Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 28 April 2000 - 10:23 am |        |
G'day All,
I tried to read Stephen Knight's Book: 'The Final Solution', with an open-mind, but here's what I found:
Knight tries to make the reader believe that Queen Victoria's concern about the Ripper murder's, began following the murder of Nicholls, (indicating a 'deeper knowledge'),as murder was so common in Whitechapel.
This is not true! Looking at the 'Death statistics for Whitechapel for 1887', it says that out of 1602 deaths in Whitechapel, not a single one was recorded as a 'homicide'. There was much disease. The Queen's concern, could have started following the murder of Emma Smith as in September the press were describing her as a 'Ripper Victim'.
Knight's book says that the 'planting of grapes in Elizabeth Stride's hand' was a sure clue, as Sir William Gull loved grapes. Stride was actually holding a packet of 'Cachous' and 'the deceased had not eaten any grapes'.
Knight also believes that Warren's decision to erase the Graffito, was proof of his loyalty to Freemasonry. Warren was clearly acting under a sense of duty. Knight urges the reader to compare the handwriting of the graffito, with the handwriting of Walter Sickert. There is no mention on this page that the graffito writing is just a copy.
Knight's implications that the paintings of Walter Sickert showed clues, I feel is an insult to Sickert's work. Saying that 'La Hollandaise' is an 'abomination', shows that he is not an artist. I am, and I can see a nose, the eyes are dark, but well defined. Her face, is not the 'centre of interest', her naked thigh is!
The 'Sickert story' and the 'Conspiracy theory', is popular, as a large number of people have 'persecution complexes' and do not trust the government. When read as fiction, it makes wonderful sense. If read as fact, Stephen Knight's book falls apart. IMHO
Leanne! |
Author: jennifer pegg
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 03:38 am | |
| does anyone think that there is any truth to the medium story in this book |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 10:40 am | |
| NO |
Author: Ally
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 12:43 pm | |
Jennifer,
NO
Ally |
Author: Mark List
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 03:58 pm | |
Jennifer,
To my knowledge, Stephen Knight's book was a major milestone in Ripperlogy when it first came out. Many thought it WAS the Final Solution.
However as time when on, I believe, many of the evidence, events, people, etc. Didn't add up to his "solution".
So despite the the fact he had never-before-seen evidence, I believe that many Ripperologlists now feel that 'The Final Solution' was more Fiction than Fact.
I don't know myself, because I don't know who Jack the Ripper really was so I can't YES, or NO. But Knight's theory is one of the most popular thoeries around these days.
Mark |
Author: jennifer pegg
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 05:30 am | |
hello again everyolne. perhaps my previous question was a little badly phrased, let me start again, i am researching rj lees and as such believe the story in this book to be false. do others agree with me ?
sorry!
j pegg |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 08:09 am | |
YES
(  ) |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 09:02 am | |
Jennifer,
As the Only responsible adult here  I suppose it is up to me to answer your question.
I guess it was just a "anecdote" as such.
As far as I know the was no proof that it actually happened, no police report on the subject but that doesn't mean that it never happened.
No help am I ???
Monty
|
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 12:39 pm | |
The Lees story about him tracing the Ripper to the home of an eminent physician appears to have its origins with an article in the Chicago Sunday-Times Herald on 28 April 1895. The source of the story was said to be a Dr Howard of London. A Dr. Benjamin Howard furiously denied being the source. Whether he was the intended Dr. Howard of London is not known. Lees, however, did not deny the story and a friend, Cynthia Legh, reported in Light that she'd heard Lees tell a variant many times. Melvin Harris, however, has argued that the story was a figment dreamed up by the Whitechapel Club, a literary club in Chicago. An article in Ripperologist by an academic who had made a study of the Club rejected that idea, saying that whilst the Club's members may have elaborated and exagerated stories, pubishing completely fraudulent ones was probably more than their careers were worth. The story is certainly very facually inaccurate, but we don't know whether it was fraudulent or not. Something along the lines described could have happened. Lees' diary shows that he had at least an interest in the murders and claimed to have picked up a psychic trail. He records that the police did not take him seriously.
Maybe this helps. |
Author: jennifer pegg
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 01:32 pm | |
yes i have read the book, its quite a good story isn't it.......
yes i know a fair old bit about rj lees and im not really sure that this story comes from him. i think there is little truth in it from a ripper prospective and from the view of this book, the idea that wm gull is the ripper seeming bizarre to me. im sure lees didn't really know about this article myself (Chicago article) but who can tell. i sure new evidence will come to light.
does anyone know of any (ot stupid articles!) info or sources from gull or police that might make light of this tale?
jennifer |
Author: david rhea
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 02:12 pm | |
| Which one wore the 'wideawake hat'and was 'shabbily genteel'. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 02:41 pm | |
| There is an interesting depiction of Robert Lees in the graphic novel of ' From Hell ' , in which he confesses to Abberline that he ' made it all up ' ! Or did he...? By Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 10 January 2002 - 07:21 pm | |
Jennifer, I see that the inestimable, (that's a word right?), Paul Begg has answered this question for you but allow me to put in my two cents worth.
First off, Paul got it a bit wrong, the original story did indeed first appear in the 28 April 1895 edition of the Chicago Sunday Times-Herald but it was not told by Dr. Howard but rather by another anonymous man described as "a London clubman now in Chicago". The article claims that because Dr. Howard had in effect already spilled the beans to a William Greer Harrison in San Francisco this effectively "unsealed the lips of a gentleman of this city" (the clubman). As Paul pointed out the Chicago article is riddled with mistakes such as the 17 (???!!!) murders taking place over a period of a couple of years and giving details of murders that never took place. It seems obvious that the whole story of Lees taking the police to the house of a prominent West End surgeon is a fabrication as all the facts related in the article are wrong.
Paul also mentioned that Lees did indeed try to inject himself into the investigation, his diaries apparently containing entries for 2, 3 and 4 October 1888 in which he writes of offering his services to Scotland Yard but was told to push off.
One piece of evidence that has been used in the past to bolster Lees story has been the so called ‘Lees Letter'. Scotland Yard received a letter posted 25 July 1889 which seemed to read in part, "You have not caught me yet you see, with all your cunning, with all your "Lees" with all your blue bottles..." Although no one has been able to find any evidence that Lees was involved in the investigation it seemed from this letter that perhaps the medium was indeed involved in some way and that it was common knowledge at the time. Recently, however, Stewart Evans has proven that the word is not "Lees" but instead "tecs", a short form of detectives.
One final note Jennifer, you suggested that perhaps Lees had no knowledge of the Chicago article which told of his part in arresting Jack the Ripper but Melvin Harris states that the British newspaperman, Cyril Morton, saw a copy of the article among some of Lees' newspaper clippings. Lees apparently knew of the bogus article but never tried to set the record straight.
Wolf. |
Author: jennifer pegg
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 03:36 am | |
actusa;lly i thought the lees letter was renamed and i know the areticle is ridled with lies in fact i have written an article about lees story on the lees website. my point simply was to find out any more info.
info about from hell very useful
thanks
jennifer |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 11:52 am | |
| Wolf, Paul, Jennifer--Isn't there another angle to the Lees story? Dan Farson tells a story of Jacquemine Charrotte-Lodwige [who was helping him with his research] paying a visit to Lees' daughter in 1959. She evidently knew of the story, which might suggest that Lees did in fact repeat it. The conclusion of Charrotte-Lodwige was evidently that the house in question was not of an eminent physician but of Holland House, which led to some strange speculations about King Leopold. All of which still sounds very doubtful, of course. Cheers, RP |
Author: jennifer pegg
Friday, 11 January 2002 - 01:36 pm | |
heard about the leopold story from the a-z and from mj trows many faces of JTR do you know what the original book it is in is?
jennifer |
Author: jennifer pegg
Friday, 26 April 2002 - 05:21 am | |
hi,
just coming back to this thread.
wolf you say Lees had knowledge of the article as a journalist copied it from his collction to write the express article.
Yes Lees may have had a copy in 1931 did he read it and know about it in 1895?
jennifer |
Author: TS Simmons
Wednesday, 06 November 2002 - 04:04 pm | |
| Shouldn't this drivel be in "fiction"???????? |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 11:40 am | |
All,
Thats it, I cannot stand back and let you all slag off this book.
This book may be full of fiction passed as fact.
A yarn which would be an excellent choice for Jackanory.
But its the book that kindled an interest in many,.........including me,
Dont be so harsh.
Monty |
Author: jennifer pegg
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 03:03 pm | |
i agree with monty?!
this book is funny and enjoyable and as factual as many others!
and RJL is misreped in it but still a dead man cannot defend themslves! |
Author: Stephen Butt
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 04:00 pm | |
I haven't visited this strand for some time, so forgive me for commenting on some fairly old messages.
1)
It is my feeling that Lees DID know of the Chicago article, and probably very soon after it (or the cover version in one of the English newspapers) was first published. At the time he was the leader of a successful and lively organisation for the dispossessed in the Peckham area of London, which had a growing membership and plenty of patronage. Within weeks of the Chicago article, this organisation had folded, and Lees had moved with his family to St Ives in Cornwall. He never returned to London or to his former high-profile roles.
2)
I know that Melvyn Harris mentions that `craft old Cyril' saw a copy of the article at Lees' home when he visited Lees' daughter Eva soon after his death; but I would be interested to know Mr Harris's source for this statement, seeing that Morton was hardly likely to own up to the true source of his own yarns.
3)
Setting aside the complete silliness of the Chicago article for a moment, it is quite fascinating to see from where the author drew some of his material. The description of the seance at which Lees is said to have `seen' another murder, and even the names of the Americans who were present with him are a lift from article Lees wrote himself for the spiritualist magazine `Light' in 1886. It's clever because it is not a direct re-write: initials, descriptions etc are inverted. I guess the author took some delight in actually using Lees' own phrases in such a way. It could be argued that most of the material in the article were widely available to newspaper hacks based anywhere, but `Light' had a fairly restricted circulation.
4)
If,therefore, the Chicago journalist had some `help' in the form of someone from London being in Chicago with various bits and pieces, journals, articles and clippings about Lees, is there a possible candidate? I wonder whether the culprit could be none other than W.T.Stead? He was, of course, a spiritualist himself by this date, as well as a very wellknown journalist and newspaper editor, and someone who had followed closely the JTR events. He also had his own theories (one of which has now become Melvyn Harris's chosen `solution'). And ...... he was in Chicago, and visited the Whitechapel Club just months before the Chicago article was published.
Just a thought.
Best wishes,
SB. |
Author: jennifer pegg
Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 06:30 am | |
hi stephen,
as the records office is closed (well i say closed)will not look for exact ref, but i am pretty sure lees had access to the chicago article
did you get my email
jennifer |
Author: Robert Habenicht
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 02:40 am | |
| Heres a question from a newbie. Did Knight honestly believe what he wrote or was it just as it appears a bad work of fiction? |
Author: judith stock
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 04:47 am | |
Robert,
Personally, I think Knight believed his theory; whether or not he changed his mind as to its' validity, after Mr Sickert recanted, is open to conjecture. At the beginning, though, I DO think he believed in what he was writing.
Slog on, though; we all have been where you are now.
J |
Author: richard nunweek
Wednesday, 05 February 2003 - 09:36 am | |
Hi.
I happen to believe there is a fragment of truth in every theory, It is just a question of slotting in the pieces of the puzzle.
The masonic connection , The distances between sites , The 39 connection, Mary kellys earlier life,
I do not wish to plug Ivors book ,as I have not read it, but this line of investigation I believe shows a possible solution in the future, for I do not share the view that many others have that coincedences explain everything .Some of the odds are far to big to be ignored.
Regards richard. |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 06 February 2003 - 03:24 am | |
A word on coincidence.
One hospital and two specialist appointments for my wife.Each made without consultation between the respective consultants,each for a different reason and at a different venue.All for Friday,14 February at 1.30 P.M.
Thank heavens Friday is not the 13th.
Is superman on call?. |
Author: Robert Habenicht
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 12:59 am | |
| I read the book a long time ago and thought I was an interesting piece of fiction. Makes for a good run of comic book though. However going with the lowest common denominator with the human mind if it was a "Masonic Conspiracy" I can hardly believe dozens of people could have managed to keep their collective mouths shut. Personally I have to go with Ross on this one. |
