New Ripper Book Due Out.

[Christian]

I remember the ‘old’ days when I used to look forward to every new book. I don’t want to pre-judge but these days I have to suppress a groan when I hear of a new one about to emerge. At one point I’d have said that I owned pretty much every ripper book except a couple of the rarer, more expensive ones, but now there must be loads of books that I haven’t bothered to buy and have no intention of buying. There’s a new one on the diary coming out but I can’t see me getting that one. I’m undecided on the Beattie one though as I’m echoing Wick’s post. I might wait for a review in Rip. I wonder if Paul has a copy yet?

Feel the same about books H !! Rarely I buy recent books

[Herlock Sholmes]

Feel the same about books H !! Rarely I buy recent books

I decided to give this one a go Christian. Usually by now we would have had a review from Paul Begg but there’s been no Ripperologist out this year so I’m beginning to wonder about it’s future?

[Christian]

I decided to give this one a go Christian. Usually by now we would have had a review from Paul Begg but there’s been no Ripperologist out this year so I’m beginning to wonder about it’s future?

Okay!! Shame if Ripperologist folds!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Okay!! Shame if Ripperologist folds!!

I don’t want anyone to think that I have any inside knowledge though Christian. I don’t know the reason or circumstances. It could just be that those involved haven’t been free to devote the time necessary recently. Fingers crossed that it will continue.

[Christian]

I don’t want anyone to think that I have any inside knowledge though Christian. I don’t know the reason or circumstances. It could just be that those involved haven’t been free to devote the time necessary recently. Fingers crossed that it will continue.

Indeed h !! Fair comment as I said be a shame if it doesn’t continue mate

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just finished this book and made a few notes whilst doing it. Sorry it’s a bit long.


The book starts from a piece of dodgy logic, using Sherlock Holmes famous “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” The authors interpretation is that no one could have committed these murders and gotten away with them on those heavily patrolled streets, and who had a reason for being there, except for a police officer.

This is followed a very few lines later with this suggestion. Catherine Eddowes was seen talking in a friendly way to a man and that “No prostitute would have taken that chance unless it was someone she knew well and believed that, because of his position in society, she could trust him.” I had to read this bit three times to assure myself that I hadn’t misinterpreted it but no, he really was suggesting that prostitutes wouldn’t have spoken to potential clients in the streets during the duration of the murders! Perhaps they signed on?

It’s always concerning when something is stated as if it’s a given but without any support evidence, like when the author speaks of when Bowden Endacott was born. He says: “It is almost certain he was resented by his strong, domineering mother, and undoubtedly was picked on and shunned by her, thus growing up….” Why is it ‘almost certain?’ How do we know that she was domineering? Evidence please?

More strangeness follows. When he applied to join the police force he called himself a farmer when actually he was a farm labourer, but the author then says: “His pale complexion also falsified his statement that he was a farmer.” Why? Don’t farm labourers work outdoors too; just like the owner of the farm? He then says that this ‘lie’ shows that he might have been ashamed of being a labourer and that there could have been anger building up inside him due to his deprived circumstances and the fantasy life that he wished that he’d had. Leaps of faith of this magnitude tend to set the teeth on edge an they keep piling up.

Endacott was involved in 2 incidents whilst working as a police officer in Devon. He got one woman pregnant then at first lied that the child wasn’t his. Then there was an incident (of an unknown nature) for which he tried to blame a cousin who was a Police officer of the same name, but no officer appears to have existed. Hardly indications of a future serial killer?

The author states that Endacott was a reserve officer which meant that he was on call for special duties and wouldn’t have worn a uniform and would have been one of the first officers called to the murder scenes. Would a reserve officer have always been out of uniform or did it mean that, on certain duties, he could go about in plain clothes? I don’t know. After the Cass trial though the police authorities took him off the streets and he was put on permanent guard duty at the British Museum but he was still a reserve officer and was “called in to patrol the streets of Whitechapel during the murders.” This is stated as a fact but no evidence for this is provided. Were the police so desperate that they would have taken a single police guard from the museum? How many police guards would have been assigned there, surely not many? It seems that Endacott might have been available for the call but we have no proof that the call came as far as I can see. Certainly no proof is given.

So after the Cass case we have the author saying that Endacott was a police officer doing the job of a lowly security guard, in debt due to the trial, with ‘immense’ resentment against prostitutes called onto the streets of Whitechapel during the murders giving him motive and opportunity to take his revenge.

He, for some reason, believes that Martha Tabram’s injuries were similar to the other victims and despite identifying Pearly Poll or Polly as Mary Ann Connolly, in the same chapter she becomes Polly Nichols, disappearing before being found by Sergeant Caunter. It’s difficult (impossible) to excuse this kind of error.

On the Nichols murder we have another baseless leap. On the discrepancy between Mizen and Cross (at no point is the name Lechmere mentioned) where Mizen claimed that Cross had told him that he was wanted by a PC, the author “cannot for one minute” believe that Mizen could have been mistaken. He believes that Endacott was there and was disturbed by Cross. He then told Cross that he was on special observational duty and that it wouldn’t have been good for him to be involved in a murder investigation so he persuaded him into silence.

He then suggests that as the police took 2 weeks to find Robert Paul it might have been because Endacott had threatened him to keep his mouth shut. This ignores the fact that Lloyd’s Weekly had no trouble finding him for an interview later the same day of the murder.

More examples of over-confidence in the Stride chapter. She was: “….undoubtedly murdered by her boyfriend Michael Kidney.” And then he talks about BS Man as: “certainly her killer.”

It’s a niggle but the author says that a flowerbed and a bench now stands on the spot where Eddowes was killed. When did he last see Mitre Square? The author believes, with no reason for doing so, that Eddowes went to see Endacott after being released from Bishopsgate Station to blackmail him because she suspected him of being the murder, so she arranged to meet him in Mitre Square. I’m sorry but you couldn’t make this up. In order to try and blackmail Jack the Ripper she arranges to meet him in the dimly lit and deserted Mitre Square!

Then we get the ripper’s possible anatomical knowledge. Bowden Endacott worked on a farm which would have: “given him the necessary knowledge to understand where the kidney was.” He was a farm labourer not a vet! I know where the kidney is but I couldn’t remove one. Then to fit Endscott in with a profile he uses a Canadian graphologist called Macleod who looked at one of the letters and concluding things like ‘vicious,’ ‘cunning,’ ‘heavy drinker,’ ‘cockily self confident’ and ‘able to hold down a steady job.’ A perfect fit for Endacott! Really? Where’s the evidence for cockiness? Where’s the evidence that he was a heavy drinker? The author also claims to be sure that Endacott knew Openshaw because Openshaw lived in Endacott’s former home, 21 Gower Street, just across from the Museum where he worked. He qualifies this by saying that it might be coincidence “but it all fits.” Fits what? Then we have this cracker. The reason that the apron was found in Goulston Street? It was east of Mitre Square and Endacott lived north. It was a false trail. Of course it was!

The book, after Kelly, briefly discusses Millard, Mylett and Mackenzie then ends strangely abruptly with no summing up of the case against Endacott - probably because there isn’t one. This is simply another ripper book where someone has found someone alive at the time who had a few events in their life which are used as a platform for suggesting some kind of mental imbalance for which there’s not a shred of evidence. There’s just nothing to recommend Endacott as a suspect. It’s a sad state of affairs when this keeps happening.

[milchmanuk]

thx for book review,
i laughed a lot ,
especially
"Then we have this cracker",
at least you cracked the case.

[Scott Nelson]

I don’t want anyone to think that I have any inside knowledge though Christian. I don’t know the reason or circumstances. It could just be that those involved haven’t been free to devote the time necessary recently. Fingers crossed that it will continue.

It's a pity that almost no one (I think) bothers to read the Ripperologist any longer. Even re-reading old articles would answer so many questions debated in repetitious threads.

It seems there is little incentive for Adam Wood to put in all the hard work in producing yet another issue that will be largely ignored while arguments proliferate on the message boards.

[Andrea_P]

I though it was an interesting premise but the book didn't really bring anything new to the table and no evidence just because Catharine was talking to a man doesnt mean it was a policeman. All supposition but a small volume that doesnt take up to much space on the shelf