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

[Phil H]

How can anyone really swallow any of this "occult" motive for the murders.

It ought to be overwhelmingly obvious if that had been the purpose - but time after time, we find that the dagger/cross, stat of david, pentagram is NOT QUITE aligned, or that the murders don't quite fall in the right place so we have to assume...

Like the royal conspiracy theory this stuff ought to be dead in the water.

I recall the book on Clarence that had to find (I think it was) 13 victims and align them with dates that had some royal signifficance. It was screamingly funny and obviously not real. I have the same response to occult theories.

Sorry,

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil,

Actually, Spiro isn't backing any occult theory at all, but he does explore contemporary theorizing, at the press, public, and official level, that exposes a great number of people at the time expected there to be some occult motive. What may be of more interest to you (as it was me), was the exploration of the 'secret society' idea suggested by Warren and Home Office officials.

Rob might be correct that there's 'nothing new' in the book, but I'd wager that most people don't have the huge resources and retentive memory that Rob Clack possesses, and therefore there probably will be much new to the average Ripper researcher. As for myself, I have found some things new to me, but more importantly, I've been reminded of nuggets I'd forgotten about. There are so many books on Jack the Ripper, and some are relatively obscure to the standard researcher, but Spiro has culled a lot of items from various sources and put them together in a narrative.

One thing I see happening, though, is that because of the enticing title, many new readers will buy this book and become thoroughly confused, because it gives no account of the actual murders and is clearly intended as a reference work for the serious Ripper reader/researcher.

I have my personal nitpicks about the book, namely Spiro's choice not to acknowledge certain individuals and entities that clearly provided sources used in his work, but this is entirely academic in nature and wouldn't be of concern to most who would buy the book.

The only part of the book that has really had me scratching my head is his section on Frank Stuart as possible hoaxer for the Diary. Spiro suggests that the Diary may have been hoaxed by Stuart in the 1950's, a theory which doesn't explain some of the facets of the Diary, such as the use of the alleged 'FM' on Mary Kelly's wall, a theory that didn't come about until Simon Wood mentioned it in the early 80's. I thought the general consensus was that the Diary was created within a few years of its becoming public, but apparently Spiro does not agree with this.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

Hi Phil,

Freemasonry was a reality in Victorian London. Under Queen Victoria, Freemasonry quadrupled in membership. It was an opportunity for the well-to-do to gather socially. Many Scotland Yard brass were members of certain Orders. Just as college fraternity brothers help each other out today, I'm sure Order members did (and do) the same. The fact that they are secret Orders opens up multitudes of conspiracy theories.

It is a virtual certainty that Order members during the Whitechapel killings were talking to each other behind closed doors about the murders and offering their personal opinions of who the killer might be. Many even had the ears of these same Scotland Yard members. I wrote about one such theory last year that could easily have begun like this.

Here's a quick example, George Lusk was an Order brother to the owner of the yard where the first of the double murders occurred. What a great conspiracy could be spun around this...or was there a connection? Conspiracies are too fun to be ignored.

Sincerely,

Mike

[mklhawley]

Sorry about jumping on your post Tom.

[Phil H]

Actually, Spiro isn't backing any occult theory at all...

Thanks for the reminder, Spiro told me that (I think) in an earlier post.

Freemasonry was a reality in Victorian London. Under Queen Victoria, Freemasonry quadrupled in membership. It was an opportunity for the well-to-do to gather socially.

Probably factually true, but irrelevant as such to JtR.

Mike went on to say "Many Scotland Yard brass were members of certain Orders. Just as college fraternity brothers help each other out today, I'm sure Order members did (and do) the same. The fact that they are secret Orders opens up multitudes of conspiracy theories."[My bolding.]

Your being sure, is not the same as evidence. I'm sure about many Ripper things, but my statements would not pass muster for a moment.

It is a virtual certainty that Order members during the Whitechapel killings were talking to each other behind closed doors about the murders and offering their personal opinions of who the killer might be. Many even had the ears of these same Scotland Yard members. I wrote about one such theory last year that could easily have begun like this.

Virtual certainties also don't count for much.

Here's a quick example, George Lusk was an Order brother to the owner of the yard where the first of the double murders occurred. What a great conspiracy could be spun around this...or was there a connection? Conspiracies are too fun to be ignored.

I suggest you take up fiction, Mike. Conspiracies are indeed great fun - but in most cases they are figments of the imagination. I'll exempt from that remark the JFK assassination, but then no one said I had to be consistent.

Phil

[mklhawley]

As a matter of fact Phil, my next book is fiction! All too fun.

[mklhawley]

Freemasonry was a reality in Victorian London. Under Queen Victoria, Freemasonry quadrupled in membership. It was an opportunity for the well-to-do to gather socially.

Probably factually true, but irrelevant as such to JtR.

I would disagree with this. No one knows who the killer actually was still to this day, even if you believe he was Kosminski. Scotland Yard investigated the 'Jekyll and Hyde' theories of the killer being a West End man. If he was a West End man, then chances are he enjoyed his evening social gatherings at mens clubs.

"Many Scotland Yard brass were members of certain Orders. Just as college fraternity brothers help each other out today, I'm sure Order members did (and do) the same. The fact that they are secret Orders opens up multitudes of conspiracy theories."

Your being sure, is not the same as evidence. I'm sure about many Ripper things, but my statements would not pass muster for a moment.

It is a virtual certainty that Order members during the Whitechapel killings were talking to each other behind closed doors about the murders and offering their personal opinions of who the killer might be. Many even had the ears of these same Scotland Yard members. I wrote about one such theory last year that could easily have begun like this.

Virtual certainties also don't count for much.

I'm sure you've figured out that ripperology is working with little evidence. It is a fallacy that anyone goes strictly by the evidence. Plausible connections to evidence is part of the business.

Phil, I want to make it clear that I am no conspiracy theorist. I do not accept that the evidence supports a Freemason conspiracy. The only connection to Freemasonry is that this is where the middle class socialized.

Sincerely,

Mike

[drstrange169]

Is the book available in Australia, other than on the internet?

[auspirograph]

Thanks for all the comments and interest in the book so far.

Is the book available in Australia, other than on the internet?

A fellow Aussie, yes it is, best ordered through your local major bookshop.

[Tom_Wescott]

I've now finished the book, and I commend Spiro on a unique achievement in Ripper literature, which is saying quite a lot. His chapter, 'Whitechapel Secret Service' will likely servce as the blueprint for the next new wave of Ripper research.

For those who think this is a D'Onston book, it is not, although he does offer much new information, and there's no question that anyone intrigued by D'Onston should start with this book. But more importantly (at least to my mind), is the rest of the stuff. And keep in mind, I'm offering only my interpretation of Spiro's work, having just read it, and am not speaking for him. But what he has done is to sift out many intriguing pieces of information in the Ripper case, usually emanating from reliable sources, that get glossed over or ignored outright in mainstream Ripper literature. He then provides original research and commentary, with very little personal bias, in order to explore and flesh out these potentially vital nuggets. It's important to say again, that his research is based on actual contemporary sources, so we're not talking wild speculation. It's this unique approach that I feel really recommends the book.

Very recently, on the forums, I instigated a discussion about Douglas Browne's observation regarding Macnaghten appearing to identify the Ripper with an attempt to assassinate Balfour. This came after reading Jonathan Hainsworth's unique take on the matter. I have long been frustrated when asking people or inquiring on the boards about any supposed attempts on Balfour's life. Repeatedly, I'd just be told 'Well, there were rumors of an attempt', but no one seemed to know or wanted to talk about it. Well, Spiro delivers pages of data in reference to multiple thwarted plots against Balfours life, offering researchers a chance to follow up this intriguing lead.

Spiro is a polarizing figure in internet Ripperology, and it's unfortunate that because of this, some researchers will discount his work outright. I fully expect to be called a few names behind my back for recommending his book, but good research is good research. And for anyone wondering, NO, Spiro does not promote Charles Le Grand. In fact, he dismisses him as a viable suspect in his footnotes.

Hopefully, as more people are able receive and read the book, some intelligent and worthwhile discussions can take place on the material presented.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

I've now finished the book, and I commend Spiro on a unique achievement in Ripper literature, which is saying quite a lot. His chapter, 'Whitechapel Secret Service' will likely servce as the blueprint for the next new wave of Ripper research.

For those who think this is a D'Onston book, it is not, although he does offer much new information, and there's no question that anyone intrigued by D'Onston should start with this book. But more importantly (at least to my mind), is the rest of the stuff. And keep in mind, I'm offering only my interpretation of Spiro's work, having just read it, and am not speaking for him. But what he has done is to sift out many intriguing pieces of information in the Ripper case, usually emanating from reliable sources, that get glossed over or ignored outright in mainstream Ripper literature. He then provides original research and commentary, with very little personal bias, in order to explore and flesh out these potentially vital nuggets. It's important to say again, that his research is based on actual contemporary sources, so we're not talking wild speculation. It's this unique approach that I feel really recommends the book.

Very recently, on the forums, I instigated a discussion about Douglas Browne's observation regarding Macnaghten appearing to identify the Ripper with an attempt to assassinate Balfour. This came after reading Jonathan Hainsworth's unique take on the matter. I have long been frustrated when asking people or inquiring on the boards about any supposed attempts on Balfour's life. Repeatedly, I'd just be told 'Well, there were rumors of an attempt', but no one seemed to know or wanted to talk about it. Well, Spiro delivers pages of data in reference to multiple thwarted plots against Balfours life, offering researchers a chance to follow up this intriguing lead.

Spiro is a polarizing figure in internet Ripperology, and it's unfortunate that because of this, some researchers will discount his work outright. I fully expect to be called a few names behind my back for recommending his book, but good research is good research. And for anyone wondering, NO, Spiro does not promote Charles Le Grand. In fact, he dismisses him as a viable suspect in his footnotes.

Hopefully, as more people are able receive and read the book, some intelligent and worthwhile discussions can take place on the material presented.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

This book review is detailed, informative, and in my opinion unbiased. Brilliant! All too often book reviews follow the bias of the reviewer (see the September edition of Ripperologist). Honestly, the Whitechapel Secret Service chapter sounds very intriguing.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Mike. Thanks for that, and yes, your favorite chap is in there! LOL. My post was freestyle, and certainly not an indepth book review, although I plan to write a more thorough review for Don's journal. I agree with what you say regarding reviews. The most shocking reviews I've ever read were the two reviews published by Ripperolost on Evans/Connell's 'The Man Who Hunted JTR", both of which were rather scathing reviews. Hard to imagine, I know, but true. That's one of my all-time fave books. Thankfully, this is quite rare, and the reviews in Rip have led me to many a fine book I wouldn't have otherwise known about, and in some cases, exposed a book as crappy and saved me money.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PaulB]

This book review is detailed, informative, and in my opinion unbiased. Brilliant! All too often book reviews follow the bias of the reviewer (see the September edition of Ripperologist). Honestly, the Whitechapel Secret Service chapter sounds very intriguing.

Sincerely,

Mike

Would you care to expand on that accusation of bias?

[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

[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.