All Love Jack: Busting the Ripper by Bruce Robinson

[Andrea_P]

Hmmm - I gues I will read it as I am reading as much as I can at the moment, but reading the press reports and reviews seems like Robinson has a bit of a beef with the Freemasons. Do you think they wouldn't let him join?
Personally - I have no idea who the ripper was but these 'I have solved the case' books make me suspicious that the author is trying to make money rather than actually solve the crimes.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hmmm - I gues I will read it as I am reading as much as I can at the moment, but reading the press reports and reviews seems like Robinson has a bit of a beef with the Freemasons. Do you think they wouldn't let him join?
Personally - I have no idea who the ripper was but these 'I have solved the case' books make me suspicious that the author is trying to make money rather than actually solve the crimes.

Andrea, I am about a quarter of the way through Robinson's book, and to say it is unlike any other JTR book I have ever read is a huge understatement.

I would strongly recommend that you thoroughly immerse yourself in Paul Begg's and Philip Sugden's books before having a go at "Busting Jack".

Robinson does not give a chronological description of the murders, and he does demand a fairly good knowledge of the case.

Good luck in your reading!

[Andrea_P]

Andrea, I am about a quarter of the way through Robinson's book, and to say it is unlike any other JTR book I have ever read is a huge understatement.

I would strongly recommend that you thoroughly immerse yourself in Paul Begg's and Philip Sugden's books before having a go at "Busting Jack".

Robinson does not give a chronological description of the murders, and he does demand a fairly good knowledge of the case.

Good luck in your reading!

Thank you barnflatwyngarde
I will take your advice and do just that will order a coupld of books by the authors mentioned and request the Robinson book for Christmas

[Blue Coat Boy]

Why does the Lilly Vass murder (10/2/1888) Robinson covers not garner more attention amongst Ripperologists. she was butchered pretty badly and left within the foundation of New Scotland Yard. Any Ripper theories espousing establishment taunting would have to consider Lilly's murder as potentially related, no?

[drstrange169]

Hello Blue Coat Boy,

Actually there has been some excellent research into Lilly Vass, the upshot being it probably wasn't her as she was found to be married in 1890.

[Blue Coat Boy]

Hello Blue Coat Boy,

Actually there has been some excellent research into Lilly Vass, the upshot being it probably wasn't her as she was found to be married in 1890.

so the corpse remains unidentified? wonder if she was a prostitute.

[RockySullivan]

What is the consensus on this book? Is much of the research pulled from the casebook forums? Do you think I would like this book? I do like long books...if they are good

[Tom_Wescott]

What is the consensus on this book? Is much of the research pulled from the casebook forums? Do you think I would like this book? I do like long books...if they are good

Here's a hint. Everyone's a freemason and they all covered up the murders to protect the Ripper, also a mason, and the brother of James Maybrick, the guy who supposedly wrote the diary of Jack the Ripper. Throughout the whole book all the investigators are referred to as 'Bro', i.e. 'Bro Warren' and Bro Anderson'. That grows tiresome quickly. Like most conspiracists he tries to resurrect the grape nonsense in the Stride case to argue that if someone ate grapes the freemasons must be involved. I've never understood that since clearly Matthew Packer made good money selling grapes to regular East Enders. There's some good nuggets of information in there (turned up by Robinson's researchers, such as Keith Skinner), but it's hard reading. I still haven't finished it though I plan to slowly and between reading better books. Approach it as a semi-factual work of fiction and you'll probably get some value out of it. Buy a used copy cheap.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hunter]

I purchased the audio version and probably would not have finished it if I had not. Kudos to what Tom said and I might add that what was most tedious to me was the continual flashbacks, flashforwards and maybe even a few flashsideways.

[drstrange169]

>>Is much of the research pulled from the casebook forums?<<

The one good thing about this book is the research. Definitely not pulled from Casebook. Keith Skinner is an excellent researcher and there is a lot of new information that has been found. Skinner was hired by Robinson.

Unfortunately it is what Robinson does with that research that is the problem with the book. Let's just say there is some very questionable editing and conclusions drawn by the author.

Robinson is a bit of a character and has very strong personal opinions, that has to be taken into account when reading this book.

Not a waste of time but, you need a very healthy dose of scepticism when reading it, not to mention endurance;-)

[Harry D]

Borrowed this book from the library. Heard a lot of good things about it and avoided spoilers going in... now I wish I hadn't bothered. From the outset it sounds like Robinson is about to turn the Ripper world on its axis and deconstruct the case only for him to rehash the old Freemasonry nonsense and foist his own lame duck of a suspect (Michael Maybrick).

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Harry

Wish I'd done what you did...but went out and bought it early doors...

Sadly I found it written from a very embittered personal perspective, (did a Ripperologist drop him on his head when he was born?), and as a result this is one of the very few books in my life I've been really unable to get into, let alone read right through, without condemning it as outright crap...

It isn't all outright crap...but the nuggets of useful research seem to be buried so deep, I found myself concluding that I didn't have either the time, patience or inclination to plough through it all...which may be a fault on my part as well as the authors...but I've cast it aside...it's still on my shelves, (unlike some beauties), but...

Maybe someday I'll make it to retirement, (20 months and counting), and find the time and patience to try again...but I dunno...didn't seem that well written...surely a good book entertains the mind as it educates?

Dave

[David Orsam]

Simon Wood is not the only modern writer who thinks that Pigott was murdered. Bruce Robinson also holds this ludicrous view. In an Appendix to his book, Bruce claims to have found an important news report from a Spanish newspaper which said that two secret service officers followed Pigott to Madrid (although Bruce seems to interpret this as Scotland Yard officers sent by Robert Anderson). Furthermore, the same report, according to Bruce, states that an Irish police officer was actually staying in Pigott's Madrid hotel. He seems think that this is strong evidence of a conspiracy to murder Pigott.

In my review of Spanish newspapers, I have now established (to no great surprise on my part) that none of this is true. Robinson has simply mis-translated the Spanish newspaper report - although the mis-translation is quite astonishing in its inaccuracy.

I've updated my article on Bruce's book to reflect this new information at http://www.orsam.co.uk/theyalllovebruce.htm but to save you the trouble of ploughing through it, here is what I say:

"When we look at the actual Spanish newspaper report relied on so heavily by Bruce to doubt the credibility of Pigott's suicide, we find a misrepresentation of its contents so egregious, and so out of line with what was actually reported, that it is seriously troubling to conceive of how Bruce could have made such a dreadful error.

Firstly, let us remind ourselves what Bruce says about the Spanish newspaper report. In his book, in the context of stating that Anderson's detectives were 'able to arrive with such jet-propelled velocity in Madrid', Bruce tells us that the newspaper in question was La Vanguardia of 3 March 1889, and he claims that the newspaper said:

"Pigott was being followed by two officers of the English Secret Service and one from the Irish police. The latter was staying, for good measure, at the same hotel as Pigott".

On the face of it, this looks like important and damning information. If two secret service agents really were in Madrid following Pigott, while an Irish police officer was saying in the Hotel Des Embajadores, that would be extremely incriminating. Robinson comments on this newspaper report as follows:

"Thus Anderson’s emissaries didn’t need a tip-off directing them to Madrid. They were already there. I can conceive of no reason for a Spanish newspaper to make this up…Whatever Anderson’s detectives were in Madrid for, it couldn’t have been to make an arrest. In my view it’s implausible that secret service agents would allow some random Spaniard and his interpreter to breeze into Pigott’s hotel room. I give no credibility to this suicide."

By this stage of his argument, he might well have convinced you. As he rightly says, why would a Spanish newspaper have made up such a story?

Well the truth of the matter is that the newspaper said no such thing as claimed by Bruce. Here is what was actually reported, in Spanish, by La Vanguardia (in its issue of 5 March 1889, not 3 March as Robinson wrongly states):

"Pigott estaba vigilado en Londres por dos individuos de la policía secreta inglesa y uno de la policía irlandesa. Este último se había alt jado para mayor seguridad en el mismo hotel que Pigott."

Now you may not speak Spanish but I bet you can see the word "Londres" in the first sentence. For some reason, Robinson missed it. For when translated into English, that passage reads:

"Pigott was monitored in London by two individuals from the British secret police and one from the Irish police. The latter had been staying for greater security in the same hotel as Pigott."

In other words, La Vanguardia was not reporting about any British or Irish officers in Madrid. The hotel that the officer from the Irish police was said to have stayed in along with Pigott was in London (and was known to be Anderton's Hotel). All this information was being relayed second hand from the British newspapers. Everyone knew about the officers, both real and imagined, that had supposedly been keeping Pigott under surveillance in London. I discuss the point in the Suckered! Quadrilogy
Part 3. La Vanguardia was simply repeating this gossip. It knew nothing from its own sources about any British 'secret police' or 'secret service' officers in Madrid for the simple reason that there were none there. And there was no Irish officer staying in Pigott's hotel in Madrid.

We can't let this shockingly dreadful episode pass without commenting on Robinson's reference to the Spanish police inspector tasked to arrest Pigott as 'some random Spaniard' whom the British and Irish officers would not have allowed to 'breeze' into Pigott's hotel room. This, don't forget, is a police inspector who had been given orders to arrest Pigott at the request of the British government under the extradition treaty between Britain and Spain! I mean, even if there were British secret service agents and Irish police officers in the hotel, what were they supposed to do to prevent a lawfully authorized Spanish police officer from entering a Spanish hotel room to execute a lawful warrant? The answer is that they would have had no power to do anything about it at all. It's such a bad point, therefore, as to be breathtaking.

Anyway, we don't need to worry ourselves about it. The British 'secret service' agents were as imaginary as the Irish police officer. It is Bruce Robinson who lacks credibility, not the fact that Pigott committed suicide."

I also now make the point in the article that the post-mortem of Pigott's corpse was reported in a Spanish newspaper, clearly consistent with suicide, and follow Bruce by asking why a Spanish newspaper would have made up such a thing.

[NickMaz]

I had a good laugh at one of the comments:



What absolute twaddle

I note that Robinson is one of the many who have failed to note that 'Chapman' (Annie Chapman) contains the letters CH for Christos and Man - in other words she is a descendant of the Priory of Sion responsible for
keeping the secret that Jesus was just a man. Presumably as one of his linear descendants, she had to be silenced and her womb sliced out to remove any DNA evidence. Of course there is also no mention of the fact that a woman named Kennedy was staying opposite the room where Mary Kelly was found dead? What did she see and what did she pass on to her relative John F Kennedy that meant he had to be silenced with a shot from the grassy knoll
No mention of any of this in Robinson's book - sounds like yet another establishment cover-up

Hi there

I’m a long time lurker but hopefully now getting more active as I’m resurrecting a writing project I’ve had for a while. So hopefully will be posting a bit more.

Glad that the amusement, I remember I wrote it at the time in exasperation at yet another ‘establishment cover-up’ type theory, although as I still haven’t read the book, perhaps I was being unfair. Has there been much criticism of Robinson’s theories since, how well do they hold up?

[mpriestnall]

I've read this book several times. I didn't see anything to support James Maybrick as JTR. That aside, I recommend reading this book.

B.R's treatment of Baxter and the Womb Collector, Packer and the grapes selling stood out for me.

I liked B.R.'s idea that the mysterious S.Y. office who promoted the ludicrous Royal/Masonic involvement to
Stephen Knight was intended as a tactic to taint all and any freemasonary involvement in the WMs.

B.R's is littered with sharp and smart turns of phrases ("Robinsonisms") that added to my enjoyment of B.R.s book.

Generally a good read, shame about the suspect.

As stated before, get a discounted copy or loan it from the library. Worth reading.

Martyn