| Author |
Message |
    
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 944
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 1:43 am: | 
|
Hi all,
I've mentioned to a few people that there was big news about the next issue of Ripper Notes coming out this week. I've mentioned it to a few people, Jennifer I'm sure told some people at the convention, and we sent out some press releases that -- so far anyway -- haven't seemed to have been picked up by the news organizations that hyped Uncle Jack When it came out. Might as well make it public...
----
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - from Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Uncle Jack Authors Challenged on Jack the Ripper Documents
October 2, 2005 - The leading professional journal about the Jack the Ripper murders is challenging the authors of the recently published book Uncle Jack to explain what appears to be a serious discrepancy between a document as reproduced in their book and the original, which is preserved at the National Library of Wales.
The document is a page from a notebook kept by Sir John Williams, a Victorian physician who is accused in Uncle Jack of being Jack the Ripper by authors Tony Williams and Humphrey Price. The page in question lists several patients seen by Dr. Williams, including one "Mary Anne Nichols" in 1885. This entry is crucial to the Uncle Jack thesis because the authors cite it as proof that Williams knew Ripper victim Mary Ann Nichols professionally.
Jennifer D. Pegg, the author of an article on the topic in the October issue of Ripper Notes, argues against the claims of Williams and Price because of the readily discernible differences between the document reproduced in the book and the copy she received from the National Library, where the notebook has been stored and available for reference by library patrons.
"I think they need to explain to their readers why the image they put in their book isn't an accurate representation of Sir John Williams' notebook," Pegg said.
Pegg, a graduate student at the University of Warwick, first became aware of the discrepancy after Tony Williams responded to the first draft of her Uncle Jack critique, which was sent to his publisher, Orion Books. The handwriting of the entry listing Nichols had drawn her attention, as it appeared to her to be somewhat different from the penmanship on the rest of the page. Williams responded by asking her, through his contact at Orion Books, if she was suggesting that the document had been "altered."
"As soon as he brought up the possibility that the writing had been modified, I knew I had to check the original," Pegg said. She requested a copy of that particular page from the National Library, and, after comparing the copy of the original with the version printed in Uncle Jack, she became aware immediately of a great discrepancy between the two. The line as printed in the book is in larger print and curves downward in the second half, ending with the number 718, while the line found on the original document is smaller, straighter and ends with a 10 (or perhaps a 70). The differenced in handwriting between the two is also immediately apparent. Those differences are at the heart of her challenge to the authors.
Ripper Notes Editor Dan Norder, who accepted Pegg's article for publication, said, "It is not unusual for authors to be questioned on some of their arguments, but this is something else altogether. The original document and the version of it printed in Uncle Jack are radically different, but only for the entry that allegedly links their suspect to a Jack the Ripper victim. What is perhaps even more disturbing is that the handwriting for that particular entry doesn't seem to match the rest of the page in the original document either."
Pegg is is a resident of Leicester and received a BA, with honors, in sociology from the University of Warwick last spring. She is now in a Master's program there in social research with a specialism on the sociology of education. She is a regular author for Ripper Notes and has had articles published in other Ripper-themed publications. Over the past year she was instrumental in arranging a new series of tests on the alleged "Maybrick Diary," a journal purportedly written by Liverpool businessman James Maybrick in which he confesses to being Jack the Ripper. Pegg will be attending the 2005 Ripper Conference at the Royal Albion Hotel in Brighton from the 7th - 9th October. She will be available to provide further information to the news media and conference delegates about her findings. Pegg's upcoming Ripper Notes article also offers up a number of additional reasons to question the conclusions in Uncle Jack.
Ripper Notes (www.RipperNotes.com) is quarterly print publication covering the Jack the Ripper murders. It was selected as the best Ripper magazine by the readers of the Casebook: Jack the Ripper website as well as the Whitechapel Society 1888 Journal, a London-based organization devoted to crimes and social conditions in the East End during the Victorian era.
----
There will be lots more info in this month's issue of Ripper Notes, along with all the other great content our subscribers have come to expect.
And I'm sure there'll be some discussion in this thread too...
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1491
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 3:24 am: |
|
Dan
Jenni is certainly to be congratulated on taking the trouble to get a copy of the original document for comparison.
If the author is unable to provide an adequate explanation for the discrepancy, it's to be hoped he can be held to account in some tangible way.
Chris Phillips
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 945
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 3:26 am: |
|
And just because I thought you'd like to see a glimpse of part of Jennifer Pegg's findings...
That shows a section of the all-important line in question, focusing on the letter M in the "Mary Anne Nichols" entry Tony Williams uses to try to show that Sir John Williams had met Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols years before her murder. Note that the M on the line in the original document differs quite dramatically with the M just two lines above. Even more oddly, the M as printed in the book is considerably different from what actually appears in the original document, as provided by the National Library of Wales... but mysteriously now looks quite a bit more similar to the M in Sir John Williams' handwriting as seen two lines above.
The rest of that line has other major discrepancies as well, some of which you can already see in the sections provided above. This raises two very important and obvious questions: Why is the image as presented in Uncle Jack not an accurate representation of what appears in the original document? And why does the line in the original mentioning this "Mary Anne Nichols" appear to be written in a completely different hand from the doctor's penmanship, as seen in the rest of the document?
This line listing Mary Anne Nichols, what Casebook editor Stephen P. Ryder called "the most incredible bit of evidence" of the entire book in his review, must now be called into serious question, and the rest of the book must be reinterpreted in light of this new information.
There will be more on this evidence, as well as other problems in the book identified by our very own Jennifer Pegg, in our October issue. This is just another example of how the latest discoveries in the field of Ripper studies come from Ripper Notes...
(Message edited by dannorder on October 09, 2005)
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 946
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 3:30 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
I couldn't agree more. We'll see how things develop here...
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1492
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 4:27 am: |
|
It is interesting that Malcolm Edwards, describing himself as the publisher of "Uncle Jack", posted here on 22 April:
First, the extract from Williams’s notebook – naming Mary Ann(e) Nichols -- reproduced somewhere in this thread is indistinct there (presumably it’s a videograb from the TV) but it perfectly clear in the original, and as reproduced in the book. The dates which Chris Scott interprets as ‘1895’ are in fact ‘1885’.
[my emphasis]
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4925&post=127554#POST127554
Edwards was deputy chief executive of Orion Books, but has since been promoted to head Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on October 09, 2005) |
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 4:28 am: |
|
A big well done to Jenni!
Funny how they didn't spell Nichols' middle name correctly - you'd think that if they were going to manufacture evidence then they would make a better job of it - not that anybody fell for Sir JW anyway. Can't wait to hear their response!! |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 771
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Having been involved for a while behind the scenes with this story I can say that when the two entries are compared in their entirety that the differences between them are truly mind boggling. The discrepancies involve not just penmanship but size and location on the page as well.
Somebody has a lot of explaining to do and it isn't Jenni. And while the "Doctor's dubious entry" is certainly the most important discovery, Jenni's review effectively skewers the authors on a number of other points as well. I don't like to shill for anything (even myself), but in this instance I really have to urge folks to buy the issue and see for themselves.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 475
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 11:37 am: |
|
Way to go, Jenni!
Is there really so much money involved in JTR publishing that people go to all the bother to make these things up? Or is it fame, ego or what? I just hate it that people maliciously clog up an already pretty murky case with made up junk.
Cornwell is already a best seller and pretty much anything she writes will do well, but what's in it for the others? I understand if someone truly believes that he has solved or contributed to the case, but fabrications?
I just don't get it.
Mags
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1049
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Great work Dan,Jenni,and Don !!! Top notch work and such a message you have sent to those who think they can dump their crap on the Ripperological community.. Everyone..give these three a big applause !!!!!!!! Schlockmeisters Beware !!!
Chris P:
" If the author is unable to provide an adequate explanation for the discrepancy, it's to be hoped he can be held to account in some tangible way."
Oh man...can you imagine,C.P., if he and his publishers have to reimburse those who purchased the book ?
Ha ha ha !!!!!
How Brown
Prop.
WWW.JTRForums.com
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 949
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Wow... On a Jack the Ripper mailing list I'm on someone posted a quick update from the conference and it was all about Jennifer's discovery -- including some details not in the press release or posted here -- and nothing else.
Apparently the information is making a splash there. They might have even wrangled up an actual formal presentation for those in attendance. I can't wait to hear about what all went down.
Oh, and, yes, much kudos to Don for putting the press release together, asking for certain things to be clarified, etc. By the way, the typos in the version I posted above aren't in his original (and weren't in the ones sent out to the news media either, thankfully).
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 5138
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 7:30 pm: |
|
Great work by all concerned. Let's see what the response is.
Robert |
John Savage
Chief Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 510
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 8:15 pm: |
|
Wonderful work Jennifer, very well done indeed and I can only echo Roberts words "let's see what the responce is".
Thanks also to Dan for giving us a preview.
Rgds
John |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1493
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 3:16 am: |
|
How
Oh man...can you imagine,C.P., if he and his publishers have to reimburse those who purchased the book ?
Well, I'm sure that's never going to happen.
However, if it turns out that - in addition to the illustration in the book being doctored - the reason for this is that the original in the National Library of Wales has been tampered with, that would be quite a serious matter for the perpetrator.
Only last month Scotland Yard launched an investigation into the insertion of fake documents into files at the National Archives. The fake documents were used by Martin Allen in his book "Himmler's Secret War":
http://tinyurl.com/dkyl7
That was a question of inserting fakes into the files, not altering real originals.
Chris Phillips
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1922
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 6:26 am: |
|
Guys,
Firstly a big well done to Jenn et al.
As someone who knew Jenn was working on something (though not specifically this…..what about the acronym Jenn?) I feel it should be known the work that has gone into this.
The correspondence, agonies and frustrations endured are a true indication of Jennifers indomitable attitude and that’s an admirable quality. I for one feel reassured that someone actually bothers to look into these accusations rather than sit around debating such issues….and yes, I include myself in that.
It begs questions with regards to other documents cited as evidence in other books (not naming names eh?) and therefore the credibility of these works.
Anyway,
Top work Jenn….as ever.
Cheers,
Monty
Four candles.....you know, handles for forks ! - The Guv'nor
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2951
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Hi,
just wanted to pop my head in and say hi and thanks.
well I have to get this essay done by wednesday so I will catch up later.
Sorry to be so short!!
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 365
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 4:13 am: |
|
Wow!
I know it's already been said heaps of times here, but I'd also like to offer my congratulations to Dan, Jenni and Don on their great work. Fantastic stuff, guys!
To be honest, though, it doesn't come as a huge surprise. Many theories or supposed 'evidence' to support certain theories that are all the hype for some time turn out to be either completely or partially false, not just about the Ripper, but other things as well. Somewhat like the Royal Conspiracy - a theory that was all the rage back in the days of Stephen Knight & Co., now a theory usually reserved for those with just a wild imagination. Like Maybrick. Like Sickert. Like Carroll.
As if the "Uncle Jack" theory wasn't already built from a flimsy house of cards, some brilliant work appears to have now collapsed the bottom layer.
Again, my congratulations to all involved.
Regards,
Adam.
"...Since then the idea has taken full possession of me, and everything fits in and dovetails so well that I cannot help feeling that this (George Chapman) is the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago..."
- Inspector Frederick Abberline, March 1903 interview, Pall Mall Gazette .
Hmmm.....
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4123
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 5:48 am: |
|
Hi guys,
Warm congratulations to Jenni for her efforts and hard work on this. I couldn't agree more; the discrepancies are baffling, and the handwriting is clearly not the same.
I also concur with Adam, that although this particular discovery of course is something of a bombshell, I am not that surprised over the fact that something was wrong with all of it. Already from the start - with the author using a descendant in relation to the assumed suspect - I suspected we might have another Stephen Knight and Jospeh Gorman on our hands here.
Anyway, nice to meet you at the convention, Jenni, and the presentation of went well. I admire your guts.
A work well by Jenni and all others involved.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on October 11, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 954
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
Just so as I don't inadvertantly take credit for something that isn't mine here, I thought I'd clarify that all the important work and discoveries were by Jenni all by herself.
She's been working on it for months... We originally planned to have something in the July issue for the suspects theme, but I think now we're all glad that it was delayed, as some of the major discoveries came after that.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 777
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 9:06 pm: |
|
I just wanted to amplify what Dan has just written: the vast bulk of the credit for this bravisimo feat of detection belongs solely to Jennifer D. Pegg. She went the extra miles (and Ł's I would suspect) to nail this story down. Whatever credit remains should go to Dan for backing Jenni and agreeing to run with the story. Whatever role I played was quite peripheral and seems to have mostly been acting as a brake on some excesses of enthusiasm.
All cheers for Jennifer!!
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2959
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 6:35 am: |
|
Hi guys,
you know I am sure I was going to post more. and I better had (don't say I'm not a girl of my word).
First off I should say something about the conference. It was a great conference I must say and I had a great time. It was really great of the organisers, Adam, Andy and Claudia to allow me to speak, esp. when they were unsure of to what I would say. And thanks to Jeremy Beadle too for putting them onto it. And all really supportive too.
I was really nervous (with no prep. or notes, lol!) so thanks to everyone there for their great reaction to what I had to say.
It really was good to meet you all.
Really, the difference between the true version of the document and the version that presents itself as a copy of this document and is in Uncle Jack has to be seen to be believed. I'm still in shock and I've now a few months! I am so glad to have obtained the copyright so that we can reproduce the original image from the National Library of Wales and you will all be able to see the difference clearly.
of course - as I mentioned in Brighton, that isn't the only problem in the book. The authors were mistaken on a number of counts.
Anyway, don't want to go into too much detail here as things are explained properly in my article.
Despite what they say Dan and Don have both been really supportive. Thanks guys,
cheers for now
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 5:08 am: |
|
Mad.....
But fair play to all concerned.
Will the Uncle Jack book be removed from the non-fiction review section of the Ripper Media pages now?
Mr P |
zxcter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 1:06 am: |
|
As the picture above show the handwriting is different,but the question is did the original document clearly showed Mary Anne Nichols? From the picture above it looks as if it does,at least the Mary A.The difference is minor. |
Charles Valentine
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
I do hope this is not going to become as notorious as the alleged Diary. This is clouding the murder facts even more, and they're muddy already through some unscrupulous authors. Well done Jenni, the Columbo of Ripperology. |
Mike Levy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 9:48 pm: |
|
Take a disgruntled relative with an axe to grind because his great great uncle snubbed his less distinguished and fortunate relatives, denying them any inheritence. Add to that a great leap of conjecture and possibly falsified documentation and bingo, you've got Uncle Jack. One of the correspondents in this column made the comparison of this 'theory' to that of the Royals, Sickert and the Freemason's ala the late Stephen Knight. That's an incredible cudo for the writers of Uncle Jack. Please don't give them that kind of credit for the weak case they present. How thin and unbelievable (and boring) this book was. The lack of credibility staggers the imagination. I believe that Uncle Jack is purely an oportunist venture into capitalizing on the Ripper following. I can't believe that I bought the book, that I actually read it and that I wasted time doing so. If the publisher is refunding money, add my name to the list. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2960
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 6:47 am: |
|
Zxcter,
you really have to see the full images side by side to fully see it. And it will appear in and be fully explained in Octs RN.
I dont want to get into a debate about it now before my article comes out.
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1508
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 7:05 am: |
|
Mike Levy
How thin and unbelievable (and boring) this book was. The lack of credibility staggers the imagination.
That may well be the case, but it shouldn't detract from what Jenni has achieved in nailing a downright falsification of the evidence.
It will be interesting to see how the publishers react. Obviously there won't be any question of refunds, but will they continue to advertise it - as they are doing currently on their website - as "The solution - finally and beyond doubt ..."?
But perhaps it really is now viewed as acceptable in the publishing world to market demonstrable lies in the guise of non-fiction.
Chris Phillips
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 481
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 14, 2005 - 7:43 am: |
|
Hello Jenni,
You deserve the gratitude of all Ripper studies people for demonstrating just how correct research procedure will expose dishonest evidence every time.
You did what we all should do: went back to the basic evidence. And checked the originals.
Saving us all time and money. And rescuing us from any creeping cynicism into the bargain.
Well done Jenni.
And I suppose I should congratulate the Editor of Ripper Notes on his publishing scoop too. Well done Dan.
I was going to ask Mike Levy to reveal just how strong the evidence was, supposedly linking Sir John Williams to the other Ripper victims.
But I won't spoil Jenni's story. |
HRH
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 8:53 am: |
|
A little mischievous speculation: the 'M' was altered to match an 1888 'M' in an original Nichols/Ripper document that the Uncle Jack team had seen somewhere. Now, just go and find that original M, and - bingo.
I'd seen Uncle Jack this morning in my local bookshop and thought, Hang on, have a look at Casebook, and see what they say... sixteen quid well saved!
|
esm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 5:43 am: |
|
Hi,
first of all: interesting findings and a splendid piece of research, no doubt.
However, I don't see any relevance in this "revelation", except that Ripperology (a stupid and inappropriate term) is invested by hoaxters and pranksters. A fact that is not new.
"Uncle Jack" is one of the weakest theories ever - I guess we all agree upon that. And now we get to know that the author might (I'm still careful) have altered some letters (obviously not the words?!).
So what...?
In the final analysis it doesn't strengthen or weaken the "Uncle Jack"-theory but only casts a poor light on Tony Williams and Humphrey Price, if they really modified the letters. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 986
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Well if evidence is proven to have been falsified; or is unreliable for whatever reason; doesn't that, of itself undermine any theory based on it? |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1538
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
esm
And now we get to know that the author might (I'm still careful) have altered some letters (obviously not the words?!).
We get to know a bit more than that!
We get to know that the crucial entry mentioning Mary Ann Nichols was in completely different writing from the rest of Williams's notebook, and someone altered the published image to try to disguise that fact.
That seems to be sufficient evidence to presume that Williams didn't write the entry.
Not only that, but how much of the other "evidence" has been tampered with?
Chris Phillips
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 488
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
Whilst treating a little cautiously with the alleged actions of the Uncle Jack authors,
in publishing a questionable copy of a Welsh National Archives document, esm touches on another point.
Have Ripper students become too jaded with the constant chewing over, of the limited information available thus far to arm-chair detectives?
Admittedly, a search on the Internet now saves what used to take years: and (as Chris Phillips often points out)when British newspapers are digitised, we will get a fresh burst of new clues...
But, until then, it looks like some people have decided the only new way to get a buzz from Ripper studies is to introduce some fake bit of evidence to ginger up the whole game.
It keeps us on our toes; and is a good test of our deductive powers and general knowledge. But in the process reduces quite a lot of Casebook posters to cynics. Thank goodness for humour.
"Let what is cheap excite the marvel of the crowd;
For me, may golden Apollo
Minister full cups
From the Castilian font". OVID 43 BC -18(?) AD. |
esm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 5:19 am: |
|
Phil, Chris,
Thanks for your comments.
I get your point but I don't really agree.
As I have said: the letters are modified, not the words. Is that correct?
So there is and was the name "Mary Anne Nicols" in the notebook, which covers a list of patients of Sir John Williams.
At the end it doesn't matter who wrote the entry. Maybe it was an assistent of Williams, maybe it was Williams completely wasted, not able to write properly any more ;-)
The fact remains that the name is stated in this document...
... so the questions is: why did they alter the letters? In my view it seems to be a pretty dumb hoax.
We can only speculate if the authores altered/made up other "evidence".
But there is so few and so weak "evidence" that it - besides that we can only speculate - doesn't really matter.
PS: in my last posting I of course meant "infested" not "invested" ;-)
Sorry, for abusing the english language - non native speaker... |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 965
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
Hi esm,
To clarify, the letters on that line in question as printed in the book are all modified from what was found on the copy of the original as provided by the National Library of Wales. Furthermore, if you count the reference code at the end of the line, then words have been altered between the version presented in the book and the original notebook entries, yes.
More importantly, in light of the inaccurate nature of the document as shown in the book and the major discrepancies between Sir John Williams' handwriting and the handwriting of the line in question in the original held by the library, it seems quite likely that the doctor's notebook itself was modified to read differently than it used to.
At this point it is not clear how a modification to the original could happen or when, but considering that the version printed in Uncle Jack has very obvious differences from the original, we have at least one very strong candidate for being responsible for creating both of these enigmas...
And there are more problems with the arguments in the book and other very highly questionable evidence that will also be mentioned in Jennifer's article.
Also, the investigation is still ongoing, and it's happening on more than one front. If things don't look clear cut enough to satisfy you now, the evidence that would convince you could turn up yet. This isn't going to be drawn out for decades if we can help it. Jenni's on the case.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2204
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:39 am: |
|
Ooh Dan, that was a bit below the belt, wasn't it?
Perhaps we could say that if only Jenni wasn't on the case of undermining the Uncle Joke theory further than it undermines itself, she could have remained on the diary case and closed it before it could be 'drawn out' for a second decade.
Or perhaps it's a harder, or different variety of nut to crack?
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1545
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 1:00 pm: |
|
esm
Maybe it was an assistent of Williams, maybe it was Williams completely wasted, not able to write properly any more ;-)
Your imaginative talents are wasted discussing this hoax. James Maybrick needs YOU!
Chris Phillips
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 969
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:22 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
I don't think the Maybrick/Ripper diary case and this one are directly comparable. Regardless of which side of the fence someone is on the diary, the kinds of things being argued there are not on the level of having an original manuscript that doesn't match the version presented as being that exact same document and published in a book. While people can argue that the handwriting in the diary doesn't appear to match Maybrick's handwriting, it's a lot more clear cut to find out that the line in a document as published doesn't match what was actually there in that exact same space on the original.
I can't think of another example in this field of something as obviously wrong as that image as it was printed in Uncle Jack. We can argue about the nonsense in Stephen Knight's book, the mistakes in Patricia Cornwell's, the sheer bizarreness of Lewis Carroll as Jack, the is it or is it not authentic of the Maybrick diary, but this is a case where anyone with eyes can see the disparity there.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that Jenni could have solved the whole diary controversy lickity split. On the other hand she did manage to work out the first testing on it in quite a while, which shows she can get things done that many people thought were impossible.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Spiro
Sergeant
Username: Auspirograph
Post Number: 11
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 11:00 pm: |
|
Caz, Chris,
Please people, could you keep some threads Maybrick free out of consideration for your fellow posters. Not everybody shares your passion for the Diary. Sorry but ain't that a fact! Personally, I'd be happy to read your considered thoughts on the Liverpool carnival over on the appropriate threads.
It has always intrigued me why anyone who tries something in Ripperology is shot down in flames the minute they pop their head up to share their results.
I would like to join with others here in thanking Jenni and Dan and Don for some intriguing Ripper material and for having the courage to persue it.
I, for one, will also look forward to hearing more on these developments in the Ripper universe.
Sincerely
Spiro |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2207
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 3:38 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
I agree with ever word - thanks for the clarification!
Hi Spiro,
I don't think anyone was shooting anyone down in flames here. (If you thought you saw sparks, you should have seen the arsonists' efforts when the Maybrick watch reports finally became available on Casebook.  )
My remark was tongue-in-cheek because a lot of people, including Jenni, have tried to put the b..... diary to bed and it is still sitting there in nightgown and slippers asking for another story.
We all think Jenni did a superb job arranging with a university to test the diary yet again. We are waiting for other independent people to come forward and do their bit too.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on October 21, 2005) |
Spiro
Sergeant
Username: Auspirograph
Post Number: 12
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 3:56 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
Thanks for your reply. That's just my point I appreciate you acknowledging it. Enjoy your weekend also.
Spiro |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1547
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 5:17 am: |
|
Spiro
Sorry - just couldn't resist it!
Chris Phillips
|
Spiro
Sergeant
Username: Auspirograph
Post Number: 13
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 21, 2005 - 5:57 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Good to meet you too. I know the feeling! It's reassuring to know there are people here who care enough about the details of the case to feature a sense of humour.
Spiro |
HRH
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
If the alleged alteration is proved - then the whole pack of cards collapses. Doctoring the evidence destroys your thesis. It's as simple as that.
Then again, the whole Uncle Jack project, may be no more than another cynical Ripper scam... did someone say Diaries? |
puzzled
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, October 23, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
When is Ripper Notes going to be published so that we can read about this properly? |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 975
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 1:20 am: |
|
Hi puzzled,
The October issue is so crammed full of breaking news that it's got a week or two yet I think before it will show up in subscriber mailboxes.
You can see the latest on the content and progress in the Ripper Notes issue #24 - October 2005 thread.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
David Radka
Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 41
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 8:14 pm: |
|
What Mr. Norder is engaged in doing in his magazine is essentially the pronouncing of what is obviously garbage, garbage. He's made himself a stadium where he can bat a thousand.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 8:50 pm: |
|
I have an extra ticket to Norder Stadium if you want,Dave...write something that can be used within the framework of Ripperology and maybe you can win a behind home plate seat to Ripper Notes, instead of sitting alone in the upper deck by yourself...
Come on and join the hoi polloi and put the others already involved to shame. A guy who made 40,000 dollars for writing an essay on Nietzsche ought to do well....You've got that 155 I.Q...the three degrees...insight to Lubnowski's mind...all the goods...
And appreciate what Jennifer has done,as well as Don [ not just a regular guy ] and Dan. It was a decent accomplishment....
Try not to be such a nudge,bubeleh...
Your pal
How
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 484
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 10:33 am: |
|
I should like the world to know that I'm available to write an essay on Nietzsche for a mere 20,000 dollars.
And it'll have paragraphs and everything!
Mags
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 396
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 3:59 am: |
|
Howard,
I thought the three degrees were a pop group, or have I got that wrong as well.
Quick question here, when did it become popular to add little blocks after your signature.
I notice Mr Radka has taken to describing himself as :
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
If its going to be mandatory there are some of us who are going to run out of space.
I wonder if Mr Radka has seen anyone dead along the road ( as my mother used to say)
Bob |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1090
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 31, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
"I thought the three degrees were a pop group, or have I got that wrong as well."-Mr. Hinton
Yes sir,they were a girl group [ coincidentally from Philadelphia ].Good memory,sor...
They were featured in the film, "The French Connection" while Popeye and Cloudy were in that nightclub sizing up the table full of gangsters [ Morris "The Blade" Lubnowski,Jacob "Too Short" Levy,and Woolf "Whistle" Abrahams..]. Real tough schlubs for sure..... |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 988
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 9:38 am: |
|
To direct the topic of conversation back to Uncle Jack, I was in communication with the publisher and so far the response has been that they have no comment at this time.
By the way, season tickets to all events at Norder Stadium are really quite inexpensive. Avoid the scalpers though.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
MTR
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 66
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 2:09 pm: |
|
[stupid question probably obvious answer] Has anybody tried contacting the authors themselves ?
Mike. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 990
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 5:34 am: |
|
Hi Mike,
Previous contacts with Orion Books resulted in the authors responding via the publisher. The last communication requested a comment from the publisher and/or the authors regarding the discrepancies mentioned above. That's when we got the reply that no comments would be forthcoming at this time. So we tried but were unsuccessful in getting a response from the authors.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 414
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Hi,
I've got Tony Williams phone number somewhere if anyone wants to give him a ring.
Bob Hinton |
MTR
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rigby
Post Number: 67
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Hi Bob,
Now that's the kind of thing I'm talking about 
I wonder if he's recently invested in an answering machine to screen all incoming calls ? 
Mike. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 3229
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
'Ello 'Ello...Mr Williams???????? No hes not b'yre!!!!
LOL Good luck chaps!
Suzi |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3154
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Bob,
my dear, why would we want to do that?
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 824
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Bob,
I've got Tony Williams phone number somewhere if anyone wants to give him a ring.
Ah, but is what you've got written down the same as what he has written down?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1006
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Hi all,
The issue is now out making the rounds so subscribers can see for themselves the differences between the original and the version in Uncle Jack. Additionally, the rest of Jennifer's critique of the book pointing out lots of other problems is also there.
The publisher has also informed me that the authors are preparing a response... So stay tuned for that.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
