Chapter ONE commentary and discussion

[Howard Brown]

Please use this thread for commentary or opinions on the 1st Chapter.

I am aware that a few pages are smaller (kb wise ) than others.

I will remedy the problem a.s.a.p.

Thank you.

[Howard Brown]

The reason for some of the pages being a little smaller is that in order to place the watermark AND not reduce the clarity of the pages in question...they had to be made smaller. I had no choice and have spent over 12 hours already attempting various ways to make them all "the same". I doubt that I will be able to so for ALL the pages.

But then again,I will try to do so after I have at least three chapters up.

I'm beat. I'm gonna call it a day on the uploads and resume it tomorrow or maybe tonight. This first chapter is the largest in the manuscript.

[Chris G.]

The reason for some of the pages being a little smaller is that in order to place the watermark AND not reduce the clarity of the pages in question...they had to be made smaller. I had no choice and have spent over 12 hours already attempting various ways to make them all "the same". I doubt that I will be able to so for ALL the pages.

But then again,I will try to do so after I have at least three chapters up.

I'm beat. I'm gonna call it a day on the uploads and resume it tomorrow or maybe tonight. This first chapter is the largest in the manuscript.

Hi Howard

Bravo on your toiling to get the pages up. Take a rest, my man, you've earned it. ;)

I have to say though that I don't quite understand why some of the images of the pages are smaller than others, since they are surely the same size page, the same watermark. Perhaps you can elucidate your explanation or possibly (I hope) correct the smaller images and replace them with images to match the size of the more readable pages. Thanks in advance either way, Howard.

Chris

[Howard Brown]

Dear Chris:

Actually,the pages are not all the same in size. Some in the last chapter will have to be drastically reduced in order to make them fit.

In several instances in the first chapter's uploading,I had to resize them individually....sometimes making them larger...and some smaller...to fit within a 200-225 kb parameter. Plus I have three new kittens and a antsy 11 year old who wants to go out. I'm wearing more hats than ever,C.G. ;)

But if I can,I will try to ease the viewers burden soon.

Thanks for asking C.G. :thumbsupbud:

[Peter Birchwood]

Reference to Hitler and the bombing seems to imply that this was at least typed 1940 or later. Have we any idea of a timeline for the ms?

[Robert Linford]

Peter, I think there are a few occasions throughout where there is reference to the number of years ago that the murders happened. I seem to remember thinking a date of 1958 or thereabouts for the typing, though of course pages may have been re-typed.

Wensley died at the end of 49 and "Cavalcade of Justice" came out in 52.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Mr.B:

Robert, as usual,is correct. The year the work was completed was 1958.

Sometime between 1953 and 1958 would be the best guess as to when all of it was collated. I suppose in my next letter to Mr.Peter O'Donnell I could ask him,unless someone else knows.

[Dave O]

Howard, thanks to you, Peter O'Donnell, and everyone else who helped make this manuscript available. I am only just now beginning to learn about Stephenson so I don't have anything sensible to contribute to the discussion but I'm very happy to be able to read this.

Dave

[Chris G.]

Dear Mr.B:

Robert, as usual,is correct. The year the work was completed was 1958.

Sometime between 1953 and 1958 would be the best guess as to when all of it was collated. I suppose in my next letter to Mr.Peter O'Donnell I could ask him,unless someone else knows.

Hi Howard

On page 91, he first typed "seventy years since the Ripper cast his shadow" and then inked out the word "seventy" and amended the sentence by hand to read "eighty or so years which have elapsed since the Ripper cast his shadow." These dates would indicate that the page was originally typed circa 1958 but amended by Mr. O'Donnell anticipating publication around 1968 or so -- but when did Bernard O'Donnell pass away?

Chris

[Peter Birchwood]

It will be interesting to see how different or how alike the first parts of the ms (the O'Donnell sections) to the parts presumably penned by Vittoria Cremers.

[Peter Birchwood]

The thing that I have to confess is that I never paid much attention to RDS, finding him initially a somewhat unlikely candidate. Therefore please forgive me if this is nonsense and just by a little more study I could have found the answer myself but my question is:
Is there any proof that Bernard O'Donnell actually met Vittoria Cremers? Is the first mention of RDS as Black Magician in a work by Crowley and if so, when was that work published? If O'Donnell met Crowley, and there does seem to be some independent information that the two knew each other) could O'Donnell actually have pieced together the story after Cremers had died. Evidence in the ms does seem to show that it's written after 1940 and could be as late as 1958 by which time Crowley was also dead.
I would be interested to learn if I am completely wrong on this!

[Howard Brown]

Dear Mr.B:

Sorry to reply so late to this ! I'm swamped with so much stuff to do and just saw this.

Later on in the O.D., Mr.O'Donnell states that he knew Crowley and opined that Crowleys' poetry was above average in his estimation.

If I'm not mistaken,Mr. O'Donnell was taken to task ( or was it court ? ) for slandering/libeling Crowley....damn if I can remember the date right now.

I believe GCW mentioned this and that in addition,Crowley,despite this apparent temporary friction between these two men,Crowley might have called upon Mr.O'Donnell later on when the former was down to his last nickel...or shilling,if you will.

[teleman]

To begin, How you did a great job here and even tho some pages are a little smaller font wise, they are completely readable so don't worry about it.
I did find something interesting in the relating of the Kelly murder. He states that Dew told him that JTR had stacked the dresser, bed, etc. had been placed against the door and therefore this was the reason for their not immediately entering the scene. The information that I have read all states that the door was locked and that they used an axe to get through the door after the body was found. Is this correct or whazzup?:banghead:

[Von Schwantz]

but when did Bernard O'Donnell pass away?
Bernard O'Donnell died in 1983 in Teaneck, NJ.

This information can be found in Contemporary Authors Vol. 133 and Contemporary Authors New Revised Series Vol. 76. Only the year of death is given.

[Howard Brown]

VS:

Thanks for the information. I wouldn't have guessed Mr. O'Donnell passed away in the US....hmm...

[Von Schwantz]

Thanks HB, and I never would have thought O'Donnell died in 1983 and sat on the OD for 25 years.
Do you think it had anything to do with his son, Peter's, writing career taking off in the 60s with the creation of Modesty Blaise?




Do you see a similar tone to the two O'Donnell's respective creations (because I do)?

[Howard Brown]

V.S.

Amazingly or maybe not so amazingly, just yesterday when I was trying to track down what you kindly provided, I came across a link to Peter O'Donnell who mentioned that he fashioned his creation ... Modesty Blaise....after himself.

I have never read any of Mr Peter O.D.'s work so I am not qualified to guess if there is a hint of the old man in the son. I do know that Bernard O'Donnell used to take Peter to his Fleet Street haunts and workplace when O'Donnell fils was beginning his writing career. He's 88 years old now. I had attempted to contact him a year or so ago on an issue regarding the manuscript, but was advised that he was not in the best of health.

What do you think is a connection,V.S between the two? The style? The character development of individuals in the story?....and by the way,thanks very much for doing something on these threads. I'm glad someone has made an effort in reading the O.D. and wants to discuss it. Thanks buddy.:kiss:

[Von Schwantz]

Peter O'Donnell admits Modesty is his alter ego and likewise Bernard projects onto his Ripper suspect, one, a journalist named O'D and the other, a "journalist" named D'O. But I don't know if D'Onston cried on the shoulder of his sidekick and then pulled himself together to get back to his work.

[Howard Brown]

Thats good detective work for a guy on parole,V.S. I never made that connection ...the D.O and the O.D...or even the journalist part.

One thing that has never been discussed is the location of the original O'Donnell Manuscript. I can tell you that the version we have provided the community on this site is a copy of a copy. Mr. Harris, from one source, did not have the original. The same source mentioned that Mr. Harris noticed an alteration to the manuscript made by Mr. O'Donnell in reference to something D'onston states within the tome. Not sure if its a "biggee", but one of these days I'll put some effort into it and try and figure it out as well as where the original went. The guy who I was supposed to help is mad or irritated at me...so I gotta wait. For the most part, I take everything Cremers is credited with saying with not a grain,but a pound of salt. I mentioned that when I first read the O.D....I looked for several "things" within it ( such as any style change in the writing by Mr. O.D....references to practicing black magic...and references to financial sources on RDS's part...and some other stuff). The second time I read it, I marked down the Cremers absurdities, which in retrospect,I am certain Mr. O'Donnell recognized at once, if in fact they...uh...ever came from Cremers in the first place,if you get my drift.

Back to you...and gimme some harder stuff. Parolees are supposed to be tough guys. No more creampuff questions...gimme the hard stuff.

[Howard Brown]

It should be noted that there was a 40 year gap from the last time Cremers saw Stephenson....until she liased with O'Donnell.

Likewise, there was a 27 year gap between Cremers and O'Donnell to the construction of the document.

[Howard Brown]

In the chapter that Chris Scott is transcribing, Nemo mentioned the following, particularly the emboldened section :

" Among those who lived at No.29 Hanbury Street were John Richardson and his father. Richardson junior was employed in the despatch department at Leadenhall Market. He had to be on his job very early to ensure the distribution of meat to butchers throughout London and elsewhere.
At 4.50 on the morning of September 8 this young man arrived home from the market, having completed his early morning work. He at once went into the yard to make sure that the cellar door (which I have mentioned) was properly shut. This had been his regular procedure ever since the cellar had been broken into on two previous occasions.
More than once, he told the Coroner, he had come upon strangers in the yard and had ordered them out.
Richardson was emphatic that when he carried out this precaution on September 8, there was no body in the yard. This is important as at 5 a.m. in early September the light would have been sufficient for him to have seen it if it had been there. Nor is this all, for, as Richardson told the court, he sat on one of the steps leading into the yard whilst he cut from his boot a piece of leather which had been hurting him.
It can therefore be taken for certain that the yard was empty when John Richardson entered it just before 5 a.m. It was not empty three quarters of an hour later, however, when John Davis had occasion to go into it.

Most people seem to come down on one side or the other regarding Richardson and his presence in the back yard...he either did enter the back yard, saw nothing, and Chapman was killed at the time Albert Cadosch heard noises....or he didn't enter the back yard as he claims, and Chapman was dead around the approximate time Dr. Phillips determined she was murdered....

A third alternative is that Richardson did enter the yard, saw nothing, Chapman and The Ripper went into the yard a little later, and that Cadosch heard noises from another yard or noises from somewhere other than 29 Hanbury.


Mike Covell has provided a needed list of references to the Case that O'Donnell worked from, including Frederick Porter Wensley.

[Cris Malone]

Much of the part about Chapman came directly from the London Times, Sept. 11, 1888.

'...Intelligent observers who have visited the locality express the upmost astonishment that the murderer could have reached a hiding place after committing such a crime. He must have left the yard in Hanbury Street reeking with blood, and yet, if the theory that the murder took place between 5 and 6 be accepted, he must have walked in almost broad daylight along streets comparatively well frequented, even at that early hour, without his startling appearance attracting the slightest attention.
Consideration of this point has led many to the conclusion that the murderer came not from the wretched class from which the inmates of common lodging-houses are drawn. More probably, it is argued, he is a man lodging in a comparatively decent house in the district, to which he would be able to retire quickly, and in which, once it was reached, he would be able at his leisure to remove from his person all traces of his hideous crime. It is at any rate practically certain that the murderer would not have ventured to return to a common lodging-house smeared with blood as he must have been. The police are\ therefore exhorted not to confine their investigations, as they are accused of doing, to common lodging-houses and other resorts of the criminal and outcast, but to extend their inquiries to the class of householders, exceedingly numerous in the East-end of London, who are in the habit of letting furnished lodgings without particular inquiry into the character or antecedents of those who apply for them....'

[Caroline Morris]

More probably, it is argued, he is a man lodging in a comparatively decent house in the district...

...The police are\ therefore exhorted not to confine their investigations, as they are accused of doing, to common lodging-houses and other resorts of the criminal and outcast, but to extend their inquiries to the class of householders, exceedingly numerous in the East-end of London, who are in the habit of letting furnished lodgings without particular inquiry into the character or antecedents of those who apply for them....'

I don't suppose that will put an end to the modern notion that nobody there had a pot to pi** in, and that the killer was no different.

There may be no serial murderers to be found among the highly educated, the seriously wealthy or the hugely successful, but much the same surely applies at the very bottom, where survival is the necessary daily preoccupation.

I don't know of too many serial offenders who didn't have the wit to help themselves, by whatever means, to a life above the bread line, albeit an undistinguished one, no more than a few rungs up the ladder.

So I really don't see why it's so much more likely that the ripper was one of those who struggled to make it from one day to the next, and from one common lodging-house to the next (on a good night), than one of the 'exceedingly numerous' Mr Rigsbys, letting shabby furnished lodgings, or exceedingly numerous students, labourers and businessmen etc who must have applied for them and been accepted -- not for their undoubted good character, but because of their apparent ability to pay the rent on time.

Love,

Caz
X

[SirRobertAnderson]

There may be no serial murderers to be found among the highly educated, the seriously wealthy or the hugely successful, but much the same surely applies at the very bottom, where survival is the necessary daily preoccupation.

I think one of the very basic requirements to be a "successful" serial killer is to have access to at least a modicum of privacy. Sometimes we discuss how many butchers would have been working around Whitechapel at all times of the day and night, but I have a hard time believing that someone that kept showing up at their doss house bloody and reeking of fecal matter wouldn't be asked some hard questions at the very least.

[Dave James]

Hi Sir Robert, Caz,

Relating to your last posts, I came across this suggestion in the North-Eastern Daily Gazette, Wednesday, November 14, 1888.
Dave
(Still haven't got the knack of text after an attachment.)

Dave:

Try it now. Anytime you need help, don't hesitate to ask.
HB

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/September%202010%20Forums/dj.jpg

[Chris Scott]

I've just posted the next 12 pages (61-72) of chapter 1 to the other thread. This deals with the first part of the info about the Kelly murder.

O'Donnell accepts that the story of Kelly's trip to France may or may not be true - "Whether this story be true or false" - but among the "real facts concerning her" he lists not only her marriage to Davies the miner at the age of 16, seeming to accept that this is accepted fact, but also adds two further points which are not in the Barnett version of Kelly's life:
1) Kelly was widowed at the age of 19
2) Kelly had two children by the miner Davies
Any thoughts?

The passage in question reads:
"
while living with Barnett, she had related a colourful story of her earlier life before she met him. According to this narrative Kelly had at one time lived in a West End brothel where she met a "gentleman" who took her to France. One can only ponder why a life of comparative comfort should pall to such an extent that Marie returned to England where she eventually drifted to the East End to live a life of squalor.
Whether this story be true or false, the real facts concerning her are not without tragedy - as were the details surrounding the lives of the Ripper's other victims. At the age of sixteen she was married to a man named Davies by whom she had two children. He was a miner and lost his life in an accident underground, leaving his wife a widow at the age of nineteen. The rest of Marie's life story, and what happened to her two children was never discovered."

[Nemo]

He seems quite certain of the facts doesn't he?

I think also that the accident that befell her husband is usually described as an explosion, with no location, so it may have taken place on the surface

This text states that it was an accident underground

[Howard Brown]

He sure does,Nemo.

In one part of the first chapter, he mentions that...
.
"Up to a few weeks before her death Marie(Kelly) had been living in this poorly furnished room for which she paid 3s 6d a week."

According to John McCarthy, it was 4s/6d.

Regardless of the minor gaffe, he seems to know a lot of these sort of details.

[Cris Malone]

Despite the few gaffes, this is good reading and many Thanks to Chris Scott for transcribing it.

On Caroline's and SRA's comments regarding my post of the Times article of Sept. 11 - Your observations are exactly why I pulled that article out in relation to that part of the manuscript. Much to the dismay of the Hutch Kool-Aid drinkers and the cops were stupid crowd, the police tightened down hard on the lodging houses after the Chapman murder and this continued throughout the series.

These were the easiest places for the police to gain entry to search because - being public houses - they were more at liberty to enter them without a warrent as would be the required with a private residence. It is often overlooked, but the Metropolitan police were at Cooney's at 3 a.m. on the night of the double murder - just 1 and a half hours after Eddowes was found dead in Mitre Square! The press converged on these locations also as can be ascertained from the testimonials from the inhabitants at No. 32 'Flowery Dean'. Even though the Hutch folks claim that little notice would be taken of what someone brought in to cook or do whatever with in the wee hours of the morning, I find it very difficult for a killer of this type to conceal his comings and goings, and his 'trophies' in such a charged environment.

You are spot on, SRA, about serial killers needing a bit of privacy to relive their fantasies and certainly rid themselves of incriminating evidence. The history of such murderers since 1888 has taught us that, but there are more than a few who never learn a damned thing from history! They are too caught up in convoluted theories, disregard evidence and even throw practical common sense out the door if it conflicts with a favoured suspect.

One of my favorite books on this subject (and I don't have many) is Scotland Yard Investigates... but I must confess to being perplexed at Mr. Rumbelow's closing statement, where he claims that his chosen suspect is Timothy Donovan, Annie Chapman's lodging house keeper because he likely knew some of the victims and had a convenient place to clean up. Donovan died before the Kelly murder, but Rumbelow states that he doesn't believe Kelly was a Ripper victim. A woman who was the same class as the others, killed in the same area, during the same time period; her throat cut, uterus removed, the abdominal flaps removed in the same manner as Chapman's is dismissed because his suspect was dead?

He says Superintendant Arnold didn't believe Kelly to be a Ripper victim. What Arnold said was that Mary Kelly, the Mitre Square victim, was the product of the Ripper. It is true that Eddowes used the name as an alias, but all of the reports and the inquest had the name of Catherine Eddowes or Conway. Surely Arnold would have known that. It is just as possible that Arnold got the two women confused and meant Mary Kelly of Miller's Court, who was killed in Met territory.

At least Mr. Rumbelow admits to 'unreasonable instinct', because if he truely believes it, that is certainly what it is. We don't know who killed Kelly, but to dismiss evidence that does link her to the others because it would be contrary to a particular suspect is a classic example of the problem with suspect based Ripperology. Maybe Mr. Rumbelow meant this as tongue-in-cheek.... hope he did.

Excuse me for my rambling. I just started typing what was on my mind and have strayed off topic. Reading Colin's posts gets me wound up...LOL

[Howard Brown]

He says Superintendant Arnold didn't believe Kelly to be a Ripper victim. What Arnold said was that Mary Kelly, the Mitre Square victim, was the product of the Ripper. It is true that Eddowes used the name as an alias, but all of the reports and the inquest had the name of Catherine Eddowes or Conway. Surely Arnold would have known that. It is just as possible that Arnold got the two women confused and meant Mary Kelly of Miller's Court, who was killed in Met territory.


I never thought about it this way,Cris.
That is a possibility,isn't it ?

[Chris Scott]

The last section of Chapter one raised some interesting points.
These fall into two areas:
1) Very precise details of Kelly's room and its furnishing which I have not seen noted elsewhere. O'Donnell refers to:
On the mantelpiece, an oval mirror, a cheap alarm clock and two "trashy" vases
A tattered table cover
A wooden box used as a table
The wallpaper was gaudy and flowered
A paraffin lamp on the floor which had gone out
2) O'Donnell makes some claims which, in the light of what we know from other sources, would appear to be in error:
He claims that the door was barricaded with both the table and a chest of drawers from inside
The murderer left the murder scene by the window
The table beside the bed was in fact a wooden box used as an improvised table on which the sections of flesh had been placed - but the well known photo of Kelly shows clearly that the item of furniture beside the bed is an actual table with legs and not a solid box
Parts of viscera were hung not only on nails in the room but among the ornaments on the mantelpiece

Any thoughts?

[Nemo]

Sounds a bit fabricated to me

As far as I know there was only a candle stub on top of a broken wine glass as a possible source of light, apart from the fire

No mention of the tin bath or "Fisherman's Widow" picture etc

It makes you wonder how these details are first created and distributed

[Nemo]

I have seen an illustration in which the window was indicated as an escape route

When the door was opened, it banged against the table, no mention of a barricade as far as I am aware

[Chris Scott]

The other point I meant to refer to is an extremely odd one.
We know there was a delay after police arrived at Millers Court before Kelly's room was entered but O'Donnell states that permission to enter the room was not gained until 8 o'clock in the evening!

There was no 999 in those days and Superintendent Arnold had perforce to inform Sir Charles by telegram and await his reaction. There was none however! Sir Charles did not appear on the scene, nor did the bloodhounds, and it was not until 8 p.m. that night that Arnold received instructions from Scotland Yard to force an entry.

[Chris Scott]

Here are the sections that refer to the points I raised in my earlier post:

before leaving his mutilated victim - by way of the window - the Ripper had dragged a chest of drawers in front of the door, and then pushed the bed against this barricade to further hinder anyone trying to get into the room.

To the right of the door as one entered, was a fireplace, its mantelpiece adorned by an oval, fly blown mirror, a cheap alarm clock and a couple of trashy vases. A tattered table cover lay askew on the chest of drawers, while at the side of the bed was a wooden box which did duty as a table. The gaudy flowered wallpaper which bedecked this hovel was peeling from the walls in part, the whole place reeking of an unwholesome grime.

that the murderer not content with mutilating his victim, had draped some parts of the viscera so that they hung from nails on the wall, while others had been used as decorations in the ornaments on the mantelpiece.

On the floor lay a paraffin oil lamp which had either burned out or been knocked over

[Robert Linford]

Going from memory, I think the idea of the flesh hanging from the walls and the murderer leaving by the window entered the world quite early on - I think Inspector Moore told these details to an American journalist as early as 1889.

[Nemo]

I'm certain the fireplace was on the wall directly in front of you as the door was opened

[Howard Brown]

Robert:

Yes sir, it was Inspector Moore who said that. It may have been to R.Harding Davis....

[Howard Brown]

Chris:

Thanks for bringing up these details from the OD. Some I definitely remember, but others I neglected to list for future discussion as I read the manuscript from a different perspective.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the Forums ( or me) is indebted to you for creating a new interest in the OD in a way that I didn't or couldn't.

[SirRobertAnderson]

I guess what I'm trying to say is the Forums ( or me) is indebted to you for creating a new interest in the OD in a way that I didn't or couldn't.

Let me second that; this deserves an award for going beyond the call of duty. Actually, both of you do, but How owns this gin mill. The stuff you're bringing to the Forums is just amazing, Chris. Thanks for signing up.

The OD has always interested me because the author actually spoke to people that were alive when the crimes went down. When you consider how many crap books have been presented for our dining pleasure over the years, it's also amazing this one almost didn't see the light of day.

[SPE]

Chris:
Thanks for bringing up these details from the OD. Some I definitely remember, but others I neglected to list for future discussion as I read the manuscript from a different perspective.
I guess what I'm trying to say is the Forums ( or me) is indebted to you for creating a new interest in the OD in a way that I didn't or couldn't.

Yes, this shows great dedication and generosity on the part of Chris. I did congratulate How at the time on his persistence in obtaining a copy of the manuscript and getting it published online. If you recall How, I did say that I was surprised at how little comment it caused. Now readers have Chris to thank for all his hard work in transcribing and annotating it and giving it a new lease of life.

[Chris Scott]

Hi guys
many thanks for the comments but I am finding it fascinating:-)
I admit I'm biased in my interest in the Kelly case but I'm sure the rest will be gripping too
I should add that I am keeping each chapter as a separate text file so for anyone who wants a particular chapter as one file rather than having to cut and paste from the thread here let me know at chris.scott@btinternet.com
Please specify which chapter(s) you want
Here goes Chapter 2...
Chris

[Howard Brown]

Dear Stewart:

Thats the phrase I was searching for. Chris,indeed, has given the OD just that !

And of course you did note how minimal the discussion was over this manuscript. That was then..and thankfully,this is now.:thumb:

[Mike Covell]

I am pleased Chris has transcribed it, saved me a lot of work. I offered to transcribe it back in December 2007 but my offer was turned down. :thumb:

[Dave James]

Hi all,

I'd just like to echo everybody else in adding to the praise and thanks.

I'm going to start from the beginning again and compare the OD with McCormick (1970 paperback) and Rumbelow (1975), to see similarities and differences.

Thanks again,
Dave