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

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

As I mentioned earlier, the Casebook Wiki will be desiring a review of this work.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm reading some of this book daily and am curious who else besides myself and Rob Clack have purchased it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I purchased Spiro's book from Amazon.com today and look forward to receiving it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[auspirograph]

New Book on Jack the Ripper

Great to see that some are now having a good hair day, even those without a mane.

The hair curling will occur when Trevor Marriott unveils before the afro cuts of the Whitechapel Society at this weekend's London Conference with his stand-up routine, "The Secret Files of the Whitechapel Murders". I wouldn't have thought they were so secret anymore but that should go well with the vaudeville on the program.

Regarding D'Onston, the information presented in the book is hair curling because it was not covered in the new edition of the A-Z. Nor does much of it appear anywhere else. It is the most complete and updated coverage of this Scotland Yard suspect, in context of the Ripper murders, since publication of the Harris and Edwards books. And as Sugden did with Ostrog, D'Onston is now proved he could not have been Jack the Ripper though he remains of historical interest.

I'm not sure why Rob has suddenly become absorbed by D'Onston and the Maybrick diary when his research interests appear to lie elsewhere.

Perhaps when the sections on Sir Robert Anderson and the Special Branch inquiries on the Whitechapel murders in their Victorian political context are approached, and when others have had a chance to read the book for themselves, more apt discussion on my book might happen.

If not that's fine too as it is the subject matter and deeper review of over a century of Jack the Ripper speculations and why they occurred that is the point of a new book of this nature.

[Tom_Wescott]

Wow, I'm trying to imagine something so good that it would first make Rob grow hair, then make it curl. Imagine if such evidence were revealed at a conference...a room full of white people with afros.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rob Clack]

Rob,

Try pages 142, 143 and 213 (notes 113 and 115). You have obtained a copy thanks, it's your book now, I don't have time to read it for you also.

Spiro

I have, twice.

Where's the stuff on Donston that would make our hair curl?

Rob

[auspirograph]

Nowhere in the main body of the text do you say that Richard Stokes belived Frank S Stuart possibly hoaxed it. And neither is it mentioned in the notes.

Rob,

Try pages 142, 143 and 213 (notes 113 and 115). You have obtained a copy thanks, it's your book now, I don't have time to read it for you also.

Spiro

[Archaic]

Frank S. Stuart

Hi everyone.

I was curious as to who Frank S. Stuart was, so I looked him up. I found a PDF called 'Confessions of A Ghostwriter' by Richard Stokes that discusses both the Maskelyne books and the Maybrick diary.

I don't have an opinion about either Stuart or Stokes, but thought others might wish to read this too.

Confessions of a Ghostwriter: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...jhgj2zTg&pli=1

Best regards,
Archaic

[auspirograph]

Philip Sugden

Christopher Frayling was concerned with the light cast on popular prejudices by the types of suspect proposed, and was so little interested in the murders as such that he originally proposed ending his remarks with the extravagant remark "So there never was a Jack the Ripper". Judith Walkowitz, probably the most successful academic expert on the Ripper, is interested in the case for its effect on women's status in society - her other great interest being the effect of department stores and "shopping" as a positive activity. Far and away the most distinguished academic to have become involved in Ripper history is Charles van Onselen.

Of course to this list should be added the defining historical study of the Whitechapel murders by Philip Sugden, The Complete History of Jack the Ripper.

[mariab]

the material in the book on the Special Branch Ledgers does cover some familiar ground but it also offers a complete examination of them in context of the Whitechapel murders and the Victorian political period. {...} These sections are quite simply the most complete examination of Special Branch inquiries on the Whitechapel murders we have.

You probably mean a general discussion and possible speculation, because what precise information can you possibly have about the ledgers' content apart from what's published in Clutterbuck plus, related to the Ripper investigation, “McGrath's“ name and that well-known entry with John Kelly/Katherine Kelly and Mr. Doughty/McDoherty?

There is also mention of the Scotland Yard General Registry (Crime Index).

I'll definitely try to have access to that part of the book.

Maybe Mr. Marriott, if he has time, might also make the Drexel conference and finally catch up with the work of Martin Fido.

:-)

[auspirograph]

I would imagine that Spiro is presenting the familiar information and offering his own thoughts and analysis. If there had been new information on the SBL, I'm sure Rob and others who've read the book would have mentioned that.

This is the point Tom. Rob and others who have read the book, and it hasn't been out that long, are not mentioning the new material. Who knows why...

Yes, the material in the book on the Special Branch Ledgers does cover some familiar ground but it also offers a complete examination of them in context of the Whitechapel murders and the Victorian political period. There is also mention of the Scotland Yard General Registry (Crime Index).

To do that, new information was introduced, which is not so familiar to most, perhaps even Rob. Certainly not to Trevor Marriott who has been touted for the London conference to speak on "The Secret Files of the Whitechapel Murders". Maybe Mr. Marriott, if he has time, might also make the Drexel conference and finally catch up with the work of Martin Fido. You've been away for a while but you know how these things work.

These sections are quite simply the most complete examination of Special Branch inquiries on the Whitechapel murders we have. Some people however, are more concerned with the cult of personality rather than the subject itself.

There is also much new information on the general working operations of the London Hospital, particularly of the night shift arrangements. These details and complete examination of do not appear anywhere else. It was the only way to prove D'Onston's ability or otherwise to commit the murders. But there's more on D'Onston that would make your hair curl.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

Thanks Chris G for the accolades, I trust and reasonably assume that Ripperologist will in time furnish an objective, fair and unbiased review?

We'll also wanting to be reviewing it for the Casebook Wiki, Spiro. Will you be at the London conference ?

[mariab]

Rob, I've been there and I'm about to email you if it's OK. I have some things.

[Rob Clack]

If I may post a last comment on this matter, (necessary) speculation doesn't seem to be the problem here, as much as the lack of attribution.
Personally what rubbed me wrong are the comments addressed to Rob Clack.

Thanks Maria, water of a ducks back as the saying goes.

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Regarding mention of the Maybrick diary, I didn't name the author and ghostwriter Frank S. Stuart as possibly hoaxing it, the author Richard Stokes did. It seemed to me worth exploring and the more I did, the more it seemed possible that he may have had a hand in it. Stuart was a contemporary of Donald McCormick, Nigel Morland and Bernard O'Donnell. When it can be traced that the fabricated poem "Eight Little Whores" first appeared in McCormick's 1959 book on Jack the Ripper, the possibility was, in my view, substantial. Unless you and Caroline Morris can enlighten us on the true identity of the hoaxer, the subject is open to debate, you'll have to live with that.

Nowhere in the main body of the text do you say that Richard Stokes belived Frank S Stuart possibly hoaxed it. And neither is it mentioned in the notes.
You reproduce a photo of Frank Stuart and caption it "Ghostwriter Frank S. Stuart, who may have authored the Maybrick dirary in the 1950s" which would come across to anyone reading it, thinking it was your opinion and belief.

And don't bring Caz into this.

As for the presumption that the forums were 'raided', there really was not much there of use to dip into but more speculation. Anything of some value was either my own research or that of John Savage and Graham Wilson whose contributions were acknowledged. Do you not recall the calls made over the years to have material particularly on D'Onston and Vittoria Cremers placed in some order instead of scattered over the internet? Well, my book does that and supplemented with further research that proves, not speculated, that D'Onston could not have left the London Hospital to commit the murders. In that instance the question arose, why then did he inject himself into the investigation of Scotland Yard and make statements to police on Jack the Ripper.

I'm sure Howard and Mike are grateful for the acknowledgement in your book. Oh hang on there not.

What I cannot understand is why you have become selective in the use of authors of some internet material in their work as Keith Skinner, otherwise a fine researcher, and the authors of the A-Z recently made admission to? In my view, it is not enough to 'find' snippets of information that are generally available for online searching to anyone, but to also examine, place in context and present in coherent form to general readers with an ongoing interest in Jack the Ripper and the Victorian period.
Cheers
Spiro

I have absolutely no problem with people using information from the Internet. I do it myself. But I always try my best to make sure people are acknowledged

Rob