Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Myth Is Born

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Myth Is Born

    This is a cautionary tale regarding Ripper research and the use of sources, primary and secondary, in writing about the Ripper murders.

    In 1890 Metropolitan Police Commissioner James Monro gave an interview to Cassell’s Saturday Journal, shortly before he resigned. He was asked if he had a theory on the recent Whitechapel murders and he replied, “Decidedly, I have.” Asked to enlarge upon that he stated, “I can hardly take you so far into my confidence as that, but I may say this, when I do theorise it is from a practical standpoint, and not upon a more visionary foundation.”
    “Are you in possession of any clue at all?”, his interviewer persisted.
    “Nothing positive. You see, crimes of this kind – when we consider the particular class of victims selected – are the most easy of all crimes to commit. The person entrapped is as anxious to secure secrecy as the murderer himself.”
    At this reply, and fearing he would get no further, the interviewer asked no more about the murders. This is an intriguing reference to Monro and what he thought, and it originates from an 1890 interview.

    Monro wrote no memoirs and his intriguing comments could be pursued no further. However, after the 1973 BBC TV series in which fictional detectives Barlow and Watt investigated the case a letter appeared in the Radio Times from Christopher Monro, James Monro’s grandson. In this letter Christopher Monro made reference to some notes left by his grandfather, “He bequeathed his notes on the affair to his eldest son who died in 1928, and it is possible that some cousins of mine may retain them to this day.” On reading this researcher Keith Skinner began a search for the family members. He was working on his centenary book The Ripper Legacy (1987) with Martin Howells. After a few letters members of the Monro family were traced living in Scotland. It was here that they discovered James Monro’s handwritten memoirs, written in 1903 for the benefit of his children, ‘safely tucked away at the back of a cupboard in an Edinburgh suburb…’ Although intriguing and important to some of his ‘secret’ work, the ‘memoirs’ disappointingly made no reference to the Whitechapel murders. Nonetheless, Keith had made an important find.

    The ‘memoirs’ were mentioned in The Jack the Ripper A to Z when it was published in 1991, and in subsequent editions. In 2002 a ‘Ripper research myth’ was born when Fenian Fire by Christy Campbell was published. In this book the author wrote, “Two prominent researchers, Paul Beggs [sic] and Martin Fido, ploughed on. In 1985, after a twelve-year hunt [!] for Monro’s surviving descendants, they found what they described as ‘James Monro’s handwritten memoirs, written for the benefit of his children, safely tucked away at the back of a cupboard in an Edinburgh suburb…” The document should have been a golden key to solving the greatest mystery in criminal investigation, but its discoverers were disappointed: ‘When we read the papers we found not a single mention of Jack the Ripper or any associated murder investigation.'”

    And so, with this simple error, another myth of Ripper lore was created. Paul Begg and Martin Fido, and not Keith Skinner, the true finder, had located Monro’s ‘memoirs.’ As Fenian Fire is not a Ripper book, however, it would be a few years before this particular mistake filtered through to a mainstream Ripper book. It is an object lesson in using secondary sources. Jack the Ripper British Intelligence Agent? By Tom Slemen and Keith Andrews has just been published (May 2010). On page 290 appears the following, “In 1985, Paul Begg and Martin Fido, two respected authors and researchers into the Whitechapel murders, finally traced the whereabouts of James Monro’s memoirs in Edinburgh. For over a decade, Begg and Fido had searched for the memoirs of Monro, Assistant Metropolitan Police Commissioner… Begg and Fido imagined that Monro’s handwritten memoirs would surely throw some new light on the hoary Jack the Ripper enigma, but they were sorely disappointed, because there wasn’t a single mention of the Whitechapel murders within the bundle of papers.”

    With this endorsement a myth about the quest for primary Ripper source material has entered mainstream Ripperology. I mean nothing detrimental to Paul and Martin, but Keith Skinner, and Martin Howells, are the true discoverers of this document. Indeed, Paul and Martin had not even entered Ripper research at the time claimed above, let alone engaged in a ‘twelve-year hunt’!
    Last edited by Stewart P Evans; 05-20-2010, 08:36 AM.
    SPE

    Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

  • #2
    Important point.

    Hello Stewart,

    Indeed, this is a most important point you have made here. Without this type (yours) of filtering through each new publication that appears, a new generation of those interested in the case will be once again led down certain garden paths.

    This has happened in so many instances over the years, (McCormick and Knight come to mind) it is indeed a wonder that each publication does not have a team of people checking and re-checking such "facts" before they are presented to the world-wide audience. Perhaps there were, but this important point has been missed.

    On balance, I suppose it is easier to accept the word of pre written authors before we become detached and dissect from a distance.

    Keith Skinner and Martin Howell's valuable contributions to research are indeed downgraded when such mistaken comments are re-written.

    Perhaps the only thing to do is put together any such false facts found, and perhaps individually, or even through this forum, alert the publsher/authors in time for any paperback version of this new book. It is our combined duty to try to weedle out these things, so that yet another generation is not fed upon falsities, which can hold back progressive research to a smaller or larger degree.

    Thank you for pointing out this error Stewart. An excellent posting, imho.

    best wishes

    Phil
    Last edited by Phil Carter; 05-20-2010, 09:17 AM.
    Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


    Justice for the 96 = achieved
    Accountability? ....

    Comment


    • #3
      good point

      Hello Chaps. Excellent points made here!

      This is why I read secondary sources upon holiday and stick with mouldy ledgers and correspondence the rest of the time.

      Secondary sources are full of opinions and, whilst sometimes offering invaluable insight, must be taken cum grano salis.

      The best.
      LC

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Stewart,

        Great post and a great point.

        Of course, it's even worse when we consider that Keith is just about the last person on earth who would make a song and dance about one of his finds being wrongly attributed to another researcher. In fact, if I know him at all, I'd say he'd be more likely to start questioning himself and wondering whether he really was the one (in this case with Martin Howells) to make the discovery.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        Last edited by caz; 05-20-2010, 05:28 PM.
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • #5
          I find it strange that Keith was a co-writer of the A-Z but didn't pick up on the incorrect info.

          Coral

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't quite follow you, Coral. (Nice to see you here by the way.)

            I understood from Stewart's post that the incorrect info was first introduced by Fenian Fire in 2002.

            If that's the case, how do you know that Keith didn't 'pick up on it' at some point after that? As I said, he's not the sort to make a fuss in any case. I imagine he'd have been more inclined to rib Paul about being called 'Beggs'.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • #7
              My mistake Caz.

              I only quickly read Stewart's posting & thought the original incorrect info was in the A-Z. Having just checked my 1991 hardback copy (signed by all 3) I realise I was wrong.

              We really must meet up for that meal.

              Coral

              Comment


              • #8
                Very instructive, Stewart.

                I think the most worrying aspect of this whole tale - and the aspect that should have set alarm bells ringing immediately, as seems to have been the case with Stewart himself - is the fact that the extract from the second book is practically 95% taken word-for-word from the earlier extract. To me that is simply lazy and it comes as no surprise that such an author had not taken the time to double-check their sources, and their source's sources- and I wonder that any publisher let it past, to be perfectly honest.

                Lazy research - like crime - may pay off in the short-term, but it will catch up with you in the end.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well done Stewart. Your rigorous search for the truth is always greatly reassuring on these boards where "half truths" are often accepted instead and eventually become endorsed as doctrine.The above illustrates beautifully how easily this can happen.
                  Lets keep the real flag flying!
                  All the Best
                  Norma

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ripperology peer review in action. As a person pushing for objective peer review, I'm very excited about these two threads. This is why I brag about this type of venue.

                    Sincerely,

                    Mike
                    The Ripper's Haunts/JtR Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety (Sunbury Press)
                    http://www.michaelLhawley.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by coral View Post
                      My mistake Caz.

                      I only quickly read Stewart's posting & thought the original incorrect info was in the A-Z. Having just checked my 1991 hardback copy (signed by all 3) I realise I was wrong.

                      We really must meet up for that meal.

                      Coral
                      No probs, Coral. Easy mistake to make.

                      And yes, we must get together soon!

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X