|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1937
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 2:04 pm: | 
|
Hi David
It is at the printers as we speak and there is a separate thread with details and sample chapters.
Chris |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 329
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 2:07 pm: |
|
Chris P.,
Thanks for the tip! I'll go check that out now. Strange how amazon.com and amazon.co.uk don't carry the same stuff.
I look forward to coming back and reading all this wonderful research you guys are doing into this suspect once I've read the book and understand the theory. I hope I haven't already seen too much to spoil the book for me! 
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 331
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Okay, am I the butt of a joke here? I just went to amazon.co.uk and searched by title and under jack the ripper, and no Uncle Jack book. If this thing actually exists, I'd appreciate it if SOMEBODY emailed me a real link to where this book can be purchased. My email is tcwes@aol.com. Thanks in advance.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 864
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Tom
Try this link. It works for me. I hope they haven't got some sort of fancy redirection that blocks people from outside the UK
http://tinyurl.com/85gkf
Chris Phillips
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1392
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
Hi,
Surely there is only one establishment that knows the true identity of Mary Kelly, and that is the london police, her family were traced , but for reasons private to themselves never [ at least publicly attended the service?]
Their privacy was guarded and their wishes respected.
There must be desendants of the kelly clan alive today and yet no one young or old has ever spoken out to her true family background, and proberly never will...
Regards Richard. |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 865
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 5:02 pm: |
|
David
Thanks for the further information. It sounds plausible.
I must admit I haven't followed the previous efforts to trace Mary Kelly, but obviously the main difficulty is the commonness of the name (and of her alleged husband's surname). So maybe the puzzle will never be solved (but perhaps Chris Scott has hit on something).
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1938
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
Below are details of a court action in which Williams was involved in December, 1887. The case itself is of minor interest, but the main item of information is that the charge details give us Williams's address - 11 Queen Anne street - at the end of the year before the murders.
The Times
17 December 1887
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Before Mr. Justice Kay
WILLIAMS V HODGE AND CO.
This was a motion on behalf of the plaintiff, Dr. John Williams, the well known obstetric physician, of 11 Queen Anne street, for an injunction to restrain the defendants, Messrs. Hodge & Co., surgical instrument makers, of Oxford street, from using, min their trade catalogue, the name of the plaintiff in connexion with a certain instrument of a simple character commonly used in obstetric operations, so as to lead the public to believe that it was the plaintiff's invention. On the use of his name coming to the plaintiff's knowledge he remonstrated with the defendants, but they refused to expunge his name from their catalogue. The defendants did not appear to the motion.
Mr. Renshaw, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Rolls Warrington), read an affidavit by the plaintiff to the effect that it was contrary to the etiquette of the medical profession for a practitioner to advertise himself or to hold himself out to the public as an inventor, and that if he did so he injured himself in the eyes of his fellow practitioners; and that this attempt to connect the plaintiff's name with an instrument of so simple a character would ten not only to injure him, but also to render him an object of ridicule in the profession. The plaintiff was supported by an affidavit by Sir William Jenner to the same effect.
Mr. Justice Kay - This case seems like "Clark V Freeman" (11 Beav., 112), where the Court refused to grant an injunction to prevent a chemist from selling a pill under a false and colourable representation that it was a medicine of the plaintiff, the eminent physician, Sir James Clark. That decision was no doubt a surprise to the profession; but has it ever been overruled?
Mr. Renshaw - It has certainly not been accepted as sound. The defendants' untrue representations are calculated to injure the plaintiff in his business, and thus the case falls within "Thorley's Cattle Food Company v Massam" and that class of cases.
Mr. Justice Kay - That is a question for the trial; I cannot decide it on an interlocutory application. This is a simple instrument and perfectly harmless; but in the "Clark v Freeman" the pill advertised by the defendant was one of a dangerous kind, which the eminent physician who was the plaintiff would never have thought of prescribing.
Mr. Renshaw - That case is not considered to be law now.
Mr. Justice Kay - That is a question for the trial. Supposing the name of some eminent surgeon were attached to a particular instrument, every one would know that the name was not so used by that surgeon, but by some unscrupulous manufacturer.
Mr. Renshaw - I submit that in such a case the wrongful use of the name ought to be restrained. It is, in fact, libellous. In "Hill v Hart Davies" your Lordship granted an injunction to restrain a libel likely to injure a friendly society.
Mr. Justice Kay, in delivering judgement, said that in this case there seemed to have been, according to the evidence, a most unwarrantable use of the name of a gentleman of great eminence in the medical profession by associating it with a particular instrument. That gentleman now asked for an injunction that use of his name. Had the matter been res nova his Lordship should have said that he was certainly entitled to an injunction. A gentleman in the plaintiff's position might reasonably ask, "Why should my name be taken in vain by an unscrupulous manufacturer of surgical instruments?" The defendant had no more right to use the name of this eminent medical man than to take his purse - so his Lordship should have said upon his own unassisted judgement if the case had come before him for decision for the first time. But there was the case of "Clark v Freeman," in which the name of Sir James Clark, one of the most eminent physicians of his day, was used by the defendant, a chemist, in connexion with a pill which Sir James had never heard of, and which he would never have dreamt of telling his patients to take. There Lord Langdale refused to grant the injunction asked for. As his Lordship had said, that decision was rather a surprising one, and one which he had always thought was not sufficiently considered; but it was a decision from which he did not feel himself at liberty to depart, and from which, upon an interlocutory application such as the present, he had no right to depart. His Lordship was not at present aware of any reported case in which "Clark v Freeman" had been considered, or of any case overruling it. Accordingly, the question raised by this motion must stand over until the trial of the action, if the defendants were foolish enough to allow it to be brought on. His Lordship thought it right to add that he could not conceive that any one in the world would suppose this gentleman's professional name would be in the least damaged by this most unscrupulous use of it.
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1939
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 11:47 am: |
|
With regard to the letter concerning the 8th September clinic in Whitechapel:
The Morgan in question to whom this is addressed may not be a forename (e.g. Morgan Davies) but a surname. In the 1891 census Williams is listed as living in Brook Street, but his wife was listed at home with her parents in Wales. Also listed as living in the house was a relative of his wife's named Edward Morgan, also a surgeon. He is listed as the nephew of the head of household, Mary Williams's' father. This would make this Edward Morgan Mary's first cousin.
1891:
(Wife)
Ynistawe, Llangyfelach, Glamorgan
Head: Richard Hughes aged 74 born Montgomeryshire - Tin plate manufacturer
Wife: Mary Hughes aged 57 born Morriston, Glamorgan
Daughter: Mary E.A. Williams aged 41 born Morriston - Married - General practitioner / Surgeon
Nephew : Edward R. Morgan aged 41 born Llangyfelach - Registered M.R.C.S. / Surgeon
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1940
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Re. Edward Morgan
In fact, his middle initial was not R but P.
He is listed in 1881 as follows:
17 Church Street, Llangyfelach, Swansea
Head: Edward Price Morgan aged 31 born Llangyfelach - General practitioner, M.R.C.S.
Assistant - John Jenkins Lloyd aged 27 born Llanelly
Servants:
Sarah Howells aged 31 born Llanelly
Henry Elion Latty aged 23 born South Petherton, Somerset - Groom
(Message edited by Chris on April 24, 2005) |
Gary Northfield
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Here's the link on Amazon.co.uk, I just clicked the latest publishing date thingy when searching Uncle Jack. I've only just started reading it by the way (picked up in a shop this afternoon) and it's a compelling story story so far, but it did set off my spider sense a bit when he made the JTR connection a bit TOO quickly. Square pegs round holes etc.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0752867083/qid=1114285348/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_8_1/202-7361236-7215804 |
Liza
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 10:25 am: |
|
If Sir John lived at 63 Brook Street and Sir William (Gull) lived at 74 Brook Street
a. Did they know each other ?
b. Did they share 'Royal duties' ?
c. Did they share prostitute murders ?!!!! |
Puzzled
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
A couple of thoughts but with no idea who may have been responsible for the anomalies.
Re- the 'Morgan' letter, surely the protocol in 1888 when writing to a friend or colleague was to address them by their surname, thus (if it was Morgan Davies) the letter would start 'Dear Davies'. As remarked above, why would the sender have a copy of this mundane communication? The date, in a Ripper context, is the only thing that gives it any significance.
Regarding the notebook entry showing 'Mary Anne Nichols' as having an abortion in 1885, on examination the 'Mary Anne Nichols' appears to be in a different hand and a bit contrived as if written carefully or slowly and not flowing as per the earlier entries. You may not agree, but the difference struck me immediately. |
Malcolm Edwards
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 7:08 pm: |
|
Mr Hill --
I said you'd have to read the book. I didn't say you'd have to buy it (much though I might wish you would)!) |
Liza
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
If Sir John lived at 63 Brook Street and Sir William (Gull) lived at 74 Brook Street
a. Did they know each other ?
b. Did they share 'Royal duties' ?
c. Did they share prostitute murders ?!!!! |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 366
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 1:47 am: |
|
Always happy to receive a review copy from the publisher, Mr Edwards. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2388
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 4:00 am: |
|
Ottakers have plenty of copies available,failing that Got mine ordered from Abebooks
Suzi
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2208
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 9:43 am: |
|
oh i have now got my hands on a copy.
and not to nit pick but uncle??
"All you need is positivity"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
i've noticed something and im talking about the cover,
it says here the author is a direct decendent of JTR but he isnt as the family tree shows
and the agrument about Williams wife being infertile.
"All you need is positivity"
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 526
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 4:00 pm: |
|
Jen,
it says here the author is a direct decendent of JTR but he isnt as the family tree shows
Good catch.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 783
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
it says here the author is a direct decendent of JTR but he isnt as the family tree shows
Kids,
Let's not nit-pick. If the author is who he says he is, he is still a close relation to Dr. Williams. The title indicates that he's not really claiming to be in a direct line such as great-great-grandchild, etc.
Andy S.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1813
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
How old was he when he died...85!
That alone stretches credulity to the limit.The notion that Jack the Ripper stopped his butchery
just like that and 35 years after committing this horrific series of murders died peacefully in his own bed a greatly revered citizen and doctor is just so unlikely...
Natalie |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 527
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 9:33 pm: |
|
Andy,
More than a nit-pick, but real sloppiness. I don't blame the author (they usually have little to do with cover copy), but you'd think somebody at a publishing house would know what "direct descendant" means. Not these days, alas.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 784
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
Don,
Publishers usually also pick the title, so "Uncle Jack" and "direct descendant" are incongruous indeed.
Andy S.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2225
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
maybe i'm being a little petty!
oh well!!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1942
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
This address by Williams in 1877 might be of interest in that it casts some light on his opinions on medicine and the role of women.
It is from The Times:
2 October 1877
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
The introductory address was delivered by Dr. John Williams, who said the progress of medical science had during recent years been great and rapid. This was the case in all departments of the healing art. It was seen in the invention of new instruments for scientific and clinical investigation, in the more intimate and accurate knowledge of the natural history of disease, and in the development of hygiene and preventive medicine. At first sight, perhaps, progress seemed to have been greater in the art of surgery than in the sciences into which medicine is usually divided. This, however, was only apparent. The achievements of surgery were more readily recognized than those of physic by reason of the mechanical character of the means employed to bring them about. Medicine had made equal progress with surgery. To appreciate this it was necessary to compare the present with the past. Medicine had now reached its final phase, and had assumed a preventive character. The power of preventing and even stamping out some diseases had been acquired. The acquisition of this power was the result of patient labour extending over a long period. Gynaecology had not, in this respect at least, kept pace with general medicine, and yet it had made great advances. Gynaecology was that branch of science which treated of the changes - healthy and morbid - in the female body. No apology was needed for the choice of this subject for an introductory discourse, inasmuch as it now took rank with medicine and surgery as an object of special study. Its importance in practice was great and on the increase, and its bearing on certain social questions at present agitated was such that it would command in the future greater attention than it had in the past. A sketch was then given of the progress made in this branch of science. The crude notions of the ancients regarding certain processes which go on in the human body were briefly referred to, and the discoveries of Harvey, Santorin, Collins, Le Graaf, and W. Hunter were enumerated. Progress, however, continued to be extremely slow until the present century. The work of Dr. John Power, Parkinje, and Boer gave a new impulse to investigation; and the labours of Corte, Wharton, Jones, Wagner, and others had furnished some of the leading principles of the science. The views taken of the physiology and pathology of the female body were then reviewed, abd it was maintained that in the formation of theories of pathology, physiology had been kept too much in the background. Progress in physiology would lead to progress in pathology, and to greater and more intimate knowledge of disease. The advances made in the diagnosis and recognition of disease were but lightly touched upon, but reference was made to the labours of Keith, Wells, Brown, Jervis, and others - labours which had rendered surgical operations successful in cases which 30 years ago proved incurable or fatal. But a wider field than that supplied by surgical skill was open to the student of gynaecology; it was the study of pathology, the tracing back the course of disease to its source, the discovery of its causes. When this had been accomplished, gynaecology would assume a preventive character. Such inquiries, moreover, had a most important bearing upon a social question lately much discussed - the employment of women. Persistent and strenuous efforts had been made to admit women to professions which demanded from their members strength, energy, and a power of continuous and severe effort and application. The importance of this subject could not be over estimated, not to the few women for whose sake such clamour had been made, but to society and to the race. It could not be decided by prejudice - if that were prejudice which has existed for ages - nor yet by the intellectual caprice of a few experimenters in moral and social science. It was a physiological and pathologival problem which could be solved on physiological and pathological grounds only. Disease was in great part the penalty of a high civilization. When and how it acted, it was the duty of the physician to discover. To counteract evil influence and ward off the disease was the highest aims of his calling.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1819
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 11:44 am: |
|
Seems to me he was quite enlightened and progressive for his time judging from this report of his lecture.
Thanks for the find ,Chris
Natalie |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2239
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 6:49 am: |
|
someone i know thinks that Ian holm could play john Williams mother in any film!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 378
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:25 am: |
|
Ian could play anything!!! Wonderful actor. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2242
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:26 am: |
|
people with this book know what i mean?!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1943
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
Here is an inquest report about another abortion case in which Williams was involved. There are other accounts which I will be typing up on this case which state that Williams was actually called as a witness.
5 April 1898
THE DEATH OF MRS. UZIELLI
Mr. Marsham resumed the investigation yesterday, at Westminster Police court, of the charges against William Maunsell Collins, M.D., formerly a doctor in the Horse Guards Blue, now unregistered, of performing felonious operations on Emily Edith Uzielli, which resulted in her death at 7 Buckingham gate, where she resided with her husband, on the night of Friday, the 25th ult. Mr. Bodkin, instructed by Mr. W. Lewis, appeared for the Public Prosecutor; Mr. Arthur Newton defended the accused; and Mr. W.E. Hempson, solicitor, watched the case on behalf of the Medical Defence Union; Chief Inspector Moore represented the police.
Mr. Bodkin said that, inasmuch as inquiries wre not yet completed and the investigation before the coroner was not finished, the opening he would make would not refer to all the testimony which would be adduced. After recapitulating certain of the statements which have already been made public he proceeded to say that Mr. Uzielli, it would appear, did not know of his wife's visits to Dr. Collins's house, and it was on Friday evening, the 18th, that for the first time he saw Dr. Collins at his (the husband's) house at Buckingham gate, when a few words of conversation took place. Mrs. Uzielli was then in bed, and from that time till the Thursday following, though it must have been perfectly plain to Collins himself that the poor lady was dying in circumstances which showed that she was in great agony, Mr. Uzielli was assured that there was nothing very serious the matter. On the Thursday evening, the day before the lady's death, being very anxious about his wife, Mr. Uzielli spoke to Dr. Collins, who said Mrs. Uzielli would be well in two or three days, and there was no necessity to call in another doctor, though if Mr. Uzielli wished it another doctor could be called in, and his (Dr. Collins's) feelings need not be consulted. Even then the assurance was repeated that there was no casue whatever for anxiety. At that time, however, Mr. Uzielli was only too eager to have further medical advice, and he at once sent for Dr. Stivens, his own medical attendant. Dr. Collins had no option but to agree, and from that Thursday evening he did not see Mrs. Uzielli again. Directly Dr. Stivens saw the poor lady he realized the extreme gravity of the case, and told the husband of the very serious condition of his wife. On the following day Dr. Stivens called in Sir John Williams for consultation, but nothing more could be done, and in the evening the lady died. A certificate of death was not given, and the matter was reported to the coroner. On that Friday night Dr. Collins called on the husband and made a statement to him, of which evidence would be given. The post mortem examination of the deceased left no doubt in the mind of Mr. Bond and the doctors who assisted him that an illegal operation had been performed, which operation brought on miscarriage on or about the morning of Saturday, March 19. The case for the prosecution was that this lady's death was directly attributable to peritonitis, set up by a septic wound caused by the passage of some instrument. It would be shown that this instrument was used about March 14 or 15, when the deceased paid the visits to Dr. Collins's house. Mr. Bond and the other doctors agreed that upon an operation with an instrument being performed the after symptoms as described by the lady's maid would directly result.
The only witness examined was Henrietta Muller, for two years maid to Mrs. Uzielli. She said that when in London for the season Mrs. Uzielli went out a great deal to parties and entertainments. In the early part of the year Mrs. Uzielli had an attack of influenza, which kept her in bed for a fortnight. She was able to get about before she left the country house at Newmarket. The family went to the Hans Crescent Hotel about the third week in February. Ladies visited Mrs. Uzielli at the hotel, among them Mrs. Hope.
Mr. Bodkin - Did Mrs. Hope often visit? Witness - Yes, often. Answering further questions from counsel, the witness said that Mrs. Uzielli made a certain communication to her in February, which bore out witness's own idea of her observations. When at the Hans Crescent Hotel Mrs. Uzielli spoke more than once about the same matter. She was not pleased. She took some pills twice daily. She also took some dark brown, thick liquid medicine. No doctor attended her at the Hans Crescent Hotel. On Saturday, March 12, they left the hotel and went to live at Buckingham gate. On the following Monday, the 14th, Mr. and Mrs. Hope came to stay with Mr. and Mrs. Uzielli. They remained for a few days. Mrs. Uzielli went out several times before taking to her bed. She seemd a little weak in health, but there was nothing else the matter. She went out on Tuesday morning, the 15th, and also in the afternoon. She gave witness certain instructions on that day, in consequence of which she got things ready in her bedroom. On Mrs. Uzielli's return on that Tuesday afternoon she assisted her to dress, and noticed certain indications before absent. She spoke to Mrs. Uzielli about it, but the lady did not on that day account for it. On Wednesday and Thursday the symptoms first observed on the Tuesday continued. Mrs. uzielli went out on Friday morning, the 18th, and returned about lunch time. After lunch she went to her bedroom, and complained of being cold. She noticed at this time that the lady was very cold and weak. She wrote a letter in her bedroom. The envelope was addressed to Dr. Collins, 10 Cadogan place, and was dispatched by Cripps, the footman. Cripps brought back a note addressed to the deceased. Mrs. Uzielli destoyed that note by throwing it in the fire. She was in bed at this time. About half past 4 that afternoon Dr. Collions visited her and gave a prescription. On that Friday evening Mrs. Uzielli gave further instructions as to linen, towels, macintosh, hot water &c. Dr. Collins came again that night and saw Mrs. Uzielli in her bedroom for about 20 minutes.
Did you go into the room after he had gone? - Yes. Then I noticed bloodstains on the liene, &c. Mrs. Uzielli sopke to me about it. Her rest that night was much disturbed. Mr. Uzielli slept in the next room; his apartment opened out of his wife's room. That was the usual procedure at Newmarket and in town. On the following day (Saturday) Dr. Collins called twice - in the morning and in the evening about 7.30. each time he was alone with Mrs. Uzielli.
Continuing, witness said - By dorection of the deceased I prepared hot linseed poultices. This treatment continued until the professional nurses came. Dr. Collins came twice or thrice on the Sunday. He certainly came three times on the Monday. I spoke to him then about obtaining nurses. I asked him how long my lady would be ill. He said a few days only - that she was getting on well.
The nest day (Tuesday) did he come four times? - Yes. Again I spoke to him about nursing assistance. In the presence of the accused Mrs. Uzielli sadi she would wait another day for a nurse. Prisoner repeatedly said of Mrs. Uzielli, "She is all right." All this time (up to the Wednesday) I was keeping up the poulticing, &c. I did not see Dr. Collins give the deceased any chloroform, nor did I ever smell it. On the Wednesday Nurses Smith and West came, and from that time I only helped in the sick room.
The witness said she wanted to tell the Court what her lady said to her on the Wednesday.
Mr. Newton - We cannot have that in this Court. Understand, it is not evidence.
In answer to Mr. Newton, the witness repeated hat Mrs. Uzielli was a kind and attentive mother. The influenza had pulled her down a good bit, but she was under medical attendance for it at Newmarket. Mrs. Uzielli did not appear at all well whilst she was staying at the Hans Crescent Hotel. Mrs. Uzielli lived on terms of the best affection with her husband. From first to last she saw no kind of instrument with the exception of an enema. From beginning to end the prisoner seemed in every way kind and attentive.
A question put by Mr. Newton as to the varying symptoms of the deceased elicited the answer that the miscarriage occurred on the Friday night (the 18th) or the Saturday morning.
Mr. Newton remarked that the witness never used the word "miscarriage" in the whole of her evidence at the inquest. The witness gave a very definite opinion and particulars of what she saw, in re-examination by Mr. Bodkin, on the last answer she had given to Mr. Newton.
A discussion took place as to the remand, and it was understood that the investigation would not be proceeded with till after the conclusion of the inquest. Prisoner was remanded, and bail was refused.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2397
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Mr Bond????????????? Wouldnt be our friend Mr (Dr Bond) of MJK fame would it?????
Jenni
As to the direct descendant.EXACTLTY! glad its not just me!!!!tho what he would be .......if anything is still in the thought process!
Keep reading eh!
Suzix |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
have finished book!!
Jenni
ps i can't say i understand some of it!
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2254
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 5:53 am: |
|
pps
he is John Williams first cousin five times removed.
ppps but knew him as uncle its a respect for your elders phrase,
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Malcolm Edwards
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 6:22 pm: |
|
The publisher here again. Okay, our brains weren't in gear when we referred to Tony Williams as a 'direct descendant', but it's perfectly obvious (and not in question) what his relationship to Sir John Williams is. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 388
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 6:45 am: |
|
I now own a copy of "Uncle Jack" (as Mr Edwards will no doubt be pleased to hear. I saw it in Waterstons, and shall try to digest it this weekend (a long one in the UK).
I was amazed to see that there is a statue of DR Williams in the National Library of Wales. I was a student at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, and it was in the reading room of the National Library that I first began to explore the enigma of JtR.
The Dr's statue must have been gazing down at me as I ordered and read Matters, Odell, Stewart and Farson that day in 1972. I don't recall it and wouldn't have known who he was (or cared, probably!) but how ironic that now seems.
I would say that I think we will need to look carefully at the way the book makes its points. Scanning through it on the bus, I note that towards the end, the author says that the Dr would probably have known his Bible, quotes passages from Leviticus on the sin offering, and then links that to the way MJK's body was mutiliated. But there is NO link between the three points, except in supposition, and the Biblical passage and MJK similarities are imprecise. The Leviticus citation talks of the "rump" whereas, as far as I know, MJK's buttocks were not mutilated - though her thigh was.
That sort of argument does not carry weight for me, and suggests an overall lack of firm evidence.
Back with more thoughts when reading done,
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 913
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 8:58 am: |
|
Phil
Hasn't this thing about the sin offering been done before? Can't put my finger on it at the moment, but I'm sure I've seen a similar argument.
Chris Phillips
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 390
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 9:09 am: |
|
It sounded familiar to me, but I cannot think why. But thumbing through the end of the book, so see whether there was a summary of the case, it jumped off the page at me. I haven't had time to follow-through yet.
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 915
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 9:21 am: |
|
This is what I was thinking of, in "Jack the Myth":
http://casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/jackmyth.fulltext4.html
Chris Phillips
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1849
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 9:27 am: |
|
Chris,
yes -see AP Wolf"s The Myth re Thomas Cutbush and those sections of the Bible from Leviticus which AP cites and which may have triggered or coincided with Cutbush having psychotic hallucinations about being under command from "his voices" telling him what to do. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 392
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 11:40 am: |
|
Well done, Chris. But I think AP uses the association much more skillfully and subtley than does the author of the new book.
Phil |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2298
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Phil,
when you've done reading. we'll have to compare notes, I'm afraid I dont totally understand it.
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 398
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Oh dear, if someone intelligent like you is challenged by the book, Jenni, I am sure to be!!
Phil |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 403
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 4:42 pm: |
|
My first scan of the book, just to see how it fits together, suggests to me that the "evidence2 if that is what it is, is CIRCUMSTANTIAL and nothing else.
A Dr in Whitechapel could easily have known the women (and hundreds more who were not murdered) without being JtR. We know they were sick people - they had to see a doctor somewhere.
In fact, other than Nichols, I don't think I saw any proof of contact with the women, only that he worked in places they had been. But given what the places are, that's not surprising. the association with MJK of which much is made appears to be wholly supposititious, depending on where people were in certain years - we don't even know he got the right MJK.
I still find it odd in the extreme that a man should keep or retrieve a note clearly intended to be sent or sent to another person.
Finally, there is another explanation for Williams' interest in the murders, if that is what he had, other than him being JtR. That is, that he realised he had treated the women, or might have, and thus felt involved. (Did not Dr Barnardo record the fact that he had been in the company of Liz stride shortly before her death?) The knife and slides could have been kept for any number of reasons unconnected with JtR.
On first perusal the book seems around 60% concerned with Williams' career, and only around 40% with JtR. I did not feel that the discussion of the murders showed either great research or familiarity with recent thinking. Stride is assumed to be a victim, for instance. Other suspects are not discussed and/or dismissed.
On balance, I'd say the book had been published because the scandal of a benefactor of a national institution being accused of being JtR is scandalous enough to sell copies.
I don't see the case in JtR terms as being well argued, well constructed or proven by any means. the evidence against Tumblety (suspected in some degree in 1888) and even Kelly (escape from Broadmoor) is more convincing.
I'll have another go at a more detailed critique as soon as possible, but I remain highly sceptical.
phil |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2299
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Phil,
I'm not sure if it is to do with how fast i read the latter half of the book. I'll be sure to reread it after my exams. Even so, i do wonder about some of the theoretical elements. Perhaps when you've read the book to the extent you want you and i can compare notes. I mean seriously!
This book is certainly interesting at any rate!
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
The Shadow
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 2:37 pm: |
|
The cheapest I have seen this book is 'on-line at 'W.H. Smiths'. £10.19, delivered free to your local store. |
Tee@jtrforums
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Great work once again Chris Scott.
Speed of a ninja.
Keep up the good work mate.
Tee. |
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
Hello,
Might I add a penniworth. Sometimes the odd penny can make a difference.
This book, whilst innovative and fun, repeats a research mistake.
I'm not throwing a bucket of cold water over it, nor do I want to be a dripping critics' tap.
The data looks as if it will be worth seeing. The Doctor is associated with aristocracy, intriguingly lived a social 'stone's throw' away from the world famous suspect Dr. Gull, and seems to have the type of innovative disposition and independent stance that appealed to the 1880's corrupt. He may have known the girls' whereabouts. He may possibly have treated some of their number.
We might have new data which puts him on the periphery of the case.
That is probably where he is .
Patricia Cornwell found a little bit of data which intriguingly confirmed WS is probably on the periphery of the case, then rushed to print with a story about how he might be at its heart, holding the knife.
Isn't this new book a little of the same?
I admire the author's sense of fun and thorough research . Long may it live. But for me understanding the case starts with understanding its realities, not finding a suspect and attempting to put him right in the frame.
The five girls are at the heart of this matter. No book is conclusive while the question still echoes 'Why them, Why then, What for, and How was it acheived?'
Do folk agree. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 408
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 2:11 am: |
|
Joan - I am not sure that the research was thorough.
The book ignores the considerable problems encountered by many researchers in identifying MJK in the record, and simply plumps for one individual.A casual reader will assume that this is OK, without knowing about the complexity and uncertainty associated with this issue.
Secondly, the research has produced only circumstantial evidence at best, and in most cases not even that. I think the book is written with some of that HolyBlood: Holy Grail cleverness (as I call it) which makes the most of a weak case and suggests certainty where none exists. The hallmark is the "maybe" that becomes a fact 2 pages later.
Joan, why should the neighbourliness of Williams and Gull be of any interest? Gull has no proven link to the JtR case and I don't think the book mentions him. Why should the 2aristocratic" (I assume you mean royal) links be relevant?
Do you know someone called "Kitty"?
Phil |
Steven Yu
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 3:02 am: |
|
Just bought the book here in Sydney, Australia. It is a very intresting find, hopefully there can be more evidence supporting this theory. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 487
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Apparently there's loads of it in the National Library of Wales.
At least if you believe that the Ripper case will be solved by opening a trunk... |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 489
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Sorry double post. Move on please - nothing to see here.
(Message edited by Phil on May 09, 2005) |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 193
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:35 pm: |
|
Just heard an interview with the author on radio here in Perth, WA. He was compelling but sounded very convinced of his own theories. I guess he would be, but what I am saying is that being convinced of a theory is not the most objective viewpoint from which to write a book.
He also implied that DNA testing of the knife could possibly confirm his theories, I don't understand what you would test them against. To my knowledge we have no DNA from the victims or the crime scenes so I can't see the use.
Anyway will now have to get the book and read it.
Scotty.
|
John Linton
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
Ihave just finished reading 'Uncle Jack', noted that a member of the English royal family was at one time a suspect.Given the connection of the author Tony Williams ancestor to the court of Queen Victoria, would I be right in saying that two possible suspects are now connected ? Mmmm |
Robert Hanlen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 9:35 pm: |
|
The DNA testing struck me as odd too - is there any DNA of victims available??
Tony Williams was just interviewed on National Radio here in New Zealand; I'd sorta lost interest in JtR after the Maybrick Embarrassment but I've ordered "Uncle Jack" and have been poring over all my notes again . . .
Tony Williams says (as has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion) that Scotland Yard isn't interested in re-opening the case and that the Welsh National Library won't allow anyone but the Yard to test the stuff - but just what will DNA testing prove?} |
mark daniel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 7:52 pm: |
|
Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 8:58 am:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil
Hasn't this thing about the sin offering been done before? Can't put my finger on it at the moment, but I'm sure I've seen a similar argument.
Chris Phillips
Er, yes. Having already contributed to this discussion, I feel bound to chip in to point out that I raised the sin-offering thesis, admittedly perhaps a trifle whimsically, and that I believe that I was the first to do so, in the fictionalised account of the murders, 'Jack the Ripper' published by Penguin in 1988, and that I reiterated itin my essay, 'How Jack the Ripper Saved the Whitechapel Murderer' in 'The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper' (Robinson, 1999). I am afraid - if mildly flattered - that my influence is evident elsewhere in 'Uncle Jack'. This demonstrates the astuteness of the author, and, perhaps, the obscurity of these works. For all Tony Williams's literary discernment, I consider the case against his distant cousin to be in the highest degree implausible.
Mark Daniel |
Sare
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 7:59 am: |
|
Hey
I am an Aussie who has been interested in Jack the ripper but doesn't know much about the theories. I bought Uncle Jack and boy do I want my money back.
Firstly the direct descendent thing annoyed me.
Secondly- I may be daft but I thought the movie "From Hell" with the gorgeous Johnny Depp thought the royal surgeon was the ripper. Maybe my mind is playing tricks.
Thirdly I am no wordsmith but when I read a book I would like it to be edited.
The part where Richard Hughes second wife was introduced I had to read numerous times because it simply introduced her as "Mary" in the same sentence talking about his daughter "Mary Elisabeth" and for a second I thought he married his own daughter!
The other major point requiring editing was this sentence "She cited the supportive comments of various doctors who were of the same opinion, including Timothy Homes, Surgeon at St Thomas's, who decried 'the mass of material for clinical instruction which is allowed to be wasted,' said one of them, Timothy Homes, Surgeon at St Thomas's."
Basically I found it repetitive, more fiction than non-fiction and difficult to read. The "truths" in the book required some big leaps of faith that i am certainly not willing to make.
This is a really good website by the way.
Cheers,
Sare
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3480
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Sare,
Just one question,
"Secondly- I may be daft but I thought the movie "From Hell" with the gorgeous Johnny Depp thought the royal surgeon was the ripper. Maybe my mind is playing tricks."
What is this supposed to mean exactly.
I haven't read Uncle Jack, so I don't know if you meant that there is something in the book referred to the film, or if you meant that you had expected the Ripper to be a Royal surgeon (and From Hell an accurate depiction of the facts). I certainly hope it's not the latter.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Ian Biles
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 2:11 pm: |
|
I've read the book and to be honest there's nothing really there to indicate John Williams is Jack The Ripper, circumstancial and somewhat flimsy evidence that exists in just about every other book on the subject. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page