Author: poetdreamerscho
Saturday, 30 October 1999 - 10:32 pm |        |
I've recently heard speculation that the Ripper was San Francisco murderer Theodore Durrant - the brother of the famous (some would still say imfamous) Anglo-American stage star Maud Allen (Beulah Maud Allen Durrant).
But it's always been my understanding that Ted Durrant had never been outside of California, or at least the western United States.
Can anyone supply additional information here?
poetdreamerscholar@yahoo.com |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Sunday, 31 October 1999 - 04:58 am | |
Hi, PoetDreamerScholar:
The recent book by Robert Graysmith, "The Bell Tower: Jack the Ripper in San Francisco" ties the Ripper murders to the Durrant case. However, Graysmith names Pastor Jack Gibson, the clergyman of the church in San Francisco where the murder victims were discovered, as the murderer and as the Whitechapel killer as well, NOT Theodore Durrant, who was executed for the murders. I have not personally read the book but two people whom I respect, Elsbeth Bothe and Sam Gafford, have reviewed the book for different publications (the Baltimore "Sun" and "Ripper Notes," respectively) and they both came to similar conclusions--that Graysmith had not made his case that Gibson was the murderer. My understanding is that while the Graysmith book is not worthwhile as a book on the Whitechapel murders (and in fact hardly covers them!), it does offer a good discussion of the Bell Tower murders.
Chris George
Casebook Productions, Inc.
Co-Editor, Ripper Notes
http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/rn.htm |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Thursday, 22 February 2001 - 09:01 pm | |
Poet: A good source ion American criminals is the book Blood Letters and Badmen by Jay Robert Nash and I will be foraging liberally here to give you info on Theo Durrant. I would toss the theory that Durrant was the ripper for the following reasons.
A- Durrant was born in 1874. He would have only been fourteen years old in 1888.
B- There is no record that Durrant ever left San Francisco.
C- Neither woman he was convicted of killing was a prostitute. In fact both belonged to the church that Durrant was a lay deacon for. My personal believe is that Minnie Williams was murdered and mutilated because she had some knowledge about Theo's murder of Blance Lamont.
Not a lot of information but it is telling and I think pretty much puts paid to the theory. Especially his age. Kindest reguards, Neil |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 12:01 pm | |
William Henry Theodore Durrant was born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on April 24, 1871 and was thus 17 at the time of the Whitechapel murders. Being Canadian, it is obvious that he had not always been in San Francisco.
Wolf. |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Friday, 23 February 2001 - 02:20 pm | |
| Wolf: As I stated in my thread, I used Blood letters and Badmen as my reference. The information in there may be wrong. While the discriptions of Jack The Ripper are vague at best, they all agree that he was in his thirties or forties (At least the ones I've seen.) Leslie Charteris, in "The Corpse in the Belfry" gives his age as 23 in 1895 which fits what you're saying. Thank you for pointing it out however as it reaffirms the lesson I usually follow: check more than one source. I haven't found any indication that he ever was in London. May I ask your sources on Ted Durrant? Kindest reguards, Neil |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 03:10 pm | |
I don't know of any errors in Jay Robert Nash's treatment of Durrant. But let me distribute a warning on his work: one of his researchers reported to me that he has the extraordinary habit of including deliberate errors, so that he can spot any unacknowledged plagiarism of his writing!
Martin Fido |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 05:39 pm | |
| That would throw thing in to a bit of a tizzy wouldn't it? I'd be interested in where the information that Durrant was born in Canada. I'm not disputing it, Wolf but I am curious. Neil |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 10:27 pm | |
Hello,
Who proposed a theory that Durrant was the Ripper? Graysmith didn't. As to Graysmith's book, I thought it was a Ripperological shame. His Ripper research was slim to none and full of errors. On the cover of the book he states that he "identified the Zodiac killer" who, to my knowledge, has no more been 'identified' than Jack has. I enjoyed his 'Zodiac' book immensely, but according to the experts at www.zodiackiller.com, it is full of errors. His study of the Ripper case is full of errors. Therefore, you should proceed with caution in taking his account of the Bell Tower murders at face value.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Michael J. Meade
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 04:37 pm | |
Here's what passes for logic and research in Graysmith's book:
1. He claims that Rev. John Gibson, the pastor of the Emmanuel Baptist Church in San Francisco, was JtR because he came to America from England sometime between 1888 and 1895 and his first name was "Jack". In fact, there is no evidence that Rev. Gibson was called anything other than "John" during his lifetime. The only source that I can find that refers to him as "Jack" is Graysmith's book itself. Nice way to prove your theory.
2. Prior to coming to America, Rev. Gibson was an assistant pastor (vicar? rector?) at a church named Saint Andrew's somewhere in Scotland. Graysmith pounces on the fact that there was another church called Saint Andrew's in Whitechapel. He postulates that if Gibson came down to London from Saint Andrew's Church in Scotland, he would surely stay at, or at least visit, Saint Andrew's Church in Whitechapel. This places him squarely in the heart of JtR's base of operations and proves his guilt.
Does Graysmith really think all churches named after a particular saint are linked together in some kind of network? Were the two Saint Andrew's Churches in question even the same denomination? Just as a guess, the Scottish one was probably Presbyterian and the Whitechapel one Anglican (or possibly Weslyan). Wouldn't this make a difference? Graysmith either doesn't know or doesn't care.
And that's it. That's the sum of all Graysmith's proof that Gibson was the Ripper.
Tha..Tha...Tha..That's All, Folks!
Michael |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 03:41 pm | |
Hi, Michael:
Not quite all his evidence. There is also the Daily Telegraph sketch of a mustachioed suspect that the Maybrickites think is James Maybrick and that Graysmith compares to a sketch of equally mustachioed Reverend Gibson. On the other hand, I have an ink blot that I would like you to see. . . 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Michael J. Meade
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 09:07 am | |
Hello, Chris
You're right, I forgot about the sketch. That of course clinches the matter. Tell me, is there any suspect that this sketch can't be identified as if you just squint hard enough?
Michael |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 08:58 pm | |
| Martin: I just finished your book "The Chronicle of Crime" It's a great read. AS to your statement about Jay Robert Nash's inaccuracies, In researching an article on the Chester Gillette case of 1906, I discovered two obvious errors one, the spelling of the city of Cortland is wrong in both his book "Bloodletters and Badmen" and his "Encyclopedia of twentieth century murder" (SP?) as is the statement made that Chester Gillette was an orphan at the time of his trial. This is patently false as there is record in Albany, New York that his mother , Louise Rice Gillette petitioned Governor Hughes for clemency after an attempt by both parents (Frank and Louise) to have the trial appealed failed. The case was a very big one in the states. As I am sure you know, Theodore Drieser's novel "An American Tragedy" is based on the Gillette trial. The information was certainly out there so there may be something to what you say about Nash masking certain facts to prevent plagarism of his work. Kindest regards, Neil |
