Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and

[auspirograph]

Gambits

Rob Clack has kindly read and responded to my recent book, Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and the Supernatural Mystique of the Whitechapel Murders. He has made it clear it is not quite his cup of tea. Fair enough, books should encourage discussion for open minded readers.

Now as he has noted his impressions on JTR Forums, a site where I cannot respond to an author’s gambit, a brief reply is perhaps required here.

Rob begins his thin and dismissive summing up and verdict with a positive tone on the cover art, introduction and “…some interesting snippets of information”.

However, his main beef with the contents of the book is focused on the monetary considerations that go into production of a non-fiction book, for which as he knows with experience, is not in any way determined by an author researching and writing with a reputable publisher.

The publisher, McFarland, has an impressive list of reliable and noted Jack the Ripper titles generally priced equally for the library market. For instance, definitive titles such as The News from Whitechapel: Jack the Ripper in The Daily Telegraph by Alexander Chisholm, Christopher-Michael DiGrazia and Dave Yost with a foreword by Paul Begg. The Jack the Ripper Suspects: Persons Cited by Investigators and Theorists by Stan Russo, foreword by Christopher-Michael DiGrazia. Prince of Quacks: The Notorious Life of Dr. Francis Tumblety, Charlatan and Jack the Ripper Suspect by Timothy B. Riordan. And, Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim by Dave Yost; though I heard no objections when these titles were released.

Rob Clack gives sage “advice” to “Don’t waste your money”, presumably because the book, “…contains nothing to justify the high price tag”. If that is the only objection to my book that justifies such jealous and opportunistic remarks from competitive authors in the world of Jack the Ripper studies, then I am satisfied the contents has given rise to impartial readers for whom the book was written to provide educational material on neglected aspects of the Whitechapel murders in their Victorian context.

So perhaps now we are in a better position to understand Rob’s preemptive attacks upon what is, after all, only a book.

While enjoying a, “Great introduction”, in Rob’s informed opinion it’s all, “Downhill after that”. Presumably, Rob didn’t enjoy the ride through the remaining narrative towards the concluding chapter titled, “Whitechapel Secret Service”. It’s obviously not his cup of tea to have the fullest examination known of the Metropolitan Police Special Branch inquiries on Jack the Ripper. I would have thought that he, of all people would have had something of more interest to say on the details presented.

I do understand that this is a touchy subject for traditional and determined researchers to consider objectively and impartially given the strained Irish/Anglo relations of the past, particularly in reference to the character and statements of Sir Robert Anderson on the politics of the police investigation of Jack the Ripper in the East End.

However, I do thank Mr. Clack for reading and for his consideration of my book, the contents for which I am entirely responsible as the author, and can assure those in doubt, that it is the subject matter on the Whitechapel murders that is of prime interest and a source of historical concern.

Quite simply, the book seeks to make a contribution, as the publisher McFarland recognized, to the clarification for general readers of over a century of Jack the Ripper legends and partial historical surmise.

Spiro

[Rob Clack]

Hi Spiro,

It wasn't a 'preemptive attack' on my part as you call it. I just wasn't that impressed. The contents of your book didn't justify the high price tag and some of your conclusions were very speculative. But I can't say that about the author you named as maybe writing the alleged Maybrick Diary which in my opinion is just to silly for words.

Perhaps when you do an updated version you should be a bit more thorough when you raid the forums for information.

Regards

Rob

[Howard Brown]

Spiro:


Now as he has noted his impressions on JTR Forums, a site where I cannot respond to an author’s gambit, a brief reply is perhaps required here.

Knock off the smarmy martyr act, Dimolianis. The reason you can't post on JTRForums is because I'm one of a handful who weren't allowed to even join your website...and you know who they are. You have a knack for the half-truth and circumlocuting all the facts.

You can sign up on the Forums and do so immediately....I'll be happy to have you respond to the criticisms we've made so far.

Occult Expert Brown

P.S. Rob nailed it on the head.

[mariab]

However, his {Rob Clack's} main beef with the contents of the book is focused on the monetary considerations that go into production of a non-fiction book. {...} Rob Clack gives sage “advice” to “Don’t waste your money”, presumably because the book, “…contains nothing to justify the high price tag”. If that is the only objection to my book that justifies such jealous and opportunistic remarks from competitive authors in the world of Jack the Ripper studies, then I am satisfied

The problem would surely be easily remedied then with a paperback second edition, for which, if the price is right, not even someone as jealous and opportunistic as Rob Clack would fancy complaining.

the book was written to provide educational material on neglected aspects of the Whitechapel murders in their Victorian context.

As a newbie, it appears to me as a little bit puzzling that certain of these “neglected aspects“ have been discussed on an internet site named JTRForums...years ago...

It’s obviously not his cup of tea to have the fullest examination known of the Metropolitan Police Special Branch inquiries on Jack the Ripper.

I'm also surprised to have missed this. I had no idea that Mr. Dimolianis was allowed access to the SB ledgers.

[The Grave Maurice]

I've got a copy but I haven't had time to read it yet. I hope it was only published in paperback because that's what I've got and I'd rather have a hardcover edition if one is available. I rather prefer the first proposed cover, although even that had a small depiction of a top-hatted figure slinking off into the fog. When are publishers going to move beyond that image, I wonder.

McFarland has always charged near the top end for their books, although I notice that this cost just over 37 Canadian dollars which isn't that far out of line compared to most of the JtR-related books I've purchased recently.

[auspirograph]

Hi Spiro,

It wasn't a 'preemptive attack' on my part as you call it. I just wasn't that impressed. The contents of your book didn't justify the high price tag and some of your conclusions were very speculative. But I can't say that about the author you named as maybe writing the alleged Maybrick Diary which in my opinion is just to silly for words.

Perhaps when you do an updated version you should be a bit more thorough when you raid the forums for information.

Regards

Rob

Hi Rob

Thanks for your reply. Fair enough, I know you have as a veteran ripperologist become set in your ways old man. Certainly by the nature of the subject some speculative conclusions are reached but that doesn't mean I expect everyone to agree. That's the way it should be.

I don't think the book needs to be updated, though I have noticed a few minor errors. The book isn't about adding more pieces to the puzzle, it is about making some sense of the pieces we have. There is much new research and information here but that was only considered in view of past reliable work that was already done.

Regarding mention of the Maybrick diary, I didn't name the author and ghostwriter Frank S. Stuart as possibly hoaxing it, the author Richard Stokes did. It seemed to me worth exploring and the more I did, the more it seemed possible that he may have had a hand in it. Stuart was a contemporary of Donald McCormick, Nigel Morland and Bernard O'Donnell. When it can be traced that the fabricated poem "Eight Little Whores" first appeared in McCormick's 1959 book on Jack the Ripper, the possibility was, in my view, substantial. Unless you and Caroline Morris can enlighten us on the true identity of the hoaxer, the subject is open to debate, you'll have to live with that.

As for the presumption that the forums were 'raided', there really was not much there of use to dip into but more speculation. Anything of some value was either my own research or that of John Savage and Graham Wilson whose contributions were acknowledged. Do you not recall the calls made over the years to have material particularly on D'Onston and Vittoria Cremers placed in some order instead of scattered over the internet? Well, my book does that and supplemented with further research that proves, not speculated, that D'Onston could not have left the London Hospital to commit the murders. In that instance the question arose, why then did he inject himself into the investigation of Scotland Yard and make statements to police on Jack the Ripper.

What I cannot understand is why you have become selective in the use of authors of some internet material in their work as Keith Skinner, otherwise a fine researcher, and the authors of the A-Z recently made admission to? In my view, it is not enough to 'find' snippets of information that are generally available for online searching to anyone, but to also examine, place in context and present in coherent form to general readers with an ongoing interest in Jack the Ripper and the Victorian period.

Cheers
Spiro

[auspirograph]

I've got a copy but I haven't had time to read it yet. I hope it was only published in paperback because that's what I've got and I'd rather have a hardcover edition if one is available. I rather prefer the first proposed cover, although even that had a small depiction of a top-hatted figure slinking off into the fog. When are publishers going to move beyond that image, I wonder.

McFarland has always charged near the top end for their books, although I notice that this cost just over 37 Canadian dollars which isn't that far out of line compared to most of the JtR-related books I've purchased recently.

Thanks for your interest in the book. Yes, it was released as a trade paperback, not sure of a hardcover edition but if I hear of anything will mention it. I didn't mind the original cover either but that is a decision the publisher makes, though I did try, as you say, to at least suggest a more appropriate cover than some of the fare dished out lately on Jack the Ripper. The title also was out of my hands although to be fair to McFarland, they were open to author suggestions in producing a decent book on the subject that is informative, enjoyable to read and that keeps speculative conclusions to a minimum.

There is much new information here and I hope you find it useful.

[auspirograph]

Anything of some value was either my own research or that of John Savage and Graham Wilson whose contributions were acknowledged.

I forgot to mention the contributions of Stewart P. Evans, for whose support I am most grateful. It should be said that it is Stewart's work on the Whitechapel murders, along with his contemporary authors, upon which this book and some notable others could not have been possible as laying a firm foundation.

Paul Begg recently and rightly noted that the current academic surge in interest on Jack the Ripper uncharacteristically fails to acknowledge the reliable efforts of notable Ripper authors. Writers and researchers who for the past 30 years have contributed to better understanding of the case and to citations of Victorian scholars.

Here is an example:

http://chronicle.com/article/Jack-the-Rippers/128842/

[PaulB]

What I cannot understand is why you have become selective in the use of authors of some internet material in their work as Keith Skinner, otherwise a fine researcher, and the authors of the A-Z recently made admission to? In my view, it is not enough to 'find' snippets of information that are generally available for online searching to anyone, but to also examine, place in context and present in coherent form to general readers with an ongoing interest in Jack the Ripper and the Victorian period.

Cheers
Spiro

Spiro,
Can you explain this reference to Keith and the A to Z please as I don't understand what you are saying. Ta.

[auspirograph]

Spiro,
Can you explain this reference to Keith and the A to Z please as I don't understand what you are saying. Ta.

Hi Paul,

I trust that all is well with you.

I'm not sure I could explain it to your satisfaction, but surely it is an open secret that authors avail themselves of online resources to various degrees. The difference I think, and as I have done in my book, is whether or not those sources and useful content are acknowledged. I certainly sought permission for some online sources that were of use to my further research. As you have said, a wide reading is required for a sound grasp of the subject and books consulted were noted in the bibliography.

However, as your query is specific to Keith and the A-Z, surely you have availed yourself of the online discussions regarding entries, for instance, of Le Grand. Or Martin Fido's appearances for up to date details on the Ripper case for the Drexel conference.

I'm not saying I see a problem with that, only that I find Rob's comments selective and narrow in their focus. What would be the point of rehashing online speculations and isolated pieces of what, in the main, are unreliable press reports to the exclusion of personal research.

[PaulB]

Hi Spiro,
All is well, thanks, as I hope it is with you. My query was really because I can't find where Rob was being selective in his "use of authors". I found a reference to you specifically, which I didn't think indicated selectivity and so wondered if there was a post I was missing or which had been deleted. I also wondered where Keith had made such an admission. As for the A to Z authors collectively, yes we use internet sources, which Keith more often than not double-checks for accuracy, but then the internet is a source just like a library, book, newspaper, or whatever. Using it is all part of the research process.

[fido]

Thank you for the explanation, Spiro. We were concerned that you seemed to be suggesting that we had said the new matter in the new A to Z was largely snippets from the internet, whereas anyone who has counted the number of entries in the fifteen-page bibliography of Paul's Jack the Ripper: The Facts, or seen Keith's office with its shelves of reference works and filing cabinets of photostatted documents, would know that very serious ongoing research on their part is always there as a support for or correction to new ideas seen to emerge from any outlet.
As far as the internet goes, I've no idea what lies behind your personality clash with How Brown, but willingly admit that the outstanding work he and his contributors did on Donston Stevenson, with directives to the newspaper sources against which it could be checked, has determined my present position on that suspect. I was sorry it led to How's breach with Ivor Edwards, as I always admired Ivor's tenacity and industry, even while disagreeing with his conclusions. But at the present time How's work (a term embracing the huge contributions of others which he has always acknowledged) seems to me the definitive position on Stevenson. Of course, as an academic, I concede that today's definitive conclusion may be tomorrow's burned-out case, and I will be interested to see whether your book modifies my views.
And the Drexel conference? Well, I'm looking at the forums because I need to be prepared for any questions on current thinking that may come up. So although the new A to Z checked internet ideas before reproducing them, I personally am indeed reliant on internet information when considering the current positions taken on Le Grand. But neither he nor (say) the tidal wave of discussion on Kosminski will be mentioned in my paper at Drexel: only I have to be prepared for possible questions on them. I doubt whether my paper will say much that experienced Ripperologists would find new: but academics in the field probably will. Their interests have rarely been in "Hunt the Ripper". Christopher Frayling was concerned with the light cast on popular prejudices by the types of suspect proposed, and was so little interested in the murders as such that he originally proposed ending his remarks with the extravagant remark "So there never was a Jack the Ripper". Judith Walkowitz, probably the most successful academic expert on the Ripper, is interested in the case for its effect on women's status in society - her other great interest being the effect of department stores and "shopping" as a positive activity. Far and away the most distinguished academic to have become involved in Ripper history is Charles van Onselen. Ripperologists usually discount him as entirely useless, because it seems crazy to propose a suspect whose actual presence in Whitechapel cannot be proved, and whose long subsequent career as a pimp seems only tangentially connected with really savage violence against women. The disrespect comes from a single-minded interest in The Ripper which is unimpressed by the huge weight of work van Onselen has done on the history of colonial southern Africa, the extraordinary recurrence of Lis/Silver on police files in different countries there and all over the world, and the mystery of his apparent lifelong concealment of a period spent in England in 1888 where he seemed to have been involved in a robbery in Whitechapel and to have begotten a daughter who was brought up there. It was in trying to determine what Lis was up to and why he concealed it that it suddenly dawned on van Onselen that the hidden period of Lis's life coincided with the commission of the Ripper murders. In effect the Ripper fell into his net when he wasn't looking for him - a far cry from those who go looking for anyone in the East End or the 1880s who could be made to fit.
In fact the worlds of academe and Ripperology are really entirely separate, although I have long said Paul Begg could hold a chair of history in any university in the world, and Keith Skinenr and Stewart Evans put many universities' research fellows (starting with myself when young) to abject shame. Drexel would happily have had any of them to speak if the university had the resources to fly them over. I happen to straddle both worlds, but it doesn't do me a lot of good. Most academics see it as either amusing or a sad failure to to fulfill the promise of my youth that I am now principally an authority of sorts on JtR. Most Ripperologists think it's disgusting intellectual snobbery when I protest against practices or utterances my training leads me to see as unscholarly.
But I certainly never peddle snippets of information from the internet as contributions to knowledge.

All the best,
Martin F

[Howard Brown]

Spiro:

Some of us are wondering how you received permission from Peter O'Donnell to use text or data from Bernard O'Donnell's manuscript, "This Man Was Jack The Ripper " which of course is available on the Forums....when Peter O'Donnell passed away in May of 2010.

Can you provide documentation for that ?

Dear Martin:

This guy takes the cake...this Dimolianis.

"Well, my book does that and supplemented with further research that proves, not speculated, that D'Onston could not have left the London Hospital to commit the murders."

He's trying to make it sound as if Mike Covell hadn't already done that 4 years ago. Mike provided an email from Jonathan Evans ( here on this site and on the Forums) from the London Hospital which stated clearly that the protocol of the Currie Ward prevented patients from be-boppin' around at night off the premises.
Dimolianis had an email from the same fellow...but that information was in regard to Stephenson's hospital registries from July of 1888 and May of 1889...and nothing at all about the protocol of the Ward or whether RDS could have entered and left the LH on his own volition...or at least it was not disclosed before Mike revealed it . He also went on a tirade, five or six years ago, about Ivor fabricating a phony hospital registration. That wasn't true because Ivor is far smarter than that. My argument was that Ivor left out any reference to the Currie Ward, as did Melvin Harris, in their books.
His comment on whether he "proved" Stephenson could have left the premises are all fine and well...but that was done already.
See you in a few weeks, sor....

[auspirograph]

Thanks Martin for your interesting and measured response, certainly no, I was not suggesting that the authors of the A-Z were reliant on internet snippets anymore than Rob was suggesting I was.

If anything, in researching a book on Jack the Ripper, an author with integrity cannot fail to notice the exacting work done by yourself and co-authors.

Spiro:

Some of us are wondering how you received permission from Peter O'Donnell to use text or data from Bernard O'Donnell's manuscript, "This Man Was Jack The Ripper " which of course is available on the Forums....when Peter O'Donnell passed away in May of 2010.

Can you provide documentation for that ?

Well that one is easy, I had been researching this book since 2005. Most of the research found on your site I had found independently well before it was posted but had reserved for the book, which I don't expect you to accept or understand.

The O'Donnell manuscript, as it is found on your site, is from the original acquired by Andy Aliffe when employed by Melvin Harris, to whom he alternatively provided a photocopy. Your permission from Peter was a retrospective license after the fact of you posting it without permission, something you alternatively described as an exclusive right in Ripperologist. So you and your cronies can wonder no more.

I don't have to provide you with anything Howard, get over it man!

Regarding D'Onston's alibi at the London Hospital, you yourself have documented and acknowledged my research as the source after the fact. I had established in reference to the 16th October letter to the City Police that D'Onston was in Currie ward with a transfer sometime after that date to Davis ward. Mike's confirmation of my research and waving of Currie ward protocol did not prove D'Onston could leave the hospital as night porters were known to be bribed with other irregularities then current at Victorian establishments.

I'm not sure why Martin Fido would consider you as the definitive source on D'Onston when you clearly don't even consider him a legitimate police suspect despite documentation to the contrary.

[Howard Brown]

Well that one is easy, I had been researching this book since 2005. Most of the research found on your site I had found independently well before it was posted but had reserved for the book, which I don't expect you to accept or understand.

Oh, I understand buddy boy...this is your way of saying that you didn't have access to the manuscript until the Forums received permission from Peter O'Donnell in writing and had said permission noted in an issue of Ripperologist. I did post a couple of pages of it up in order to gauge how much space it would require and did go through SPE to obtain permission...something you may say you had, but fail, as usual, to deliver.

The O'Donnell manuscript, as it is found on your site, is from the original acquired by Andy Aliffe when employed by Melvin Harris, to whom he alternatively provided a photocopy. Your permission from Peter was a retrospective license after the fact of you posting it without permission, something you alternatively described as an exclusive right in Ripperologist. So you and your cronies can wonder no more.

It is an exclusive right of the Forums to present it free of charge to researchers and civilians alike. I've just explained why I posted three ( at the most ) pages of the O.D. up in a special section which was inaccessible to the public prior to publicly providing permission to share the document.

Had you had a copy of the document...which of course I sent to you via email prior to posting it on the Forums...you would have told me. You didn't because ,frankly, I don't believe you had it. Andy would have told me if he had shared it with anyone else...and he didn't.

I don't have to provide you with anything Howard, get over it man!

Its certainly not me that you have to provide anything to. Taking Mike's discovery in 2007...which everyone knows is and was his in the first place... and trying to claim it as your own is par for the course for you, I suppose.

Regarding D'Onston's alibi at the London Hospital, you yourself have documented and acknowledged my research as the source after the fact. I had established in reference to the 16th October letter to the City Police that D'Onston was in Currie ward with a transfer sometime after that date to Davis ward. Mike's confirmation of my research and waving of Currie ward protocol did not prove D'Onston could leave the hospital as night porters were known to be bribed with other irregularities then current at Victorian establishments.

You proved nothing other than providing some anecdotes ( in your book) which supported Mike's communication with Jonathan Evans in 2007. I have given you credit for whatever you've done in regard to the Stephenson saga...but you don't get credit for repeating what's already been established and accepted by researchers the world over.

I'm not sure why Martin Fido would consider you as the definitive source on D'Onston when you clearly don't even consider him a legitimate police suspect despite documentation to the contrary.

I knew you would still be barking up the wrong tree.
His candidacy lasted from the moment George Marsh visited Roots until RDS went to see Roots on the 26th. No documentation exists beyond this point, certainly none that demonstrate the police had an interest in him beyond December 26th, 1888.
Everyone, I'm afraid, understands this, except you.

The offer still stands...as I'm not interested in using up Ryder's bandwidth and since you won't let me respond on your site....to get it on over to the Forums and we'll thrash this about there.

Lets see the permission in writing from Peter O'Donnell, pal.