Ripperologist # 103 June 2009

[Howard Brown]

Let me do the tough part and maybe Adam will come by and fill in the rest...

Issue 103 of Ripperologist Magazine June 2009 is here...!

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/rip20103.jpg

[Monty]

Guys,

For anyone who has read the latest Ripperologist magazine (103).

Attached is are some images connected to our (Rob and myself) article on City PC George Hutt.

The first is an exterior shot of Smithfield Market, taken from Farringdon Street C 1904. Those that have read the article will remember Hutt became a PC there in 1889.

The second is an interior shot taken in 1896. The eagle eyed out there may note the two Police Constables in the distance. Its possible one of the two PCs in the distance is Hutt as he was there until 1906.

Many thanks to Rob Clack for these fantastic images.
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Central20Market20Smithfield20Market.jpg

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/SM2.jpg

[Howard Brown]

Many thanks to Monty for supplying us with these photos. :kiss:

Hopefully by Friday evening,I'll have read the Rip,Neil...and so will Jon Rees. Then we can chew the cud on this issue.

[Howard Brown]

Would anyone care to comment on the extraordinary effort by Jonathan Hainsworth regarding the basis of the "drowned doctor" ?

I think it worth mentioning that Mr. Hainsworth has been interested in the WM for approximately and only 3 years.... Like Mr. Tim Riordan in his work on Tumblety, Mr. Hainsworth has provided us all with some exceptionally well thought out ideas on how we percieve Druitt based on the Griffiths/Sims literature.

What a terrific article...and being the greedy s.o.b. that I am, I hope to see many more from Mr. Hainsworth.:)

Don Souden's editorial...while written for real old people:) hits home. My youngest daughter used to think life,like television, was in black and white ( no color ) when I was her age.:banghead:

Either one of the two would be nice to start with unless someone else cares to discuss something else within this issue.

Thanks.

[Donald Souden]

Howard,

I am happy to report that Jonathan does have several more articles that he is working on for future publication. Indeed, since he and the entire school where he teaches just ended a Swine Flu quarantine he had plenty of time in which to work on them.

Otherwise, things are fine here at the "old folks home."

Don.

[Howard Brown]

Thats excellent news Don. Now if we can only see Gavin Bromley return to the scene:playball:

I thought Mr. Hainsworth's article demonstrated an extraordinary amount of effort in untangling the confusion about Druitt, who Mr. Hainsworth maintains is one of the three stronger police suspects...Kosminski and Tumblety being the other two.

He must have taken a lot of time in reading the various works on the matter of the drowned doctor all with an open mind. A very open mind.

Mr. Hainsworth's work should be something for the community here to discuss...or at least I'd hope so.

You touched on a couple of areas I can relate to as well,Don. Nice lead in to the Hainsworth article. By referring to how some,ahem,are getting on in their years, but gracefully I might add....the article on Druitt calls into question issues of Sims' memory as it relates to the WM.

I'm off to read the next article but hope others will chat up this issue of the Rip along with Don and myself...unless you..er...are too old and need your nap times.:)

[Chris G.]

Hi Don and Howie

I think it's interesting that Jonathan Hainsworth and Andrew Spallek have reignited interest in the drowned suspect, Montague John Druitt. Only a year or two ago, Druitt had fallen into such a deep funk that he had become a totally disregarded suspect. Now a clear spotlight has been shone on him, and it is all to the good for Ripper studies, I believe.

Chris

[Currerbell]

Those photos are really good, thats one helluva meat market...how on earth did you fit a few slices in ones shopping bag????!!!!

[Howard Brown]

Ditto that Bell..

C.G. You took the words out of my mouth. I neglected to mention that Druitt,as you stated first, HAS become more prominent in Ripperologist Magazine articles, yet less discussed....unless its in regard to Andrew's work or Mr. Hainsworth's articles....on the boards.

This issue is just another reason why everyone should support the Rip. I'm off to read Monty's article...and hopefully Jennifer's article too.

[Howard Brown]

In case anyone has read Neil Bell and Rob Clack's article on George Hutt...maybe some of you would like to chat it up. HINT.

Interesting article on Hutt...in particular on how what happened with him following 1888.

[Big Jon]

Just read Jennifer Sheldens article on anti diarism. Nice little summing up of how divided the diary world can be, and how it is its own worst enemy but I felt like it didn't really bring anything new to the table. Anyone could spend two minutes reading the Casebook boards and come to the same conclusion. Also ignores the fact that our corner of the diary world is very civil with disagreeing posters sitting down to the internet equivalent of a cup of tea and a biscuit while chatting about it, and not engaging in petty squabling.

And for the record - The Two Towers is the best Lord of the Rings film. Those battle scenes are epic!

[Howard Brown]

Also ignores the fact that our corner of the diary world is very civil with disagreeing posters sitting down to the internet equivalent of a cup of tea and a biscuit while chatting about it, and not engaging in petty squabbling. -Jon Rees


Which is the reason for the way WE conduct the Maybrick discussions here,Jon. Maybe in the future,the fine folks at the Rip will remember to mention ( Hint...:)) how JTRForums handles the whole Maybrick Saga.

I'm going to set up an alternative thread for this issue relative to Scott Nelson's article on Sagar...which I think has some definite research possibilities.

[Mr. Poster]

I'm a fairly reasonable man but I am afraid J.Shelden's article in teh Ripperologist has really toasted my flakes.

Some of the stuff that gets my goat:

The impossibility of the Diary’s historical existence prior to the late 1980s is another point on which most anti-diarists agree firmly.

What impossibility? One cannot just throw something like that in and expect people just to sit there and not say "Hang on a sec....". Its shoddy work.

Even shoddier when followed by:

The Diary enters a blurrier territory with its potential to have been created at any time and our ability to prove this being somewhat limited (for whatever reason).

Which, in teh context as laid out by the author, is of course impossible given the statement that preceeded it.

Maybe I am reading it all wrong and its all terribly clever and requires thinking about or something? In which case I admit my mistake but to my non-native eyeballs its all very odd.

But this is nonsense:

Further complicating things, Diary supporters are often better off financially than are anti-diarists and, as they are also often authors of books, academics or film producers, they are able to get out their message to a wider audience much more readily.

Feldman was not exactly Cecil B. DeMille and if one adds up all the books produced by "anti-diarists" it would seem to me that it is anti-diarists who are often authors of books or even academics. Its just cheesy.

And of course not mentioned is the fact that not only does "anti-diarism" fail to get its message across...it succeeds quite well in alienating all Ripperology and making a complete turd out of itself by ranting and raving and trolling internet sites and treating academics who won't say what anti-diarists think they should say like idiots, and hounding people off web sites and writing odd letters to dying men, and being full of bluster and froth and still, 20 years later, failing utterly to produce one plausible candidate as the author or even a half plausible versiono f how the thing was achieved.

I could go on but why bother....

p

[Robert Linford]

"our corner of the diary world is very civil with disagreeing posters sitting down to the internet equivalent of a cup of tea and a biscuit"

Jon, when I read something like that I just know the roof's going to fall in. :)

[Chris G.]

"our corner of the diary world is very civil with disagreeing posters sitting down to the internet equivalent of a cup of tea and a biscuit"

Jon, when I read something like that I just know the roof's going to fall in. :)

I'm still waiting for my cup of tea and a biscuit. :rolleyes:

Chris

[ferret]

Mr Q will be in with them, on a tray with a nice lace table cloth:tape:....when Matron goes to the next dorm ...hehe x

[Chris G.]

Mr Q will be in with them, on a tray with a nice lace table cloth:tape:....when Matron goes to the next dorm ...hehe x

I hope Matron will be round to tuck me in. . .

Chris

[Big Jon]

"our corner of the diary world is very civil with disagreeing posters sitting down to the internet equivalent of a cup of tea and a biscuit"

Jon, when I read something like that I just know the roof's going to fall in. :)

I like tempting fate.

All orders for tea and biscuits should be made to Howard by 10am on week days, and he delivers them personally while dressed as a maid.

[ferret]

Oh 'Tuck'!! yes sure she will as soon as lights are well and truly OUT!:kiss:

Right back to the matter in hand!!!!!...

To bed me now with the WS88 mag! no tea ....no bickies.......Matron Where's mi tuck???!!!!!! xxx

LOL xxxxx Great image there Jon!...not sure I can sleep now!!! :)

At least The Ripper Code isn't going to mess with my head another night!

[Paul]

I thought the premise of the article, that the anti-diarists had failed to get their message across, was itself questionable. Since it appears that hardly anyone actually believes that the diary is genuine, the anti-diarists would seem to have got their message across quite succesfully.

But, Mr P, the anti-diarists don't have to produce a plausible candidate as the author or produce even a half plausible version of how the thing was achieved, it is only necessary for them to stack up the evidence that the thing is a fake, and that's what the anti-diarists have done (the handwriting isn't Maybrick's, the ink contains a 'modern' preservative, the text contains words and phrases not used in Maybrick's day, and so on). What weakens the anti-diarist case is that the pro-diarists usually respond with some counter argument which, good or bad, dilutes the strength of the pro-diarists argument. Then the anti-diarists react as you have so ably described.

[Archaic]

Could somebody please define the terms "pro-diarist" and "anti-diarist" for me?
Do you each really mean the same thing every time you use one of those phrases?

The gist of the mega-argument nowadays seems to be not
"Was James Maybrick the Diarist and the Ripper"
but
"Who created the diary, When, How & Why?"

So if someone thinks the diary has its origins, say, c.1895 or c.1930,
are they called an "anti-diarist" or a "pro-diarist"?

What if they lean towards one of the above dates as a 'creation date'
but suspect the diary was 're-penned' c.1990?

These are totally random dates & scenarios.

I'm just trying to clarify what I see as an ongoing semantic problem
that might be exaggerating a relatively minor
"Diary-divide" until it expands to resemble the Grand Canyon.

(and eats us all) Thank you, Archaic

[Mr. Poster]

Hei Archaic

After a few years of Diary threads you will come to a point of enlightenment....after that you will know that "anti" and "pro" are more indications of positions taken as opposed to beleifs about the diary or its origins.

In general, "pro's" are not pro-diary but are open to discussion, would like to see work done towards identifying authors etc etc. Being "pro" does not imply any beleif in Maybrick having written it.

Being "anti" means one is part of a lunatic fringe who feel that it shoud not be discussed at all and if it is, will do ones damndest to hijack such discussion.

That used to be achieved via fairly in your face methods such as spamming threads and with purple dragons although over here, where its much more civilised, you will notice signs of the tactic such as stating that the case is closed because, for example, two words just could not hav ebeen used together prior to some arbitrarily chosen data or due to th eEnglish being bad.

And that is it. In a nutshell.

p

[Paul]

I'd only add that at one time pro- and anti- did actually mean people who believed the diary was genuine and people who believed it was a fake. This extreme polarisation should never have come into existance because people should have been investigating the diary with an open mind, not with a preconceived conclusion, but it was and is inevitable that people need to be motivated to undertake time consuming and sometimes expensive research. So it was that Paul Feldman, for personal reasons feeling an empathy with the diarist, came to believe the diary was genuine, and Melvin Harris believed that the diary was a fake and that the likes of Feldman and Shirley Harrison were profiting by duping a gullible public. This polarisation meant that the diary was seen as either genuine or penned by Mike Barrett post 1987 and anything in between was not considered. There was a lot of nastiness - and I tend to share Mr P's view that it was primarilly caused by the anti-diarists - but at least these days the diary can be discussed sensibly without anyone who doesn't tow the anti-diarist line being hysterically shouted down.

[Adam Wood]

Ripperologist Issue 103
June 2009

Editorial: The Age Old Question of Old Age
By Don Souden

The ‘Drowned Doctor’ Red Herring
Jonathan Hainsworth takes an in depth look at Montague Druitt and the Macnaghten memoranda.

Inspector Robert Sagar and the City of London Police Raid on the Bull Inn Yard, Aldgate
By Scott Nelson

How Could Anti-Diarism Fail?
By J. D. Shelden

“Wot ‘Cher!”
By Suzi Hanney

City Beat: PC 968 George Hutt
By Neil Bell and Robert Clack

Press Trawl
Chris Scott returns with more snippets of news from the 19th century

Reviews:
Jack the Ripper, Andrew Cook
Jack the Ripper: Webster’s Timeline History 1838-2007
Dust and Shadow, Lyndsay Faye
E1: A Journey Through Whitechapel and Spitalfields, John G. Bennett
Square Mile Bobbies, Stephen Wade
London Lore, Steve Roud
Kent Murders, Linda Stratmann

Subscribe now! 6 all-colour issues to your email address each month for just £12. Please send payment via PayPal to contact@ripperologist.biz

[Howard Brown]

Mr.B:

During the time that the site was down today...I watched the Michael Winner-directed documentary with you,Mr. Evans and Doc Fido in it that dealt with the Maybrick Diary & Watch and wondered what your feelings were at this point in time about the use of the phrase "one off" which Mrs. Harrison pointed out had been found prior to the 1934 date that the OED claims it first appeared.

That is,if you aren't too busy with captions.

Thank you.

By the way...

Thanks to Woody for putting up the three covers for the last three Rips.:kiss:

[Paul]

Hi Howard,
The OED records the first known usages of words in print and I am given to understand that some words and phrases can be in common useage for years before they make it into print, so I've never been particularly worried by the use of 'one off' in the diary - by which I don't mean that I am unconcerned by it; of course it is something I've always considered as part of the evidence against the diary having been written by James Maybrick. What I mean is that it is something on which I have to accept the conclusion of people qualified to comment, and, as I've said, my understanding is that 'one off' could have been used in common parlance long before it made it into print. A decisive conclusion one way or the other would be great, but, as with so much about the diary, either the question has not been asked of those qualified to comment, or it has and the conclusion isn't as decisive as one would would like.

[Howard Brown]

Thanks for the reply,Mr. B...and sorry for the slooooow acknowledgement.

Anyone else care to discuss the stories and material in this month's issue?

[SirRobertAnderson]

Could somebody please define the terms "pro-diarist" and "anti-diarist" for me?
Do you each really mean the same thing every time you use one of those phrases?


I think a reasonable analogy is to that of a desert isle, where the few survivors of a great naval battle have washed ashore, nekkid save for a few rags. One team has an hourglass, and the other a little gunpowder. We are intent on finding, and eating each other.

Sometimes we feel we are being watched, but the feeling soon passes.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Archaic,

The divide, as others have touched on, seems to have settled over the years into: anti: post-1988 fake with one or both Barretts knowingly involved, no possible alternatives = smart versus pro: considering more than just one possibility until more information emerges = gullible and/or crooked.

Not since the days of Peter Wood and Feldy have I seen anyone sincerely claiming to believe that the diary must surely be the genuine work of James Maybrick aka Jack the Ripper. I'm sure Shirley is personally pretty convinced of it, and has tried her best to make a case in her books (which her readers are free to judge accordingly), but she has never felt the need to keep drip-feeding us her convictions or bashing us round the head with them, as if this would somehow gain her some much-needed support.

So I don't really get the ongoing anti-diary 'cause', for all the world as if there are hundreds of poor souls who need a daily cattle prod to stop them drifting straight off into rabid pro-Maybrick mode. The cause was won when the first little boy pointed out that the dirty diary wasn't wearing Maybrick clothes and sobbed to his nanny that it was out to get him. I hate it when politicians patronisingly tell us, when they fail to get public support, that they simply failed to 'get their message across' to the great unwashed, and will take measures to make it clearer in future - presumably a stronger cattle prod, put down as a necessary expense and charged to the taxpayer. There's never any allowance made for the message itself being the problem and not fooling the voters.

If anyone really feels that their 'anti-diary' message (however they are defining it) is not getting through after this long, and requires ever more inventive measures, presumably because the previous daily/monthly/yearly repetition of the same old mantra was, for some peculiar reason, not considered to be working (on whom??), then maybe it's time to ask themselves who the message is actually aimed at and how many, and why one is even considered necessary. If it's only for Shirley, who very rarely sees the message boards anyway, what's the point and why is she seen as such a threat?

What I find strangest of all are the various attempts over recent years, using sophistry, spin, misinformation or downright lies, to misrepresent me as a Maybrick 'supporter'. You'd think people would be happier to leave me flying my own brand of hoax flag than to set me up as an invented opposition for them to knock down.

Anti-Diarist's Lament

Every day upon the board
I imagine a diary-supporting broad.
She isn't there again today,
I'll die the day she goes away.

Love,

Caz
X