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

[mklhawley]

Hello Mike. Another quirky example of Freemasonry is that Frank Millen, who died suddenly and unexpectedly in Spring, 1889, had his body disinterred and reburied with full Masonic rites. Campbell claims that it is unknown on whose orders this took place.

(Disclaimer: no, I don't like the Freemasonry angle.)

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Things are getting quirkier all the time with this. With respect to your disclaimer, I'm also not into the conspiracy ritual stuff but many of these folks involved certainly hung out together in their respective Orders having lunch possibly discussing the killings.

[lynn cates]

one please

Hello Tom. Thanks.

Right. Looks like into my shopping cart it goes.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn,

Yes, that chapter is full of Parnell, Fenians, Balfour, etc. As I was reading it I wondered if you hadn't helped him research it!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

Whitechapel SS

Hello Spiro. Whitechapel Secret Service? Hmmm, perhaps I should have a go at this one?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Freemasonry opens doors--and burial plots too.

Hello Mike. Another quirky example of Freemasonry is that Frank Millen, who died suddenly and unexpectedly in Spring, 1889, had his body disinterred and reburied with full Masonic rites. Campbell claims that it is unknown on whose orders this took place.

(Disclaimer: no, I don't like the Freemasonry angle.)

Cheers.
LC

[mklhawley]

I think you will find Paul Begg and Tom Wescott agree with me on this one.

Rob

Well, there's another testament to Tom's honest book reviewing.

[Rob Clack]

If by that she means Rob Clack, who cannot find a simple attribution to Richard Stokes located in the index and who I now doubt has read the book, then I feel sorry for her in attempts to locate Jack the Ripper in the early 20th century trusting the judgment of Butterworth.

I think you will find Paul Begg and Tom Wescott agree with me on this one.

Rob

[auspirograph]

Review of Reviews

There are 2 definitions for “nothing new“, not just at present but at all times:
- nothing new
- nothing attributed.

Not that anything Maria Birbili says can be attributed to anything she has read because, as she readily admits, she prefers to rely on the judgment of those she trusts.

If by that she means Rob Clack, who cannot find a simple attribution to Richard Stokes located in the index and who I now doubt has read the book, then I feel sorry for her in attempts to locate Jack the Ripper in the early 20th century trusting the judgment of Butterworth.

That leaves three notable people, apart from myself, on this thread with comments who have actually read the book. Martin Fido, who has since read it and kindly said to me he generally enjoyed it. Tom Westcott, for whose objective, fair and informed comments I thank and which cause me to further respect his views as the years pass between us. And Paul Begg, for his candid review who at least recognizes that the book, "...is [overall] an interesting and necessary look at a largely neglected aspect of the Ripper crimes". By definition and along with unknown material, that is something new.

All the necessary attributions are located in the bibliography and extensive notes that can be found in the book for those who care to read it. As for the sniping remarks of alleged lack of acknowledgment for some who say have 'discovered' press clippings, the good news is that they have discovered online digital archives that are available to all researchers.

I not only researched my own sources but transcribed them for the book as well. A contribution I have also made to the Casebook Press Reports archive.

[mariab]

I'm quite curious what the definition of "nothing new" is at present.

There are 2 definitions for “nothing new“, not just at present but at all times:
- nothing new
- nothing attributed.

[Tom_Wescott]

Having read Paul Begg's monograph, Australian/Greek Hybrids and the Decline of Western Civilization, I'm not too surprised at his reaction to Spiro's book. However, I've noticed that everyone passing comment on Spiro's book has felt it necessary to state there's "nothing new" in it. I'm quite curious what the definition of "nothing new" is at present.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

Oops, I misread an email. My bad and my humble apologies. You are my hero again.

Mike

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

Is there a page missing from my September issue of Ripperologist?

Much as I appreciate Paul saying I am one of three hard-working Tumblety researchers, I found no reference to this, let alone any slamming by Paul of Tumblety sympathizers.

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

Certainly,

In your review, you slam on ‘Tumbtey-sympathizers’ and state that Riordan, Vanderlinden, and Simon Wood are the only Tumblety researchers to work hard. The clear implication is that these three anti-Tumblety researchers are the only ones doing quality, unbiased, research on Tumblety. Sadly, the evidence conflicts with your opinion. Note what Tim Riordan stated in Feb 2005, prior to the lion’s share of his book research:

The Ripper case was the biggest story all over the world. Unfortunately for the American newspapers, the only part of the story that they had was what came over the wires. For most of the time, they were on the sidelines. Tumblety was a godsend for them. Their reporters could seek out people who knew him and write page after page about him. He was tailor made to sell newspapers. In England, Tumblety was one of hundreds of suspects in the case, and not a very good one apparently. But in America, he was our one and only. To me, that explains the difference in press coverage.” Tim Riordan, Feb 2005
“
I have other examples.

Point: Riordan is an outstanding researcher, but he’s just as biased as everyone else. While researching for his book, he was already convinced of Tumblety’s innocence. Confirmation bias guarantees one will unknowingly put a spin on their own research.

…thus, your book review shows bias towards your opinion.

I'm sorry, but I can't find a mention of Tumblety in my review, or of Riordan, Vanderlinden, and Simon Wood for that matter. I clearly have a block on seeing where I 'slam on 'Tumblety sympathisers'', so if you could guide me to it I might be able to answer you.

[mklhawley]

Would you care to expand on that accusation of bias?

Certainly,

In your review, you slam on ‘Tumbtey-sympathizers’ and state that Riordan, Vanderlinden, and Simon Wood are the only Tumblety researchers to work hard. The clear implication is that these three anti-Tumblety researchers are the only ones doing quality, unbiased, research on Tumblety. Sadly, the evidence conflicts with your opinion. Note what Tim Riordan stated in Feb 2005, prior to the lion’s share of his book research:

The Ripper case was the biggest story all over the world. Unfortunately for the American newspapers, the only part of the story that they had was what came over the wires. For most of the time, they were on the sidelines. Tumblety was a godsend for them. Their reporters could seek out people who knew him and write page after page about him. He was tailor made to sell newspapers. In England, Tumblety was one of hundreds of suspects in the case, and not a very good one apparently. But in America, he was our one and only. To me, that explains the difference in press coverage.” Tim Riordan, Feb 2005
“
I have other examples.

Point: Riordan is an outstanding researcher, but he’s just as biased as everyone else. While researching for his book, he was already convinced of Tumblety’s innocence. Confirmation bias guarantees one will unknowingly put a spin on their own research.

…thus, your book review shows bias towards your opinion.

[Rob Clack]

I thought Paul's review was just right myself. And Paul's a very good writer and put things a lot better than I ever could.

Rob