Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and

[lynn cates]

PI

Hello Tom. Private detective? Not a bad choice.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Simon, Spiro, Lynn,

My cloak of invisibility is working!

It must be remembered that people's senses were heightened during this killing spree, so whomever was thinking of killing, they must look as normal as possible, and their clothes mustn't look different.

You mean like a private detective?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

Sir Ed

Hello Phil. Good point.

Which means that funny wigs and false glasses were right out. After all, that was how Sir Ed dressed in his paranoid period. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello Simon, Spiro, Lynn,

This simple little test would rule out quite a few people actually. Anyone that is 6ft 7ins for example, anyone that walked with a pronounced limp, anyone in brightly coloured clothes, anyone that had an unusual look (a patch over an eye etc).. so whomever the murderers were, they DIDNT stand out in a crowd.

Jewellry, red neckerchiefs, bag carriers, newspaper holders all come into play because of the fact that anything more unusual would be immediately noticed.
Even the noise of the walk made by the boots would be noticed if a little louder or even very soft. Its the small things that normally wouldnt be noticed that become noticable.
It must be remembered that people's senses were heightened during this killing spree, so whomever was thinking of killing, they must look as normal as possible, and their clothes mustn't look different.

We have sightings of many who were brought in by the police for just carrying a bag. Add a "menacing" look, a scowl, and the imagination of the viewer says the word "dangerous". So whomever killed these poor women, must look and act totally ordinary. Not out of place in other words, in clothing nor action. If he spoke at any time to anybody, it would have to be in local tongue... which would include the local population's variances. Unless the man himself was known to be of that tongue, dress etc.. or was in uniform..army, police etc.

Just a few thoughts.

best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

D'Onston

Hello Simon. Quite.

A similar consideration prised me loose from Roslyn D'Onston--many moons ago.

Cheers.
LC

[auspirograph]

Monro being the Ripper is an absolute hoot.

Indeed Simon. And the "previous correspondence" in the period 1867-68 referred to with O'Dell, which was noted as the source, was with a "...retired company secretary in Australia". Coincidence?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Monro being the Ripper is an absolute hoot.

In India, Monro fell from his horse whilst in pursuit of a criminal. He suffered a permanent hip injury and afterwards walked with the aid of a stick.

Notwithstanding the fact it would have been difficult for him to get from Berner Street to Mitre Square in the alloted time, you'd have thought someone might have noticed this particular characteristic.

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

Fair enough, and perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'significant', and you shouldn't have called me a prat, whatever that is. However, I must say that from my reading I also was left with the impression that you were saying Christopher Monro identified his father as Jack the Ripper, or something to that effect. I need to go back and read Odell's book again.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Soften up a little, Spiro.

“Christopher Monro, grandson of James, wrote to authors Robin Odell and Colin Wilson after reading their 1987 book Jack the Ripper: Summing Up and Verdict. Previous correspondence with Odell during the period 1967-68 had suggested that James Monro was Jack the Ripper. Christopher Monro further told Odell he believed his grandfather came up against an official conspiracy of silence...”

[Tom_Wescott]

Auspicious!

If you are going to publicly assess a book on the Whitechapel murders, it is helpful if you get your facts right.

We were discussing chapter seven and the issues you now point out do not occur in chapter seven.

Fair enough, and perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'significant', and you shouldn't have called me a prat, whatever that is. However, I must say that from my reading I also was left with the impression that you were saying Christopher Monro identified his father as Jack the Ripper, or something to that effect. I need to go back and read Odell's book again.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Soften up a little, Spiro.

[auspirograph]

Reviews and the Peerage

Tom,

If you are going to publicly assess a book on the Whitechapel murders, it is helpful if you get your facts right.

We were discussing chapter seven and the issues you now point out do not occur in chapter seven.

I have no problem with errors found in the book and willing to acknowledge them as such, indeed I have located a few minor errors that passed the net. But I do take issue with exaggerated comments on minor points of fact.

Regarding the 'hot potato', I am not sure where Paul Begg gets the idea I think James Monro was Jack the Ripper. There are at least 19 mentions in the index on Monro and a casual reading of these could not reasonably imply that I had said any such thing.

If reviews in a periodical by its executive editor and an established author in defense of his literary position passes as peer review in this subject then no wonder it gathers the reputation it does.

So yes, there are some minor mistakes that are thankfully noted but there is no general understanding that there are "significant errors", as you put it and were lead to believe.

I care much more about this subject as an author to at least check my essential facts. I am not responsible however, for the interpretations and conclusions drawn by others, which is not to say I don't acknowledge past work of Begg and his co-authors.

Particularly when those others find that the statements of Sir Robert Anderson on Jack the Ripper, which have fueled a franchise for around 30 years, are not the only game in town. That is, when new information challenges the status quo, reviews can then become reactionary manifestos of a subject's Peerage.

Note also how chapter seven is sidestepped in that review and the concession made that Macnaghten, Swanson and Anderson simply had "theories".

I hope that clarifies matters for you.

[Tom_Wescott]

Everything that needed to be expounded has been. There are no "significant errors" in this book despite your claims. If you are referring to the few details on Le Grand, sorry to disappoint.

So out of all my raving compliments you zeroed in only on my mention of 'some significant errors'? I thought it was understood some errors were made, such as your write-up of Monro's 'hot potato'. The little mention of Le Grand is insignificant to your thesis so did not come into my mind. However, I think it's important that if I'm going to publicly recommend a book, I should also acknowledge that errors are present.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

new info

Hello Spiro. Thanks.

Here's to finding it this new year.

Cheers.
LC

[auspirograph]

Lynn,

You're welcome, there's certainly more new info on McDermott to be found.

Tom,

Everything that needed to be expounded has been. There are no "significant errors" in this book despite your claims. If you are referring to the few details on Le Grand, sorry to disappoint.

[lynn cates]

new info

Hello Spiro. Thanks. Any new information you happen to find on Red Jim McDermott would be deeply appreciated.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,

A good 'Ripperologist' does not make flukey remarks that he or she cannot back up with some evidence. You are a significant prat!

Regards
Spiro

Hi Spiro. Either I'm misunderstanding you here (seems you called me a prat and suggested I made flukey remarks), or you misunderstood me (I said I enjoyed your book and learned new things). Please expound.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott