The Whitechapel Society 1888 Victims Conference 8 Sept. 2018

[Monty]

Charley Dickens died in 1896

Monty
��

[MrBarnett]

Charley Dickens died in 1896

Monty
��

Ah, you're talking Jr?

Or Charley Dickens who ran the coffee stall in Commerial Street?

[Monty]

Yep.

The only way we shall learn if Hallie means Senior or Junior is by reading the book when it comes out.

Until then, I feel it umbeneficial to speculate.

Monty
🙂

[MrBarnett]

Yep.

The only way we shall learn if Hallie means Senior or Junior is by reading the book when it comes out.

Until then, I feel it umbeneficial to speculate.

Monty
🙂

I think we're at Liberty to speculate to our hearts' content.

If someone advertises a book about the victims of JTR and suggests she has found a link between them and 'Dickens', it's a reasonable assumption to make that she is referring to the author of 'Oliver Twist' etc, isn't it?

But if not, which of the C5 do you think CD Jr might have rubbed shoulders with in Whitechapel in 1879?

[Monty]

I think we're at Liberty to speculate to our hearts' content.

If someone advertises a book about the victims of JTR and suggests she has found a link between them and 'Dickens', it's a reasonable assumption to make that she is referring to the author of 'Oliver Twist' etc, isn't it?

But if not, which of the C5 do you think CD Jr might have rubbed shoulders with in Whitechapel in 1879?

You can speculate as you wish, I’m merely stating my opinion that such speculation is not beneficial.

Yep, a reasonable assumption, and a logical one. Whether it’s the correct one is open to debate until March.

Monty
🙂

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think we're at Liberty to speculate to our hearts' content.

If someone advertises a book about the victims of JTR and suggests she has found a link between them and 'Dickens', it's a reasonable assumption to make that she is referring to the author of 'Oliver Twist' etc, isn't it?

But if not, which of the C5 do you think CD Jr might have rubbed shoulders with in Whitechapel in 1879?

Gary, it’s perhaps surprising that no one has mentioned him as a suspect as yet.

There’s still time.

Maybe I shouldn’t have made this post.

[MrBarnett]

You can speculate as you wish, I’m merely stating my opinion that such speculation is not beneficial.

Yep, a reasonable assumption, and a logical one. Whether it’s the correct one is open to debate until March.

Monty
🙂

Not sure what you mean by 'beneficial'?

[MrBarnett]

Not sure what you mean by 'beneficial'?

You're an author. What's the point of a pre-publication blog if it's not to stimulate discussion?

[MrBarnett]

Gary, it’s perhaps surprising that no one has mentioned him as a suspect as yet.

There’s still time.

Maybe I shouldn’t have made this post.

Your name vill be on ze list.

[Debra A]

Thanks for understanding. Six months is a long time to wait, but you can guarantee I'll be following the comments of researchers such as yourself and Debs once you've read her book and any serious questions or concerns raised can be asked on our show.

JM

I am genuinely looking forward to reading the book, Jonathon. I can't help trying to predict what the little teasers released by the publisher might be about though, sorry! I was the same with Wynne Weston Davies' book.

[MrBarnett]

I am genuinely looking forward to reading the book, Jonathon. I can't help trying to predict what the little teasers released by the publisher might be about though, sorry! I was the same with Wynne Weston Davies book.

It's a bit like wondering who the next Dr Who might be, Debs. Perfectly harmless fun. (My money's on Count Arthur Strong next time round.)

[jmenges]

I am genuinely looking forward to reading the book, Jonathon. I can't help trying to predict what the little teasers released by the publisher might be about though, sorry! I was the same with Wynne Weston Davies book.

I'm too reminded of Wynne Weston Davies and how rapidly problems with his book were found, and his lack of sources. I hope that what new information is contained in Hallie's book is accompanied by citations so that we're shown what previously unexplored avenues led to her discoveries.

JM

[MrBarnett]

I'm too reminded of Wynne Weston Davies and how rapidly problems with his book were found, and his lack of sources. I hope that what new information is contained in Hallie's book is accompanied by citations so that we're shown what previously unexplored avenues led to her discoveries.

JM

I can't remember, was there any discussion of Russell Edward's DNA claims before the book came out?

[Debra A]

I'm too reminded of Wynne Weston Davies and how rapidly problems with his book were found, and his lack of sources. I hope that what new information is contained in Hallie's book is accompanied by citations so that we're shown what previously unexplored avenues led to her discoveries.

JM

Wynne's book did contain a fair amount that was ideas based, rather than factual. That's fine for message board posts to stimulates research but it is disappointing for us as Ripperologists to find it in a long awaited book, as Wynne's was.
For outsiders, some of who have no clue about the women involved , some things would be a revelation. If we are genuinely concerned with the women, then maybe that should be the focus? Letting someone who has a mainstream publishing deal tell those women's stories?

[jmenges]

I can't remember, was there any discussion of Russell Edward's DNA claims before the book came out?

From what I recall it was discussed just for a week or so prior to his book being published after 'Jack the Ripper Solved!' articles began appearing in the Daily Mail etc.
The shawl and its provenance, as you know, was old news. Its existence was long known about and it had already appeared in a documentary trying to prove Deeming was the murderer and so really half of Edward's theory had basically been dismissed years before he arrived on the scene.
I believe Tracey I'anson and Chris Phillips only had access to the problematic numbers after the book was published.

JM