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

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[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]

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

[auspirograph]

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

[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.

[Howard Brown]

Well that one is easy, I had been researching this book since 2005. Most of the research found on your site I had found independently well before it was posted but had reserved for the book, which I don't expect you to accept or understand.

Oh, I understand buddy boy...this is your way of saying that you didn't have access to the manuscript until the Forums received permission from Peter O'Donnell in writing and had said permission noted in an issue of Ripperologist. I did post a couple of pages of it up in order to gauge how much space it would require and did go through SPE to obtain permission...something you may say you had, but fail, as usual, to deliver.

The O'Donnell manuscript, as it is found on your site, is from the original acquired by Andy Aliffe when employed by Melvin Harris, to whom he alternatively provided a photocopy. Your permission from Peter was a retrospective license after the fact of you posting it without permission, something you alternatively described as an exclusive right in Ripperologist. So you and your cronies can wonder no more.

It is an exclusive right of the Forums to present it free of charge to researchers and civilians alike. I've just explained why I posted three ( at the most ) pages of the O.D. up in a special section which was inaccessible to the public prior to publicly providing permission to share the document.

Had you had a copy of the document...which of course I sent to you via email prior to posting it on the Forums...you would have told me. You didn't because ,frankly, I don't believe you had it. Andy would have told me if he had shared it with anyone else...and he didn't.

I don't have to provide you with anything Howard, get over it man!

Its certainly not me that you have to provide anything to. Taking Mike's discovery in 2007...which everyone knows is and was his in the first place... and trying to claim it as your own is par for the course for you, I suppose.

Regarding D'Onston's alibi at the London Hospital, you yourself have documented and acknowledged my research as the source after the fact. I had established in reference to the 16th October letter to the City Police that D'Onston was in Currie ward with a transfer sometime after that date to Davis ward. Mike's confirmation of my research and waving of Currie ward protocol did not prove D'Onston could leave the hospital as night porters were known to be bribed with other irregularities then current at Victorian establishments.

You proved nothing other than providing some anecdotes ( in your book) which supported Mike's communication with Jonathan Evans in 2007. I have given you credit for whatever you've done in regard to the Stephenson saga...but you don't get credit for repeating what's already been established and accepted by researchers the world over.

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.

The offer still stands...as I'm not interested in using up Ryder's bandwidth and since you won't let me respond on your site....to get it on over to the Forums and we'll thrash this about there.

Lets see the permission in writing from Peter O'Donnell, pal.

[auspirograph]

Thanks Martin for your interesting and measured response, certainly no, I was not suggesting that the authors of the A-Z were reliant on internet snippets anymore than Rob was suggesting I was.

If anything, in researching a book on Jack the Ripper, an author with integrity cannot fail to notice the exacting work done by yourself and co-authors.

Spiro:

Some of us are wondering how you received permission from Peter O'Donnell to use text or data from Bernard O'Donnell's manuscript, "This Man Was Jack The Ripper " which of course is available on the Forums....when Peter O'Donnell passed away in May of 2010.

Can you provide documentation for that ?

Well that one is easy, I had been researching this book since 2005. Most of the research found on your site I had found independently well before it was posted but had reserved for the book, which I don't expect you to accept or understand.

The O'Donnell manuscript, as it is found on your site, is from the original acquired by Andy Aliffe when employed by Melvin Harris, to whom he alternatively provided a photocopy. Your permission from Peter was a retrospective license after the fact of you posting it without permission, something you alternatively described as an exclusive right in Ripperologist. So you and your cronies can wonder no more.

I don't have to provide you with anything Howard, get over it man!

Regarding D'Onston's alibi at the London Hospital, you yourself have documented and acknowledged my research as the source after the fact. I had established in reference to the 16th October letter to the City Police that D'Onston was in Currie ward with a transfer sometime after that date to Davis ward. Mike's confirmation of my research and waving of Currie ward protocol did not prove D'Onston could leave the hospital as night porters were known to be bribed with other irregularities then current at Victorian establishments.

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.