|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1928
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 12:58 pm: | 
|
Hi all
UK television carried an interview with Tony Williams this afternoon and showed some of the evidence:
The letter regarding Williams being in Whitechapel on 8th September:
Letter re: September 8th
23 Aug 1888
Dear Morgan
I am sorry that I shall not be able to be set (?) with you on the 8th Sept. I will be attending a clinic in Whitechapel. I am sorry that I could not let you know somehow.
John
The entry regarding the Nichols abortion:
Entry re: Nichols abortion:
Abortion
Chamberlain 1879 L454
Jane Johnson 1884 L280
De Causland 1895 L530
Elborman (?) 1895 L532
Bassett 1895 L541
Johnson 1895 L709
Mary Anne Nichols 1885 L718
Lastly the knife found among Williams' effects (they pointed out in the interview that this is a replica):
 |
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Why would a letter sent by Williams be in his own papers?? Do we know who the friend 'Morgan' was? I don't suppose it could be Morgan Davies by any chance- the two were evidently acquainted.
David |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2341
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
This is getting a tad....shall we say............... larger than life and a tad too coincidental!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2342
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Morgan Stone next!!!!!!!!!!!! Gosh would love this to be the business!
Best chaps!
Suzi |
Christopher J. Morley
Police Constable
Username: Cjmorley
Post Number: 10
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 2:11 pm: |
|
Hello David, That's a very good question, for which the author leaves us to assume that he is referring to 'the' Mary Ann Nichols. |
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 81
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Christopher,
That's a bit naughty of him - there were plenty of Mary Ann Nichols around - without superfluous letters appended to their middle names!
|
Christopher J. Morley
Sergeant
Username: Cjmorley
Post Number: 11
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Hello everyone, The book 'Uncle Jack' has certainly caused quite a stir, I covered and reviewed 150 Jack the Ripper suspects in my last book and completely overlooked Dr. Williams. He(Williams)certainly fits Donald Rumbellow's 'day of judgment' suspect, of a complete unknown. |
mark daniel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
Forgive me for intruding when, as yet, I have not even the rank of constable on your site, but I could not permit this nonsense, here as ever quoted without question, to pass unchallenged: "It is accepted that the murders were committed by one who knew and had an interest in human anatomy, given the skilful removal of internal organs – in some cases parts of the victim’s reproductive system – after death."
It is not so accepted, nor was there evidence that the killer had more than rudimentary knowledge of anatomy. Indeed, given that every unclaimed corpse at the time was by law the plaything of physicians with which to do what they would, the Ripper's post-mortem 'jollies', which bore every sign of ever more ardent searching and pillaging, would have been wholly gratuitous for even the loopiest of doctors.
The entire myth of the killer's surgical skill and anatomical knowledge is derived from Coroner Wynne Baxter, an opinionated, headline-hungry twit who somehow convinced himself, in defiance of police opinion, that, in the case of Annie Chapman, "the object of the murderer appears palpably shown by the facts, and it is not necessary to assume lunacy, for it is clear that there is a market for the missing organ..." He goes on to relate that he had received "a communication from one of the officers of our great medical schools," declaring that an unnamed American had asked him for human uteri to be included as a 'free gift' with his new publication, and that the generous American haf offered £20 for each such specimen. "I need hardly say that I at once communicated my information to the Detective Department at Scotland Yard," says the self-important Baxter. "Of course, I do not know what use has been made of it."
The answer would seem, quite properly, to be "none". Baxter links the murder to those of 'Mary Ann Smith' (sic) and 'Ann Tabram' (sic), from whom no organs were removed, and yet concludes, "It is not as if there is no clue to the character of the criminal or the cause of his crime. His object is very clearly divulged. His anatomical knowledge carries him out of the category of a common criminal, for that knowledge can only have been obtained by assisting at post-mortems or by frequenting the post-mortem room. Thus the class in which search must be made, though a large one, is limited."
Um... Now let us consider the facts. Drs Dequeira and Sanders both stated that the Ripper evinced no great expertise. Dr Frederick Gordon Brown considered that he possessed the sort of knowledge which "might be possessed by someone in the habit of cutting up animals." Dr George Bagster Philips opined, a little more equivocally, that "there are indications of anatomical knowledge which are only less indicated in consequence of haste." For the record, had the murderer been in quest of uteri, he had quite forgotten his aim when killing Nichols. In the case of Eddowes, he removed a kidney and the greater part of the womb, also probing in a singularly inexpert style at liver, colon, pancreas and spleen. As for Kelly, he demonstrated, of course, no partiality whatsoever. In Chapman's case, he removed "part of belly wall including naval (sic), the womb, the upper part of vagina and greater part of bladder". Some hysterectomy!
A practising doctor, in short, is automatically and de facto downgraded to the lowest poissible category of suspects. The Ripper demonstrated no indications of sadism, merely an eagerness to tinker inexpertly with internal organs post mortem - something which a doctor could do to his heart's content at home.
I have Williams's book, but have been otherwise engaged and so have yet to read it. My hopes, however, are not high. From the publishers' blurb and the 'Mail's' summary, it would seem to contain all the specious flaws of an all too familiar genre.
Yrs aye,
Mark Daniel |
Richard in Sheffield
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
The author has just been on the Richard & Judy show (UK TV Ch4), he sounded like he didn't really give a hoot as to whether or not his G-Uncle was JTR or not, he came across the evidence and he published it. He also wants Scotland Yd to test the knife for DNA, but they won't and the holders of the Knife (National Welsh Library ) won't give the knife for testing to anyone other than Scotland Yd.
As for the Diary being 'another 1888 diary' the the Dr has diaries for a lot of years, the interesting bit is that the diary for 1888 has lots missing.
Also the author is not the one holding the evidence, it has been in possesion of the library, he was doing fam hist research and noted the connection so I guess tampering evidence to fit is a lot harder. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2343
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
Gosh!
Have to get back into R and J!
As to the 'Diary'...ok a lot of thought going on here but must begrudgingly admit it's odd that the 'pages' were or are missing................hmmmmmmmmmmmm convenient that
!The Scotland Yard thing I suppose is a good plan but WHY??
Surely some sort of 'private' forensic testing may be possible ,any of the private, (expensive!) pathologists would Im sure be eager to help!!!
Suzi |
Greg Hutton
Sergeant
Username: Greg
Post Number: 47
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
If I were to write a book about my ancestor being J.T.R. I would ensure that all of the loose ends had been neatly tied up and all reasonable doubt against my motives were taken into consideration.
For example, if I didn't have the DNA results or couldn't state what was on the missing diary pages then I wouldn't write the book or include them in the book, unless of course I simply wanted to make money.
I wish him good luck with his book, I hope it does well and he makes a fortune but I won't be buying it, not unless he comes up with the DNA tests etc. which prove rather than leave others to disprove his claims.
Regards,
Greg |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2344
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Greg
Yes I agree here.......all seems a bit hmmmmmmmmmmmmm its easy to write a book and get 'em all going on the boards!
I'll try to get it because as we say you HAVE to read everything no matter how 'crap' it is.............
DNA!!!!!!!!!!! Look what it didnt do for Cornwell!!!!
Regards (!)
Suzi |
Greg Hutton
Sergeant
Username: Greg
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi,
DNA!!!!!!!!!!! Look what it didnt do for Cornwell!!!!
Exactly, have the dna results prove the claim or don't include them at all and drop all reference to them. To say I want to do tests etc is totally meaningless.
How are you BTW?
Greg |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2133
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 3:45 am: |
|
Hi,
can I just ask/ say.
Abortion??????
Abortion???
Wasn't that er,
illegal??
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Christopher J. Morley
Sergeant
Username: Cjmorley
Post Number: 12
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 4:02 am: |
|
Hello everyone, as I appear to be amongst the few who have received an early copy of Uncle Jack,and read it, I will give an over view of the book. Firstly the book is an excellent read,and worth tracking down.It is extremely well researched, and offers us a fascinating insight into the Victorian medical profession,and Williams early life. Unfortunately the author does not offer us 'definate' proof that Williams knew all of the Ripper victims, only that he treated 'a' Mary Ann(e) Nichols, spelt with an extra 'e',it may have been the Nichols of Ripper fame or it may not. He speculates that he could have treated the other victims, though offers us nothing in the way of evidence, only speculation. The author also speculates again, without evidence, where Williams may have worked on the night's in question. Overall a worthy edition to any expanding Ripper collection. |
Christopher J. Morley
Sergeant
Username: Cjmorley
Post Number: 13
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 4:05 am: |
|
Hi, Jeffifer, Abortion may have been illegal, but so was murder!!! |
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 4:34 am: |
|
Thanks for the overview Christopher - I'm hoping my copy will turn up today.
Jenni, I think that abortion was allowed on medical grounds but not in the case of unwanted pregnancies. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2135
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 6:08 am: |
|
Hi David,
thanks - you see where i was heading off there (i mean saying missing pages=unlawful activities).
oh one other thing just sprang to mind if he did these killings to learn about infertility, surely thats a bad choice of people - someone he allegedly already did an abotion on (no probs there) Cathy Eddowes, kids right? Chapman kids??
Jenni
ps anyway thanks David
"All you need is positivity"
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1929
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
In the Channel 4 interview, which I relistenend to last night, Tony Williams claimed that immediately after the murders were over that Sir John gave up medicine and returned to Wales. I find this hard to square with the evidence as follows:
1) The 1891 census lists his living at 63 Brook Street, London and still described as a physician / surgeon
2) The abortion case of 1895 mentioned in the Times shows that Williams and a doctor called Fenton were called in and performed an operation following an illegal abortion. Fenton was based at Hanover Square and the abortion took place Holles Street, Cavendish Square, so this whole episode was obviously London based.
3)I have to say that the entry which lists the name Mary Anne Nichols as having an abortion has a less than easy to read date. This has been read as 1885 but could be, in my opinion, be 1895. There are other entries on the same page which undoubtedly read 1895.
4) I found it interesting that the woman who was listed as being treated by Williams and Fenton in the 1895 case in the Times was named Emma Nicholson but the article specifically says that she gave the name of Nichols.
Chris |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1930
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 7:23 am: |
|
Another point which came out when I listened to the interview again concerned the alleged synchronicity of the movements of Kelly and Williams. Specifically Tony Williams said that Williams was living in Carmarthen and Cardiff at the same time as Kelly. Tony Williams's words in the interview were:
"Everywhere she (Kelly) was throughout history in Wales, Cardiff, my relative was. They've gone to Paris together - he knew he had a relationship with her. And that's why right after the murders he retired from all medical practice. He went back to Wales - he was only in his late forties and never went back to medicine again."
I have commented on the alleged giving up of medicine and return to Wales after the murders above. The alleged presence of Williams wherever Kelly was again I simply cannot square with the evidience we have. By 1871 (when Kelly would have been about 8 years old!) Williams had already left Carmarthen, where he was born, and was living in Swansea, in South Wales. Kelly's time in Cardiff is hard to place definitely but if Barnett's account is true must have been some time between 1881 (when her husband Daves was allegedly killed) and 1884 when she arrived in London. But by April 1881 Williams was already living in London at 28 Harley Street.
Chris
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1931
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 8:12 am: |
|
With regard to the assertions that Williams gave up medicine and returned to Wales right after the murders, I attach a selection of snippets from the Times for the period post 1888:
Williams' medical career post 1888
from The Times
Oct 6 1891
Balmoral Oct. 5
Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice (Princess Henry of Battenberg) and the infant Prince are making very satisfactory progress.
John Williams M.D.
James Reid M.D.
Jun 25 1894
BIRTH OF PRINCE EDWARD OF YORK
It is with much gratification that we announce that the Duchess of York was safely delivered of a son on Saturday evening, and that the reports of both mother and child are in the highest degree satisfactory.
The official bulletin was as follows:-
23rd June 1894
Her Royal Highness, the Duchess of York, gave birth to a son at 10 o'clock this evening. Noth mother and infant are doing well.
White Lodge, Richmond Park.
John Williams M.D.
F.J. Wadd M.B.
Feb 11 1895
Lord Reay, Vice President of University College, London, will preside at a dinner at the Criterion Restaurant on March 13, at which Sir John Erichson, F.R.S., Sir J Russell Reynolds, F.R.S., and Sir John Williams, M.D., are to be entertained by their colleagues, friends, and pupils.
28 March 1895
DINNER TO MEDICAL BARONETS
A complimentary dinner was given last evening at the Criterion Restaurant to Sir John Erichsen, Sir Russell Reynolds and Sir John Williams, the recently created medical baronets.
18 Feb 1896
ROYAL CHRISTENING AT SANDRINGHAM
The seond son of the Duke and Duchess of York was christened yesterday at the Church of St. Mary, Sandringham. The invitations were limited to members of the Royal family and a few others.
Among those listed as present is:
Sir John Williams, M.D.
9 Feb 1897
North London or Univeristy College Hospital
A festival Dinner in aid of the Fund will be held at the Hotel Cecil tomorrow, Wednesday 10th Feb, aAt 7 p.m.
The following ladies and gentlemen have kindly consented to act as stewards:
List includes:
Sir John Williams, Bart., M.D.
27 April 1897
The following official bulletins were issued yesterday:-
York Cottage, Sandringham. April 16, 10 a.m.
H.R.H. the Duchess of York has passed a good night and is going on well. Her infant daughter is very well.
John Williams M.D.
Alan Reeve Manby M.D.
4 May 1897
The following report as to the condition of the Duchess of York was issued yesterday:-
York House, Sandringham, May 3, 10 a.m.
H.R.H. the Duchess of York is convalescent, and the infant Pricness is quite well. No further bulletins will be issued.
John Williams M.D.
Alan Reeve Manby M.D.
24 Feb 1898
University Colege, London
The annual general meeting of the members of University College. London, was held yesterday. Lord Reay, president, in the Chair. Lord Reay was re-elected president, Mr. R.B. Haldane, Q.C., M.P., vice president, and Mr. J.F. Rotton, Q.C., treasurer. Dr. J. Bourne Benson, Mr. Henry Lucas, Sir John Williams, M.D., Mr. Sidney Webb. and Professor G. Carey Foster, F.R.S., were re-elected.
1 December 1900
Clerical, Medical and General Life Assurance Society.
The 76th annual general meeting was held yesterday at the office, St. James's Square.
The article includes the following:
Sir John Williams, M.D., and Mr. Evelyn Cecil, M.P., were afterwards elected directors to fill the vacancies caused by the death of Sor W.O. Priestley and Prebendary Whittington.
5 July 1902
At a dinner of the obstetricians and gynaecologists of the Empire, held at the Whitehall Rooms on the 24th ult., under the chairmanship of Sir John Williams, M.D., the following telegram was sent to the Queen:
"Two hundred doctors, citizens of the Empire, assembled at the Whitehall Rooms, Hotel Mteropole, humbly present their earnest sympathy with your Majesty, and express the hope that the King's health will be speedily restored."
15 June 1905
THE PRINCESS OF WALES
The following bulletin was issued at Sandringham at 9.30 yesterday morning:-
Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales and the infant Prince continue to do well.
John Williams M.D.
Alan Reeve Manby M.D.
This is only a selection - there are numerous others. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 522
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 10:03 am: |
|
Chris (Scott),
If Williams was able to find the elusive MJK in Wales he is the first person to do so that we know of, eh? I also found it interesting that in the 1895 news article you posted about Nicholson/Nichols there was also a Bowyer. Just more grist I suppose.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
David Harries
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Sir John Williams
The National Library of Wales was granted its Royal Charter on 19 March 1907. This was the culmination of a campaign launched at the Mold National Eisteddfod in 1873 to create a national library for Wales. Over this period of some thirty years the movement to establish a National Library was sustained by the efforts of many of the leading public figures, politicians and scholars in Wales, but two names merit particular recognition.
The Library could not be firmly established unless it could secure a share of the 'Museums' Grant' annually voted by Parliament, so that it might be maintained as a national institution; and it was essential that it should acquire those collections of Welsh books and literary manuscripts without which no library could claim to be truly national.
The first of these aims was secured by the tireless labours of Sir Herbert Lewis, MP; the other by the generosity of Sir John Williams, Bart.
John Williams, consultant obstetric physician at University College Hospital, London, and medical advisor to the royal family, was born 6 November, 1840, the third son of David and Eleanor Williams of Blaenllynant, Gwynfe, Carmarthenshire. His father, a farmer and congregationalist minister, died when John was 2 years of age and the children were brought up by their mother, a strong character who continued to farm Blaenllynant. Her youngest son, Nathaniel, paid tribute to her and expressed the deep attachment which all her children had for her in a brief memoir published in 1898.
John was educated at Swansea Normal School in preparation for the Congregationalist ministry, but he soon became attracted to the natural sciences and in 1857 he entered Glasgow University to study mathematics. He returned to Wales the following year and in 1859 he was apprenticed to surgeons and apothecaries at Swansea before following an academic course in medicine at University College Hospital London in 1861. He gained his MRCS, MB, MD and won a gold medal for pathology. He established himself in general practice in Swansea and in 1872 he married Mary Elisabeth Ann Hughes, 'Morvudd Glantawe', the daughter of Richard Hughes, Ynystawe, a partner in the Landore Tinplate Works.
Following his appointment that year as assistant obstetric physician at University College Hospital, he was to spend his professional life in London where he became wellknown as a physician, surgeon, teacher and researcher, and where he achieved recognition as a court physician after 1886. He was created a baronet in 1894 and GCVO in 1911, on the occasion of the laying of the foundation stone of the first permanent building of the National Library by King George V.
John Williams seems to have begun collecting Welsh books and manuscripts, and also pictures, furniture and porcelain, when he was a young doctor at Swansea. His friend, John Deffett Francis, was himself a noted painter and collector and there is no doubt that he was able to guide the young collector in his early purchases. The two remained friends after the move to London and Sir John was to turn to Deffett Francis for advice on artistic matters throughout his life. London in the 80s and 90s afforded him greater opportunities to develop his interests, both by purchases and through the gifts of grateful patients, and he became a discerning and intelligent collector whose ambition was to create a comprehensive record of the literary and artistic culture of Wales. His personal catalogues and studies are a clear indication of the depth of his understanding of his magnificent collection.
John Williams, active in London-Welsh society and the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion especially, associated himself wholeheartedly with the campaign to secure a national library for Wales. He addressed public meetings, wrote to the press and was very largely the director of operations. He was Chairman of the Aberystwyth Welsh Library Building Fund Appeal Committee the success of whose efforts was an important factor in the decision of the Privy Council in 1905 that the Library should be established at Aberystwyth. He was named in the Charter as the Library's first President and he continued to hold that office until his death on 24 May 1926.
When Sir John Williams retired from his London practice in 1903 he took up residence at Plas Llanstephan. One of his first acts as President was to direct that arrangements should be made to remove his library of over 25,000 volumes, from Plas Llanstephan to become one of the foundation collections of the National Library. Amongst the rare items which it contained are the first three Welsh books printed in 1546-1547, William Salesbury's New Testament of 1567, the 1588 Welsh Bible and Drych Cristionogawl, 1587, the first book printed in Wales. It also contains an outstanding Arthurian collection and examples of fine printing including most of the Kelmscott publications. A few years earlier, in 1899-1900, Sir John had purchased from the Earl of Macclesfield the Shirburn Castle collection of manuscripts and early Welsh books. These had been brought together by the copyist Samuel Williams (c.1660-c.1722) and his son Moses Williams (1685-1742) but by the end of the nineteenth century this fine collection was largely unknown by contemporary Welsh scholars. The Shirburn Castle collection was soon to be followed by the purchase and transfer to the National Library of the Hengwrt-Peniarth collection of manuscripts. Without doubt, this collection of over 500 volumes, most of them brought together by the antiquary Robert Vaughan (1592?-1667) of Hengwrt, is the finest Welsh manuscript library ever created. Its treasures include the Black Book of Carmarthen, the Book of Taliesin, The White Book of Rhydderch, and the Hengwrt Chaucer.
Sir John now moved to Aberystwyth, to Blaenllynant (formerly Snowdon House) on Victoria Avenue (or the promenade), but he continued to add to the transferred collections very many valuable items including several thousand topographical drawings, prints, portaits and maps. He had made many substantial contributions to the Building Fund, and when he died he bequeathed to the Library the sum of £43,000.
Sir John Williams is the greatest single benefactor in the history of the Library. The interest on his monetary bequest has been an important element in the development of the Library buildings, and his gifts, the foundation collections in all three curatorial departments, ensured that the Library would be the truly National Library of Wales from the very start.
A marble statue of Sir John Williams, the work of Professor Mario Rutelli, was presented to the Library in 1924 by Mr T D Jenkins, Aberystwyth. It occupies a commanding position at the west end of the Reading Room. A marble bust by Sir W Goscombe John can be seen in the Entrance Hall and a portrait in oils by Christopher Williams hangs outside the Council Chamber.
The series of lectures inaugurated in 1990 commemorates the great debt which the National Library of Wales owes this remarkable benefactor.
Part 4, vol. 1 (1940) of The National Library of Wales Journal is devoted to the contributions and life of Sir John Williams.
|
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 8:29 am: |
|
The letter talking about the 8th of September doesn't seem to fit that well, what is the liklihood that Williams would meet Morgan at about five o'clock in the morning? If it said the seventh, surely that would be more incriminating.
And Chris do you access to the documents reffering to patients who visited the workhouse infirmary (assuming this is the "clinic" Williams is referring to) on the 8th of September?
Cheers, Autumnblue |
jimi
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 4:33 pm: |
|
http://www.whsmith.co.uk/whs/go.asp?isbn=0752867083&DB=220
thought you might want to see this, It claims the writer of the book Uncle Jack is anonymous. Even though its been quite well reported that Tony Williams wrote it |
Sheriff Andy Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 - 8:11 pm: |
|
Mr. Williams' premise is unsupportable; my Aunt Bea was Jack the Ripper.
A. Taylor |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 779
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
I think we can forgo the debate about the circumstantial evidence. Williams' age makes him nearly 20 years too old to be a suspect.
It is inconceivable that Williams would leave a record of performing illegal operations in his records. I strongly suspect that he treated these women after they had received botched abortions at the hands of other, less skilled, practitioners.
Also, what possible assistance to his research could Williams have derived from butchering these women. Uteri were certainly available to qualified obstetricians for research purposes! Finally, wasn't it a little late to be trying to solved his wife's infertility problem She was 38 at the time.
Andy S.
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1932
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
Hi Autumnblue
The thing that puzzles me about the letter is the last sentence:
I am sorry that I could not let you know somehow.
This would suggest some last minute change of arrangement but the note is dated August 23 and concerns an arrangement for the 8th September i.e. he is giving 16 days notice!
Sorry but I don't have direct access to the infirmary records. I presume these are kept at the PRO
Chris |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 780
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 12:34 pm: |
|
Another, though less likely, possibility for the "abortion" entry is that these women were treated after experiencing miscarriages, which is also called "spontaneous abortion" in medical terminology.
Andy S.
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 348
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 2:09 pm: |
|
I have only just found time to contribute to this fascinating thread. My thanks and appreciation to Chris and others who have so quickly found relevant material throwing light on the context.
I agree with the point about Rumbelow's "day of judgement" suspect.
I also do not rule out that one day a cache of material might be found throwing light on a Druitt-type character that is compelling evidence of guilt.
From what I have read in this thread, however, I do not believe that Dr Williams is our man.
First - the identity of anyone mentioned in the material does not appear to have been cross-checked and corroborated. we know from experience (the two Barnett's) that confusion is easy. For instance, the 1885 date for the Mary Ann Nichols abortion appears to be more likely to relate to the 1895 sequence.
Second, and associated with the first point, I agree that it is strange that with so much effort by good researchers put into tracking down MJK without success, all this should suddenly fall into place. It makes me suspicious.
Third - there is just TOO MUCH evidence. It seems as though every victim is identified and associated with the suspect. This is too neat and pat for me not to be suspicious. I would expect some lapses and lacunae in the evidence. yet we even have a note, somehow retrieved by the sender(?!!!) which places him in the right place at the right time. Too neat I say again.
This relates too the the nature of the evidence, we have diary, knife and (apparently incriminating) letters. Too much, methinks. And if it was a hoard deliberately kept by Dr Williams himself, why tear out pages from the "diary"?
Fourth - It might not be impossible to interpolate forged, additional or or altered material into a box held by the Nat Lib of Wales. It has not been unknown (there have been several cases in recent years) of books being mutilated and plates/pages taken away for profit by readers. Would library staff notice if there was more in the box when retrieved from the reader than when it was delivered?
In the case of the Holy Blood/Holy Grail and the Priurie de Sion (now shown to be a hoax) forged material was certainly inserted into the French Archives. So we should be on our guard.
Fifth - too much of the evidence cited seems contradicted by material easily found by researchers here (Dr Williams presence in London when supposedly in Wales etc).
Sixth - how convenient that the victims appear to constitute the "canonical five" again rather than, as one might anticipate, mentioning hitherto unidentified earlier or later crimes or attempts.
A "real" diary, would, in my expectation, tend to explain the apparent inconsistencies of (say) the Stride murder.
It is also interesting that the names of the victims (as in the Maybrick case) so closely resemble those we know best. One would expect these women, as we know MJK, Chapman and Eddowes at least did, to have used nicknames and false names.
I have not yet read the book and thus reserve judgement, but I am highly sceptical of the nature of this evidence, its quantity and convenience. It does not "smell" right to me.
Does anyone know what the "diary" entries say, and whether the missing pages relate to the murder dates or to other days. It strikes me that removed pages could be missing because if read they might have proved that Dr Williams was NOT in Whitechapel and was otherwise engaged at the relevant times. If this has been discussed above, I must have missed it.
Sorry to have rambled on, I am just trying to get my head around this one.
Again thanks for all the work put in by so many of you.
Phil |
Christopher J. Morley
Sergeant
Username: Cjmorley
Post Number: 14
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 21, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Hello Phil, I agree with you that Williams is not our man, interesting though he most certainly is. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 326
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 2:37 am: |
|
Hello all,
Can you believe I'm just now hearing of this book? I need to hop on over to Amazon and order it pronto!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Christopher J. Morley
Sergeant
Username: Cjmorley
Post Number: 15
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 3:00 am: |
|
Tom, There's a copy of Uncle Jack, on ebay at the moment for £3.50. |
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 83
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 5:13 am: |
|
It'll be £350 if the bible collectors get wind of it!! |
Malcolm Edwards
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 5:40 am: |
|
As the publisher of UNCLE JACK I thought it would be appropriate at this point to insert a couple of points. I am neither a criminologist nor a ripperologist: our job is to put Tony and Humphrey’s thesis in front of the public so that people can make up their minds about it.
Nevertheless, it’s slightly disappointing to see so many people apparently making up their minds on the basis of an interview on a TV show – where inevitably the argument is reduced to a couple of soundbites – rather than from the book itself, which is careful to draw distinctions between (a) evidence, (b) reasonable inference and (c) speculation.
A couple of specific points can easily be set right.
First, the extract from Williams’s notebook – naming Mary Ann(e) Nichols -- reproduced somewhere in this thread is indistinct there (presumably it’s a videograb from the TV) but it perfectly clear in the original, and as reproduced in the book. The dates which Chris Scott interprets as ‘1895’ are in fact ‘1885’.
Second, the speculation that the items found in the National Library of Wales might somehow have been smuggled in, are absurd. The cataloguing of Williams’s effects was scrupulously exact. To give three key examples (all to be found in the book):
‘Diary of Sir John Williams for 1888. Most of the pages are missing; those that remain are blank.’
‘Knife with black handle’
‘3 microscopic smears in small wooden box’
Third, the book fully recognises all the details of Williams’s life and career after 1888, including of course the royal connections. Among these details are the facts of his gradual disengagement, including his request in 1890 to be ‘relieved of the duty of performing ovariotomy’.
Williams’s certain, or probable, or possible connections to the victims are carefully set out, but for those I’m afraid you have to read the book!
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 12:02 pm: |
|
I'm afraid i wil too!!
Jenni
ps sorry couldnt resist!
"All you need is positivity"
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 355
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Mr Edwards - thank you for your post - actually more of a "tease" than a clarification.
I'm afraid that years of buying new Ripper books peddling new theories has made me VERY cynical.
It is NOT for me to have to buy the book!! if you believe that the authors are on to something it is for you and they to convince the public - and those who take a specific interest in the subject - that you/they have a credible theory and good evidence.
Pushing your book will not make me buy - neither will asserting things (the reliability of the NLW cache) per se convince me. I'll wait for others to confirm or rubbish the research (vide Stephen Knight) and I'll wait to buy the book second-hand!!
But thanks for posting, all the same.
P |
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 84
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 4:22 pm: |
|
Mary Kelly and Husband on the 1881 census ... according to Tony Williams, neighbours at Broughton Colliery Cottages, Brymbo, Denbighshire. Apparently a Jonathan Davies of the correct age died in a colliery accident in the Rhondda valley in 1882, leaving a widow .... and a child!
Make of it what you will!!
 |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1934
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Hi David
This family is discussed in my new book Will The Real Mary kelly...?
Also another family which, in my opinion, is a more convincing match.
But, as they say, you'll have to read the book! 
Chris |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3227
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 9:07 pm: |
|
Have just finished a quick "flip-through" of Uncle Jack... I intend to re-read it a bit more carefully before I make a full review, but as a whole, I thought it was pretty interesting. There were no "Eureka, he's got it!" moments, but certainly there is more 'evidence' to be found here than in most suspect-based Ripper books.
So, who's going to be the first Ripperologist to hoof it over to Wales and examine some of these artifacts before they're stolen by some sh*t who wants to make a few quid on eBay? ;-)
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 328
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 11:59 pm: |
|
Hello all,
If this book exists, why couldn't I find it on amazon.com? I refuse to bid for anything. Where can I BUY this book. For Christ's sake it just came out!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 85
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 1:31 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Sounds interesting - when's it out?
Re the letter to Morgan that you transcribed, having seen a better copy of it, I think the 'be set' is 'meet' and the last word is 'earlier' so it now makes more sense ... although I still don't see why a letter sent by Williams would end up in his own papers and not in the recipient's. In fact I don't see the point of keeping it at all.
Williams claims that the 'Morgan' was indeed Morgan Davies, and includes some interesting stuff about him (funnily enough when I was looking for Mary Ann Nichols on the 1881 census the other day, one of the likelier candidates was listed at the same address as Davies)
David |
Christopher J. Morley
Sergeant
Username: Cjmorley
Post Number: 16
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 4:09 am: |
|
Seize the moment of excited curiosity on any subject to solve your doubts, for if you let it pass, the desire may never return, and you may remain in ignorance. (William Wirt 1772-1834) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 857
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 4:24 am: |
|
Tom
You can find in on amazon.co.uk at a 30% discount - enough to cover overseas postage?
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 858
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 4:31 am: |
|
Mary Kelly and Husband on the 1881 census ... according to Tony Williams, neighbours at Broughton Colliery Cottages, Brymbo, Denbighshire. Apparently a Jonathan Davies of the correct age died in a colliery accident in the Rhondda valley in 1882, leaving a widow .... and a child!
I'm curious about this. I know this Kelly family has been mentioned several times before on the Casebook, though I can't find any mentionof Jonathan Davies's death in a colliery accident.
But FreeBMD doesn't show up a marriage between Jonathan Davies and Mary Kelly in 1881 or 1882, despite being pretty much complete for this period (there's a < 10% gap for the first quarter of 1882).
Isn't this major problem for Williams's claim?
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 859
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 4:52 am: |
|
In fact, looking a little further, surely the Jonathan Davies, Engine Driver, born at Bwlchgwyn, aged 25, who appears in the 1881 of Brymbo, is identical with the man of the same name who appears in online transcript of the 1901 census, still at Brymbo, aged 45, described as a "Stationery [sic!] Engine Driver", born at Minera, aged 45. (Bwlchgwyn is about a mile north of Minera.)
So much for the supposedly matching Jonathan Davies who died in a colliery accident in 1882!
Chris Phillips
|
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 86
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 9:09 am: |
|
Nice one Chris. I've found him on the 1891 census too, forename was given as Jon.
Let's hope the rest of Mr Williams research stands up a little better to close scrutiny!
David |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 860
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 9:27 am: |
|
David
The trouble is, it wasn't even particularly close scrutiny - I just looked in the first two free Internet databases that came to mind.
Still, as you say, we'll have to hope for the best ...
Chris Phillips
|
David Knott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dknott
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
I may have found the Denbighshire Mary Kelly in subsequent census records as well (although not 100%)
A Mary Kelly married a Griffith Jones in the right part of the county in 1886, and Mary Jones, wife of Griffith, on the 1891 and 1901 census is of the correct age and place of birth - would this be her? |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 362
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Keep up the rigorous scrutiny guys - it will be crucial. Your work is also much appreciated.
I was mulling over what it would mean if this new theory and suspect did prove to be true. As I see it, it would mean that:
* a doctor did it (so the black bag etc would not be a cliche);
* a toff with royal connections did it (so the Gull etc links would be relevant);
* the murderer new his victims beforehand in at least some cases (not sure whether all);
* that despite all the research done, we missed a clear link (Williams) between the victims;
* the story MJK told Barnett would be on the whole true;
* despite all attempts, MJK was always there to be found, researchers missed her;
* Anderson, Swanson, Abberline and Macnaghten were all wrong (MM 3 times!!) and never got close to the real killer;
* the killer was enough of a self-publicist (at least posthumously) to leave evidence behind him adequate to identify and convict him.
I think this may open up much more quickly than the "Maybrick Dairy" as there is more varied evidence which can readily be cross-checked.
I remain wholly unconvinced on logical grounds. One possibility is that we have here a 1880 or slightly later hoax, perpetrated by the Dr himself. Like Sickert - who may have written letters as Cornwell has suggested - Dr Williams may have been obsessed with the JtR case.
I will watch and read with close attention. Thanks for the continuing work, I just wish I was trained in, or had experience of family history/records work.
Phil
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
