Author: Jon
Friday, 08 December 2000 - 07:05 pm |        |
Good grief !!!
Let it never be said that our trusty mail service is on the leading edge of technology !!!!
The 'Ultimate' sourcebook finally arrived, (signed, of course), what an outstanding contribution to Ripper literature.
Stewart & Keith have created a milestone which will hold prime place in Ripper studies for decades to come, I'm sure.
I must extend a wholehearted 'thankyou' to Stewart for being a most gracious friend. Your input and 'packages' over this past couple of years have been much appreciated.
I wish you all the best for this coming holiday season.
Best Regards, Jon |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 02:35 pm | |
Jon, thank you for that message which I have only just seen, much appreciated. I don't know what is wrong but I don't seem able to access the messages through 'Last Day' or 'Last Week' and I had to get in here through the 'back door.'
All the very best to all of you for a very enjoyable and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Stewart |
Author: Nick B
Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 10:18 am | |
Stewart,
Do you have any idea when the book will be coming to Australia?
And when it does, do you know who will be publishing it.
Also will it be Hardcover?
I REALLY want to get my hands on it, and I dont particulary want to get it from AMAZON.com as it will end up costing me about $89, even though It will be worth that!
Thankyou in advance
Nick |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 01:35 pm | |
Nick,
Sorry, no, I have no idea regarding marketing of the book in Australia, but I shall endeavour to find out. Perhaps one of the Australian contributors to these boards, Johnno, Leanne or Jules know of a way to obtain the book at a reasonable price.
Thank you for the interest in the book.
Stewart |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 05:58 pm | |
G'day Nick,
I got my copy of this great book via AMAZON for $64.50 (AUD).
LEANNE! |
Author: Nick B
Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 10:00 pm | |
Hey Stewart,
Thanks. Congrats again on the book.
Hey Leanne,
Excellent!
How did you get it for that price?
Say Hi to Jules for me, does he have an email address again?
Talk to you later.
Nick |
Author: Nick B
Thursday, 25 January 2001 - 02:29 am | |
Ive actually just got my aunt who is going to Paris, to try and get it.
Hopefully she can.
What is the difference between the:
"The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion"
and the
"The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook"
In particular the huge difference in pages. Is it due to a smaller text size?
Thanks
Nick |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 25 January 2001 - 06:13 pm | |
G'day Nick,
I ordered my copy from AMAZON.com, which is American. The other one is English and that's why I think there are two slightly different names. No other reason!
Looking at my bill, the cost was $28.00 U.S., with $5.95 U.S. Shipping and handling. The total was $33.95 U.S.
Use the 'Universal Currency Converter' on the internet: http//www.airborn.com.au/currency.html
to find out how many Australian dollars that is!
(it's roughly double)!!!!
Try looking in second-hand book shops for a copy of 'The A-Z'. I found 3 that way. Also try 'Collins' bookshops, (ask if you can order one)!
Leanne! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 26 January 2001 - 04:24 am | |
Hi All,
Keith Skinner told me that 'Sourcebook' made it sound a bit like a cookbook! I replied that "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion" sounds a bit like Mary Kelly. (Sorry folks. :-))
Love,
Caz |
Author: Johnno
Saturday, 27 January 2001 - 08:52 pm | |
Nick,
I received my copy of the Sourcebook as a Christmas gift. It is the European edition, and was imported by the local bookstore probably from England.
I am not sure that it has been released in Australia as yet. Even so, if one has a credit card, it is a simple matter of ordering from amazon.com as some others here have done.
The problem with the Australian dollar is that it is not worth much in England or America, so keep that in mind if you decide to order. Also note that there is an American edition which has a slightly different title. The last time I looked on Amazon's site, the photo of the dust jacket revealed that Stewart's name was spelled as "Stuart".
If you're in Sydney, you could try Abbey's Bookstore on York Street, behind the QVB. Abbey's has a very good crime section, and if any bookstores have it, they probably will. If you're not in Sydney, look their number up in www.yellowpages.com.au and ring them to see whether or not they have it; if they do, you may be able to order it. |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 30 January 2001 - 09:13 am | |
Hi everyone! As I mentioned on another board, my tight budget usually forces me to obtain my JtR books second-hand or through the library. Stewart & Keith's latest is already available at the main and four branch libraries in my home town ... I live in a medium size Southern town--New York City (Manhattan) is a large-large Northern city ... for anyone across the Big Pond or Down Under that's squinting at a world map.
However, thanks to a Christmas gift certificate I have my very own copy of The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion. A short pause, while I do the Happy Dance!!
First, I studied the interesting and informative pics--such as the tattered box, its fraying edges held together with what appears to be a shoestring or stip of cloth, that contain "the original Jack the Ripper files as stored at the New Scotland Yard prior to being sent to the Public Records Office in Kew." I found the pictures of cops lined across the glossy pages in the order of their rank immensely helpful. As others have mentioned, the JtR Companion contains many pictures never published in any other Jack tomes.
Next, I read the Kelly inquest--because it's the one I'm most familiar with. Thanks to the kindness of a poster across the Big Pond, I have a copy of the official handwritten inquest records ... imagine my happy astonishment to see that the Ultimate JtR contains tidbits my copy doesn't, like a one sentence aside from the Coroner to Joseph Barrett.
STEWART, my limited study of various newspaper accounts shows that some papers gave fuller details than others ... is that where you and Keith culled Coroner MacDonald's remark, "You've given your testimony very well?" Or did your hands-on research turned up notations in the margin of the inquest records that gets cut off in photocopying? Whatever, I'm grateful all this research is now available to the rank and file like myself!
So ends my mini-review. Perhaps more later, when I've finished the book, but I don't want to spoil the first-hand enjoyment for any unfortunates that haven't yet got a copy.
On a side note--how sure can we be that ALL the women giving inquest testimony or newspaper interviews who referred to themselves as "unfortunates" meant they were prostitutes? I've seen workhouse records online on a roots web site that lists a physically disabled man as an "unfortunate." Was he a male prostitute? Or is it probable--as opposed to possible, that some of these women merely meant they were impoverished with no set employment? STEWART, anyone?
Thanks,
Ashling |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 30 January 2001 - 09:18 am | |
P.S.
Not having a credit card, I ordered my copy of the Ultimate JtR Companion by phone from my local Books-A-Million ... It took nearly two weeks for it to reach the store, and 15 minutes for me to drive over, pay for it, and take it home with me.
Ashling |
Author: alex chisholm
Wednesday, 31 January 2001 - 11:42 pm | |
Hi Ashling
While Stewart will no doubt provide more satisfactory confirmation, I don’t think the Coroner’s remark to Barnett is an unfortunate omission from your copy of the Kelly Inquest.
This remark, together with the rest of the bracketed passage in which it appears in the Ultimate Sourcebook, is not part of the official papers, but appears to have been included by Stewart and Keith as additional detail from the Daily Telegraph 13 Nov 1888.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 07:27 am | |
Hi Ash:
Indeed, "unfortunate" should not be taken to be equivalent to "prostitute." The victims were unfortunates who happened to be prostitutes. The unfortunates would include anyone who was down on their luck without a steady income and who was subject to the workhouse system. "Pauper" or "beggar" might be substituted for the word "unfortunate."
There is a Barnett family page... no! not that Barnett!... (http://currantbun.tripod.co.uk/briat61/BarnettHistory.html) that contains interesting information on this class of society. I quote:
"Rebekah Springett had an unfortunate start in life, being born in the Union Workhouse, Stanway in the County of Essex, on the 7th of May 1866. Her mother Susan Springett aka Mead was admitted to the Workhouse on the 28th February 1866 by order of Samuel Houlding the local registrar, the said Susan being pregnant. . . .
"As was stated previously, in 1834, The Poor Law Amendment Act introduced centralised workhouses for groups of parishes in England and Wales. The workhouses were designed to administer a terribly basic level of welfare to the unfortunate of society who sought refuge there. They were known as 'Unions' and it was in these gaunt and forbidding places that numbers of poor, unmarried mothers, many cast adrift from their families by the stigma of illegitimacy, were forced to have their babies. If they chose to stay in the workhouse once their child was born, they sometimes found themselves deliberately separated from their offspring at an early age. This may have applied to Susannah Springett (Susan Mead) in Stanway Workhouse."
I hope this helps.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Linda Cantoni
Thursday, 08 March 2001 - 10:29 pm | |
| I recently added "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion" to my JTR collection, and what an addition it is -- a great resource. It led me to search for JTR websites, and to find this site just the other day. Kudos to Mr. Evans & Mr. Skinner for the Companion, and to Mr. Ryder & Mr. Piper for running a great site. |
Author: Avril Sprintall
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 05:26 pm | |
Have you read the Mammoth Book of JTR by Maxim Jakubowski & Nathan Brand?
It gives lots of facts and current views and is a real source of interest.
Hope you enjoy your visits to the Casebook. |
Author: Linda Cantoni
Friday, 09 March 2001 - 07:58 pm | |
Dear Avril,
Thanks for the tip; I don't have the Mammoth Book but I'll be sure to get a copy.
I'm really enjoying the Casebook, perusing all the materials a little at a time and reading the posts. Such a wealth of material, very intelligently presented.
Thanks again,
Linda |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 30 April 2001 - 06:20 am | |
G'day,
I haven't been posting much lately, because I've had my head stuck in the book: 'The Ultimate JtR Companion'.
The statements of the inquest into the death of Mary Jane Kelly contain many important differences to the statements reported in the 'Daily Telegraph':
MARY ANN COX: ".....I heard men going in and out, several go in and out, I heard some one go out at a quarter to six...."
Telegraph: "...At a quarter past six I heard a man go down the court."
ELIZABETH PRATER: "...A kitten disturbed me about 3:30 to 4. I noticed the lodging house light was out, so it was after 4 probably."
Telegraph: "...A kitten disturbed me about half-past three o'clock or a quarter to four."
JULIA VENTURNEY: "...Deceased said she was fond of another man named Joe who used to come and see her and give her money..."
Telegraph: "...She said she was fond of another man named Joe. I never saw this man. I believe he was a costermonger...."
I tend to favour the statements of the book, as they are held at the 'London Metropolitan Archives' and are in the hand of Abberline. The differences are understandable, considering two different people were taking notes, but differences such as a quarter to half an hour can mean an awful lot. No wonder we're still trying to solve this!
Leanne! |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 30 April 2001 - 07:05 am | |
Excellent point, Leanne. The possibility that Mrs Cox meant that men were going in and out all night, and she heard the last one leave within 15 minutes either way of 6.00am must lend weight to those who are arguing that Mrs Maxwell's testimony could be true.
Martin F |
Author: chris scott
Tuesday, 17 December 2002 - 04:59 pm | |
I have just treated myself to the Ultimate Sourcebook (at last!!) and cannot praise it too highly. Stewart - if you read this - an amazing job and I will be spending many hours with my head in this volume!!! Many thanks for that!
One small thing intrigued me.
One of the illustrations is a map from the Daily Telegraph of 10th November 88 (i.e. the day after the Kelly murder)
This shows the seven murder sites (including Smith and Tabram)and mentions Kelly by name even though the murder was only the day before. However Eddowes (killed on 30 September) is referred to in the key to the sites as an unknown woman. As Eddowes' inquest opened on 4th October and here identity was known then, why would the Telegraph be referring to her as an "unknown" woman nearly six weeks later?
If anyone knows this Id be very interested to hear
Regards
Chris Scott |
Author: alex chisholm
Tuesday, 17 December 2002 - 08:40 pm | |
Hi Chris
The Telegraph sketch map on 10 Nov., together with accompanying text, was an exact reproduction of the map and text which appeared in the Telegraph, 2 Oct., with details of Kelly’s murder added.
Eddowes was listed as unknown in the 2nd Oct. issue, and it seems they simply did not bother to amend this listing for the 10 Nov.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: chris scott
Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 08:04 am | |
Alex
many thanks for that - much appreciated
CS |
Author: alex chisholm
Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 11:44 pm | |
You’re very welcome, Chris.
I’m sure you’ll enjoy the Ultimate Sourcebook. Along with Letters from Hell and the A-Z, it is undoubtedly the most invaluable tool for serious students of Whitechapel murder.
Best Wishes
alex |
