Ripperologist 127: August 2012

[Rob Clack]

Hi Rob,

1976 as I recall.

A visit to the Bancroft Street Library will confirm.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

If it was as early as that I owe you an apology. My understanding is Don Rumbelow 1981 edition of his book which I read about 1984 demolished the Royal Conspiracy first and then you published your research in 1988(ish?) in Bloodhound. And I am going by published accounts. Ones that I am aware of.

Regards

Rob

[Jenni Shelden]

My experience with the City Police Jenni is that they pride themselves on the idea they are superior to the Met, a friendly competition. And I'm sure the Met feel the same.

So yes, they would have done what they felt best and if it means getting one up on the Met then that's an added incentive.

Monty

Hi Neil,

and IMHO makes an extra tick (not that one was needed) for your find

Jenni

[Phil Carter]

Hi Rob,

1976 as I recall.

A visit to the Bancroft Street Library will confirm.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

If I recall correctly you were the first to research, find and confront Mr Stephen Knight with this material were you not?
(edit. As I apparently havent learned more than Rob has forgotten, I may have this 'tits up'. Aplogies if so.)

Best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

The Tumbelty article is by no way a comparison to Simons Royal Conspiracy stuff.

One is a detailed decimation, tother is speculation and interpretation with nothing of real fact involved.

Then again, one was written by Simon, whereas the other....


Jenni,

Thanks for that.

Monty

[Cogidubnus]

Then again, one was written by Simon, whereas the other..

I'm sorry Monty...I really do respect your part in this mystery, but I don't think that particular unduly dismissive comment's worthy of your usual standards...

All the very best

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

There's no need for an apology, but thank you. I appreciate it.

Don Rumbelow was extremely generous with his time and advice during my 1976 researches, but as in those days there were few opportunities to publish such material he beat me to it in the reprint of The Complete Jack the Ripper, by which time he had independently researched the subject. My article in Bloodhound appeared a few years later—1987 or 1988.

Anyway, it's doesn't really matter who was first. The important thing is that people got to be made aware of the true facts behind this nonsensical but compelling Ripper theory.

Just as a point of general interest, the Tumblety article is all Trevor's work. He sent it to me for comment and all I really did was correct a few errors and spelling mistakes and toss in generous handfuls of commas, semi-colons and full stops for, as posters will no doubt be aware, punctuation is not Trevor's strong point.

I hope it helped.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Dave,

Some will say its exactly worthy of my usual standards.

I said it was a good piece, what more do you want?....let's not try and make me run before I can walk.

Monty

[Monty]

Hi Rob,

There's no need for an apology, but thank you. I appreciate it.

Don Rumbelow was extremely generous with his time and advice during my 1976 researches, but as in those days there were few opportunities to publish such material he beat me to it in the reprint of The Complete Jack the Ripper, by which time he had independently researched the subject. My article in Bloodhound appeared a few years later—1987 or 1988.

Anyway, it's doesn't really matter who was first. The important thing is that people got to be made aware of the true facts behind this nonsensical but compelling Ripper theory.

Just as a point of general interest, the Tumblety article is all Trevor's work. He sent it to me for comment and all I really did was correct a few errors and spelling mistakes and toss in generous handfuls of commas, semi-colons and full stops for, as posters will no doubt be aware, punctuation is not Trevor's strong point.

I hope it helped.

Regards,

Simon

Indeed Simon,

Not Trevors strength at all.

I will add that Trevors article is thought provoking.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

I agree. Thought-provoking indeed. Hopefully, Trevor's article will encourage us to reappraise the whole Tumblety incident.

There's a fascinating story in there somewhere.

Regards,

Simon

[mariab]

What I wanna do is compare the Marriott piece to the old Simon Wood article on Tumblety (which I haven't read in a long while).

PS.: I love it that Rob talks so badass in this thread.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Rob,

There's no need for an apology, but thank you. I appreciate it.

Don Rumbelow was extremely generous with his time and advice during my 1976 researches, but as in those days there were few opportunities to publish such material he beat me to it in the reprint of The Complete Jack the Ripper, by which time he had independently researched the subject. My article in Bloodhound appeared a few years later—1987 or 1988.

Anyway, it's doesn't really matter who was first. The important thing is that people got to be made aware of the true facts behind this nonsensical but compelling Ripper theory.

Thank you Simon, perfect gentleman.

Just as a point of general interest, the Tumblety article is all Trevor's work. He sent it to me for comment and all I really did was correct a few errors and spelling mistakes and toss in generous handfuls of commas, semi-colons and full stops for, as posters will no doubt be aware, punctuation is not Trevor's strong point.

I hope it helped.

Regards,

Simon

I take it you removed all the bold typeface as well?

Hello Simon,

If I recall correctly you were the first to research, find and confront Mr Stephen Knight with this material were you not?
(edit. As I apparently havent learned more than Rob has forgotten, I may have this 'tits up'. Aplogies if so.)

Best wishes

Phil

Yes that's about right.

Rob

[mariab]

I take it you removed all the bold typeface as well?

ROFL.

[Phil Carter]

Just as a point of general interest, the Tumblety article is all Trevor's work.

Well Maria, I think this statement clears up any misinterpretations, coming from Simon Wood himself.
As it would take 'more than the likes of ..Simon Wood, Trevor Marriott and myself... to rewrite the Jack the Ripper mystery', (according to your 'bad-a$$' poster colleague)... Trevor Marriott deserves more kudos for his Tumblety article than has been shown in some silent quarters. Exceptions being Monty, Mike Hawley, Lynn, Simon, Tom and myself, having seen it's value, Maria. It does ask questions from a basis of Victorian law. As I said, come with arguements that show the laws quoted to be erroneous or any additional laws thusfar not mentioned and make a case against the article. If the law says one thing and tells us due process, then someone had better show something pretty substantial to argue with it.

Therefore any disrespect given to 'the likes of' Simon and Trevor are imho out of order. Perhaps instead of giggling at jibes and snipes by others whose clear primary intention was to put others down, I humbly suggest you take a serious look at the work in question instead, before you comment. Trevor Marriott has researched and put together things that have never been seen by many here before. Comparing a previous article of Simon's to Trevor's wont change Simon's comment at the top of this posting either. It would be disrespectful to Trevor to assume anything else.

Best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

The "badass" referred to the tone, not the content, Phil.

As you know I'm one of the very few who have encouraged Trevor Marriott's research on the SB (even signed his petition), and (after several comments from those who have already read it) I'm fully expecting a discussion of Victorian law in his article on Tumblety.
My mentioning that I want to compare the new one with the old piece by Simon Wood was not meant as a derogatory comment. In a couple months I'll be also re-reading the entire Vanderlinden, R.J. Parker, and Hawley stuff as I'll be trying to research something pertaining to inspector Andrews' oversea trip. (Not that I'm necessarily expecting to find anything.)

You might recall that I consider Tumblety not as a serious candidate for the Ripper, but as a historical candidate he belongs on the list.

[Debra A]

Perhaps instead of giggling at jibes and snipes by others whose clear primary intention was to put others down, I humbly suggest you take a serious look at the work in question instead, before you comment.

Don't worry, Trevor will see the funny side, Phil. After all he's always telling those of us he 'puts down' to get a sense of humour.