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

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom,

If we all agreed there would be no point in these boards. I believe this article has EVERYTHING to do with the Berner street club.

Haven't really time to discuss this properly as I am off to the land of my mothers, (if not my fathers) for a quick visit but will be happy to prove my point at the end of next week.

All good wishes,
C4

I don't think it's a matter of opinion here, Curious4. The government did not establish the Berner Street club and in fact opposed it. They set it up as a 'working men's' club but in reality, that's not what it was. It was a facade. The agenda behind it was entirely their own. And the majority of attendees to the club did not, in fact, work.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Thank you for that, Stewart, to get the conversation back on track about Secret Societies and all. In fact, I have Spiro's book on order from a library across town, so to participate better.

Spiro's a mess and he didn't do the best job in correctly attributing the D'Onston material in his book to the right sources...and in fact, I don't even know why any of its in his book. A rather outdated topic and one I found little value in. But I found value in other chapters of Spiro's book in how he placed focus on items that are of much interest and potential value. Items that were otherwise scattered among many sources, sometimes largely forgotten, but now collected within his book for easy reference. When you consider that most Ripper books are absolutely worthless, Spiro's is a nice and necessary addition to the collection of any serious Ripper student. I considered it a good purchase and I can't say that about most Ripper books I've purchased in recent years. This is strictly a personal opinion and not a very popular one, I'm sure. I certainly would not recommend this book to a newbie because of the errors and strange writing style at times. But then I don't get the impression that he wrote this as a primer for newbies.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[auspirograph]

Thanks Tom, I'm glad you're finding the book useful and an enjoyable, challenging read.

Spiro's a mess and he didn't do the best job in correctly attributing the D'Onston material in his book to the right sources...

I'm not sure what you mean here but if you are referring to the recent incomplete and non-essential Penguin offering from Bennett and Begg, which simply refers the reader of the D'Onston portion to a website and retrospectively to Harris's The True Face of Jack the Ripper, then I would say no, you are mistaken and incorrect.

All the appropriate attributions on D'Onston as a Scotland Yard suspect have been made and checked. It does not however mean I think he was the Ripper, far from it, the book conclusively rules him out on new official evidence not found elsewhere. Others have not attributed material to the right sources...that is why it had become a mess...

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Spiro,

Begg and Bennett's just came out so I don't see how you could think I was referring to them in any way? I was referring to Mike Covell, Howard Brown, et al, who did the D'Onston research your book was largely based on.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[John Bennett]

I'm not sure what you mean here but if you are referring to the recent incomplete and non-essential Penguin offering from Bennett and Begg...

Thanks for that one, Spiro. ;-)

[auspirograph]

Thanks John and Tom for your replies... John you owe me one

Well I guess you can't please everyone, you must have both missed the new and crucial information in the D'Onston section...

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Spiro,

I probably did miss it because I didn't read the D'Onston section too carefully. No offense, but it was kind of old news to me since I'd learned the significant stuff from Mike Covell and Howard Brown long before your book came out. If D'Onston was already determined not to have been the Ripper (i.e. was stuck in the hospital) then how 'significant' could any information relating to him be?
Fortunately, you included material that was not related to D'Onston so I still found value in your book. More importantly, I enjoyed reading it, which I can't say about many Ripper books...most of which fall into two categories these days...1) Absurd, or 2) Redundant, repetitive and unimaginative.
My biggest complaint about the work is that you didn't look past your personal difficulties with Mike and Howard and give them proper credit for the D'Onston research they've contributed, which is vast. A writer owes that to his reader if not the researchers themselves. But that's it for my lecture.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[auspirograph]

Tom,

If anyone has evidence for the sort of accusations you are making based on your admission that you "...didn't read the D'Onston section too carefully", then they should put up or shut up.

The significant material on D'Onston that I learnt was from Richard Whittington-Egan and Melvin Harris.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,

If anyone has evidence for the sort of accusations you are making based on your admission that you "...didn't read the D'Onston section too carefully", then they should put up or shut up.

The significant material on D'Onston that I learnt was from Richard Whittington-Egan and Melvin Harris.

You totally miss the point, Spiro. But while we're on the subject of who read what. Do you own and have you read the new book by Begg and Bennett? What are your thoughts on what they had to say in Chapter 3?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[auspirograph]

Miss Marion B. Mackey

Speaking of Roslyn D'Onston, examining his alibi at The London Hospital was vital in determining why he had injected himself into the police investigation of the Whitechapel murders.

This illustration didn't make it into the book but I thought others might like to see it. No other photo is available of her but this shows the supervising night shift sister of The London Hospital during the Whitechapel murders, Miss Marion B. Mackey.

Her legal testimony given for the Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Metropolitan Hospitals, Provident and other Public Dispensaries, and Charitable Institutions for Sick Poor. 1890, proved, along with other security regulations of the hospital, that D'Onston's alibi was secure. Conclusive evidence, not hearsay or speculation, that he was not Jack the Ripper.

The illustration was found in an extensive article that interviewed her for The Nursing Record. March 2, 1893.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks for posting that, Spiro.

So I guess you don't own and haven't read the new Begg & Bennett book? No big deal there as it's new and we can't expect you to buy every book the moment it comes out. But shouldn't you wait to read it before bashing it in public? As an author you should be aware of the work that goes into writing and publishing a book. Fine by me to express disappointment with a work, but my goodness, read it first.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Michael W Richards]

Its too bad no-one has written a book on the crimes without adding their own speculation about who-done-it, because many students and Ripperologists need refreshers on what the actual facts are in these cases. People have been bouncing suspect theories around like basketballs, none that have answered all the outstanding questions, ......maybe starting with just the facts concerning the crimes themselves, instead of telling a story about which twisted individual committed them, might allow for more informed exchanges on discussion boards.

Cheers

[The Good Michael]

Its too bad no-one has written a book on the crimes without adding their own speculation about who-done-it, because many students and Ripperologists need refreshers on what the actual facts are in these cases. People have been bouncing suspect theories around like basketballs, none that have answered all the outstanding questions, ......maybe starting with just the facts concerning the crimes themselves, instead of telling a story about which twisted individual committed them, might allow for more informed exchanges on discussion boards.

Come on. You don't know any facts. You have your perceptions of facts. That's what gets you into trouble on the boards all the time. There are no facts. There are only interpretations of data. We're all in the same boat.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Good Michael vs Bad Michael

Come on. You don't know any facts. You have your perceptions of facts. That's what gets you into trouble on the boards all the time. There are no facts. There are only interpretations of data. We're all in the same boat.

Mike

That's more or less accurate. In fact, just a couple of days ago I was writing something for my book about this. As an example, I used Emma Smith. If I were to state 'Emma Smith was murdered', I'd receive no objection...not even from Michael Richards or Ally. And yet, that's merely an interpretation of the evidence. It's not actually a fact, because there were no witnesses and her injuries could have been self-inflicted. I agree it was a murder, so do you, so does everyone, but all of us agreeing does not make it a fact.
Likewise, there are people who believe the world is square. But their belief doesn't make the world any less round. It comes down to best interpretation. And not all interpretations are equal, I promise you that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Its too bad no-one has written a book on the crimes without adding their own speculation about who-done-it, because many students and Ripperologists need refreshers on what the actual facts are in these cases. People have been bouncing suspect theories around like basketballs, none that have answered all the outstanding questions, ......maybe starting with just the facts concerning the crimes themselves, instead of telling a story about which twisted individual committed them, might allow for more informed exchanges on discussion boards.

Cheers

Incidentally, since you're posting this on Spiro's book thread it might be taken as a criticism of his book. But although he clears D'Onston of suspicion, he does not propose a suspect.

Seems that commenting on books one has not read is all the rage right now.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott