Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

 Search:



** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Jack the Ripper: An American View

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles: Non-Fiction: Jack the Ripper: An American View
Author: Christopher-Michael
Friday, 01 January 1999 - 04:24 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
This book arrived over the holidays, and I must confess to being less than pleased with it. Certainly, the Casebook's popularity reveals the enormous amount of interest in the Ripper case by Americans, and a Yankee look at the Great Victorian Mystery would be welcome.

The author, Stephen Wright, is a researcher who founded an American counterpart to "Ripperana" and "Ripperologist," the "Whitechapel Journal," aimed mainly at US enthusiasts. He quotes liberally from Philip Sugden in his book and seems well aware of the dangers in airy theorising. Why then, was I disappointed in this work?

Felicities of spelling and authorial nationality aside, there does not seem to be anything peculiarly "American" about this book, and it might perhaps have been better called an "American's View." The prose is generally pedestrian, and the work has an oddly patchy quality to it, as if it were more a collection of essays than a self-sustaining piece.

The 166-page volume opens with a brief dicussion of psychopathic sexuality by way of Krafft-Ebing and a scene-setting of the East End before moving on to 3 chapters dismissing Tumblety, Maybrick and Chapman. The arguments against them are familiar - in fact, the book is geared more to the JTR veteran than novice - though the Tumblety chapter has some interesting points and Mr Wright does a signal service by reprinting the 1903 "Pall Mall Gazette" interviews with Abberline after Chapman's capture. There are also spartan chapters on the canonical victims, the Ripper letters and a brief discussion of reasons JTR avoided capture as well as a (in my opinion) wholly irrelevant chapter concerning H H Holmes (Herman Webster Mudgett), whom Mr Wright calls the "American Rival of the Whitechapel Murderer."

I was, however, most dismayed at the presentation of Mr Wright's candidate for the mantle of Jack the Ripper - George Hutchinson, whom, he coyly states, "has never before appeared as a suspect in any book about the Ripper." This, despite listing Bob Hinton's previously published "From Hell" in his book's bibliography. Wright's suspicions are aroused by Hutchinson's famous and "ridiculously detailed" statement. He believes that Hutchinson cooked up a non-existent sighting to explain away his noticed presence in Dorset Street that night, asserting that Abberline was fooled because he "wanted desperately to believe [Hutchinson]" and because Hutchinson had an otherwise undocumented "uncanny ability to persuade others of his sincerity."

To support his supposition that Hutchinson stalked Mary Kelly, he not only invents a conversation wherein the far-behind-on-her-rent Kelly invites GH to sleep for free in her room out of the goodness of her heart, he also has GH leave MJKs lifeless body gloating over his "proper ripping" of her and looking forward to those who would follow in his bloody footsteps.

Mr Wright calls GH "one of the few valid suspects ever," but provides almost nothing in the way of proof. The reasoning seems - to me, I should stress - that because MJK was so bestially slaughtered, her killer must have had a personal grudge against her. GH was in the area, he knew MJK, and his police statement was too clever by half to be real; ergo, he must have killed her and must therefore be the Ripper. No suggestion of a motive is given other than a vague supposition that GH might have seen himself as a "modern harlot killer." There is no reason for the cessation of the murders, either, other than the implication that MJK was the intended target all along.

Now, I should point out that I would not dismiss Mr Wright's conclusions out of hand. GHs story does have a smell of fantasy about it, and he is at this remove a somewhat suspicious character. However, 111 years on, we have only his reported words. Abberline had him. Abberline was there, interviewed and believed him (though, in fairness, Bob Hinton points out that Abberline SAID he believed Hutchinson, and might not have). Unless a transcript of that interview turns up, I do not think we are justified in assuming that Abberline's powers of observation and interrogation failed him when confronting Hutchinson; we don't know what he asked, or what reasons other than the statement he might have had for his belief in Hutchinson.

Mr Wright's industry in founding his magazine and encouraging American interest in JTR is commendable, and his selection of Hutchinson as a probable Ripper is hardly beyond the pale. Yet I felt unconvinced by his book's presentation and thesis, and don't know that I could recommend it.

Or perhaps I am just being a crotchety old fusspot. I would be interested in hearing anyone else's opinion of this book.

As ever,
Christopher-Michael


N.B.: for those interested in ordering it -

"JTR: An American View" by Stephen Wright
ISBN 0-9601904-2-2 (paper) $25.00

Available from: Mystery Notebook Editions, PO Box 1341, FDR Station, New York NY 10150-1341

Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 05 January 1999 - 01:57 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Good Grief!

You mean to say this fellow has stolen my thunder!

Just goes to show you can't trust these Yankee chappies - I mean look what they did to our tea!

In fairness to Mr Wright I have private information (shades of Mcnaghten) that he probably finished his book before me but just couldn't find a publisher.

It would appear that by coincidence we were both aiming for the same suspect.

He did actually review my book in the last edition of Whitechapel Journal.

May I take this opportunity of wishing him every success with his book.

Bob Hinton
PS Mr Hinton is my father, I'm Bob!

Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 05 January 1999 - 05:01 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi, CMD and Bob Hinton:

It would seem to me that it would have been courtesy of Stephen Wright to have credited Bob for having his book in print earlier than his "JTR -- An American View" and to thus have been the first to fully expound the theory that George Hutchinson could have been Jack the Ripper. Certainly, if Bob's book is listed in the bibliography, the text also could have been modified to give Bob full credit for being the first to "expose" Hutchinson, even if the author, Stephen Wright, had been shopping his manuscript around to publishers before the appearance of Bob's book. I admire Bob's even-tempered reply, and also appreciate CMD's review of the Wright opus. Thanks to both of you.

Chris George

Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 05 January 1999 - 06:04 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hey!

I admire Bob's response as well. And though I know you're an author too, Chris, I can hardly blame an author for trying to promote his book...and it might be his publisher who insisted on the ever provocative "First!" claim. What would be REALLY shabby is if he dared to write a bad review of "From Hell" or persisted in his claim in same said review. (Am I speaking good Barrister-ese?)

But I object! What the heck did we Americans ever do to your tea, Bob? We just flavored it a bit in Boston Harbor back in the 1770s -- its tasted better ever since! Heehee...I wasn't there, so don't blame me; besides, I have an alibi for that night!

Yaz

Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 05 January 1999 - 06:56 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi Yaz, Hi CM, Hi Bob

You should try the German tea (ugh!)

Where could I get Steven Wright's AND Bob Hinton's book in Germany or if not UK? Anyone know? Amazon.de doesn't have them (yet) or am I to dumb to find them?

Bob

Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 05 January 1999 - 08:40 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hey, Bob (this post will be fun to write!)

Bob, Bob's book is available through the Amazon.co.uk site. It appears the big bookstores are the wrong place to find Wright's book, Bob. Here's the address from CM's post for the right place to find Wright's book:

"JTR: An American View" by Stephen Wright
ISBN 0-9601904-2-2 (paper) $25.00
Available from: Mystery Notebook Editions, PO Box 1341, FDR Station, New York NY 10150-1341

But if you want to find Bob's book, Bob, along with Wright's book, you'd be looking in all the wrong places. Can't get Wright's book in the wrong place, which is where you CAN get Bob's book, Bob!

It was probably funner to write than it is to read...my post that is, not Wright's book or Bob's book, Bob. If you know what I mean!

Yaz

Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 06 January 1999 - 04:36 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi Yaz

Ha ha ha.

What's the snow doing on your drive and sidewalk? (grin)

I get most of my books from Amazon.de because I can pay in DM, which spares gigantic change rates.

None the less, thanks for the info. I had already seen Steve's info on CM's post, but see above. I'll just write to Mystery Editions and see what happens.

Bob (C)

Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 07 January 1999 - 12:15 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hello Everyone!

My book, From Hell is obtainable from Greyhouse books in Portobello Road London. Phone Number 0171 221 0269. They do send a lot of their stock overseas so you shouldn't have any problems.

If you do have any difficulties please feel free to email me directly and I'll help you out.

By the way happy new year to you all!

And especially for our Colonial friends Don't you know sir an Enlishmans tea is sacred!

As for Yazoo what is your alibi, and how far apart were the street lights?

Seriously though if any readers from abroad need any help in obtaining modern photographs or any other research material, please don't hesitate to email me and I'll do what I can.

all the best

Bob Hinton

Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 07 January 1999 - 01:07 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi Bob,

Thanks for your offer, I'll be taking you up on it in due course. Yes Sir! Our tea is sacred.

Do you live in/near London? I was married at Finsbury Town Hall in 1967 and lived all over London until 1972, I knew the place like my own pockets, including the Whitehall area. Sadly I am now expatriat, freezing in a wet little town called Emden on the Ostfriesiche coast in Niedersachsen, Germany.

Regards

Bob

Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 07 January 1999 - 04:37 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Dear Bob C

No I don't live near London, I live in freexing wet little South Wales. That is one reason I was unable to do as much research for my book as I wanted to.

In the course of writing it I did manage to collect a fair amount of modern photographs of Whitecapel, as well as photocopies of inquest statements, weather reports etc etc. All of which I am quite willing to make available to interested parties.

My new research is also being conducted long range, so to speak, but I've recently had an offer of help from a fellow author who lives near London, which I gratefully accepted.

I think the internet is a fantastic place for people to pool their ideas and resources, and a free exchange of ideas and information might encourage others to write their own books.

all the best

Bob Hinton

Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 07 January 1999 - 04:43 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Dear Bob C

No I don't live near London, I live in freezing wet little South Wales. This fact hampered my own research when I was writing my book.

In the course of my ferreting I did amass a collection of modern photographs of Whitechapel as well as photostats of inquest testimony, witness statements etc etc. all of which I quite happy to make available to other enthusiasts.

I think the internet is a fantastic place to exchange ideas and items of research, and who knows perhaps this might encourage others to write their own books.

all the best

Bob Hinton

Author: Robert
Thursday, 07 January 1999 - 10:40 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Wasn't the first publication of the 'Hutchinson as the 'Ripper'' idea the subject of an article written by Brian Marriner in an issue of 'Murder Most Foul' a couple of years before Mr. Hinton's book?

Also, the idea of Hutchinson's actions making him suspect has been talked of in 'Ripper circles' for many years, it certainly didn't strike me as a new idea.

Thank you.

Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 14 January 1999 - 12:50 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Dear Robert

You are absolutely correct in stating that Brian Marriner did write an article for Murder Most Foul, I believe it was the October issue of 1996, naming Hutchinson as a suspect.

However since I had completed my book before this (speaking from memory it was August of the same year) I at the time of writing believed I was the first to suggest Hutchinson as a suspect in a book.

I appreciate that my book didn't hit the stands until June 98 but there is an awful lot to be done between completion and publishing, especially when you have to do it all yourself!

I must admit even though I have attended both conferences and as many C&D meetings as possible, I certainly don't recall Hutchinson being put up as a canidate before.

all the best

Bob Hinton

Author: Robert
Friday, 15 January 1999 - 01:11 am
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Let me get this straight. We have an article, by Mr Marriner, which was first to propose, in print, Hutchinson as a suspect in 1996.

We then have Mr Hinton's book proposing Hutchinson as a suspect in 1998. But, although beaten into print by two years, by Mr Marriner, Mr Hinton had actually completed his book before Mr Marriner published. However, by this reasoning surely we then have to ask when did Mr Marriner complete his work?

For this seems to be a game of 'I was first'! Also to be taken into the reckoning is Mr Wright's completed work, which supposedly was finished before Mr Hinton's.

I can recall Hutchinson being discussed as a suspect back in the 80's (years before the Cloak and Dagger Club was thought of), but, of course, this won't qualify as no-one recorded it in print.

It seems to be the current trend that everyone writing about this subject has to find something new to lay claim to, be it a suspect, or merely a, usually dubious, 'fact.' Just about every name connected with the inquiry into the 'Ripper' murders, if at all possible, has been suggested as a suspect. The amazing result is that people are now writing books about these 'suspects' without an iota of evidence to suggest that they should be regarded as such.

It is also interesting to note that many of these books have drawn heavily on Sugden, and Messrs Begg, Fido and Skinner, rather than doing original research themselves. This is particularly apparent in the case of these two books on Hutchinson.

Thank you.

Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 17 January 1999 - 06:35 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
For what it is worth, the criteria we would adopt in the A to Z would be that publication dictates the laurels for "first". Brian Marriner was therefore the first to nominate George Hutchinson, Bob Hinton was second and Stephen Wright would be third.

Although I can't be specific about when, it is certainly true that the possibility of George Hutchinson being the Ripper was mooted long before Brian Marriner's article. He was probably even suspected at the time of the crimes.

Although it is always nice to be first with something, in my opinion being first doesn't really matter. What does matter is who developed the most convincing and factually grounded argument.

Author: Robert
Sunday, 17 January 1999 - 09:29 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Thank you Mr Begg for your lucid and enlightening remarks on this topic.

Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 19 January 1999 - 01:02 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Dear All,

For what its worth I'm perfectly happy to accept what Paul Begg says as being extremely reasonable.

I'm not particularly concerned who was first as indicated in my first posting on this board.

I always find it rather strange when authors are accused of not conducting original research because some of their findings are echoed elesewhere. Assuming we are all researching the same subject would you expect anything else? Its like telling fifteen people to add 2 + 2 and then accusing 14 of them of plaigerism because they all get the same answer.

Of course I conducted my own research as I assume most authors do and obviously I will arrive at the some of the same conclusions as some of my predecessors. However I think you will agree that I also arrive at a lot of my own conclusions.

all the best

Bob Hinton

Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 19 January 1999 - 05:25 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi Bob,

I agree with you fully.

During my (not very professional) researches on e.g. JTR, I have found it not possible NOT to 'copy' if you will, other persons at times. If I want to write, for example, Mary Kelly was born at da da da, I look up where, seek out work by others, establish, where differences exist, what I believe the truth is and write it, maybe in my own words but how many different ways are there of saying something?.

The conclusions that you speak about are just that.

I still havn't got your book, unfortunantly, but will be changing that shortly.

Regards

Bob

Author: Robert
Tuesday, 19 January 1999 - 09:53 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
I have to agree that Mr Hinton has has arrived at a lot of his own conclusions such as his womb eating super-rats, and body raiding starved dogs and cats.

However, I do not think anyone has accused him of plagiarism (one wonders why he thought this) merely that he has used certain books for reference (a totally different thing). His own words seemed to indicate that he had not consulted the original documents at source, and various errors and ideas in his book indicate this.

As for the question of 'who was first?,' this was raised by Mr Hinton himself, and I seem to recall him raising the same point some time ago on the old boards. Also the rear cover of Mr Hinton's book makes the bold claim, 'For the first time in over a hundred years an entirely new suspect is presented for examination.'

This is not a personal attack on Mr Hinton, merely an airing of opinion, and any author must realise that his claims and writings will be critically analysed and commented on. Thank you for an interesting book Mr Hinton, albeit one with which, in most of its conclusions, I cannot agree.

Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 20 January 1999 - 01:08 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Hi Robert,

Not having been able to read Bob Hinton's book, I can't comment about dogs and cats eating anything of Nichols and co. I have read a number of other books on the subject and can pooh-pooh much of what is written there just like you. It hasn't stopped the various Authors claiming in each case to have identified Jack, indeed, what would you hold of an author claiming his own book was rubbish!

If you or I or someone else agrees with anyone else's conclusions or not doesn't make them more, or less, valid. I am grateful for every bit of stuff I can get about Jack, even when some of it goes from the ridiculous to the sublime. To make a point, the topic about Victoria Queen.. Although what has been submitted there is absolute nonsense, it has a very real substance to it. Namely the knowledge that conclusions drawn in this topic, asinine as they may be, are not far away from those sometimes drawn on serious topics. It helps bring us down with a bump from all-too-high flights of fancy. It is also damn good fun.

Regards,

Bob

Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 21 January 1999 - 01:25 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Dear Robert,

Many thanks for you continued interest.

I wonder why you seem to find the idea of animals (whether they be rats cats or dogs) consuming human body parts so unlikely.

My own experience dates back to the recovery of a body from a sugar cane field in Mauritius in the early seventies and I can assure you even though it had only been lying there for a matter of hours it was well chewed.

The rat population of Whitechapel at this time is well documented and examples of them attacking living people are rife. (Mayhew for one)

Speak to any forensic scientist and they will tell you it is not unusual for animals to consume human body parts. so why the idea should be met with so much incredulity I don't know. By the way there's no need for super rats, an ordinairy one can do enough damage, ask any countryman.

Of course I conducted my own research using original documents, would you like a copy of the official weather records for the night of 9th November, but of course a persons pockets can only stretch to so much trawling through archives, and obviously at some stage I ( in common with just about every other author not backed with limitless funds) am going to rely on credible secondary sources.

Anyway I'm glad that you found my book interesting, and welcome your comments.

all the best

Bob Hinton

Author: Robert
Thursday, 21 January 1999 - 10:35 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Dear Mr Hinton,

Thank you for the reply. The dead bodies I have dealt with, that have been partially eaten by animals such as rats, have had the soft tissue attacked. The womb is a muscle. Also, this has occurred where the body has been left lying for some time, not within the short time indicated as having elapsed between these murders and the discovery of the bodies.

A rat will not normally attack a human being, even when starving, unless it is cornered, as they fear humans.

Thank you for the offer of the weather records, but I already have them, and the other official records also. It is all very well relying on secondary sources, but when they contain errors you import them into your own work. However, I do appreciate your point about expense!

An example is where you make a lengthy argument for Eddowes not being a prostitute, a point raised in the A-Z, but the authors of that book quite rightly point out that if she wasn't, what was she doing in Mitre Square at 1-35 a.m. with a man? However, we don't have to rely on this as our sole reason for thinking that she did engage in such activities as the official records contain a reference indicating that she did.

Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 28 January 1999 - 01:07 pm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message  Click here to view profile or send e-mailClick here to edit this post
Dear Robert,

Many thanks for your interesting posting.

I agree a rat will normally only attack soft tissue when presented with a complete body, but when a body has been eviscerated it will go for anything it can grab quickly. Don't forget we don't know where the missing bits landed up, they could have been thrown several feet away from the scene of the crime.

You must remember though I am not saying this is what happened, I'm saying it is a possibility and a very real one. As for rats being afraid of humans there are several contemporary accounts of people being atatcked by rats, and I saw myself a large rat run out and carry off an apple core discarded by my wife, and that was in broad daylight in a busy street.

As for what Eddowes was doing in Mitre Square that night I have put forward my reasons. As for her status as a prostitute being confirmed by official sources I confess I must have missed that. I would be most grateful if you would point me in the right direction so I can check this for myself.

This actually highlights the value of these boards as you've obviously spotted something I have missed.

Many thanks!

Bob Hinton


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. A valid username and password combination is required to post messages to this discussion.
Username:  
Password:

 
 
Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation