A New Ripper Book

[Stewart P Evans]

Interviewed

Hi Stewart
Thanks for your reply.
So I will ask you as directly as possible:
Are you involved with or featured in the new documentary?
Pirate

I was interviewed for the new documentary. I told Jonathan Menges this earlier today and have already posted it on jtrforums. It is not a secret and several have known for some time now.

[Cap'n Jack]

Cosy old world, ain't it?
Get me in your film and I'll support your book init?
When we look at a time span over a hundred years, and then discuss vital seconds and minutes that were ticking and pounding away in 1888, I feel the Pirate raises a rare and vital issue here, in that Jack the Ripper was indeed not a spectre raised by the press, but instead the very real blood and guts of Roadside, undiscovered by the press, but well know to the impoverished inhabitants of Roadside who were well used to murder and mutilation, and then kept that to themselves for the press and the police were the enemy.
I see nothing but good and positive things in Pirate's opposition to this cosy world that modern Rips live in where they indulge their bright and shining lies, and slap their cool backs while the real heat burns on another planet.

[Stewart P Evans]

Wrong

Cosy old world, ain't it?
Get me in your film and I'll support your book init?

Wrong again AP, you usually are. I was approached by the TV people and it has nothing to do with Andrew or his book. I support books on their own merit and not in return for any sort of favour.

[Tom_Wescott]

It’s an interesting question. However it could also be reversed and argued that: it was Jack the Ripper that gave birth to the modern English press.

So Jack gave birth to the modern serial killer, the entire 20th century, AND the modern English press? Hmmm....maybe he was a midwife after all!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Hmmm...

Chris

I am rather annoyed about this comment. If you go back and check my posts you will see at no point did I aim any personal abuse at anyone. WHAT SO EVER.

Yes I am critical of the coming documentary and I will give my reasons for that. Obviously I know Stewart is involved. It’s my biz’ness to know.

However what am I supposed to do when some half-wit like Tom, who hasn’t a clue what is being discussed, turns up and starts throwing insults at me for no apparent reason?

You may all be God loving Christians, but I was bought up to stand my ground and hit back..that’s the ‘Parnell’ way, as my `Gran taught it, and that’s what I do, if you choose to attack me.

I have never started a fight…it’s that simple. And I’m not prepared to have all and sundry slag me off and not defend myself, especially if they haven’t a clue what the discussion is about.

I have no interest in this silly personal stuff. None what so ever. However, if you through it my way you will get it back.

Pirate

PS I've just noticed Tom's latest pile of crap. How are you supposed to have a sensible conversation around here with such idiots? Tom please go to a thread you know something about..if there is one?

[Tom_Wescott]

When it comes to claims of being a half-wit, I can see I must get up pretty early in the morning to pull one over on you Tom.

If you have a hard time pulling one over on a half-wit, wouldn't that make you a no-wit? But I digress...back to you telling Stewart how much he knows and me how little I know.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Admin]

From this point on, NO personal insults of any sort will be tolerated on this thread. Stick strictly to the topic of the thread and take the personal wrangling to PM or Pub Talk.

[Jeff Leahy]

Firstly thank you for that admin, and congratulations Stewart.

Yes I admit, I have a pretty good idea what the program is about and I’m sure it will be interesting and informative, and I would not wish to poor any negativity on the project before it were broadcast. But I thought it better everyone new what was being discussed here. Better coming from you Stewart.

However, readers will see that 'Pirate Jack's' involvement in this thread was negative from the start, with the comment "Looks like we are in for another documentary that avoids the central issues of the case."

And he wonders why he gets negative responses.

My criticism wasn’t really in the program itself (I would have had to have seen it to make that observation?). I’m sure it will be wonderful…

But come on Stewart. If I said here's a camera and an edit suite what do you want to make a Jack The Ripper documentary about? would: 'the involvement of the press' be the first question to your mind?

Be honest?

Come on...Sadler? The marginalia? Druitt? Kosminski? Chapman? Cutbush? Tabram? Mary Jane Kelly? Joe Flemming? Schwartz? Lawende?

Doesn’t this stuff really make your mouth water? Metaphorically...As a Ripperologist?

I mean who wouldn’t rather watch paint dry than a another documentary that doesn't involve some excitement? Some controversy and some real FACTS....? (excuse my badly worded Amedius quote)

At the end of the day you’re a Ripperologist Stewart. We live and breath this subject. We love this subject. We are passionate about this subject. For heavens sake lets have a documentary that deals with the central issues of the case

I’m sure it will all be lovely. But there are more pressing subjects that seem to me, worthy of consideration? Than the posed question…that’s all I was saying. At no point did I intent any criticism of you for taking part. Far from it. It sounds good…….. But.

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

Documentaries

...
Yes I admit, I have a pretty good idea what the program is about and I’m sure it will be interesting and informative, and I would not wish to poor any negativity on the project before it were broadcast. But I thought it better everyone new what was being discussed here. Better coming from you Stewart.
My criticism wasn’t really in the program itself (I would have had to have seen it to make that observation?). I’m sure it will be wonderful…
But come on Stewart. If I said here's a camera and an edit suite what do you want to make a Jack The Ripper documentary about? would: 'the involvement of the press' be the first question to your mind?
Be honest?
Come on...Sadler? The marginalia? Druitt? Kosminski? Chapman? Cutbush? Tabram? Mary Jane Kelly? Joe Flemming? Schwartz? Lawende?
Doesn’t this stuff really make your mouth water? Metaphorically...As a Ripperologist?
At the end of the day you’re a Ripperologist Stewart. We live and breath this subject. We love this subject. We are passionate about this subject. For heavens sake lets have a documentary that deals with the central issues of the case
I’m sure it will all be lovely. But there are more pressing subjects that seem to me, worthy of consideration? Than the posed question…that’s all I was saying. At no point did I intent any criticism of you for taking part. Far from it. It sounds good…….. But.
Pirate

First off the content of the documentary has nothing to do with me any more than it has anything to do with you. I did not dictate any of the content and I merely answered questions that were put to me.

The documentary itself was not being discussed here, it was Andrew's upcoming book, which I am sure is going to be very good, that was the subject for the thread. The screening of the documentary was merely mentioned in association with the publication of the book. Personally I think the press coverage was an important aspect of the case.

I don't want to make a Ripper documentary, I don't even make documentaries. I sometimes do interviews for documentaries, the content of which is not decided by me. Some I turn down, others I accept. This was the second that I have done in the past couple of months.

I rarely get excited about anything Ripper related and I leave documentaries and their content to those who wish to make them. I really couldn't care less about what you may think of them or what you may think of what I do.

[Cap'n Jack]

Is the title of this volume really 'Case Closed'?
There seems to be an urgent desire for this at the moment.

[Jeff Leahy]

First off the content of the documentary has nothing to do with me any more than it has anything to do with you. I did not dictate any of the content and I merely answered questions that were put to me.

Absolutely Stewart. This is part of the problem. I understand how TV is made.

The documentary itself was not being discussed here, it was Andrew's upcoming book, which I am sure is going to be very good, that was the subject for the thread. The screening of the documentary was merely mentioned in association with the publication of the book. Personally I think the press coverage was an important aspect of the case.

It was raised by you in context. And while I agree the press coverage is interesting, i would contend that it is a side line in context of the main current Ripper debates.

I don't want to make a Ripper documentary, I don't even make documentaries. I sometimes do interviews for documentaries, the content of which is not decided by me. Some I turn down, others I accept. This was the second that I have done in the past couple of months.

Then you should. Because you are one of the few people that actually have something interesting to say about the case. And I think everyone would agree, they would want to watch a new documentary made by Stewart P Evans. It might actually be relevant.

I rarely get excited about anything Ripper related and I leave documentaries and their content to those who wish to make them. I really couldn't care less about what you may think of them or what you may think of what I do.

Hog wash. I think you do care. You would not be arguing with me if you didn't care.

For what its worth I very much admire what you do, and what you have to say. And my camera and edit suite would be at your disposel any time you have a change of heart. You are, after all one of the greatest authorities/ minds on the subject known to me. i follow your posts and what you have to say, because you are at the heart of the most interesting aspects of the case. I may not always agree with you...but u r cool.

If you ever change your mind..drop me a PM..

Your Biggest fan

Pirate

[Stewart P Evans]

TV Documentaries

Absolutely Stewart. This is part of the problem. I understand how TV is made.
It was raised by you in context. And while I agree the press coverage is interesting, i would contend that it is a side line in context of the main current Ripper debates.
Then you should. Because you are one of the few people that actually have something interesting to say about the case. And I think everyone would agree, they would want to watch a new documentary made by Stewart P Evans. It might actually be relevant.
Hog wash. I think you do care. You would not be arguing with me if you didn't care.
For what its worth I very much admire what you do, and what you have to say. And my camera and edit suite would be at your disposel any time you have a change of heart. You are, after all one of the greatest authorities/ minds on the subject known to me. i follow your posts and what you have to say, because you are at the heart of the most interesting aspects of the case. I may not always agree with you...but u r cool.
If you ever change your mind..drop me a PM..
Your Biggest fan
Pirate

I too understand how TV is made. I did my first interviews for national TV in 1972.

As I stated, the content and approach was nothing to do with me and I merely provided an input that was required. You will also see Don Rumbelow in the programme.

I repeat, I do not make TV documentaries.

I may care in the sense that I do not like seeing nonsense and irrelevancies propagated on the boards.

It's only fair to thank you for the kind remarks - pity that you spoil them with other comments you make.

Do not hold your breath waiting for a personal message.

[Jeff Leahy]

I too understand how TV is made. I did my first interviews for national TV in 1972. .

1972! I was still working on my bronze arrow at cub scouts!

TV has changed since then. Not always for the good.

As I stated, the content and approach was nothing to do with me and I merely provided an input that was required. You will also see Don Rumbelow in the programme. .

Yes, I know how this works. Hope Don is well.

I repeat, I do not make TV documentaries. .

I admit this is a long held bug bare, for myself. Why are History programs made by junior researcher’s fresh out of college with a degree in how to google and not by people who understand the subject? I must admit that I am at a loss.

I may care in the sense that I do not like seeing nonsense and irrelevancies propagated on the boards. .

Well that is cool Stewart, I know you care. I understand that you get frustrated in your specialized area’s of expertise and others lack of knowledge. As I would be frustrated by poor CGi, band recon or naff camera direction and crap editing. However making a documentary requires a team understanding and working in single direction (though I accept in the current economic clime, I’m probably the only producer who really believes that). Perhaps one day history programming will return to being made by those who have something to say about it.

It's only fair to thank you for the kind remarks - pity that you spoil them with other comments you make. .

Ah! It would not be of any use if I pandered to Rumblow, Begg and Fido. You all need a jolly good kick up the ass 9 times out of ten. I’d be a poor journalist if I didn’t upset people from time to time..

Do not hold your breath waiting for a personal message.

I will NOT. However I will continue to hari you wear I see fit and proper. But please do not confuse my sense of……..lets say STORY. With any perceived personal grudges. Because I hold none.

I am here because I wont to know: “who was Jack the Ripper?”

And I’m interested only in the Facts. Though I admit they are sometimes difficult to see and there are lots of STORIES. I do believe it possible that one day someone will make a truly great program about the subject. Probably best to start with Neal Sheldon, and work your way UP…but I must believe it is possible/Hope it is possible?

The Holly grail needs no personal gain or message, just lots of thought, time and bloody hard work…and we both know that a real/final conclusion is out of reach.

We will judge the next Channel 5 program when it arrives. But lets hope there is another in the making.

All the best

Pirate

[Supe]

Piratical Jackson,

Why are History programs made by junior researcher’s fresh out of college with a degree in how to google and not by people who understand the subject?

Because they a) come cheap (or at least, as Basil would say, "cheapish") b) are closer in age to junior program execs who thus feel more in control and c) having no real stake in their research are much less likely to complain than real experts when "dramatic improvements" (read factual embellishments) are made in the story.

Am I cynical? You bet. Is my cynicism based on experience? You bet.

Don.

[Cap'n Jack]

'GREAT RESEARCHERS do not, however, always make great authors. Cook’s findings are presented in boringly linear sequence, fact following fact with mind-numbing monotony. It’s a pity that such great material should have fallen into the hands of an author so lacking in subtlety and so incapable of insightful analysis. The book has about as much sensitivity as a crime report written by PC Plod.

Granted, part of the problem arises from the fact that Melville was a man determined not to be discovered. He often wore disguises, went by a number of aliases, and customarily destroyed the records of his investigations. That was the nature of his profession. In his quest for anonymity Melville was aided by a secretive state which essentially denied his existence until 1997. Parts of his life appear as if they’ve fallen victim to an anarchist’s bomb - they’ve simply ceased to exist.

As a result, much of this book is not about Melville at all, but rather about the times in which he lived and the institutions in which he worked. He’s only a bit player in the first 100 pages. They are filled with convoluted descriptions of the arcane machinations of the police force and the London underworld. The reader is treated to drama by association: for instance, an entire chapter is spent discussing the Ripper case, but Melville’s actual involvement in that case is unclear, since no one is absolutely certain of Jack the Ripper’s real identity. All we really know is that some people were brutally murdered in London and that Melville was a policeman at the time.

All the piles of evidence fail to illuminate the soul of Melville. Cook is reluctant to speculate on what might have motivated the man or what dark secrets might lie behind the cynicism, ruthlessness and occasional cruelty. Granted, had Cook travelled down the path of interpretation, judgments would have had to be based mainly on speculation.

But that is what readers expect good biographers to do. They are supposed to make intuitive judgments based on evidence they have collected, reinforced by a sensitivity to their subject. Cook does occasionally speculate, but the speculation is often of the most banal kind.

He posits, for instance, that Melville might have joined the police force because a new precinct headquarters was being built across from the London residence where he lived at the time. On other occasions, he dangles possibilities in front of the reader, but then fails to develop them to their logical conclusion. For instance, he writes that the man who might have been Jack the Ripper "died under the name Frank Townsend and he left almost £140,000. One can only speculate about the extent to which his wealth played a part in his escape." What the heck is that supposed to mean? Who’s accusing who of what? '

I thought this review of a previous volume by Cook highlights the cosy and cool world these Rips inhabitat.
Make no mistake, Cook is no virgin on the Ripper scene, and appears to have been schooled and tutored by a certain element into believing - at that time - that Tumblety was Jack the Ripper... now I wonder what other Rip authors held that same view at that same time?
Could it just possibly be the very same two Rips who are appearing in Cook's film, and bigging up his new volume?