Tweet
Hello all,
Thought I'd offer a short review of "Jack the Ripper.. Scotland Yard Investigates" written by Stewart P. Evans and Donald Rumbelow, published by Sutton publishing Limited, 2006.
The vision of the writers was to take a look at the case from the viewpoint of the police who investigated the crimes at the time of the murders. It focuses on the investigation methods used by both the upper echelons of both police forces, City and Metropolitan, and the normal everyday policemen on the beat. Additionally, it refers to the involvement of the Special Branch detectives in and around Whitechapel. Having read this book of 304 pages at least three times now, a few things that stand out are the carefully chosen photographs mostly from the author's own private
collections, which whilst reading the text, they cause one to linger long enough to take in the importance of each photograph, some of which have never previously been seen before in book form. Not least the quality of the victim's photographs themselves are the best that this writer has seen presented.
The 396 listed letters sent to the City Police are well worth analysing too. The City Police Force, although only directly involved in one of the five "canonical" murder investigations themselves, certainly had a major role to play in the hunt for the perpetrator(s) of the crimes. There are also fair and reasoned suggestions in the book that both of the victims Stride and Kelly were not victims of the same hand of the other canonical victims. This contentious issue is left for the reader to form their own viewpoint. It is a contentious point because the basis for all modern research is based on a generally accepted view that was first presented by Sir Melville MacNaughten only a few years after the crimes, who in turn based his ideas on those of one of the medical officers from the time of the murders. However, as is revealed, the view of more than one killer is in fact far older than is generally thought, and comes from the times of the murders themselves.
The need to show the roles of the police is an important factor within Ripperology. The various individuals that worked on the case all have their own traits, and this is reflected nicely. The examples of Sir Charles Warren and Sir Robert Anderson spring to mind, and in the case of the former, a decidedly different light is shone upon the man, who at one time or another has been either pilloried or mis-understood. His background before his appointment in the Metropolitan Police, is well documented here, and the Army discipline that was instilled in him throughout his career was reflected in the manner in which he wanted the Met Police Force to be run under him.This, inevitably, causes fractions and whether he actually understood this himself, or cared to understand, before it was too late, can be interpreted by the reader.
The latter, Sir Robert Anderson has been regarded as a key person within Ripperology for many years. The authors list each and every comment by each ranked policeman, and from this it becomes clear that SRA's comments have had an enormous bearing upon how we interpret the murders today. However, the life of SRA is a complicated one, and in order to understand this man fully, one must take into account all of his comments from the standpoint in time in which they were made. After a great deal of thought, I feel that the authors have given a fair viewpoint about the man. The very nature of the man will continue to cause contention, but there is no doubt that the need to balance the weight of opinion on this man's utterances was long overdue. Whether one agrees with this written opinion or not, it certainly gives food for thought. One thing is certain. The idea of witness identification of one suspect, Kosminski, has previously been presented as the only real possibility. Evans and Rumbelow show a convincing argument for the introduction of Sadler as the person that was under the microscope, not Kosminski. This interpretation is very plausible indeed.
On the more general front, the book is an easy and interesting read. The Whitechapel crimes and the susbsequent problems associated with the investigation are presented thoughtfully and factually. For both the relative newcomer and the experienced Ripperologist I would suggest this book is an important supplement, and the views of these two authors towards the rear of the book leave a fascinating insight into over 80 combined years of knowledge and interest. So important, infact, that I would unhesitatingly suggest that this book is a "must" for any person interested in the subject.
Overall, the book gives us something that shines through. Insight. That in itself is no mean achievement in a field that is littered with falsities and many wayward opinions based on them. That is why I value the personal opinions of these two "veteran" students of the case given in this book, and careful reading of their views near the end of the book show that although "long in the game", these two authors still have the twinkle of enthusiasm that ignites all our interests. I thank them for this offering. It is a quality piece worthy of everyone's attention, scrutiny and not least, thoughtful consideration.
best wishes
Phil
Thought I'd offer a short review of "Jack the Ripper.. Scotland Yard Investigates" written by Stewart P. Evans and Donald Rumbelow, published by Sutton publishing Limited, 2006.
The vision of the writers was to take a look at the case from the viewpoint of the police who investigated the crimes at the time of the murders. It focuses on the investigation methods used by both the upper echelons of both police forces, City and Metropolitan, and the normal everyday policemen on the beat. Additionally, it refers to the involvement of the Special Branch detectives in and around Whitechapel. Having read this book of 304 pages at least three times now, a few things that stand out are the carefully chosen photographs mostly from the author's own private
collections, which whilst reading the text, they cause one to linger long enough to take in the importance of each photograph, some of which have never previously been seen before in book form. Not least the quality of the victim's photographs themselves are the best that this writer has seen presented.
The 396 listed letters sent to the City Police are well worth analysing too. The City Police Force, although only directly involved in one of the five "canonical" murder investigations themselves, certainly had a major role to play in the hunt for the perpetrator(s) of the crimes. There are also fair and reasoned suggestions in the book that both of the victims Stride and Kelly were not victims of the same hand of the other canonical victims. This contentious issue is left for the reader to form their own viewpoint. It is a contentious point because the basis for all modern research is based on a generally accepted view that was first presented by Sir Melville MacNaughten only a few years after the crimes, who in turn based his ideas on those of one of the medical officers from the time of the murders. However, as is revealed, the view of more than one killer is in fact far older than is generally thought, and comes from the times of the murders themselves.
The need to show the roles of the police is an important factor within Ripperology. The various individuals that worked on the case all have their own traits, and this is reflected nicely. The examples of Sir Charles Warren and Sir Robert Anderson spring to mind, and in the case of the former, a decidedly different light is shone upon the man, who at one time or another has been either pilloried or mis-understood. His background before his appointment in the Metropolitan Police, is well documented here, and the Army discipline that was instilled in him throughout his career was reflected in the manner in which he wanted the Met Police Force to be run under him.This, inevitably, causes fractions and whether he actually understood this himself, or cared to understand, before it was too late, can be interpreted by the reader.
The latter, Sir Robert Anderson has been regarded as a key person within Ripperology for many years. The authors list each and every comment by each ranked policeman, and from this it becomes clear that SRA's comments have had an enormous bearing upon how we interpret the murders today. However, the life of SRA is a complicated one, and in order to understand this man fully, one must take into account all of his comments from the standpoint in time in which they were made. After a great deal of thought, I feel that the authors have given a fair viewpoint about the man. The very nature of the man will continue to cause contention, but there is no doubt that the need to balance the weight of opinion on this man's utterances was long overdue. Whether one agrees with this written opinion or not, it certainly gives food for thought. One thing is certain. The idea of witness identification of one suspect, Kosminski, has previously been presented as the only real possibility. Evans and Rumbelow show a convincing argument for the introduction of Sadler as the person that was under the microscope, not Kosminski. This interpretation is very plausible indeed.
On the more general front, the book is an easy and interesting read. The Whitechapel crimes and the susbsequent problems associated with the investigation are presented thoughtfully and factually. For both the relative newcomer and the experienced Ripperologist I would suggest this book is an important supplement, and the views of these two authors towards the rear of the book leave a fascinating insight into over 80 combined years of knowledge and interest. So important, infact, that I would unhesitatingly suggest that this book is a "must" for any person interested in the subject.
Overall, the book gives us something that shines through. Insight. That in itself is no mean achievement in a field that is littered with falsities and many wayward opinions based on them. That is why I value the personal opinions of these two "veteran" students of the case given in this book, and careful reading of their views near the end of the book show that although "long in the game", these two authors still have the twinkle of enthusiasm that ignites all our interests. I thank them for this offering. It is a quality piece worthy of everyone's attention, scrutiny and not least, thoughtful consideration.
best wishes
Phil