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

[Rob Clack]

Is the index not a little bit out of the way to mention attribution, particularly when a slightly misleading pic/caption appears prominently elsewhere in the book?

When the author of the book writes a caption for a photograph as "Ghostwriter Frank S. Stuart, who may have authored the Maybrick dirary in the 1950s" you have to read that as the authors opinion and no one elses.

Rob

[Debra A]

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 you were given a date and a place when you asked me! How much more do you want?!

In fact, he dismisses him as a viable suspect in his footnotes

.

How so though? What is there to dismiss Le Grand as a supsect?

As for the rest, I haven't got Spiro's book and I appreciate the fact that Spiro probably had access to all the electronic databases himself as so didn't need to rely on anything posted previously to the boards, but what about the people who were specifically asked to look for for things for Spiro? I remember a few years ago trawling the 1891 census around Baker Street and it's environs looking for D'Onston, Collins, Cremers at Spiro's request, plus producing a list of herbalists listed in the 1881 and 1891 census for him.

I know that certain researchers are listed in Spiro's book, so if he was able to look at all this for himself and not relied on anyone at all, how come certain researchers are listed in the credits? Some who only ever use electronic resources too?

I don't really give a fig..I'm just asking as it seems some of us are being singled out as being a bit disgruntled,when perhaps it's the other way around.

love muggins Debs X

[Tom_Wescott]

I read the Ripperologist review by Paul Begg last night, and say I more or less agree with most of his points. There are some whoppers in there, such as the Monro one he points out, and Spiro's written voice is often hard to work through, though that has always been the case with Spiro and it didn't surprise me at all.

Paul's points were completely valid, and if Spiro does a second edition, he should heed Paul's advice and correct the factual errors he's made.

However, what recommends the book to me is Spiro's choice to follow valid leads in the case that are typically dismissed or glossed over by mainstream writers, usually because they don't fit in their POV of the case, or are inconvenient to the version of events they want to put forth. So, it's the substance of Spiro's work that I enjoyed and is why I wanted to discuss it, because I knew other people on the threads would see the value in this, though clearly not all would.

To be honest, the black magic stuff held the least amount of interest for me, and I personally think Spiro could have had two books here - one on black magic and D'Onston/Cremers/Collins, and another fleshing out what he started with 'Whitechapel Secret Service'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

How so though? What is there to dismiss Le Grand as a supsect?

Spiro seems to be under the impression that Stephen White investigated Le Grand as a suspect following the double event (he didn't) and cleared him as a suspect (never happened). If Le Grand were investigated as a Ripper suspect in October 1888, then I'm not aware of it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

Spiro seems to be under the impression that Stephen White investigated Le Grand as a suspect following the double event (he didn't) and cleared him as a suspect (never happened). If Le Grand were investigated as a Ripper suspect in October 1888, then I'm not aware of it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Didn't happen that's why.
Le Grand was only brought forward as a real suspect (like it or not people) in March 1892, and that particular snippet was found by Mike Covell. I can't believe that anyone else would independently find a new suspect mentioned in the papers like that and not publish it anywhere except in a book and then go on to discredit said suspect on no evidence at all.

[Tom_Wescott]

Spiro refers to two different reports naming Le Grand as a suspect, so he seems also to be aware of the article discovered by Mark Ripper. Incidentally, both the Covell and Ripper finds were first posted to jtrforums. Having said all this, Simon Wood seems to have independently found them, as we'll remember from the 'Plaus of Koz' thread, so anything is possible.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

Spiro refers to two different reports naming Le Grand as a suspect, so he seems also to be aware of the article discovered by Mark Ripper. Incidentally, both the Covell and Ripper finds were first posted to jtrforums. Having said all this, Simon Wood seems to have independently found them, as we'll remember from the 'Plaus of Koz' thread, so anything is possible.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Simon's find was a different one and not definitely related to Le Grand I suspect. Did Spiro mention Simon's find?
It's easy to find things when you know what you are looking for.

[Debra A]

Spiro refers to two different reports naming Le Grand as a suspect, so he seems also to be aware of the article discovered by Mark Ripper. Incidentally, both the Covell and Ripper finds were first posted to jtrforums. Having said all this, Simon Wood seems to have independently found them, as we'll remember from the 'Plaus of Koz' thread, so anything is possible.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

We also had other finds on the Koz thread that claimed to be examples from the 1891/92 era but were actually from 1888, namely the Portuguese sailor theory which was published again in 1891 on account of a certain solicitor's memoirs being published in that year.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Debs. Are we thinking of a different find by Simon? I seem to recall his two articles were the exact same as those found by Covell and Ripper. Phil Carter was talking them up, you might remember. And this occurred far too recently for Spiro to have included them in his book, I should think. But maybe not. Spiro does not mention anything at all about the articles. This entire Le Grand business appeared as a footnote.

I always say, that if you're planning to write a Ripper book, you need to subscribe to the journals.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

Hi Debs. Are we thinking of a different find by Simon? I seem to recall his two articles were the exact same as those found by Covell and Ripper. Phil Carter was talking them up, you might remember. And this occurred far too recently for Spiro to have included them in his book, I should think. But maybe not. Spiro does not mention anything at all about the articles. This entire Le Grand business appeared as a footnote.

I always say, that if you're planning to write a Ripper book, you need to subscribe to the journals.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,
As I recall Simon's find was slightly differently worded and not the same as Mike or Mark's find? I may be wrong but that is the impression I got and that MP sure made a debut inthat article.
Journals? They are way behind the boards...you cant beat JTRforums for new finds I say. You need to subscribe or write for the journals if you want your name in lights is all.

[Tom_Wescott]

Did you come to that conclusion before or after Ripperologist sent you and Rob a fat check for winning the Beadle prize with your Rose Mylett piece?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

After

Be fair, Tom, how much new info have I posted to the boards compared to mine and Rob's ONE article on Catherine Mylett?

[Tom_Wescott]

Why don't you call her Rose? That's what she's known by and it's a prettier name. And yes, you publish lots of new info. Not sure how subscribing to a journal gets your name in the limelight, though. And posting articles piecemeal to the forums or Casebook, in random threads, means they will be missed by most, and as many crashes as have happened can sucks these finds into the netherworld, I still believe anything significant needs to be presented and assessed in a publication of some kind, whether it be a journal or a book. You, for instance, often post new finds in the middle of a series of pages of a thread, as opposed to creating a thread where it can be more easily referenced.

As for your disdain for journals, how would you suppose I should have posted my 52 page essay on a forum thread? Or expected anyone to read it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

When the author of the book writes a caption for a photograph as "Ghostwriter Frank S. Stuart, who may have authored the Maybrick dirary in the 1950s" you have to read that as the authors opinion and no one elses.

I know, that's why I'm not happy with the attribution having taken place ONLY in the index.

As I recall Simon's find was slightly differently worded and not the same as Mike or Mark's find? I may be wrong but that is the impression I got and that MP sure made a debut inthat article.

Debs, I agree with most of what you're saying.
If anyone wishes to clear the Simon Wood vs. Mike Covell/Mark Ripper newspaper report find about an MP and an unnamed suspect referring to Le Grand, it's all in the Probability of Kozminsky casebook thread to read.

Pertaining to the debate about the importance and utility of Ripperological mags, I've submitted some questions pertaining to this (and to other aspects of Ripperological meta-debate) to Howard Brown over at the other forum, and he's gonna submit these questions (among other questions, proposed by other posters) to the participants in the Philly conference which is running right now. Thus soon there might be some interesting debate about all this in the other forum, particularly pertaining to “Ripperology and academia“, which is a subject that interests me personally, as I'd be personally interested in “reconciling“ these 2 fields.

[Rob Clack]

I know, that's why I'm not happy with the attribution having taken place ONLY in the index.

It's not in the index either or the notes.

Rob