Ripperologist February 2008 issue

[Supe]

Just to alert those who may not yet have looked in their mail boxes (or those who wish it were there) that another issue of Ripperologist is out there chock full of good things.

Ivor Edwards takes a hard look at Tumblety as a suspect--and finds the evidence suspect; Andy Spallek answers the question of who was the West country MP who impliucated Montague Druitt; John Bennett provides another East End photo essay; Glenn Anderson talks about his new book and the Ripper case in general and along with the other regular features Jennifer Pegg gives everyone another look at what else was happening in 1888 in her column.

Should be fun.

Don.

[Ally]

Well, well. Another Rip, another review. First, let me start out by saying to all those who told me, in various forms since last month’s review, that while they didn’t disagree with what I said, they thought I could have used more tact, balls to you. Second verse, same as the first.

My Rip review, in pieces parts and commentary as I read it.

This issue begins with an editorial that I think was somehow trying to link the 88 review with 1888 and some sort of symbolism and posing of bodies. Uhm..okay, that's all I have to say about that.


Then comes a (holy crap) 29 page article in which the esteemed Ivor Edwards takes on the esteemed Stewart Evans, cough, ahem, I mean takes on the Tumblety case. Better written than half the dreck that gets published in Ripper publications, there were very few cringe worthy sentences based on grammar, punctuation snafus and other mechanical errors (PERIODS GO AT THE END OF SENTENCES, and not after colons!!!). But the content? Woo dog. Let’s get to some of the more egregious issues to take with the article. First, the author blasts Tumblety proponents for engaging in speculation, and non-fact based analysis (I’ll let everyone pause a minute to soak up the general irony, before moving on to the specific…..ready?) then ends a paragraph with this blatantly unsupported opinion “JtR was more of an introvert in many respects and would not have courted attention to himself in the same manner as that rank exhibitionist and extravert Tumblety.” The well-chewed Littlechild letter is examined briefly, with the author choosing in a rather nambyish way to not come down on either side but conclude the section with one of those statements -“I’m not saying it was a forgery, but…. But indeed. Not to mention he’s now trying to shift credit for “the find” to Barton, when in fact, as far as I know, there is no indication whatsoever that the gentleman in question ever even looked at the papers he sold to Stewart Evans. Ivor says Barton “was fully aware of its contents”. Really? And he did what with them? In any event, despite the lack of any truly new or fresh arguments, one of the better articles overall and at the very least sure to generate chatter.


And here I break for a while...the article was 30 freaking pages long after all. I'll be back soon with my witticisms on the rest.

[The Grave Maurice]

The only thing more welcome than a new issue of Rip is Ally's review of it. My wife and I just spent five minutes laughing over her opening paragraph. Can't wait for the rest of it.

[Cap'n Jack]

Ally sitting on a fence?
What do you know.
I think it slightly malicious of you to turn a measured and carefully crafted argument against Tumblety as a reasonable suspect for JtR into a crass personal issue, where you must have one person attacking another.
Surely everyone here is attacking history, in an effort to get it right.
And is there 'credit' in finding something?
I think not. It is more how one handles and treats that 'find' that is of far more importance.
Me? I just chuck it up straight away on the net, but others beaver away and produce sodding great volumes on the muck before we are allowed to see it.
At least Ivor has restricted himself to about 30 pages.
My only beef being that his search of The Times classifieds may have missed something, which I only just found, and that was the Debenham, Storr & Sons auction of September 22nd and 24th 1888, held under the 'Innkeepers' Act, in which a large number of articles left at hotels, including guns, bags and portmanteaux were advertised as for sale.
Apart from that, a damn good article.

[Ally]

Excuse me? I thought you were too damn good to read the Ripper rags and mags and considered them all trash and the lowest of the low, indicative of everything that is wrong and terrible and evil and awful in the world?

And now because one article takes up the bashing you believe to be your sole holy crusade, suddenly there's a damn good article? Please, get over thyself and thy rampant hypocrisy. Quickly.


***Reposting under my name, that's what I get for using someone else's computer while mines being a pain...whoops***

[Cap'n Jack]

I didn't read it in a rag, Ally, I read it about a month ago, and told the writer then it was a fine piece of work.

[Ally]

This one goes out to Mr. and Mrs. Grave Maurice. It is for you that I write...You see my soul.

<suitably 70's music>

So next article. By one Andrew Spallek. I've got nothing to say. Nothin'. Well written (damn, two in a row, a record?), well crafted, an expose on his uncovering the perpetrator of the Druitt tale. And while I searched in vain for just one misspelling of Farqharson or Macnaghten, each one being repeated two dozen times, nuthin. While my world did not stop on its axis while reading it, it was a tasty factoid tidbit to add to the Ripperology stew.

Next came a photographic series by John Bennett. There were pictures. They weren't blurry. That's about all I am qualified to judge. Oh and of course, there was trash in the street. Piles of trash. Which brought me right back to my recent trip to London and the overwhelming impression I took with me of London....stinky, but pretty.

Whitechapel Times--random news snippets from the day. Not to be confused with Press Trawl which is relevant news snippets from the day. Press Trawl follows. The newspapers report things, and 100 years later you read things.

Following that is Memories of Beadle, an obituary by Stewart Evans regarding Barry Morse and pictures from an Australian gathering in honor of Jules.

I Beg to Report is its usual collection of odds and ends, the only thing that disturbed me is, shouldn't these odds and ends bear SOME relationship to Jack the Ripper, Victorian London or some minor slim connection to something related to Ripperology, serial murder, or the like? Read the passage about AGB stealing the idea for the telephone and tell me if there is any connection other than he "ripped it off". Har-dee-har. Seriously, what the hell's it doing there?

An interview by Glenn Andersson soon to be published Swedish author on JtR. They asked questions. He answered. Uhm...yeah. Nothing good like...are you a boxers or briefs kind of guy? If you could vote one person off the Casebook island who would it be? All very topical, book-related questions. Remind me to give a bank of questions for the next Rip interview.

Wilf reviews some books. Don't you just once want to read a review that just says something like: "God awmighty this book SUCKED! Don't read it!" You won't find that here. He apparently only reads good books.

The End.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Ally,

It's definitely boxers for me.

All the best

[John Bennett]

stinky, but pretty.

I hope nobody thinks that this is a description of my undies.

[Supe]

AP,

I didn't read it in a rag, Ally, I read it about a month ago,

Then you didn't read what was published yesaterday in Ripperologist. Your loss.

Don.

[The Grave Maurice]

Andy,

Congratulations on an interesting, well-written piece that actually adds to our collective knowledge. I obviously don't read as quickly as Ally and, after wading through Ivor Edward's article, I had to stretch out on the chesterfield for a bit of a rest; but, when I got back to work, I enjoyed your contribution immensely.

I'm old enough to remember when MJD was considered to be the major contender for being JtR, and I appreciate all your consistently balanced and thoughtful work in keeping his name before us as a possible, if, perhaps, unlikely, suspect.

P.S. to the group in general: How do we know for sure that Cap'n Jack is really AP (other than the style of writing, of course)? Did I miss a disclosure?

[Sam Flynn]

P.S. to the group in general: How do we know for sure that Cap'n Jack is really AP?

I dunno, GM - interesting point. It's a bit like a Turing Test, isn't it? With added brandy.

[aspallek]

Thank you, Maurice. I'm glad you enjoyed my short article. I realize it's not an earth shaking discovery but I do agree with Stewart that it is an important one. Now there can be no doubt that Druitt was known to police as early as 1891, only 18 months after Macnaghten joined the force.

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam
course it's me... just a new user name, that's all. No big deal.
And I have read the complete article, as someone was kind enough to send it to my mail box.
As I said, I have a slight beef with Ivor's musings on left luggage and unpaid bills at high class West End hotels in 1888, but that's for another thread.

[Tom_Wescott]

I had time to glance through the new Rip last night, but little more. I'm looking forward to reading Andy's essay, and to reading Ivor's. As we all know, next to Dan Norder, Ivor Edwards is the world's leading authority on Tumblety. I'll be anxious to see what he has to say.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Wasn't the photo of Jennifer Pegg adorable?