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

[PaulB]

The O'Donnell manuscript, as it is found on your site, is from the original acquired by Andy Aliffe when employed by Melvin Harris

Not getting involved here and I suspect that you don't mean "employed" as being paid, but just for the record and as I understand it, Melvin knew that Andy worked for the BBC and had access to a range of telephone directories which Melvin, who I believe was living in Ireland at the time, did not have. Melvin asked Andy to scout through them for Peter O'Donnell's address, which Andy did. Andy then approached Peter O'Donnell and secured a copy of the ms for Melvin, who was in turn pretty miffed that Andy had gone and got him the ms. It's all very unimportant, but Andy was somewhat upset about it, so it's maybe worth making the situation clear.

[auspirograph]

Certainly Paul, that's how I understand it and employed as assisting. As you say, it's all unimportant now.

[Howard Brown]

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=149727&posted=1#post149727

[auspirograph]

Roslyn D'Onston

I'm not sure why Martin Fido would consider you as the definitive source on D'Onston when you clearly don't even consider him a legitimate police suspect despite documentation to the contrary.

I knew you would still be barking up the wrong tree.
His candidacy lasted from the moment George Marsh visited Roots until RDS went to see Roots on the 26th. No documentation exists beyond this point, certainly none that demonstrate the police had an interest in him beyond December 26th, 1888.
Everyone, I'm afraid, understands this, except you.

Howard,

I'm not going to bother responding to your other hyperbole but this, which you consistently fail to notice. At least you have now changed your tune and accept "his candidacy", regardless of the time he was considered or that his police file was not discovered until the late 1970's . To accept that D'Onston was a legitimate police suspect does not of course mean or that it is said, that he was necessarily Jack the Ripper.

Now that I have proved he could not leave London Hospital with several documented cross-referenced sources, he couldn't be Jack the Ripper so what then was his interest. My book isn't a suspect book at all, rather D'Onston's candidacy was referred to as a case study on the Whitechapel murders as a whole.

Inspector Thomas Roots of Scotland Yard CID also noted in his 26 December 1888 summary report on D'Onston and Marsh that, "The statements were forwarded to Chief Inspector Swanson". Swanson was a meticulous recorder and would have summarized police interviews of police suspects for his superiors. Those documents do not appear to have survived along with the suspects file. Neither does the reply of the City Police annotated on his 16th October 1888 letter. So how can you now say, "No documentation exists beyond this point, certainly none that demonstrate the police had an interest in him beyond December 26th, 1888" That's the whole point of subsequent research on D'Onston for which you were not the first or the last.

[Howard Brown]

I'm not going to bother responding to your other hyperbole

That's easy to understand...since you don't have the permission you claim to have and claim clearly on page 211 of your book "extract reprinted courtesy of Peter O'Donnell"....note # 69 in case you don't recall.

Like that link where you praise the generous resources found on the Internet and thank Ives,myself, and Dave Knott ? More if you want 'em.


I forgot to put " " around the word candidacy...since it's an imaginary candidacy. My mistake.

""The statements were forwarded to Chief Inspector Swanson". Swanson was a meticulous recorder and would have summarized police interviews of police suspects for his superiors.**

Would,shoulda,coulda, but without a document that clearly states that RDS was worth investigating beyond December 26th, there is, as I said, no documentation that exists to show he was a viable suspect or candidate or anything other than a interloper into police affairs.

[Tom_Wescott]

Speaking as someone who was involved involved in the D'Onston debacle on the forums a few years ago, and who suffered an unfortunate fall-out with Howard Brown (now repared, I hope) and Spiro (I'm still not allowed on his site), I'm not surprised to see Spiro and Howard going at it. In fact, Spiro seems to almost be begging Howard to lash out with some of his recent comments. Arguing against Howard is not easy, nor fun, and is near suicide if you're trying to get positive word going around about your new book.

However, it's unfortunate that some have chosen to take Spiro to task for use of speculation and information from the boards. Responsible speculation is a necessary ingredient in any good work of history, and if Spiro had made the odd choice to ignore fresh finds posted publicly on these boards, then his book could be little more than absolutely useless.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

However, it's unfortunate that some have chosen to take Spiro to task for use of speculation and information from the boards. Responsible speculation is a necessary ingredient in any good work of history, and if Spiro had made the odd choice to ignore fresh finds posted publicly on these boards, then his book could be little more than absolutely useless.

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.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria. So, you've read Spiro's book and found that he did not properly attribute his sources, and in the text of his book you found disparaging remarks against Rob Clack?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Tom, the not attributed sources were partly visible in the text, partly brought forward by others. Regarding D'Onston's alibi at the London Hospital, I've read a few threads in question (whatever has remained of them), and I most honestly am not informed enough to be able to take a position on who researched this first, Mr. Dimolianis or Mike Covell. Thus I'm going to stay out of this discussion.

The remarks against Rob Clack obviously occurred in an earlier post in this thread, not in Mr. Dimolianis book. I completely understand the pressures of bringing out a new book under partly/possibly hostile circumstances, and that an author will react a bit bitterly to criticism. Under the circumstances, the remark against Rob cannot even be considered as such a big deal, though totally preposterous.

The attribution issue is a very important one though, as it pertains to academic standards and ethics.

[Tom_Wescott]

You think Spiro was unfair to Rob and not the other way around? Don't get me wrong, Rob paid his money for a copy and absolutely has the right to express his own opinion. But he might also have made the same mistake that myself and other commentators have done, and that is assume that most other people have the same knowledge we do. When he wrote that there's nothing new of interest in the book, I had second thoughts about buying it. But now I see them talking about the Diary and apparently the book pursues an avenue of investigation about who wrote the Diary...information that would be new to me and anyone else (most of us) who don't follow the Diary drama any more. And I'm sure that the Special Branch ledgers would be rather new to virtually any one who does not frequent the boards.

Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means setting up camp with Spiro here. I haven't read the book. But it sounds like his book has a pretty wide breadth, and say what you will, Spiro is a very talented writer, and maybe a lot of people would get something worthwhile from his book. I think Rob underestimates the influence he has over other readers.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

And I'm sure that the Special Branch ledgers would be rather new to virtually any one who does not frequent the boards.

That's one of the things that puzzles me, since I didn't have access to this part of the book (online). How can there be new information in the book pertaining to the SB ledgers, unless Mr. Dimolianis has been receiving information from Mr. Marriott, in a very rare privilege?

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

This is a very speculative discussion, but at least with attribution.
I'll find a way to read this book, even if I can't afford it right now.

[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

[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