Paul Begg
January 14, 1997
Just a few paragraphs about yourself; your career, family, history, etc.
The dull bit first, eh? Okay, let's be brief. I've worked in newspapers,
advertising, television and publishing, and became a freelance writer in 1979
following the publication of my first book, *Into Thin Air*, which was an
investigation of mysterious (and mostly historical) disappearances. Since
then I have authored and co-authored six books, written numerous articles and
features for magazines in the UK and US, and for the last few years have
concentrated on writing about and reviewing computer software.
I wrote *Jack the Ripper: The Uncensored Facts* (1988) and conceived the idea
for and sold *The Jack the Ripper A to Z*, which I researched and wrote with
Martin Fido and Keith Skinner. I have also contributed to many TV programmes
on the Ripper: *Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper* (1988, historical
advisor), *Sightings* (appeared on and advisor), *The Diary of Jack the
Ripper* (appeared on and advisor), *Crime Monthly: Jack the Ripper Special*
(appeared on and advisor), among others.
I'm married, have one daughter and as a result of work I have lived in
various parts of the country. I currently live in Kent, where I think I'd
like to stay. And that is probably enough about me.
1. How did you first become involved/interested in the Whitechapel Murders?
I was never *involved* in the Whitechapel murders because I wasn't born when
they took place - but I'm being facetious. I have long been interested in
historical mysteries and Jack the Ripper is an historical mystery.
Serious interest was sparked in 1979 after reading *The Identity of Jack the
Ripper* by Donald McCormick. I remember buying that book in Lears Bookshop in
Cardiff and I still have it on the shelf in front of me as I write this. It
is now one of well over thirty books - more if you count the various editions
- on that shelf. Ripper novels are stacked underneath, along with videos and
audio tapes. Then there are copies of the Police and Home Office files,
newspaper reports, assorted other documents, boxes of papers, and a
filing.... well, the material has expanded considerably since I picked
McCormick's book from the shelf in Lears.
I then read other books as and when they appeared, notably Dan Farson's *Jack
the Ripper*, Robin Odell's *Jack the Ripper in Fact and Fiction* and, of
course, Don Rumbelow's *The Complete Jack the Ripper*. However, over the
years I realised that accounts contained errors. Not only did the authors of
Ripper books take their information from each other and in this way
perpetuated errors, but even contemporary sources got things wrong. In *The
Uncensored Facts* I give the example of a witness called Charles Cross. Some
sources get his name right, others call him George Cross (as did *The Times*
newspaper in 1888 and it has most recently been repeated by Richard Wallace
in *Jack the Ripper: Light-Hearted Friend*) and William Cross. There was
clearly a need to return to contemporary sources and establish the facts.
It was also clear that as the number of theories about the Ripper's identity
proliferated, so did the discussion about them. This meant that accounts of
the crimes themselves decreased. For example, only one-fifth of Don
Rumbelow's book actually discussed the crimes! I felt there was therefore
also a need for a book which concerned itself less with the theories than
with the crimes, the police investigation and contemporary reports.
I set out to write such a book and *Jack the Ripper: The Uncensored Facts*
came into being. The word *Uncensored* was added by the publisher. I thought
and still think my working title *Jack the Ripper: The Facts* was better, but
I wasn't going to argue. Getting a book published about the Ripper is tough
enough without quibbling about a word and I was happy to be among the band of
published Ripper authors.
2. What types of research have you done into the case, and what would you say
were some of your most impressive or surprising findings?
That's a tough question because it is difficult to divorce my work from that
of my colleagues on the *Jack the Ripper A to Z*, particularly Keith Skinner,
who made a lot of his original research available to me when I was writing
*The Uncensored Facts*. Also, as Keith is the first to admit, actually
finding the information is only one half of the battle. The other half is
interpreting and using it. Whether the material is old or new, you gain
insights when discussing and debating it with others, so again a lot of 'my'
work owes much to other people with whom I have listened and chatted with.
I think the discovery I'm most pleased about was finding the medical records
of Ann Druitt (Montague John Druitt's mother). The reason is that I regard
Keith Skinner as an excellent researcher and he had gone looking for the
papers and inexplicably failed to find them. I'm therefore quite proud of
having found something he missed. Also, those papers introduced us to one
another, resulted in Keith making some of his unpublished research available
to me, and in the long run led us to collaborate with Martin Fido on the *A
to Z*. And I am proud of that book.
Between the three of us we have identified two of the three Macnaghten
suspects, namely Kosminski (found by Martin Fido) and Ostrog (identified by
Keith and myself). We have located documents such as James Monro's
unpublished memoirs (found by Keith) and some of Abberline's memoirs (me),
plus loads of newspaper and magazine articles shedding light on the crimes;
and we've found and were the first to publish a number of photographs, such
as Dr. Bond, George Lusk (I am very pleased with that), Wynne Baxter, and so
on.
I think the thing I am most proud of, however, it that *The Uncensored Facts*
and subsequently the *A to Z* built upon Don Rumbelow's book and paved the
way for the kind of serious Ripper research which is reflected in books like
Phil Sugden's *Complete History...* and Evans and Gainey's *The Lodger*. I
think this *serious* approach helped create the climate for *Ripperana*,
*Ripperologist*, the Cloak and Daggar Club... and maybe even the Casebook.
And, of course, *Ripperana* and more recently *Ripperologist* have provided a
much needed outlet in which people can publish tit-bits of information, new
thoughts and ideas, and the odd theory or two. Thus, in recent years we have
seen the emergence of some great researchers like Andy Aliffe, Simon Wood,
Paul Daniel, Nick Connell, Mark King, Ray Luff, Neal Shelden... so many that
it seems unfair to single some out for mention. Also, some lesser known
people who have maybe done no more than make an eye-opening observation here
and there. In the last few years these people have done excellent work, made
valuable contributions to our store of knowledge and increased the demand for
historical accuracy.
3. Two of the most instrumental works on the subject were penned (either in
full or in part) by you -- *Jack the Ripper: The Uncensored Facts* and *The
Jack the Ripper A to Z*. In your opinion, what sets these two works apart
from the myriad of others on the market?
That's a question readers should perhaps ask themselves, but both books deal
with facts, neither pushes any personal theories and as far as possible both
are unbiased. The latter is obviously a reference book, but from the reader
feedback I have received it would seem that although people enjoy the former
as a clear narrative of the crimes, it is also extensively used as a quick
source of reference by people wanting to know what was happening at such and
such a time or how an incident fitted into the broader investigation. This, I
think, distinguishes it from similar books like Philip Sugden's monumental
and excellent *The Complete History of Jack the Ripper*. This is
unquestionably a 'must have' for any library of Ripper books and if you
haven't got it, go out and buy it right now!, but it differs from *The
Uncensored Facts* in that Phil Sugden indulges in a lot of theorising,
argument and speculation. This means that *The Complete History...* explores
alleys and byways ignored by *The Uncensored Facts*, but it also makes the
book more of a reflection of Mr. Sugden's interpretations and much less
useful as a quick and handy reference.
4. Which suspect(s), if any, do you believe are most likely to have been the
murderer, and why?
Robert Anderson, the Assistant Commissioner C.I.D. at the time of the
murders, three times stated that the identity of Jack the Ripper was known -
it was 'a definitely ascertained fact' - and that the murderer was a Polish
Jew who escaped being brought to justice because he was committed to a mental
institution. Chief Inspector Swanson, who had overall responsibility for the
Ripper investigation, gives tacit support to Anderson and identified
Anderson's suspect as a man called "Kosminski". I am convinced that
"Kosminski" was Aaron Kosminski - in my opinion a decisive pointer to that
identification is Anderson's statement that the suspect indulged in 'utterly
unmentionable vices', which corresponds with the 'self-abuse' referred to in
Kosminski's medical notes (and, incidentally, to the 'solitary vices'
attributed to 'Kosminski' in the Macnaghten Memorandum).
There are problems in accepting that Aaron Kosminski was the Ripper, notably
the fact that he appears not to have been identified until 1891 and also his
non-violent behaviour in the asylum. Neither really gives me a problem. As
discussed in an IRC session in December 1996, is there any reason for
supposing that a serial killer has to be violent when in prison or in an
asylum? And, while the date may devalue the worth of an eye-witness
identification, I'm sure that point would have been fully appreciated by
Anderson and Swanson at the time. Also, we don't know what other 'evidence'
the police had against the suspect - and they obviously had 'evidence',
because they wouldn't have taken him for identification without a reason for
doing so.
So, here we have the head of the CID and the senior investigating officer
both saying that the Ripper's identity was known - was 'a definitely
ascertained fact'. I think their suspect has to be top of the suspect list,
*has* to be the prime candidate for further research. I don't know whether he
was Jack the Ripper, but Anderson clearly thought so. We may never know why
he was so certain, but Anderson probably knew more about this case than I or
anyone else does, so I think we should listen to him with care and
consideration rather than flippantly dismiss him as a liar or wishful
thinker.
What is very important for me is the consideration that Anderson and Swanson
would have known the evidence against *all* the most serious Police suspects.
They'd have known the evidence against Ostrog, Tumblety, and even George
Chapman (assuming he was ever a real Police suspect). Now, both men thought
that Kosminski was the most likely candidate. If you think about it, even if
they were wrong, even if their conclusion was based on flimsy evidence, what
does their conclusion say about the evidence against other suspects? I mean,
if Anderson knew all about the evidence against, say, Tumblety, he still
thought Kosminski was more likely to have been the Ripper. This inevitably
devalues Tumblety as a suspect. Anderson may have been wrong about the Polish
Jew, his evidence may have been no good, but he nevertheless thought it
better than the evidence against other suspects.
5. How do you view some of the most recent entries into the Ripper scene:
specifically the Maybrick, Barnett and Tumblety theories?
I am interested in each of these theories. I really liked *Jack the Ripper:
The Simple Truth* by Bruce Paley, but I am not persuaded by the argument
against Joseph Barnett. The police back in 1888 were not stupid and suspicion
then, as now, inevitably falls on the person closest to the victim, so I'm
sure Barnett was suspected and was interrogated very closely. He evidently
satisfied the authorities. I also have difficulty accepting that Barnett
would have done what the Ripper did just to keep Kelly off the streets.
I have outlined my thoughts about Tumblety in the previous question. He is an
interesting character and advanced as a suspect by a very solid source,
Littlechild, and there certainly seems to have been a serious UK Police
surveillance in the US which isn't altogether satisfactorily explained by
Tumblety having skipped bail when charged with indecent assault.
Nevertheless, as said above, Anderson would almost certainly have known all
about Tumblety, yet he rejected him in favour of the evidence against
Kosminski. Until Kosminski is dismissed as a suspect - and I have yet to read
a reasonable and realistic case against Kosminski - I don't think the case
against Tumblety can be made. Yes, he was a suspect, but so were dozens of
other people and we know the police entertained very serious suspicions
against several of them.
As for Maybrick, I was one of the first people to see the Maybrick Journal
and, unlike most of the people who comment on it, I have met and talked at
length with most of the participants - from the owner Mike Barrett and his
ex-wife Ann through to the authors Shirley Harrison and Paul Feldman. I am
and always have been of the opinion that the Journal is a forgery, although I
eagerly await Paul Feldman's forthcoming book to see if his arguments will
modify my thinking. However, at the outset I asked three questions: who
composed it, when did they compose it and why did they compose it? Those
questions have *not* been answered.
There are people who will say these are questions which don't need answering.
They have made up their minds that the Journal is a forgery and as far as
they are concerned it can be thrown out with the potato peelings and
forgotten about. I do not agree. In fact, one of the strongest reasons for
continuing research into the Journal was given in *The True Face of Jack the
Ripper* by Melvin Harris, the most outspoken and vitriolic critic of the
document. He wrote: "But unfortunately every hoax contaminates the fields of
honest research, even if it is exposed. Like the Clarence hoax this one will
not die overnight. Its time-wasting stupidities will linger on to dog
historians for years to come." He's right. We have to clear away the dead
wood in order to see the living trees, which is exactly why we have to show
who composed the Journal, when they composed it and why they composed it.
Frankly, I am also intrigued by the possibility that, if a forgery, the
Journal isn't a modern forgery. And if it isn't a modern forgery, I wonder if
it just might reflect a genuine tradition which linked Maybrick with the
Ripper crimes. Maybe a local journalist heard the rumours and wrote the
Journal as the foundation for a few newspaper articles (much as Melvin Harris
has suggested or shown was the case with the psychic Lees). Or perhaps
someone heard the rumour and planned to blackmail Michael Maybrick?
6. In recent years it has become popular to reconsider the victim status of
both the canonical five and lesser-known "victims." While both Stride and
Kelly have been discounted by some to varying degrees, others such as Tabram,
Coles, and McKenzie have been "upgraded" by others as definite victims.
Which, in your opinion, were bona fide victims of Jack the Ripper, and why?
Walter Dew thought Emma Smith was the first Ripper victim. Anderson seems to
have included Tabram. McKenzie might have been a Ripper victim too. Coles
almost certainly wasn't. Neither was Pinchin Street. I have my doubts about
Stride, but it depends on a lot of considerations. I'm not sure about Kelly.
But who knows!
7. How do you respond to complaints that "Ripperology" as a field has become
sullied by greed and infighting, especially since the controversy over the
Maybrick diary?
For decades it has been commonly stated that "Ripperologists" go for each
other's jugulars at the drop of a hat. In my experience this simply isn't
true. Indeed, it is about as far from the truth as one can get. *The Jack the
Ripper A to Z* is compiled by three people, each of whom had written their
own books about the Ripper and reached different conclusions. We couldn't
work together if we kept on going for each others throat. Donald Rumbelow
wrote the introduction to the *A to Z* and during our research very
generously made his files available to us. We have also had the support and
assistance of other Ripper writers, among them Colin Wilson and Richard
Whittington-Egan. Others, like Stewart Evans, Shirley Harrison, Paul Feldman,
John WIlding and Melvyn Fairclough trusted us enough to make their
work-in-progress known to us. So, as I think all this demonstrates, there
really isn't any in-fighting and the generosity shown to me by other writers
on the subject shows there isn't any greed.
It is true, however, that considerable unpleasantness has been generated by
the so-called Maybrick Diary. In my opinion the unpleasantness is largely the
responsibility of one author whose sincere belief that the Diary is a modern
forgery has led him to wage a campaign against those who think differently.
Unfortunately, he has adopted an arrogant, aggressive, rude and downright
offensive manner in his correspondence and in some published writing and this
has alienated quite a few people.
It has also been claimed that efforts have been made to prevent books from
being published, films being made and so on. I simply cannot condone this
sort of censorship. And worst of all, various allegations seems to have been
made which have struck me as outrageous, some even bizarre! Overall, though,
most Ripper people are friendly and helpful, and a visit to a Cloak and
Dagger Club quickly demonstrates that there is a lot of good, basic common
sense about.
8. Is "Ripperology," in your opinion, a field which is slowly drying up as
far as the possibilities for new leads goes, or do you think there is still a
wealth of information to be discovered?
There is a lot of material 'out there' just waiting to be discovered. The
Holy Grail of Ripperology at the moment, I suppose, is a photograph of
Abberline - and America might be the place to find one because Abberline
worked for the Pinkerton Detective Agency when he retired from Scotland Yard.
Could the Pinkerton's files have a 'photo?
Other things waiting to be discovered include the item in a South American
journal or newspaper on which Leonard Matters claimed to have based his Dr.
Stanley story. And we could do with knowing more about Chief Inspector Thomas
Byrnes of the New York Police who is mentioned in the New York World (4
December 1888) as having deployed two men to keep an eye on Tumblety's
lodgings. Did Byrnes publish any memoirs? Did Byrnes keep any documents and
were they passed down to his living descendants? Were there any notable crime
reporters who may have kept a record of the stories they covered? Are there
any Federal records concerning the Ripper or Tumblety or Florence Maybrick?
And what about the Jewish emigrants from Britain to America. I noted in the
*Uncensored Facts* that Philip Kranz - who was working on his newspaper at
the back of the Berner Street Club when Stride was murdered - emigrated to
the United States and became editor of *Arbeter Zeitung* in New York.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if he took with him photographs of the Berner Street
Club? Maybe even a shot of the Club's members - could we actually get a photo
of Louis Deimshutz? But what about a photo of Kranz himself? Did he ever
write about his life in Whitechapel? Leave descriptions of the Club, of maybe
the night when Stride was murdered? All this information awaits discovery and
to the best of my knowledge hasn't even been looked for.
So, yes, there is a lot of stuff 'out there' just waiting for somebody to
find. It might not be material leading us to identify the Ripper, but it
nonetheless very valuable material - and the worst of it is that a lot of it
could be destroyed forever if we don't find it soon.
9. Where do you see Ripper-research five years from now? Ten, twenty, fifty?
What would you say is the single most important aspect of this entire field
which should be focused upon and scrutinised in coming years?
Ripperology has matured from a pick-a-suspect-and-make-the-facts-fit game
into an area demanding serious historical research. While this has made the
subject perilous for the unwary and has maybe taken the fun out of it for
those who enjoy the theorising and speculation, the focus on hard factual
research should and probably will continue.
I hope *Ripperana* and *Ripperologist* will expand and perhaps even become
professional (in the sense of news-stand) publications. They really do
provide a very valuable service as a vehicles in which people can make their
discoveries public and where assorted other information can be published.
Moreover, in providing this outlet, both have helped foster the serious
Ripper historian.
To be specific about areas which I think we should concentrate research
effort, this rather depends on where the potential researcher is located.
Overall, though, I think the focus of attention has to be on Aaron Kosminski.
In 1996 I bored the Cloak and Dagger Club to the point of rigor mortise with
a dull and over-long examination of the arguments against Kosminski (those
put by Martin Fido, Melvin Harris and Philip Sugden) and the reasons why I
advocate him as the primary candidate for investigation, and I have probably
made Kosminski an unwelcome guest in this interview too, so I will say no
more.
10. Can this case eventually be solved? Furthermore, do you think the
majority of people involved in the study truly desire it to be?
I doubt that the case will ever be solved to everybody's satisfaction, but it
is quite possible that information will come to light which will convince the
majority. As to whether people actually desire it, I really don't know. I
don't think they do.
