Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - by Rob1n 43 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Graham 1 hour and 10 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Alfie 1 hour and 15 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Herlock Sholmes 4 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Torso Killings: torso maps - (7 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (7 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (6 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (5 posts)
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (3 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre square - sets, what happened to them when it was renovated last year? - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Media > Books > Non-Fiction

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-06-2015, 09:48 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,986
Default Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

Hi All
May I take this opportunity of making everyone aware that my book ďJack the Ripper-The Secret Police FilesĒ first published in 2013 has now been significantly updated.

These updates include a lengthy new chapter which questions the medical evidence, opinions, and conclusions given by the doctors directly involved in the Murders in 1888. This historical evidence has now been assessed and re evaluated by a modern day forensic pathologist Dr Michael Biggs. The results of which will now make us re think the way we have looked at these murders from a medical and evidential perspective.

There is also a new chapter relating to The Thames Torso Murders and the medical evidence given by Victorian doctors. Dr Biggs has also assessed and evaluated this medical evidence in an attempt to establish once and for all if one, some, or all of the victims were the subject of murder or other plausible explanations.

Further new chapters cover The Special Branch Ledgers and what has finally happened to them, along with the Kosminski shawl, and my assessment of the evidence suggesting that Charles Lechmere could have murdered Polly Nicholls and others.

For those who have already purchased this book I am offering free updates to those who e mail or message me with proof of purchase of the original publication.

For those who have not already acquired this book here is a link to purchase

http://amzn.to/1IcP0Hx

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-07-2015, 09:49 AM
PaulB PaulB is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,461
Default

When I tried to download the book it said 'Read Now' because I had already bought the book. Have you done whatever it is that is required for Amazon to know that the book now on offer is an unpated and revised edition? I don't know how you plan to deliver a free Kindle edition on being provided with proof of purchase. A friend found it fraught with difficulties. Have to encountered any pproblems and resolved them?
Paul
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-16-2015, 01:15 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Posted this yesterday, but it disappeared. Received an email from Amazon inviting me to update Trevor's book. I simply clicked on the link to "manage your content and devices" and from there it was a simple process to effect the update.

Thanks for this Trouble-free update process, Trevor. By the way, some fascinating insights by the forensic pathologist, Dr Biggs.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-17-2015, 03:42 PM
Tom_Wescott Tom_Wescott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,676
Default

I downloaded the supposedly updated version with all the typos and errors corrected, and yet I'm still 'Westcott' and everything regarding myself and Le Grand is still completely misrepresented.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-17-2015, 08:13 PM
Scott Nelson Scott Nelson is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,178
Default

I thought your suspect was John Sachell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-19-2015, 10:43 AM
Scott Nelson Scott Nelson is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,178
Default

Or Satchel, ...Satchell?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-05-2015, 09:16 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

A comment on Trevorís book in respect of Francis Tumblety.

His discussion about whether Tumblety was out of prison on 9 November and thus in a position to murder Mary Jane Kelly concludes as follows (bold highlighting added):

"All of the above facts and my thorough re-examination into Francis Tumblety suggest to me that he was in custody on the date Mary Kelly was murdered, and could have had no involvement in her murder and therefore was not Jack the Ripper."

Yet, in his book, Trevor makes clear that Mary Kelly might not have been killed by the same person who committed the earlier murders. I thought that his passage on Alice Carroll was probably the most interesting part of the book because I had never heard of this woman before but Trevor asks whether Alice Carroll was Mary Kelly and whether she was killed by someone "making it look like the work of Jack the Ripper". While he doesnít answer the question, the fact that he can ask it casts serious doubt on his conclusion that Tumblety was not Jack the Ripper because he was in custody on the date Mary Kelly was murdered.

And lo and behold in the thread, "The Whitehall Mystery" (#459), Trevor told me:

"From my investigation I believe that there is every possibility that Kelly was not murdered by the same hand as the others and that her murder could have been made to look look (sic) like the work of another killer."

Surely Trevor sees the contradiction between the two positions.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-05-2015, 09:28 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

A further comment about Trevor's book.

Although he makes no mention of it in his OP, Trevor has updated part of his chapter about Tumblety to include his objection to my claim (made in an earlier Casebook post) that bail was compulsory for an indecent assault charge, namely that Oscar Wilde was refused bail in 1895.

In summarising my argument against his claim that Tumblety must have been in prison on 9 November, Trevor states that it is argued that, "there are no examples of anyone being remanded in custody for these types of offences". Anyone who read my Casebook post on the subject will know that not only did I not say this but that Trevor was perfectly aware of this fact because, in the "Cracking the Calendar Code" thread, in response to his question: "If bail before committal was at the discretion of the magistrate what circumstances would cause the magistrate to use his discretion and not grant bail?" I answered him with examples of situations (involving misdemeanour offences for which bail was compulsory after committal) where bail was not granted prior to committal due to the possibility of further, more serious charges being brought (#185). He certainly read this post because he cited it in full in his response (#197). Perhaps it is not surprising that Trevor has misunderstood my argument because he attributes it in his book to "researchers", when it was, in fact, only me, so he must have imagined the others as well as their imaginary arguments.

The fact that Oscar Wilde was refused bail at his remand hearings, when there was the prospect of further more serious charges being brought, is not in itself terribly surprising, therefore, but Trevor does not inform his readers of this, making it appear that he has found the only example of bail being refused for this type of offence prior to committal.

Trevor also makes the point that Wilde was refused bail following his committal for trial too but he does not inform his readers what the significance of this was to the debate. My point was that, with bail being compulsory after committal for certain misdemeanour offences, magistrates would usually admit a prisoner to bail charged with those offences at the remand stage because to refuse it would be illogical. But Trevor does not clarify this in his book so any informed reader would have to be baffled as to what the issue was.

Those who remember the debate in this forum will be aware that not once did Trevor challenge my interpretation of the clear words in the Indictable Offences Act 1848 that bail for certain offences (including gross indecency) was compulsory after committal. Not once. Yet, having found an example of bail being refused after committal in a case of indecent assault, Trevor fails in his book to explain his belief as to what the Indictable Offences Act of 1848 was in fact saying. Was it compulsory or not? If it was compulsory then a refusal by a magistrate to admit to bail under the law on in 1895 could have had no possible bearing on anything that had happened seven years earlier (to Tumblety) in 1888. If it was not compulsory, then I clearly made a major error in my interpretation of the Indictable Offences Act but there is, strangely, not a squeak about this from Trevor in his book.

We are only talking about two new paragraphs in Trevorís book but the problems donít end there. For Trevor says that Oscar Wilde was "arrested for identical offences to those of Tumblety". Really? So Wilde was arrested for indecent assault was he? I donít think so because that was not one of the charges against him. And in any case, the offences for which he was arrested are irrelevant. The only relevant charges for the purpose of Trevorís argument are those which were before the magistrate at Wildeís committal hearing. In that respect, we know that Wilde was charged with offences of conspiracy which Tumblety was not charged with. So the offences were not "identical" at all.

For reasons that can be found in the current issue of Ripperologist, the case of Oscar Wilde does not affect my Casebook postings at all and Trevor's argument in the revised edition of his book, which rests entirely on the case of Oscar Wilde, has collapsed.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-05-2015, 09:37 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
A further comment about Trevor's book.

Although he makes no mention of it in his OP, Trevor has updated part of his chapter about Tumblety to include his objection to my claim (made in an earlier Casebook post) that bail was compulsory for an indecent assault charge, namely that Oscar Wilde was refused bail in 1895.

In summarising my argument against his claim that Tumblety must have been in prison on 9 November, Trevor states that it is argued that, "there are no examples of anyone being remanded in custody for these types of offences". Anyone who read my Casebook post on the subject will know that not only did I not say this but that Trevor was perfectly aware of this fact because, in the "Cracking the Calendar Code" thread, in response to his question: "If bail before committal was at the discretion of the magistrate what circumstances would cause the magistrate to use his discretion and not grant bail?" I answered him with examples of situations (involving misdemeanour offences for which bail was compulsory after committal) where bail was not granted prior to committal due to the possibility of further, more serious charges being brought (#185). He certainly read this post because he cited it in full in his response (#197). Perhaps it is not surprising that Trevor has misunderstood my argument because he attributes it in his book to "researchers", when it was, in fact, only me, so he must have imagined the others as well as their imaginary arguments.

The fact that Oscar Wilde was refused bail at his remand hearings, when there was the prospect of further more serious charges being brought, is not in itself terribly surprising, therefore, but Trevor does not inform his readers of this, making it appear that he has found the only example of bail being refused for this type of offence prior to committal.

Trevor also makes the point that Wilde was refused bail following his committal for trial too but he does not inform his readers what the significance of this was to the debate. My point was that, with bail being compulsory after committal for certain misdemeanour offences, magistrates would usually admit a prisoner to bail charged with those offences at the remand stage because to refuse it would be illogical. But Trevor does not clarify this in his book so any informed reader would have to be baffled as to what the issue was.

Those who remember the debate in this forum will be aware that not once did Trevor challenge my interpretation of the clear words in the Indictable Offences Act 1848 that bail for certain offences (including gross indecency) was compulsory after committal. Not once. Yet, having found an example of bail being refused after committal in a case of indecent assault, Trevor fails in his book to explain his belief as to what the Indictable Offences Act of 1848 was in fact saying. Was it compulsory or not? If it was compulsory then a refusal by a magistrate to admit to bail under the law on in 1895 could have had no possible bearing on anything that had happened seven years earlier (to Tumblety) in 1888. If it was not compulsory, then I clearly made a major error in my interpretation of the Indictable Offences Act but there is, strangely, not a squeak about this from Trevor in his book.

We are only talking about two new paragraphs in Trevor’s book but the problems don’t end there. For Trevor says that Oscar Wilde was "arrested for identical offences to those of Tumblety". Really? So Wilde was arrested for indecent assault was he? I don’t think so because that was not one of the charges against him. And in any case, the offences for which he was arrested are irrelevant. The only relevant charges for the purpose of Trevor’s argument are those which were before the magistrate at Wilde’s committal hearing. In that respect, we know that Wilde was charged with offences of conspiracy which Tumblety was not charged with. So the offences were not "identical" at all.

For reasons that can be found in the current issue of Ripperologist, the case of Oscar Wilde does not affect my Casebook postings at all and Trevor's argument in the revised edition of his book, which rests entirely on the case of Oscar Wilde, has collapsed.
Hello David,

But presumably, in respect of Tumblety, there is the possibility that the police could have intimidated to the magistrates, at the remand hearing, that more serious charges might follow, I.e buggery (a felony).

Last edited by John G : 07-05-2015 at 09:39 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-05-2015, 09:47 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Hello David,

But presumably, in respect of Tumblety, there is the possibility that the police could have intimidated to the magistrates, at the remand hearing, that more serious charges might follow, I.e buggery (a felony).
Hi Jon,

1. That is not Trevor's argument.

2. Trevor has been trying to say that Tumblety cannot have been out of jail on 9 November, so possibilities do not assist him.

3. It is possible that the police told the magistrate that more serious charges against Tumblety could follow but it is equally possible that they did not: we don't know.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.