|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Thomas C. Wescott
Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 40
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 04, 2004 - 1:16 am: | 
|
Want to read poorly researched articles on the JFK "conspiracy"? Read Ripperana.
Want to read about some obscure murder from three months ago? Read Ripperana
Want to continuously be reminded of the existence of John Pope De-Locksley? Read Ripperana.
Want a quarterly dose of Paul Begg bashing? Read Ripperana.
Want to read about Jack the Ripper? Well, after all, what's in a name?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. I'm just having fun. They're old issues are superb. And I mean they're a must have for the researcher. But the glory days are long gone. Long gone. Still, you've got to give them props for being the first. Buy the back issues. They sell them way cheap. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 152
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 11:29 pm: |
|
Hello all,
The other day I woke up late, had to run to get to work, and was still late. Had a long, arduous day at work. Got home and there was the new issue of Ripperana in my box. Day got better. Opened package and saw following on cover: Ongoing Research by Dr. J. Pope De-Locksley. Day got worse.
For those not familiar with him, De-Locksley is to Ripperology what Osama bin Laden is to foreign relations. His research makes Patricia Cornwell look like Keith Skinner. And in case anyone thinks I'm being unfair, keep in mind that he announced publicly that he's a descendant of George Chapman a couple of years ago, and now, in the new Fillerana, claims to be a descendant of none other than Robin Hood. David Radka has more of a life than De-Locksley. I've also heard he writes for white supremacy magazines. For some ungodly reason, De-Locksley has appeared in EVERY DAMN ISSUE of Ripperana for the last year. I've complained about it before and will continue to do so, because he adds absolutely nothing to the field, and those who write on the subject, but add nothing, only detract for their efforts, and we don't need that.
This issue has the second part of the article by serial killer Dennis Nilsen, or as he's named on the cover, 'Dennis Nil-'. If this guy weren't infamous, there'd be no reason to publish his piece. Nothing of value there, just a lot of Sugden quoting. One interesting feature about Ripperana, though, is how the bottom line of print on each page simply isn't there. It just drops off the page. Now, if that happened in only one issue, you could understand, but it was there last issue, and here again. Must be some sort of statement on editor Nick Warren's part. DAMN CONTINUITY, I can hear him say. It does create some interesting verbiage, however, for example, on page 15: '...was arrested for the murder of the Ripper's second victim, the unfortunate 'Leather Apron'.' Ha ha! So now we know, Annie Chapman was Leather Apron! Good show, Warren! Wonder how Evans and Skinner missed THAT one! Also in this issue are more jabs at Ripperologist and Paul Begg, whom Warren either hates or is in love with, or both, but who he can't stop obsessing over. He reports on the death of Ripper Notes (a little premature, I'd say) and makes the following, very interesting, observation: 'It seems that there is a dying market for long, discursive theoretical articles'. What? Yeah, we want really, really short articles, preferably by Pope De-Locksley Chapman Hood Mellencamp, that have as their only source the first edition of 'A-Z'. That's my idea of Ripperology. I guess if people are tired of long articles, they're also tired of Ripper books. You bet. My advice to Ripperana is to call up your old contributors, like Nick Connell, and offer to clean their house for a mouth if they'll start contributing again. And stop badmouthing Ripperologist and Paul Begg. If you wanna do that, do it here, but for the love of Joseph, don't expect people to pay for it. Has it ever occured to you that the 5 people who subscribe to your mag might also buy Rip (except for De-Locksley, who's still waiting to be made shift manager at McDonalds so he can afford two magazine subscriptions)? And enough with all the non-Ripper filler pieces. Geez.
I'm out like Nick Warren's credibility,
Tom Wescott |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 280
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 5:10 am: |
|
Enjoyed the obviously honest reviews by Tom Westcott. On both mags. Keep up the good work everybody.
The mention of Paul Begg's article on JTR and OTR.
I would dearly love one of your mags to get hold of the transcripts of Daniel Farson's ITV two-part documentary on JTR from late 1959.Could they still be extant? Or his radio debates? Where?
Much focus has been placed upon Donald McCormick and the mischievous and exciting books he produced, but not enough attention has been paid to the legacy of the very interesting descendant of Bram Stoker,Daniel Farson. Author of the eponymous "Jack The Ripper"; and Dan's almost as interesting father Negley Farson, a much-travelled adventurer.
The full story of just who stole Dan's bulging briefcase of JTR material from the ITV cafeteria , when Dan was about to reveal his trump card, the Macnaghten Memorandum to the public, has yet to be told.
Not to mention the full and interesting story of the elusive Dandenong Document "The East End Murderer: I Knew Him" last seen in Australia in........ |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 251
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 3:38 pm: |
|
Hi Tom,
"He reports on the death of Ripper Notes"
Huh? When did this issue of Ripperana come out? I sent him a copy of the new Ripper Notes, so he should know it's not dead.
In fact, if he heard it was folding, that means he got the April issue, and that same issue included a letter mentioning that it wasn't actually folding, just changing editors. I mean, even if he somehow lost that letter and only read the part inside, he still should know it's not dead if he was paying any attention to the article in Ripperologist about it or the discussion on these boards, or even other boards for that matter -- not to mention his mailbox.
I'd just read it myself to see what he's talking about, but my copy never showed up.
Bizarre.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 154
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 9:09 pm: |
|
Here's the text for the filler piece about the 'death of Ripper Notes'. The puncuation errors, misspelling of CM's name, blatant factual errors, and typos are Warren's own:
R.I.P.-PER NOTES
'Ripper Notes the US JTR magazine edited and published by Christopher Michael Di Grazia at his LA eyrie, has folded. It is promised that another editor will publish an occasional newsletter..., but essentially, the title has folded.
The title had clearly been troubled since an issue was dropped late last year. It seems that there is a dying market for long, discursive theoretical articles. Connoisseurs of the Di Grazia prose will be cheered to know that he is continuing to wrote his regular "The Last Word" in Ripperologist.'
There ya have it, and ya gotta love it! 
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 252
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 10:17 pm: |
|
So he did see the letter about the change in editors. He must have skimmed right over the part about there being no break in production schedule, or he didn't trust it or something. And he obviously wrote that before our July issue came out.
I bet he was even more surprised than most when he saw what the new format of Ripper Notes looks like.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 267
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 3:57 pm: |
|
REVIEW: Issue #50, October 2004
A somewhat belated review – this issue came out a few weeks ago – but given the smashing success of my latest ‘Ripperologist’ review (only one contributor openly hates me now), I thought it only fair I take on the latest edition of the original Ripper mag, even if most visitors to this sight a) have never heard of it, b) are surprised to hear it still exists, or c) are aware that it exists, but don’t care. This will be a short review, because, indeed, Ripperana is a very short magazine.
COVER/CONTENTS PAGE: It looks like the first 49, only it says ‘50TH EDITION’ in bold print. This is the only indicator that this is a special issue.
INSIDE COVER: A pic of Sherlock Holmes, next to which appears: ‘Ripperana: The Journal Sherlock Holmes would have read”. Given Holmes’ interest in the psychosis of bizarre individuals, this is probably true, though I’d hazard to imagine that Holmes would not have limited himself to one journal. By the way, the last time I checked, the e-mail address given here for Nick Warren didn’t work.
EDITORIAL: After apologizing for the printer’s errors in issues #48 and #49, where the last line of each page humorously dropped off (why wasn’t this fixed after ONE issue?), Warren threatens to fire his printer, reduces the last ten years of Ripperology to the Diary, Cornwell, the “fine-tuning of Ostrog” (whatever that means), and the Littlechild Letter (that was actually discovered by Stewart Evans 11 years ago, thank ya very much), before taking this issue’s first obligatory stab (pun intended) at Paul Begg and Ripperologist with: ‘And there have been rival magazines, notably Ripperologist. As I’ve always said, I’ll be pleased to play The Lancet to Paul Begg’s middle-of-the-road BMJ for as long as it takes, and then some…’ This is perhaps one of the saddest things I’ve read in a Ripper mag lately. Warren is clearly burnt out – has been for some time – but out of sheer hatred and jealousy for Paul Begg and Ripperologist, he plans to keep his Titanic afloat. When the magazine was fueled by enthusiasm and discovery, it was phenomenal. Now it’s pathetic, and only Nick Warren can’t see that.
NED KELLY’S SKULL ESCAPES INJUSTICE by John Godl: An Australian man writing about the skull of an Australian criminal hanged in 1880 for a British magazine devoted to a British criminal who didn’t surface until 1888. Yeah, this is what I subscribe for.
WHAT’S NEW? NEWS AND REVIEWS OF RECENT BOOKS AND MAGAZINES: He starts off with Stewart Evans’ ‘Executioner’, which Warren clearly hadn’t read, because in the entire review he gives NOT ONE OPINION ABOUT THE BOOK!!!! In fact, he only refers to it once. I don’t believe I’ve ever read a review like this before, where the book under review is not even discussed. Hey Nick, this is your brain…this is your brain on drugs… Next he hangs the Ripperological moon on Stan Russo’s ‘The Jack the Ripper Suspects”. He states that “while some of the material is misleading, much of the rest breaks new ground in print”. He states: Where else would you find the following facts?’ and runs a list of items to be found in the A-Z, co-authored by Warren’s Moriarty, Paul Begg. He then says “Whatever else he has done, Stan Russo has reintroduced the fun into “hunt the Ripper”. Russo is an American, and this point will become significant momentarily. He then reviews the latest Ripperologist (#55), starting off with a slam on Begg’s ‘Marmite’ editorial, titled ‘Marmite Arguments or Assumptions Revisited’; Warren then writes: ‘Revisited – I like that – a Ripperana buzz-word!). That’s write, Nick Warren believes he invented the word ‘revisited’. This is nothing new – back when Ripperologist first turned from a newsletter to a magazine, he wrote them a letter admonishing them, stating they had ripped off Ripperana by including a Contents page and photos, apparently also a Ripperana first! Later in his review of Rip he writes: All of this waffle amounts to an enormous shame, since Ripperologist occasionally publishes a piece of research of real importance’. He’s referring to Chris Scott’s Druitt findings in #55, which he then shamelessly reproduces.
The best has to be his review of Ripper Notes, the July edition. I’ll quote from the review: ‘Everything in this Journal, from a UK perspective, is repeated and worn. Much like, no doubt, the UK perspective on the US mystery of JFK’s assassination. Local mysteries should be dealt with Locally. The solution rate inevitably becomes much higher. Where is the (US) Ripper Notes headed? It is more the son of its predecessor than its continuation. Watch this space…’ So, there you have it. Why hasn’t the Ripper been caught? Because of all us pesky non-Brits! Warren seriously suggests that ANYONE outside of England has no right to research or investigate the Ripper murders. He also suggests that Brits shouldn’t study the JFK assassination. Interesting, given that this review is followed by…
JFK ASSASSINATION EXPERT DIES: An obit for William Manchester. Following this is more filler, completely unrelated to the Ripper, then the letters section, with a letter by Ron Bodnar starting off – ‘A question was raised in Ripperana #49 as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald was stupid’. No joke. And yes, Ripperana runs articles on the JFK assassination (static – Pot? This is Kettle, you’re black! – static). Following this, is a letter by Derek Osbourne, consuming a whole page, and what’s it about? – the JFK assassination.
Crack kills. That’s all I’m saying. Crack kills.
THE RELUCTANT HERO OF KENNINGTON by Bernard Brown: Bernie’s been getting around lately, with pieces in the latest editions of RN and Ripperana, and as a regular contributor to Ripperologist. This is the story of PC Wright, a bumbling PC who lucked into the mantle of hero. Probably the highlight of the issue, again with nothing even peripherally to do with Jack. Nevertheless, Brown should be pimpslapped for contributing to this magazine. I should be pimpslapped for reading it.
WHY DID SHE LET HIM IN? (THE MYSTERIOUS MR. HARVEY) by Dr. Martin Roberts: Gotta love those guys who put ‘Dr.’ in front of their name when writing articles. It must make them feel SOOOOOO proud, especially as, in mags such as this, their articles tend to be crap. Here, Dr. Roberts accepts Hutchinson’s testimony at face value and makes the oddball suggestion that Mrs. Harvey’s husband never existed, but that she applied this name to Hutchinson’s suspect in order to explain his lingering presence to Joe Barnett. None of this makes any sense and it reads like a 10 year-old Des McKenna article. Sadly, this is the ONLY Ripper-related piece in the issue.
NEWS NOTES: Six pages of news notes, not one of which bearing any relevance whatsoever to the Ripper case, and none even that interesting.
PT II “THE CLAREMONT SERIAL KILLER – AN UNSOLVED MYSTER by John Godl: It’s that Australian writer again (thankfully, he’s writing on an Aussie crime, or else Warren would revoke his research rights!) with more on this modern killer that no one’s heard of.
PICTURE DESK: A map of ‘the operations of the Claremont Killer’ (cool name. I guess the Aussie journalists aren’t as ‘enterprising’ as their British cousins).
Well, there you go. The mag is tiny. Imagine your copy of Ripper Notes (which is over 100 pages) but at only 29 pages (including covers) in length! Now, consider that Warren only uses about 70% of each page to put print on (you could go snowblind reading Ripperana). On top of this, he publishes virtually nothing relating to the Ripper crimes, instead using this space to insult all of his foreign subscribers and to put down his “rivals”. And this is his landmark 50th issue!!! Unfortunately, it’s just like all that have come before it in the last few years. A sad caricature of what was once an innovative journal. I believe the only reason he gets new subscribers is because his subscription rates are the cheapest of the journals. I’d say “you get what you pay for”, but even that’s not true. I simply cannot, and will not, recommend Ripperana, unless there is a dramatic about face both in the editor’s attitude and the magazine’s content. I hope I’ve saved someone a few dollars and a lot of trouble with this, or perhaps have persuaded them to put their money into a more informative and less bitter journal, such as www.rippernotes.com and www.ripperologist.info.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. This review is officially longer than the issue it’s in review of!
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1561
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Way to go, Tom, loved every word.
This Warren chappie wears a beard doesn't he?
I must say that he carries a remarkable likeness to Sutcliffe and West.
He did it.
He produced the biggest mound of turkey dung that I have been stepping around for twenty years, and thank you, Tom, for reminding me of that. |
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 7:39 pm: |
|
Hi Tom
While I invariably enjoy your reviews, the torch you hold aloft for Ripper Notes (closely followed by Ripperologist) invariably shines though.
In view of this, I think readers here should be reminded that Ripperanna held the lead in Ripper studies long before Ripper Notes was conceived, and during the time when Ripperologist seemed to be nothing more than a propaganda pamphlet for Diary drivel.
Nick Warren remains highly respected among many serious students of Whitechapel murder. And at least he appreciates that the culture of 1888 is pertinent to the study of Jack the Ripper.
All the Best
alex
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 268
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 8:57 pm: |
|
Alex,
Thank you for the post, though your defense of Ripperana's past is unnecessary, as I've stated numerous times (scroll up to first post) that, back in the day, Ripperana was a force to be reckoned with, and predated this site and all the other magazines in becoming the first forum for Ripperologists to share ideas and research. It's importance cannot be underestimated. However, my review was not of the first 25 issues, it was of issue 50, which sucked and stated that researchers such as Dave Yost and CM DiGrazia, your co-authors of 'The News from Whitechapel' (or 'The Annotated JtR' for readers of Ripperologist), are detrimental to the investigation of the case, simply because they are not Englishmen. Is this what you're defending? Do you cheer Nick Warren on when he encourages readers to "watch this space" so he can gleefully inform them when Ripper Notes fails (assuming it will)? Are you suggesting that because I enjoy Ripper Notes and, in rarer moments, Ripperologist, that this somehow has something to do with the fact that I find Ripperana to be passe? And what's with that last comment, that "at least he [Nick Warren] appreciates that the culture of 1888 is pertinent to the study of Jack the Ripper"? I assume you're suggesting I don't? As you've never bothered to converse with me, I'd like to know on what basis you've reached the conclusion that I'm so obtuse as to not understand that one must understand the environment of a criminal in order to understand the criminal. I'd also like to know why potential subscribers to Ripperana, in light of my negative review, must be 'warned' that at one time it was a great journal? What does this have to do with its current state? Already two people on these boards have complained that they've subscribed and never received issues, sent Nick e-mails and never received replies. THIS is the Ripperana I feel obligated to warn other enthusiasts about, and I apologize if my actions have offended you, but I've already heartily recommended to all that they purchase the invaluable back issues. I've no doubt that Nick Warren has many friends, nor do I doubt that he can be quite a delightful fellow. Certainly I know that much of his work is respected and I, myself, have found much of his output, both as a writer and editor, to be of much use. But do you honestly want to tell me that you prefer Ripperana, as it is now, to Ripperologist and Ripper Notes as THEY are now? Can anyone honestly claim that? It is certainly your, or anybody else's, right. But does anyone feel that way?
As for old-school Ripperologist being a propaganda pamphlet for Diary drivel, I must disagree. Sure, it had it's Diary moments, but not much. If anything, it was a Mary Kelly magazine. Again, what does this have to do with issue 50 of Ripperana?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3180
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 9:53 pm: |
|
I can only second both Alex and Tom's comments about the earlier issues of Ripperana, most of which contained precious material directly relevant to the case. Your comments prompted me to pull out my binder of old Ripperana's and read the first three issues (when it was still in A4 format) cover to cover for the first time in quite a while. I rediscovered several enjoyable pieces, including an article on Puckridge by Phil Sugden and others on the Ochrana Gazette and Thomas Stowell's papers. Great stuff from the "pioneer" days of the early 90s.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 269
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 10:12 pm: |
|
Stephen,
Sadly, my collection isn't as complete as yours, but I do have many of the wonderful, old back issues. The only detriment to them is all the dated Diary material, which was exciting news at the time, but now is old hat. That aside, a lot of the stuff popping up in recent Ripper books that most people had never seen before first appeared in Ripperana. Perhaps these long gone glory days add to my bitterness over its present state as much as they lend to Alex's defensiveness over my review? I noticed you kept your nose clean on commenting on Ripperana's more recent issues. Ha ha. Smart man!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3181
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 10:49 pm: |
|
Hi Tom -
I'll admit I still enjoy reading through a fresh copy of Ripperana whenever it appears in my mailbox, but yes, it definitely pales in comparison to Nick's earlier output.
Try to rustle up a copy of the earliest issues if you can (I've seen them pop up on eBay once every few months or so, lately). Reading a Ripper periodical in the days before the diary exploded onto the scene is sort of like taking a trip into 1950s, black-and-white Pleasantville. No back-biting, no name-calling, no bitterness - just pure, unadulterated Ripper research. (It didn't last long... the nastiness begins to show its face around issue #5).
I didn't get really serious about the case until around 1994/1995 so these early issues are my only taste of the "good old days" before the diary intifada began.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Hi Tom
I seek to defend nothing. Indeed, your own post appears more defensive than anything emanating for yours truly. I simply chose to inject some balance into recent invectives against Ripperanna. Nor do I think I ‘warned’ against anything.
To be perfectly honest I’ve found little of interest in recent Ripperanna, Ripperologist, or Ripper Notes. Apart, that is, from the non specifically Ripper related material.
Whatever interests me I research, and I don’t think I’ve come across anything pertaining to areas that interest me, in any of the above-mentioned magazines, that I’ve found particularly illuminative or previously unknown.
I think you’ll find that I have ‘bothered’ to communicate with you in the past. Quite amicably as I recall, which is why you receive an acknowledgement in my most recent book. The reason I stress the importance of cultural context to Ripperology is your recent comments about peripheral studies. If I’ve misread these comments then I apologise.
I do think, however, that if you fail to see the pro-diary slant of past issues of Ripperologist you need to take another look.
All the Best
alex
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 270
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 12:13 am: |
|
Alex,
You acknowledged me in your most recent book? Hell, then you can say whatever you want! Ha ha. What book is this? As for me being defensive, not really. More offensive in this case, since I have nothing to defend in the way of a Ripper magazine. I'm a mere contributor. I was also shocked at your response given that whenever I mention your name it's usually in praise of some sort (stating that 'News From Whitechapel' is a top-five must have, etc.). Actually, I was a bit offended by the suggestion that I do not appreciate peripheral studies. I keep hearing that alot because of my reviews, but I equally keep stating that I DO enjoy good peripheral studies, but not ONLY that. I like ice cream, but not all the time. Lately, Ripperologist has been like a Steak House that has one steak on the menu and 20 different chicken variations. People aren't getting what they came for. I know this because I get emails that say the same from people who can't or won't speak up on the boards. Now that I've said that, I'll also add that Paul Begg has stated there will be serious changes in 2005, and that more Ripper material will be a part of that change. So, all is looking up. On another note, what ARE you preferred areas of study these days? Oh yeah, and you wrote:
"To be perfectly honest I’ve found little of interest in recent Ripperanna, Ripperologist, or Ripper Notes. Apart, that is, from the non specifically Ripper related material." Seeing as how I've got pieces in two of those mags' latest issues, all I can say is...GEEZ! Actually, it's totally refreshing to see someone else being honest with their opinions. Maybe YOU should write the reviews for the magazines on here? I think I see snipers across the street. Hmmmm...
Stephen,
Despite being about the same age as myself, you got into the case a number of years before I did. My interest was sparked in '98. When I found the Casebook, Yazoo and Caz were two of the top posters, which is why I came on as Red Demon after following the posts for a while - I thought we were SUPPOSED to create pseudonyms! Of course, after a few months I dropped it. Unfortunately, all those nonsensical posts are saved for posterity on your awesome CD-ROM. Thanks! Anyway, I missed the blissful Diary-free days, but I was still there for the pre-Ultimate Sourcebook days when most of us didn't have access to the actual files and had to quote from authors, etc. THANK GOD those days are behind us!!!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
|
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 8:35 am: |
|
Hi Tom
Lots of things interest me, although very few of them are Ripper-centred now. I haven’t seen the latest Ripper Notes, so can’t comment on your contribution there but your article in Ripperologist made for enjoyable reading. As do the well researched and written contributions to Ripper Notes by Wolf Vanderlinden, for example. They simply don’t cover topics I find particularly fascinating anymore, but that’s just personal preference.
You are right, however, that subscribers to Ripperology magazines should be able to expect sizeable Ripper-related content. So I take your point about peripheral studies.
All the Best
alex
|
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 129
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 7:02 pm: |
|
Following an email from Paul Begg, questioning my characterisation of the Ripperologist in the past as a propaganda pamphlet for the diary, I took my own advice to Tom and revisited old issues of the magazine.
As I remembered it, I stopped renewing my subscription to Ripperologist because of what I thought of as the heavily weighted pro-diary slant of the magazine around 1997/8. I suspect, however, that my view at the time must have been overly influenced by a strong distaste for anything diary-related, and my memory of the time did little to modify this view.
Now, as if to exemplify Bob Hinton’s recent caution on the failings of memory, I should have rechecked past issues before making such an off hand comment. I did not, and I was wrong. For, having again skimmed through past issues, I did not find anything like the scale of pro-diary leanings that would justify my characterisation of the magazine as a pro-dairy propaganda pamphlet.
In view of this, all I can do is unreservedly withdraw, and apologise to all past and present staff of Ripperologist, particularly Paul Daniel, for this ill-conceived comment.
With Sincere Apologies
alex
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 583
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 7:25 pm: |
|
I'm sure everyone will agree that all three magazines could only benefit from future articles from Mr. Alexander Chisholm, on whatever subject interests him. He's one of the few trained historians writing on the subject.
Dave
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1171
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 8:25 pm: |
|
Hi Alex
Thanks for the apology.
Let me say this, one of the first issues of Ripperologist that I saw, when Paul Daniel was editor, and let me emphasize here that I do admire much of what Paul published, contained an article in which Paul stated how impressed he was with information he learned in a 1996 interview he carried out with Paul Feldman, Anne Graham, and Carol Emmas. The interview, carried out on the evening of Sunday, 10th November, 1996, is here on the Casebook. See THE "RIPPEROLOGIST" INTERVIEW--Paul Feldman: Anne Graham: Carol Emmas.
Of course, as we know, Paul Feldman would indicate in his book, Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter, a supposed family relationship between Florie Maybrick and Billy Graham and his daughter Anne Graham, through a supposed illicit relationship the convicted murder Florie had with a Hartlepool man. And Anne and Carol were then engaged in working on their own book on Florence Maybrick, The Last Victim.
Paul Daniel wrote of his impressions of Anne: "There was the familiar Cilla Black inflections in her strong Liverpool accent, and as the evening progressed, I realised she was an intelligent woman. But I also had the strong impression she was completely bored with the whole 'Ripper' saga."
Later in the article, Mr. Daniel wrote: "I saw documents, signatures, photographs, videoed interviews, letter comparisons, even correspondence so sensitive that it can never be published. I saw three albums of photographs relating to the Graham/Maybrick family. There were more. In these albums were pictures of people dating from the last century to the present time. All different, but all bearing an unmistakeable stamp of similarity; a down-turn at the edge of the mouth; a sameness in the eyes; a slight point on the eyebrows; an undefinable gauntness; all so similar to the face of the woman sitting on the couch opposite me, that I could not doubt that they were related. Anne Graham had the same down-turned mouth, a plumper, rounder face but it also carried the same undeniable gauntness. The evening's conversation and the evidence I saw, made clear that the provenance of the Diary and the Graham/Maybrick link were inextricably inter-connected."
Paul ended the piece with:
"Exhausted, I left the apartment at about ten o'clock, with the deep impression that, unbelievably, the riddle of Jack the Ripper is closer to being solved than it ever has been before. The one common factor of all the previous 'suspects' has been an author's lack of factual evidence to conclusively prove his case. In the present instance, the staggering amount of researched evidence could very well turn around all the views put forward in the last hundred and eight years."
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 10:39 pm: |
|
Hi Dave
While I think many may see my recent show as a pretty poor recommendation for this ‘trained historian,’ I do appreciate that the Casebook has afforded me the opportunity to make good friends who are prepared to forgive the frequent failings of an old fool. Thank you.
Hi Chris
I think the article you quote from certainly coloured my impression of Ripperologist back in the 1990s. But it still doesn’t justify my comments. While I remained bullish in my reply to Mr. Begg this morning, it bothered me that I may have got it wrong. It bothered me even more that I may have wronged Paul Daniel, who, despite past differences, has been the perfect gentleman, and a great help in locating the music from Mansfield’s Jekyll & Hyde for me. Hence the need for my apology, which you graciously acknowledge.
Thanks to you both
All the Best
alex
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 272
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 8:48 pm: |
|
Alex,
I expect my copy of your J&H book very soon. From the little blurb at Amazon it sounds like a pretty hard undertaking. I look forward to reading the anecdotes that one often finds in these books; those interesting hiccups in history that get passed over in less comprehensive volumes. I have a book written by Chicago girl back in the day where she talks both about Mansfield and the Whitechapel Club. He was clearly well-known all over.
So, do you have an idea of what your next project will be? I hope to see more of you on these boards in the future.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 9:15 pm: |
|
Many thanks, Tom
I do hope you find something of ‘interest’ in the book. 
Not sure what’s next. I’m hoping for some inspiration in the near future.
In the meantime, keeping my head down, and hoping for short memories is probably my best bet.
Thanks again.
All the Best
alex
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 273
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 11:29 pm: |
|
Alex,
I'm surprised to hear you're not already hard at work on your next book. The curse of most writers is that, in the middle of a project, they get excited over a totally different idea and have to keep resisting the urge to abandon one project for another. That's me and is why I don't have a book yet! That should be resolved in a relatively short time (well, a long time in Chris Miles years, a short time in Whittington-Egan years). Perhaps I'll write a review of your Mansfield book for Ripper Notes or whoever wants it. I'm not very good at book reviews, though, as you can tell from these posts, so it'd be some work for the editor. Ha ha. Right now I'm picking back up on Stewart Evans' 'Executioner', which I put down temporarily when I received the old Rip's and other research materials. After that, it's Mansfield. I wonder if Stephen has a thread for it on the boards?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3618
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 4:51 am: |
|
Hi Alex
What about a biography of Stead?
Robert |
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 9:03 pm: |
|
Hi Tom
I fully understand what you mean about competing projects being quite a distraction. Jekyll & Hyde, transcribing the Star, as well as oil painting and wood sculpture were all vying for my attention while News from Whitechapel was being put together. This is why CMD and Dave Yost were left to provide the bulk of the comment, while CMD drew the doubly short straw and ended up with much of the editing. Still, I hope you manage to beat the distractions and get your book out in Chris Miles time. Any hints on what it will cover?
Although there’s nothing definite at the moment, I am toying with the idea of broadening out the Jekyll & Hyde focus to cover London Theatre as a whole in 1888. I’m also considering something on the lines of annotated newspaper reports of the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion. (Less news coverage, more room for comment) And, as the ’45 was where my foray into historical research first began, it might be good to return to the safety of a relatively straightforward subject.
As I mentioned in my rant above, I do enjoy your reviews of other people’s work. So I’ll brace myself for your review of J&H Dramatized. 
If you want you could drop me a line and I’ll offer lengthy excuses for one or two errors that escaped the editing, before you savage me for them online.
Seriously, though, despite the apprehension, I’ll look forward to what you have to say about the book.
Hi Robert
Biography is a scary word to me. Detailing the whole life of someone has always seemed like too daunting an undertaking. Much more manageable, I think, to expand on particular aspects such as Mansfield’s Jekyll & Hyde. Apart from the basics, I know very little about Stead, so attempting a biography of the guy would be a lot of hard work over quite a few years. I’m not sure I’m up to that. Still, it’s certainly something worth serious consideration. Thank you.
Best Wishes
alex
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 274
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 11:14 pm: |
|
Robert,
You may be interested to know, if you don't already, that there's a very scholarly journal titled 'Newstead' that's been in production for years. I subscribed a couple of years ago and enjoyed it. I'm not sure they're still in production, but I see no reason why they wouldn't be. Google 'em and find out. Also, I believe Stead has had at least one biography on him.
Alex,
Thanks for the warning on the one or two errors that escaped your attention. If that's all then you're WAY ahead of most authors! I can't imagine how I'd notice them, given my ignorance of your subject. As for my own book, you ask what it would cover? Jack the Ripper, of course!
I'm curious, what about the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion (a subject I know even less about than Mansfield!) piqued your interest enough to draw you into historical studies, let alone consider a book on it? Is there a mystery surrounding it?
Thanks again for the compliments on my reviews. I should say that I much prefer giving good reviews to bad ones. I'd like to think I don't savage anyone for an honest mistake - my article in Rip was looked over by no less than 4 authors, who each had suggestions and corrections which I most gratefully accepted. Now, if a writer clearly has manipulated the evidence to suit his own purposes, or is publishing purely out of ego and has no new thoughts or evidence to offer, or is just plain stupid in his approach, then really don't have a problem calling him on it. Reviews in Rip and RN have saved me some serious money (Eddleston) and turned me onto some interesting books I'd have otherwise never purchased (London Monster, Rodinsky's Room). I started writing my opinions on the magazines years ago because people kept asking which they should subscribe to, which was the best, etc. And still do. Since I was reading all three I figured I'd pipe in. Also, I believe in their importance and wanted to spread the word. Not only that, but I think a lot of people were under the impression that the magazines would be 10 pieces of stapled paper with nothing good on them (think 'Whitechapel Journal'), so I wanted to make it clear that there's actually substance to them. Of course, now that Stephen is putting up the covers and contents, and more are subscribing, this is less necessary. But I guess I like giving my opinion, particularly if there's something nice to be said (or something I feel people should be aware of/warned about), so I keep doing the reviews, albeit with a looser, more detailed, approach than better, one which is generally not evident in my posts regarding the case. What I would LIKE to see happen is for an article or two in the magazines to stir serious debate and discussion on the boards. This happens occassionally (Norder's Anderson discovery and Begg's Marmite editorial), but not as often as it should. Hell, I'd even welcome a chorus speaking up in favor of Stan Russo's rant and proclaiming me a pothole in the road of serious research, but nary a peep. Perhaps this is due to too large a focus on suspects on these boards and by researchers in general, and not enough unbiased focus on the case particulars. One can have a favored suspect and still discuss the case objectively. I believe I do. But it's all 'Barnett this' and 'Maybrick that'. More about this in my 'letter to the editor' of Ripperologist, which I hope to get around to writing soon - if nothing else it'll be yet another stall tactic to writing my book!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 682
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 2:00 am: |
|
Hi Alex
I am toying with the idea of broadening out the Jekyll & Hyde focus to cover London Theatre as a whole in 1888.
Unless you are trying to be "Ripper specific", if you are looking at theatre of this period I would highly recommend opening out your scope. The "Ripper Years" of 1888 to 1891 were a fascinating period in the history of European theatre. Emile Zola's manifesto "On Naturalism in the Theatre" had been published 7 years earlier, and those influenced by it were reaching a maturity in their writings. The old Sturm und Drang spectacles and the moralistic Well Made Play were being swept aside, as the dramatic focus switched to the new Naturalism. During this three year period Ibsen's Hedda Gabler and Strindberg's Miss Julie were both written, two plays which I personally would put alongside Uncle Vanya as the three finest examples of the genre. The phenomenon wouldn't really reach the London stage until 1889 when Charles Charrington's production of Ibsen's A Doll's House was the sensation of the season.
Naturalism changed the face of theatre utterly, it was like a "punk rock" for the theatre as it challenged the complacency which had set in and paved the way for the great 20th century playwrights. Without Ibsen and Chekhov (whose first play, Ivanov, had been written the previous year in 1887) there would have been no Tennessee Williams, or Arthur Miller, or David Mamet, or John Osborne, or Michael Frayn. It strangely has a parallel to today when theatre worldwide is being threatened again by the proliferation of worthless spectacles cluttering up the West End and Broadway theatres and squeezing the genuinely talented individuals onto the fringes.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3628
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 6:28 am: |
|
Tom, thanks. I didn't find the mag, but there are one or two interesting sites.
Alex, if you don't want to write his biography, then write his autobiography.....or his diary....
Robert |
A Symons
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 5:10 pm: |
|
I don't see that Alex Chisholm has anything to apologize for. The current editor of Ripperologist, who obviously follows these boards, chose to privately e-mail Alex Chisholm to question his 'characterization' of Ripperologist. This is probably not surprising as the current editor of Ripperologist has consistently promoted diary arguments despite admitting on these boards that he believed the diary to be a modern fake. In his Definitive History book he does not tell his readers of this belief but says of the diary "Is it a modern forgery, as most people seem to believe, or an old forgery pre-dating 1950? Or is there just a remote chance that it could defy all the odds and be genuine?"
The magazine Ripperologist, via its editors, has always taken a pro-diary stance and has berated the 'anti-diarists' in its frequent diary references See Ripperologist -
No. 13 October 1997 page 2, half a page of editorial on the diary. Page 3, over half a page on the diary, defending diarists. Page 43 two-page review of Feldman's book by someone who had never read a Ripper book!
No. 14 December 1997 pages 2-3 editorial attack on Melvin Harris the anti-diarist. Page 44 'Maybrick the Band' by Paul Begg (a mere mention of the name Maybrick supplying a tenuous enough Ripper link for an article.)
No. 15 February 1998 page 2 editor's comments continues the diary debate remarks.
Special April 1998 issue pages 18-22 an article on the trial of Mrs. Maybrick (totally non-Ripper-related).
No. 16 April 1998 pages 42-43 Proceedings of the club on the Feldman/Skinner talk.
No. 17 June 1998 pages 11-13 'The Diary of James Maybrick' by Trevor Spinach.
No. 18 August 1998 page 7 Speaker's Corner - Keith Skinner in conversation with Shirley Harrison.
No. 19 October 1998 page 39 Proceedings by Adam Wood states "diary proved to be a crowd puller."
No. 20 December 1998 page 2 Editor's Comments on diary a half-page on Harrison's updated book - pro-diary. Page 33 'The Maybrick Hoax' by Scott Hannaford. Page 47 The Diary book by S. Harrison reviewed by Seth Linder, a pro-diary review has he had no real knowledge of the pros and cons.
No. 22 April 1999 - Page 43 'The Last Victim' by Anne Graham reviewed by P. Begg - full-page.
No. 23 June 1999 - pages 5-6 Proceedings of the club on Keith Skinner in conversation with Michael Barrett by Adam Wood - quote "The audience was double its usual size and totalled some 70 people." Page 7 Another half-page of 'Editor's Comments'.
No. 24 August 1999 - page 2 Editor's comments again back to the diary, pro-diary and attacks the diary's detractors.
No. 25 October 1999 - page 2 Editor's comments - pro-diary camp again. Page 16 full-page 'The Diary: Explaining the How and Why' by Scott Hannaford.
Alex Chisholm I think you can retract your apology. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 277
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 8:46 pm: |
|
A,
But all of these issues were prior to Begg taking over as editor (issue #28), and it was to Begg (and apparently Chris George, who acknowledged the apology), that Alex was apologizing. What are your opinions on the Jennifer Pegg article of the new issue?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 133
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 9:01 pm: |
|
Thanks for the suggestion, Alan. It certainly sounds like a fascinating area of study. Unfortunately, my knowledge of theatre development is far too deficient to contemplate such a course at present.
Hi Tom
Lots of swashbuckling and intrigue in the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion, but no mystery. Just the usual story of Scottish ‘what might have beens.’ And, of course, the fact that the resultant ‘ethnic cleansing’ pretty much impacted on every aspect of Highland history since.
I don’t think you’ll need special knowledge to spot the errors in J&H Dramatized. Just notice, as Stewart has done, where I use “Catharine” rather than Catherine Eddowes; where we use “lead” instead of led; as well as where I have Mansfield as a suspected “Whitechapel murder” rather than murderer, and you’ll be doing fine.
Great idea, Robert. At what point in the “Diary of Stead” do you think I should have him confessing to being Jack the Ripper? 
Hi A Symons
I agree that pro-dairy leanings can be identified in the Ripperologist through the years. On reflection, however, I did not think the scale of such leanings justified my “propaganda pamphlet for diary drivel” comment. Obviously I hold to the view that the diary is drivel, but I don’t believe I was justified in labelling Ripperologist as ‘nothing but a propaganda pamphlet’ for that drivel. Hence the apology, which I still think was appropriate.
All the Best
alex
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3639
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 4:50 am: |
|
Alex, a confession : some years ago I was holidaying on the north Cornish coast when an incoming wave deposited a champagne bottle at my feet. On picking it up I found it contained a rolled-up piece of paper. It was a bit faded and somewhat damp, but I could make out the words "Titanic : toffs' grub." I could see that it was a menu! There were dishes like coq au vin mentioned.
Nothing remarkable there, I thought, and I was about to toss it back into the ocean when I caught sight of the other side of the paper. There, in a rather shaky hand, were the words :
"I cannot go to my maker without unburdening my soul. The Ripper murders - it was me wot dun it.
WT Stead
PS Don't touch the coq au vin."
I have it now (the note, not the coq au vin). Yours for £50.
Robert |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1378
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 4:59 am: |
|
Robert,
you should sell it on ebay garabge like that goes for $500 (ie watchstand!)
Jenni |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3641
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 6:51 am: |
|
Jenni, I forgot to mention that inside the bottle there was a watch. It was no longer ticking so I was about to toss it back into the ocean, when I noticed an inscription.
It read : "I am cold."
Robert |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 7:10 am: |
|
somehow mention of a watch makes the whole thing seem less believable rather than more... |
A Symons
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 4:10 am: |
|
Thomas C. Wescott - but I thought we were discussing issues that were prior to 2000? This is the period Alex Chisholm was referring to, so why mention the more recent period?
However, there is pro-diary material to be seen since then, issue 29 pages 13-18, editorial in issue 47 July 2003, issue no. 49 September 2003 on the diary-promoting Liverpool conference, issue no. 50 November 2003 the pro-diary 'Dear Diary' by Shirley Harrison pages 17-19, issue no. 55 September 2004 editorial pages 1-4 about diary debates which I can only recommend to the reader to decide where the writer is 'coming from'. The editor leaves no doubt about how he feels about the Casebook's star anti-diarist John Omlor calling a statement of his 'disturbing'. It really is up to the intelligent reader to study this editorial to see what approach the editor of the magazine has to the diary in general.
Alex Chisholm feels that his apology is appropriate and that is all that matters here. He is obviously a gentleman and it is personal to him but at least we can now see why he made his 'unjustified' comments. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 11:52 am: |
|
Hi A Symons
You are offbase. Obviously our mere mention of the diary in Ripperologist doesn't qualify as making the magazine propagandist - if the mention of the Diary makes one a propagandist then all the magazines, websites and message boards that have ever discussed the Diary, pro and con, can be labelled propagandist, including this website. The editors of Ripperologist over the years have rightly felt they have had a duty to report what was happening in regard to the controversial Diary. Paul Begg's predecessor as Editor, Paul Daniel, did not defend the diarists, he deplored - and rightly – accusations and the personal abuse levelled at both pro- and anti-diarists and those in between. The review of Paul Feldman’s book labelled the book "an interminable litany of excruciating minutiae. . ." This book was before the public and was being bought by the public, so obviously our periodical had a duty to review it.
I would close by noting that a number of the items in our issue no. 49 September 2003 that came out in time for the Liverpool conference that you wrongly label "the diary-promoting Liverpool conference" were written by me.
Mr. or Ms. A. Symons, I am on record on any number of occasions as stating that I believe the Diary to be hoax and I have expressed the belief that James Maybrick was not Jack the Ripper. My talk at the Liverpool conference, published in the succeeding issue of Ripperologist made my beliefs clear as well, along with giving a rundown of various Liverpool connections with the case. These included various "Ripper" letters posted in Liverpool, newspaper reports of supposed suspect sightings in the city, and connections with suspects James Kelly, Tumblety, and Deeming, and with Justice Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, father of suspect J.K. Stephen--the judge who presided at Florie Maybrick's trial.
If the conference issue had some images related to the Maybricks, that was for the interest of the convention-goers as well as our general readers. For example, I thought they would likely be interested to know that the old Adelphi Hotel, the forerunner of the Britannia Adelphi where the meeting was held, was where, in the 1881 census, James Maybrick was recorded as residing, and that Dr. Tidy, who testified at Florie's trial at St. George's Hall, down the street from the hotel, wrote a letter on August 2, 1889 on Adelphi stationery while staying at the hotel during the trial.
The copy of the letter from Dr. Tidy was kindly supplied to me by Stewart P. Evans, hardly a Diary supporter, who is, as you may be aware, a major collector of true crime ephemera. We also ran a period engraving of Liverpool-born Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone, who although named as a suspect, I view as just as unlikely for the bloody mantle of Jack as James Maybrick.
Best regards
Chris George
(Message edited by chrisg on December 10, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 10:05 pm: |
|
Hi Robert
Naturally, I was greatly excited when I first read of your lucky find. However, as one of the ebayers who would normally pay much more for such a ‘find,’ (as Jenni rightly advises) the low price you put on the document suggests to me that it may be a hoax.
Nevertheless, in time-honoured fashion, if you still have the bottle, confession, and watch, we may be able to get some sort of limited scientific tests done, which, if not to confirm authenticity, would at least keep hope alive. (I’d like to apologise to the genuinely great Professor John O. here for using his phrase out-with its original context of diary derision). Will you pay for the testing, Robert, or should I factor the costs into my initial bid?
Looking forward to doing the business.
All the Best
alex
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3646
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 6:14 am: |
|
Hi Alex
Um...er...well, OK, I admit the whole thing's a hoax.
Sorry about that.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3647
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 6:22 am: |
|
Hi Alex
Disregard my last post. It's genuine after all.
By the way, I've been able to make out a few more words. After "PS Don't touch the coq au vin" come the words "Why pay the earth to get food poisoning? Oh costly intercourse of death." And then he starts going on about a waiter called Crashaw who spills the coffee and drops cigarette ash in the food.
I had the confession and the watch tested by a chemist, and Superdrug say they can find nothing wrong.
The price is now £5,000.
Robert |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1383
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 7:46 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
you've confused me there now. I don't know what to think. you say one thing then the other.
Damn it 5K thats more money than i can afford, i feel that Alex may well beat me to it!!
Jenni
ps try ebay, you can sell anything on there by biroing jack the Ripper on it!! |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3649
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 10:37 am: |
|
Jenni, I've been scrutinising the Kelly photo. I believe I can just make out, daubed on the partition, the initials WTSPMGMTOMBFVOTDDTTCAV.
Is it straining credulity, I ask myself, to conclude that these initials stand for "WT Stead Pall Mall Gazette Maiden Tribute Of Modern Babylon Future Victim Of Titanic Disaster Don't Touch The Coq Au Vin"?
Could Stead - assisted by the precognitive powers of Lees - have left this cryptic clue for posterity to unravel?
The price is now £50,000.
Robert
(Message edited by Robert on December 11, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1384
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 1:22 pm: |
|
Robert,
i do know that Cushna (Lees spirit guide) could understand the language of animals - but I do not think there is any evidence that they realised the titanic was going down.
Sorry - I think you are reading too much into the initials which could equally stand for
...umm... God I've set myself up for a fall here.... but anyway...
which could equally stand for
"Whilst Time Speeds Past My Great Many Teeth Of Marble, Briefly Found Various Omens. Time Didn't Defeat The Tragedy. Callous Alcoholic Vodka."
Umm needs work!
Jenni |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 119
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 3:17 pm: |
|
Hello Robert,
Cheque on way! I know where you live. I have already made arrangements for champers bottle and note found inside to be tested by the same persons who tested diary,watch etc. They have yet to aquire the equipment to detect biro ink. I did not realise WT Stead was such a good telepathic visionary. He obviously saw his death coming by sailing on the Titanic and was prepared by guilt to die for his heinous crimes in 1888. But it seems he was no good at sussing out dodgy food. Strange that.
That's it then. The end of the world for Ripperologist's.
A. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3652
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Hi Andy
You're welcome to test the note scrawled on the back of the Titanic menu. Take no notice of the "Little Chef" logo, which has obviously been placed there by Dark Forces determined to discredit my find.
I'm afraid you can't test the champagne bottle, as I was out launching ships all last week.
Jenni : aha! See! It's not as easy as you think!
Robert |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1385
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 5:30 am: |
|
robert,
were you not impressed with it?
Jenni |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3658
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 10:14 am: |
|
Very good indeed, Jenni.
By the way, Diddles was clairvoyant. She foresaw the Titanic. Diddles told Cushna. Cushna told Lees. Lees told Stead. Simple!
Robert |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1386
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Robert,
you've blown my scoop now!!
Jenni |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 293
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 11:26 pm: |
|
REVIEW – Issue #51, January 2005
Where to start? Umm, let’s see, how about the cover: same as the last 50 issues. Okay, moving inside…we see Nick Warren’s outdated e-mail that bounces like a basketball. Following this is an uncharacteristically light-hearted, and characteristically short, editorial…in which he urges readers to e-mail him. Go figure.
The first article, penned by the editor, is ‘The Ineluctable Minor Mysteries of JTR’. Apparently, ‘Ineluctable’ must have been Warren’s “word of the day”, which he had to use somewhere in a sentence. Bravo! Obscure words used in such a context can say a lot about the person using it. Think Radka. As for the article, it’s pointless. He’s supposedly looking at those minor mysteries that have nagged us over the years, such as…JTR and the Bobby Darin hit song. Yeah, that one keeps me up at night. Others include Mary Kelly’s rate of rent and Druitt’s suicide. No new information, or even solution, is offered in this piece. It’s basically a message board post, only people have paid to read it. But hey, at least it’s about the Ripper. A baby step in the right direction.
Following this are 6 pages (keep in mind there are only 28 digest-sized pages each issue) of irrelevant, off-topic, and downright boring ‘filler’ (his word, not mine) pieces. Not even worth going into here.
Peter Christie then gives us a mildy interesting, though quickly forgettable, piece about how the North Devon Journal reacted to the crimes. Why the North Devon Journal? Apparently, in a previous article, Christie “detailed a strange link between North Devon and the crimes” and now wants “to address the local reaction to these far away killings”. Basically, he just talks about how wrong men were pulled in for questioning because of paranoia. Same stuff we’ve read about in every paper during the time. Later in the issue, Christie turns up a short piece about a ‘trial’ that apparently pertains to Michael Ostrog. This was also found in the North Devon Journal.
The next is a pointless article about Burgho and Barnaby, the blood hounds. Seriously, enough about them already.
Following this are 9 PAGES (!!!!) of filler notes, not bearing any relevance at all to Victorian London, the Ripper, or anything a subscriber might expect. I’m beginning to the think the ARTICLES are the filler and the ‘filler’ pieces are Warren’s main area of interest. I think he’s sweet on Lord Lucan, too, but that’s just an unsubstantiated rumor (or, as Warren would have me say, ‘rumour’).
Next is a full page dedicated to the blurb JTR recently earned in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. This was of little interest to me the first three times I read it: on the Casebook, then Rip, then RN, respectively. Now it’s just redundant. And a full page? Must have low on filler.
Following this is a full page review of Paul Begg’s Definitive History. I assume he is reviewing the paperback, though he describes it as a ‘new book’ (it’s been out almost 2 years). This is the longest book review I’ve seen him do in some time, and why? Anyone who would subscribe to a specialist Ripper mag already bought the hardcover!!! It’s another attempt to attack Begg, though he does compliment him on his original 1988. He makes some truly unfair statements, such as pointing out that Begg is a co-author of A-Z and editor of Ripperologist, and that “All of which contributes to the mystery of his latest book [sic – his latest book is ‘JTR-The Facts, freakin’ Duh!]. There appear, in spite of the infinity of potential material, to be only five citations that post-date 2000. And only one culled from his own Ripperologist magazine: an article penned by his A-Z colleague Martin Fido.” This is unfair because, as Begg has made abundantly clear, the purpose of this book was to examine the world AROUND and LEADING UP TO the Ripper murders, to put the case into its proper historical perspective. Warren clearly misses this, or what is more likely, chooses to overlook it. Warren’s finger is apparently NOT on the pulse of Ripperology. Something tells me it’s somewhere much warmer, darker, and moister. As those of us with a clue know, Begg has since put out ‘The Facts’ which more than utilizes every resource at his disposal to present what is, at least to Begg’s mind, the most up to date overview of the case and the research into it. Warren can hate Begg all he wants, and even trash his book if he does so honestly and on its own merits and shortcomings. But that’s not what I read here. Can you say ‘bitter agenda’?
Next we have an ethnocentric review of the latest issue (#20) of Ripper Notes. This is what pissed me off and caused me to rant on another thread thereby getting me in trouble. Warren writes: “The latest issue has benefited from editorial change, but it still has a distinctly American flavour.” What the hell does that mean? He clearly implies that an ‘American flavour’ is a detriment to the magazine or a detraction from its quality. Why, because Dan omits the superfluous ‘u’ from words such as ‘flavour’? He then mentions that Wolf Vanderlinden has joined RN’s editorial staff, but DOES NOT list the contents or contributors to the issue! Probably a good thing, because then he might send one of his five subscribers Dan’s way, thus sending more valuable British dollars over the pond and onto the greedy, bloated, shores of Bushland.
Nigga pleez.
[I think I’m beginning to understand why he calls Ripperana ‘The Journal Sherlock Holmes would have read’ – Holmes was a bipolar, misogynistic, coke head. Okay, I suppose I wouldn’t go so far as to accuse Warren of misogyny.]
He follows this with a ‘review’ (that word is used quite loosely in reference to Ripperana) of Ripperologist #56. As always, he takes a stab at Begg and praises (and rightfully so) the efforts of Chris Scott in his ‘Newspaper Trawl’ feature in Rip, clearly the only portion of the mag that doesn’t turn Warren’s stomach. Again, he makes no mention of the many other features and contributors in the issue.
Following this is 2 ½ pages of filler, then the blank (both sides) back cover.
Let’s add those filler pages up: 6 + 9 + 2 ½ = 17 ½. And this is in a magazine of 30 pages (if you count the covers). Minus the covers, we have 26 pages. That leaves only 8 ½ pages of feature material! All I can say is www.rippernotes.com and www.ripperologist.info. You can subscribe online. Do so. If you enjoy boomerang e-mail just shoot a missive off to nwarren@ripperana.fsnet.co.uk and watch that sucka fly back atcha. Until next time, keep it on the real, dawgs. I’m gonna make like Tumblety and bail.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
|
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 54
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 6:09 am: |
|
Tom,
You know, until I read your post it hadn't occurred to me that the book of Mr Begg's that Nick Warren was reviewing was 'The Definitive History' - I thought it was a review of 'The Facts'.
Now I know what you're going to say ... the clue is in the fact that it says 'The Definitive History' in big letters at the top of the page.
Re-reading it now, without referring back to the books in question, I would still be hard pressed to know which book he was writing about.
David |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
