Rainmaker Indoors'; 'The West Indian Vampire'; and 'Cannibalism in Hayti'.

Part II has the title 'Keeley and His Machine.'

It's certainly D'Onston style tosh, I'll give it that.

[Stewart P Evans]

More Ghost Stories

What I would give for your Borderland collection! I am still trying to track down a copy of Stead's More Ghost Stories, which features a version of Stephenson's "Dead or Alive" but so far have been unlucky!

You mean this one Mike -

[Mike Covell]

What I would give for your Borderland collection! I am still trying to track down a copy of Stead's More Ghost Stories, which features a version of Stephenson's "Dead or Alive" but so far have been unlucky!

Anyway, what is the article mentioned,
XII A Travelling Borderlander?

That looks quite interesting, in fact it all does.

[Stewart P Evans]

Thanks

That was a lovely post, Stewart.

Thanks for that Stephen, pleased you liked it.

[Stephen Thomas]

That was a lovely post, Stewart.

[Stewart P Evans]

Borderland

Dear Stewart:
...

Should we start up a thread together on some of the mysteries of the O.D. ?

I don't know about that, but here's a small mystery for you. Below is something that Melvin wrote part of which particularly intrigues me. He was very diligent in searching out items written by D'Onston and you will see that he refers to Donston's 'travels and searches in India' being supported by 'completely independent evidence' in Borderland for July 1897. Now I have a complete set of original Borderland volumes 1894-1897 and I have perused the issue for the quarter of July 1897 and have been unable to locate this reference. Mind you I haven't read the whole thing.

[Stewart P Evans]

Dear Old Boy

Dear Stewart:
...and that indeed is the $ 1,000,000 question.
No one has ever proven that they came from Cremers herself. The use of the term, "Cremers Memoirs" is used by me simply to designate the section of the O'Donnell Manuscript ( Mr. Harris alluded to "Cremers Memoirs" as well for the same purpose,I believe ) which goes into detail what she is alleged to have said to Bernard O'Donnell...and also Aleister Crowley.
Should we start up a thread together on some of the mysteries of the O.D. ?

How, you are a dear old boy (I know that you are only a youngster compared to me, so don't take the 'old' seriously) but I really don't want to get into a protracted debate about a suspect that I have never really subjected to any great scrutiny nor considered to be a particularly good one, one reason why I have never really considered him for in-depth research. Another is the fact that, probably, too much has already been written about him.

D'Onston emerged as a known suspect in the mid-1970s and was then written off as an eccentric and very unlikely to have been the Ripper. He was a 'jobbing', or hack, writer and journalist no doubt struggling to make ends meet. It always rather amazes me when folk get into profound debates about the validity claims made by D'Onston. Consider, here is a man who claimed that he was visited by the shade of Sir Edward (a living ghost if you like) who gradually materialised from 'a filmy form' into an apparently solid breathing person. He was then guided through the streets by the voice of this entity. He also claimed that there was such a being as a 'doppel-ganger' and that a friend appeared to him in that guise. This tale then developed into D'Onston 'exchanging bodies' with his German friend Karl and as the temporary occupant of his friend's body actually conversing with his own body occupied by his friend. He went on to visit Karl's fiancee and actually enjoyed making love to her, in Karl's body, 'for a full hour.'

These stories by D'Onston are recounted as fact and, if he believed them, it has to be said that he was either daydreaming, under the influence of some sort of drug or a sad fantasist. Maybe a combination of all three. But when D'Onston himself is the apparent source of his own antecedent history how can anything he claimed be taken seriously if it cannot corroborated by an independent source. But, of course, for anyone who cares to assess D'Onston at a basic level this all soon becomes apparent. Many of the 'supports' for claiming he was the Ripper are founded on unsubstantiated claims made by O'Donnell. Indeed he is the source for most of the Cremers information and this is far from satisfactory. It is something that I pointed out to Melvin Harris on odd occasions. But we 'agreed to disagree' and did not discuss the subject very much.

But I have no wish to discuss D'Onston nor to cast aspersions on a good friend who is no longer with us. It does amaze me that, for someone who has now so thoroughly dismissed D'Onston as a suspect, you continue to chunter on so endlessly about him. It appears to be almost an idee fixe - a personal crusade of righteousness. If you feel that strongly about it why not write your own de-bunking book about D'Onston? Why the often bitter debates on Internet forums? Why the specious, and ultimately pointless, protracted arguments such as witnessed here?

At a personal level you know that I greatly admire you for your tenacity in getting the whole O'Donnell manuscript into the public domain and available to all to read. As I have told you in the past I have found it hard to understand why you haven't been accorded greater recognition for this achievement and also why there was remarkably little discussion of the said document after your publication of it. That, though, is one of the odd things about Ripperworld. Great discoveries, the publication of new material, and the like, often fails to attract the recognition and debate that it deserves. But, surely, in this one achievement alone, you have ensured the merit of recognition by other scholars of the case. Although Melvin was an old friend I certainly did not agree with many of his arguments and I was always surprised that he never made the whole text of the O'Donnell manuscript available.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Stewart:

...and that indeed is the $ 1,000,000 question.

No one has ever proven that they came from Cremers herself. The use of the term, "Cremers Memoirs" is used by me simply to designate the section of the O'Donnell Manuscript ( Mr. Harris alluded to "Cremers Memoirs" as well for the same purpose,I believe ) which goes into detail what she is alleged to have said to Bernard O'Donnell...and also Aleister Crowley.

Should we start up a thread together on some of the mysteries of the O.D. ?

[Stewart P Evans]

P.S.

2. The Cremers memoirs are a joke as far as developing RDS as a suspect.

P.S. Just what are 'the Cremers memoirs'? I didn't know that any such thing existed. Do you have any credible evidence to suggest that they did exist?

[Stewart P Evans]

Suspect Suspects

Thats true,SPE,and to me and some other people,thats an issue we need to be vigilant about. I predict Macnaghten will not be the final police official mentioned as a suspect. Either Matthews or Monro is next. If you think that thats a joke on my part, I am not kidding. 3 years ago no one would have mentioned Macnaghten in the context of a suspect...but as you know,thats a done deal.
Everyone in the list of 'suspects', contemporary or otherwise,is innocent until something convinces someone that said individual is suspectworthy....and then the character assassination begins on that person. Most of the suspects on the list we have are probably less criminally bent ( Maybrick,Sickert,Stephen,Druitt,Hutchinson,etc...) than some of us here are. I cannot be certain but I do not think any of these individuals got so much as a parking violation for their horse and buggy.
Take Stephenson...
1. Marsh felt D'Onston was suspectworthy. Roots,by virtue of the report he booted upwards to Swanson,et al...didn't. Stephenson probably,not definitely,told Roots what he was in the LH for or where he was....both items easy to check if in fact Roots or anyone at the Yard ever did.
2. The Cremers memoirs are a joke as far as developing RDS as a suspect. RDS was more akin to Winslow,Larkins, and other Ripper gadflys...maybe even Sickert...than to an actual suspect after December 26th,1888.
3. He's in the right place ( London) but in the wrong setting ( Currie Ward). He's done.

I don't think, really, that you can tell me much about suspects that I am not already aware of. The ramifications of all this are only too painfully obvious and it is a subject that I have been studying for the past 45 years plus. That's not to say that I am not still learning because I am. It's also not say that I don't make mistakes because I do.

As suspects go D'Onston is a whole lot better than dozens that labour under the same label. Not good, no, but then no suspect is a good suspect as such. As we know, Cream was in Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet at the time of the murders, yet still lumbers on as a suspect for some. And he is but one of many of a similar ilk. Some are so far-fetched as to be ridiculous, as you well know. Therefore the seasoned Ripper reader/researcher/writer, whatever, is almost beyond being surprised with names like Conan Doyle cropping up from time to time. It goes from the sublime to the ridiculous and back again. So, even if you have your own little group of arbiters pontificating on who should be a suspect and who shouldn't, you never will get everyone to agree. There never will be a consensus of opinion.

The unfortunate fact in Ripperworld is that 'suspect books' sell much better than any other books as far as publishers are concerned. It was only relatively recently that they would accept any book that did not present a 'new' suspect. By the end of the 1970s D'Onston was actually 'old hat', and most in the know considered him as "no more than a 'magical' eccentric with an overheated imagination" as seen on a separate thread that I started. Those words were written in July 1975 - I would guess a little while before you ever heard of him.

It is a strange thing with this subject that people appear to develop obsessions of one sort or another. This can be so serious that they do not even like anyone who does not agree with them or has opposing theories or ideas. And you have to literally fight against this in order to avoid falling into the trap of having this mindset. Part of the problem is that a many who become obsessed (for want of a better word) feel they have to carve out their own little Ripper niche or claim to fame. That may be an ego thing. That is understandable as it is a human foible to which many of us may be victim.

What really does annoy though are smart arses and the devious. I hasten to add here that I am not indicating any individual in particular nor am I saying that any individual here falls into those definitions. I have been a smart arse in my time and it never got me anywhere. I like to think, though, that I have not been devious, wrong maybe but devious no. One of the reasons that I have stood back more recently from this subject is that there are now too many 'experts' around. It's amazing how these have proliferated since the advent of the computer age and easy digital searching. They weren't around when I spent many hours at the archives back in the 70s. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with diligent research in this digital age and there have been some really good finds. But it is very different from the tedious work in the dusty archives, hours of searching, headaches and huge cash expenditure of past years. And I found that the elation experienced in finding something in those days had a frisson totally missing at the computer keyboard.

But, hey, this sounds like (and maybe it is) so much sour grapes and I really should slink back into the oblivion of the extinct dinosaur that I am. I thank everyone who has a genuine and common sense interest though, after all the subject would not be the same without them. I read my first Ripper essay back in 1961, I photographed the murder sites back in 1967, and I am still interested today. But an expert - no, not me.

[Howard Brown]

Ah, but that is the conclusion, not the who. I hadn't noticed that any 'rock solid' alibis had ever prevented an individual from being a suspect.

Thats true,SPE,and to me and some other people,thats an issue we need to be vigilant about. I predict Macnaghten will not be the final police official mentioned as a suspect. Either Matthews or Monro is next. If you think that thats a joke on my part, I am not kidding. 3 years ago no one would have mentioned Macnaghten in the context of a suspect...but as you know,thats a done deal.

Everyone in the list of 'suspects', contemporary or otherwise,is innocent until something convinces someone that said individual is suspectworthy....and then the character assassination begins on that person. Most of the suspects on the list we have are probably less criminally bent ( Maybrick,Sickert,Stephen,Druitt,Hutchinson,etc...) than some of us here are. I cannot be certain but I do not think any of these individuals got so much as a parking violation for their horse and buggy.

Take Stephenson...

1. Marsh felt D'Onston was suspectworthy. Roots,by virtue of the report he booted upwards to Swanson,et al...didn't. Stephenson probably,not definitely,told Roots what he was in the LH for or where he was....both items easy to check if in fact Roots or anyone at the Yard ever did.

2. The Cremers memoirs are a joke as far as developing RDS as a suspect. RDS was more akin to Winslow,Larkins, and other Ripper gadflys...maybe even Sickert...than to an actual suspect after December 26th,1888.

3. He's in the right place ( London) but in the wrong setting ( Currie Ward). He's done.

[Stewart P Evans]

Occult Literature

The problem is that "The Haunted and the Haunters" wasn't actually a novel (for that reason, it doesn't have an entry in the bibliography I posted an excerpt from, which doesn't include individual short stories). It has certainly been reprinted many times, perhaps sometimes as an individual volume.

The book is commonly referred to as a novel, although I suspect the Victorian description of novelette to be the more accurate. You will see (below) that Mike Ashley in his Who's Who in horror & fantasy fiction, London, Elm Tree Books, 1977 refers to it as a novel, but there seems to be confusion here. Interestingly he dates 'The Haunted and the Haunters' to 1859. Also below is a copy of the first mention of 'The Haunted and the Haunters' in the British Library catalogue which is not until 1865. It refers to 'A Strange Story; and The Haunted and the Haunters.'

I first read 'The Haunted and the Haunters' (or 'The House and the Brain') around 1960 but it is not until I read of the mention of it being one and the same as 'A Strange Story' in the D'Onston connection that I had ever heard of the latter. Indeed I have never seen it. I, hopefully, have a copy of Blackwood's Magazine, with the story in it, on its way to me, it will be interesting to see what is like.

[Rob Clack]

If it's of any use, this is the relevant paragraph from the Borderland article.



Rob