|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3156
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 10:03 am: | 
|
Jack the Ripper: The Forensic Profile
Trevor Marriot
Hardcover 288 pages (April 2005)
Publisher: Blake Publishing Ltd
ISBN: 1844541037
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 362
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 15, 2004 - 11:24 pm: |
|
Trevor Marriot... Why does that name sound familiar? Oh wait, that was that the guy who did that lecture in the UK that got some press coverage (some of it mangled so different papers had him saying contradictory things) back in the spring or early summer. OK.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1233
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 3:28 am: |
|
Thanks for the info,Stephen.Will look out for the book.
Natalie |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1424
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 11:29 am: |
|
Dan,
I think you are correct.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3544233.stm
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 548
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 11:57 am: |
|
I hope he caught that 12 minutes misunderstanding so it doesn't make it into his book.
Dave |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2276
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Well, besides his correct statements about the Duke of Clarence and the Royal family, I think he's right in two things, at least (then I don't necessarily agree with some of his deductions):
1. "More than one person probably carried out the murders attributed to Jack the Ripper"
True. I think this is almost definitely the case, if he means that not all of the so called "canonical" victims were killed by Jack.
2. "Most of the main suspects put forward aren't worthy of being classed as suspects."
Absolutely true.
3. "Some of them have been hyped up by publicity and media over the years to suit their own means."
True again.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 384
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 1:10 pm: |
|
Beats me how on earth anyone can claim to define a profile on someone when all you have to go on is the remains of his work, AND you have no clue as to which victims are truely assigned to him and which are not.
If his deductions are purely based on Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes, he may have something to contribute, if he includes any others - t'aint worth the paper it's written on.
Regards, Jon
We talk of things as wrong or right, or clear as night and day.
But life is rarely black and white, but multiple shades of grey.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2277
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 2:09 pm: |
|
Jon,
I completely agree with you.
I don't know if his book is based on profiling as such, though -- could be that the title may be misleading, but in any case you are of course correct.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Antonio Ruiz Vega
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 7:29 am: |
|
Finishing my own book about the Ripper, (THE TEN BELLS TAPES), in spanish (Im spanish), I agree with Marriot: more than one killer. But I think it´s so obvius ¿or not?. V.G. The two men seen by Schwartz near Liz Stride, or the two different weapons on Martha Tabram. I think Marriot has discovered the Mediterranean Sea... ¡O God! If I could find an english editor for my book... (first, a good translator). |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3224
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Mr. Marriott has sent the following scan of his book - apparently the title has been changed slightly from what is reported on Amazon and elsewhere.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1977
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
More like:
'A Top Murder Squad Detective
Finally Makes Some Money'. |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 841
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 18, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
So does that double helix on the cover imply that he uses DNA fingerprinting to "uncover the truth"?
Or will this be another case of the publisher having to add a sticker at the last minute saying "or maybe not"?
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on April 18, 2005) |
Christian Jaud
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 1:58 am: |
|
Hi all,
Mr. Marriott comes to the conclusion that JTR must have been a sea merchant, arriving in and departing from London on a vessel from one of the docks close to Whitechapel.
He names a few possible ships (according to the dates of the murders).
He suggests that JTR could have been a German sailing from Bremen or Hamburg.
He admits not to be able to actually name one suspect, but gives himself credit for having opened this "new" direction of investigation which should be followed in the future. However he fears that all the other standard but discredited suspects will live on in books and discussions.
The book didn't throw me off my feet but also isn't a complete "Cornwell". But that's just mho.
Christian
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 634
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 2:23 am: |
|
Hi Christian,
Oh, that's interesting. I'm glad to hear that the rumor I had heard about his suspect was wrong. I don't know if that person had confused it with the suspect in the other book that's supposed to be coming out in April (no, not the Uncle Jack one, the other other one, there are a lot coming out around now) or if he just took a stab in the dark based upon earlier clues and guessed wrong.
A sea merchant sounds very plausible to me (though it's kind of broad to be an actual suspect). The bits about there being more murders is also something I could believe. Wolf got Ripper Note's review copy of the book, so I'll probably have to see about buying a copy myself when it comes out.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1425
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 11:37 am: |
|
Hi Christian
Thanks for that. By "sea merchant" do you mean more properly, in English, a merchant seaman?
I wonder if Mr. Marriott has researched the topic enough to know that the idea that idea that "Jack" was a seaman was extensively discussed in 1888 and onward, to the extent that specific ships (e.g., the Portuguese cattle boats) were discussed even then? I am not sure why he would particularly pick on ships going to Germany, however. I would say he deserves some credit for reviving the theory that Jack could have been a sailor but most certainly not for originating the idea!
All my best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on April 19, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Christian Jaud
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisjd
Post Number: 117
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
yes "merchant seaman" is the correct term.
Was at work and typing from fading memory.
best wishes
Christian
Habemus papam Bavariam
Some may consider JP II to have been progressive in comparison :-(
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 521
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 19, 2005 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Somewhere, Edward Knight Larkins is smiling (and perhaps wondering if he shouldn't get some of the royalties -- though, to be sure, he was convinced it was Portugese seamen).
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3231
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 3:21 pm: |
|
Jack the Ripper: The 21st Century Investigation
Trevor Marriott
John Blake Publishing, 2005
ISBN 1-84454-103-7
310pp., illustrated.
Trevor Marriott is a described on the book jacket as a retired “Murder Squad” detective, with experience in both the Criminal Investigation Department and Special Branch over his long and varied career. Though until recently he was not particularly well-known among Ripper circles, Marriott explains that he’s been interested in the Whitechapel Murders since he attended a Screaming Lord Sutch concert in the 1960s. One of their songs at the time was a moderately successful tune titled “Jack the Ripper.” This subject of that song immediately piqued Marriott’s curiosity, and for years afterwards he devoured whatever books and articles he could find on the case. Once he retired and found himself with some time on his hands, the ex-detective decided to apply his own skills and experience to the century-old mystery. The result was Jack the Ripper: The 21st Century Investigation.
Marriott offers some new (and perhaps startling) theories and insights on several aspects of the crimes, such as the “missing” organs allegedly taken away by the killer and the piece of apron discovered in Goulston Street. Although Marriott agrees that organs were in fact removed from Chapman and Eddowes, but he feels there is no proof that they were taken away by their killer. Instead, he suggests they were removed sometime after the murder and before the medical examination – probably by a mortuary attendant who intended to sell them to medical students or anatomists. Marriott cites Coroner Baxter’s comments about the American anatomist who offered outrageous sums for uterine specimens as proof that there was a burgeoning trade in such ill-gotten organs.
Even more startling is Marriott’s conclusion that the piece of blood-stained apron was not left there by Eddowes’ killer, but rather Eddowes’ herself. According to Marriott, it is much more likely that the apron piece was torn off by Eddowes and used as a makeshift “feminine device” during a recent menstruation. How to explain the fecal matter also found on the apron? Marriott seems to suggest that Eddowes could have used the Goulston Street archway as a toilet soon after she disposed of the blood-soaked rag.
Intriguingly, there is one bit of new evidence discussed in this book which Marriott claims (and he seems to be right) has never been published before. Sometime in 2004 he discovered “several official documents, including a statement taken by Sir Charles Warren from a person who claimed to have information on the murders.” Unfortunately Marriott refuses to reveal where he found them, or who currently owns the documents - “to avoid unwelcome intrusion from Ripper enthusiasts” – but he does offer a brief description of the contents of the statement given to Sir Charles Warren. According to Marriott the statement was dated 3 November 1888 and was given by a man named Charles De La Ree Bott. He stated: “Regarding the Whitechapel outrages they may have been committed by perhaps 20 persons with some connivance. There is no necessity for immediate action, they are stopped for the present unless they occur again for mere bravado.” Warren himself described Bott as “an educated man who has studied hard, and appears to have eccentric ideas, though he is probably not a lunatic.”
Certainly this is not an “earth-shattering” document, but its revelation here is both encouraging and upsetting at the same time. Its always a thrill to see proof that there are indeed more documents out there waiting to be discovered, but at the same time this seems to be just more proof of the rampant theft and souvenir-collecting performed on the official records in the days before proper cataloguing and archiving were achieved by the PRO. One can only hope that the other pilfered and “misplaced” documents have been as well-preserved as this one, and that someday they will be returned to their rightful place in the archives.
Finally, in the last seventeen pages of the book, Marriott arrives at his theory as to the identity of the Ripper, but for seasoned students of the case this will be a bit of a let-down. Marriott says he has long suspected that the killer was a merchant seaman, but he errs signficantly when he says that this is a “new” theory. In fact, the “merchant seaman” theory is one of the oldest theories, put forth first in November 1888 by a clerk in Her Majesty’s Customs Statistical Department named Edward Larkins. Larkins himself believed there was more than one Ripper, and that they all worked on Portuguese cattleboats which regularly traveled between Oporto and London. (Queen Victoria herself shared similar suspicion, asking in one of her letters to the Home Secretary, “Have the cattle boats & passenger boats been examined?”)
Nevertheless, Marriott lists several ships which were in London at the right time, noting that many of them were German in origin. Unfortunately he was unable to pin-down a specific person, let alone a particular ship, as the surviving records were few and far between.
On the whole, Jack the Ripper: The 21st Century Investigation is a good read and obviously well-researched, though a few slips have been made here and there. For some reason Marriott repeatedly states that “eight months” elapsed between the murders of McKenzie (August 1889) and Coles (February 1891), and he mistakenly suggests (p. 203) that the doctors who examined the Ripper’s victims did not look for the presence of semen (they did, though in Victorian parlance they referred to it as “evidence of connexion”). Scotland Yard also did not “officially close” (p. 303) the case within two months after the Kelly murders.
In terms of the book itself, it should be noted that while the text totals some 310 pages, nearly half of those pages are filled only with contemporary inquest testimony and coroner’s reports, reprinted verbatim and often in their entirety. While interesting in themselves, particularly to new students of the case, these reports have been published numerous times elsewhere and the reader gets the impression that these were used here more as filler material than to illustrate any specific point the author wished to make. Without these reprinted documents, the book would probably weigh in at only 150-160 pages of original text.
Marriott’s most interesting insights are made in his discussions of modern police methods of investigation, including DNA, fingerprinting and crime scene analysis. He goes into some detail on how these methods would have been used today, had the Ripper crimes occurred in modern times. Had that been the case, Marriott is sure the killer would have been apprehended.
In sum, Jack the Ripper: The 21st Century Investigation provides a good overview of the victims and suspects, as well as a few interesting new theories in relation to the missing organs and the Goulston street apron. The discovery of the “De La Ree Bott” statement is particularly intriguing – not so much for the content of the documents, but rather for the mystery surrounding their discovery and current owner(s). Those who are new to the case would likely find the extensive reprints of inquest testimony and coroner’s reports enlightening, but those drawn in by the dust-jacket's promise - "A Top Murder Squade Detective Finally Uncovers the Truth" - will probably be more than a little disappointed.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 918
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
Thank you for an interesting review.
at the same time this seems to be just more proof of the rampant theft and souvenir-collecting performed on the official records in the days before proper cataloguing and archiving were achieved by the PRO. One can only hope that the other pilfered and “misplaced” documents have been as well-preserved as this one, and that someday they will be returned to their rightful place in the archives.
Is it clear the documents discovered by Marriott have been pilfered from the PRO?
If so, doesn't that place him in a rather equivocal position?
Chris Phillips
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3232
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:03 pm: |
|
Hi Chris -
There is no specific indication made in the book concerning the nature of the documents or their origin, but the general impression given is that these documents were found in the library of a collector. Obviously I'm not suggesting the current owner is a thief by any means - collectors can legitimately purchase documents such as these once they hit the ephemera market - but I think its a safe assumption that at one time, these particular documents were removed from their rightful home at Scotland Yard/PRO.
Its certainly a grey area. One of the best books I've read in the past several years (A Gentle Madness by Nicholas Basbanes) dealt with this very same issue in the rare-book world. Collectors of rare and unique manuscripts are either heroes or villains depending on who you talk to. Some feel that without private collectors, these important manuscripts would be lost forever - thrown away by people who just didn't know any better. Others argue that collectors themselves are to blame for rampant theft of manuscript material, that their "need to own" created the market for the stuff when it should all be housed in publicly-accessible libraries.
My own feeling is that there is of course a place for the private collector, especially in a niche area like Jack the Ripper. This person in particular should be lauded for at least sharing their material with Mr. Marriott. In a perfect world, perhaps he/she would make these documents available to be stored on microfilm or in digital format so other researchers could make use of them, but such is life.
As I said, it is both exciting and frustrating at the same time.
(Similar discussions have taken place here in previous years, many related to the rumour that a private collector somewhere in North America owns the original "From Hell" letter, which was lost many decades ago.)
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3233
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
The relevant passage from the book reads:
quote:Before leaving the subject of the Ripper letters, I would like to mention briefly some new documents that I came across in 2004. I was always of the belief that there are still case papers and documents relating to these murders which have not seen the light of day since Victorian times. During my researches, I was fortunate enough to come across several official documents, including a statement taken by Sir Charles Warren from a person who claimed to have information on the murders. To the best of my knowledge, these have never been made public. The discovery of these documents added weight to my suspicion that there are yet more in existence and still to be examined.
I have examined these original official documents, so I know they are genuine. I am not going to reveal how I came to do so, or divulge the full contents of the identity of the holder of the documents, to avoid unwelcome intrusion from Ripper enthusiasts. However, I have reproduced a small extract from one of the documents.
The assumption being that this person owns more official documents related to the Ripper crimes than just the "Bott" statement.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Thanks Stephen for that tactful and edifying review, gracious aswell, considering the author's comments. Are we not all students of this case to different extents....
I usually have no critisism for the authors but I am very dissapointed by this 'modern' book. Modern methods of corporeal forensic enquiry are of limited relevance unless they actually apply and the author's conclusions are very disspointing when one takes into account the unlimited access to Special Branch.
People might be interested to know that both Commissioners Anderson and Monro were very prolific in their dismissal of Larkin's 'boatmen' theory, and in 1991, Anderson filed him away as a jackass and a timewaster: ' His theories have been tried and tested and they have been proved untenable and worthless and it is a mere waste of time attempting to deal with him on the subject.'
Hardly a breakthrough! |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2020
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Stephen
I don't think I need to expand on my feelings about this volume; or the blatant theft of important documents from files by serving police officers. Too many big names there.
It is a cop, so it is a fair cop.
The name 'Charles de la Ree Bott.' is compelling.
Who has a handle like that?
Bott is actually quite common, and we have a serving police divisional surgeon from that exact period called Bott, but at least he had the common decency to call himself 'Henry'.
We also have an Inspector Bott from that time period, but the whores probably called him uncle Charles.
The part in the name that doesn't seem to work is the 'de la ree', surely this should be 'de la ray' or even 'de la rai' or even 'de la hay'?
I think we should examine this cop's notebook.
I reckon it would be 'de la hay'.
By the way we still await the two ex-copper's publications - Scotland Yard of course - where they have stolen files concerning the Cutbush family and plan to make a lot of money from it.
Over my dead brandy bottle that is. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2300
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
Even more startling is Marriott’s conclusion that the piece of blood-stained apron was not left there by Eddowes’ killer, but rather Eddowes’ herself. According to Marriott, it is much more likely that the apron piece was torn off by Eddowes and used as a makeshift “feminine device” during a recent menstruation. How to explain the fecal matter also found on the apron? Marriott seems to suggest that Eddowes could have used the Goulston Street archway as a toilet soon after she disposed of the blood-soaked rag.
?????
It might be worth getting this book to read more about this idea alone. I mean, 
well, I won't go into what I mean, but hell, thats an interesting idea to say the least.
Jenni
"It's time to give a damn, Let's work together come on"
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 351
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:24 pm: |
|
Dear Steve.....
Thanks for the mentioning of Mr. Marriott's opinions on the GSG and Mrs. Eddowes apron.
With all due respect to the opinions,Eddowes left Bishopsgate Police station...goes to Goulston Street...deposits this erzatz sanitary napkin...and then goes back to Mitre Square..thats a real zig zag journey for someone who was afraid of getting a "hiding"...she's all over the place.
Not only that....but its rather crude to assume she left her knife-ripped apron/napkin in someone's entranceway.
Not our Kate...
Another brief note: Women ordinarily cease having their menstrual cycle [ period ] around the age of 45.
Eddowes was 46 and 1/2 years old.
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 844
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Hi Stephen and Chris,
Yes, it would be great if Trevor Mariott has found lost information. If that's true, he really should be congratulated. But there's a question of methodology, isn't there? What good is evidence that can't be examined? A copy of the document could have been provided without divulging anyone's identity. In works of non-fiction, why on earth should readers have to rely on any author's word? What does he mean, "I have examined these original official documents, so I know they are genuine"?
Dave
PS Doesn't Mr. Mariott know that Eddowes had a number of cloth strips on her person that she could have used for a sanitary napkin/toilet paper instead of ripping up a perfectly good apron? |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 352
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Dave.
I hear you. Not only that,but the apron found was knife-ripped.
Explain that,Mr. Marriott.
Kate was released from Bishopsgate Police Station with a knife?
Not our Kate. |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 846
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Hi Howard my buddy,
She did have one didn't she? But it was blunt.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Busy Beaver
Detective Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 72
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Trevor is launching his book in Edinburgh, on 9 May 2005, 7.30pm with a public meeting at the David Hume Tower, University of Edinburgh. Tickets are £6 and can be bought at the door. The launch also includes a talk by the author on JTR.
Busy Beaver  |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 353
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 11:06 pm: |
|
Dave...
Yes she did and it was blunt. I suppose she could have ripped off a sizeable hunk o' that apron...but as you stated,she did have strips of cloth on her person.
I just took a little umbrage at the idea that she "attended" to herself as Mr. Marriott suggests. He is obviously entitled to saying what he feels is the reason for the apron's discovery.......the jerk.
How |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 602
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 12:46 am: |
|
I enjoy watching the phenomenon of the ever-shrinking Ripper. First the black bag went. Then the letters. Then the graffiti and the Lusk kidney. Stide, of course. Kelly, too. The latest trend has been the organ removal. I suspect the last thing to go will be the red-neckerchief because Jack will be a Boy Scout in another ten years, helping little old ladies cross the Whitechapel Road. If Neill Cream wasn't documented, I'm sure the FBI profilers and their cronies would tell he never really could have existed. |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 354
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 10:19 am: |
|
Rajah...
Ever hear of a murder skein where organs disappear like in this one ?
Mr.Marriott is not the first to suggest that the apron was discarded after being used in a hygienic capacity. Mr. Des McKenna postulated that the apron was used by the Ripper [in an old Ripperologist number 26,page 37, Dec. 1999] for another form of self attendance.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1865
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 10:39 am: |
|
How,
I realise that this image has tickled your fancy somewhat,but I myself have wondered the opposite-could Jack have been using the apron to attend to HIS toilet given the effect committing two murders in under an hour might have on a persons
ability to control body functions?
Natalie |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 537
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
|
Stephen,
The merchant seaman theory may have even been part of the "conventional wisdom" before Larkins. Several of the London newspapers mentioned the cattle-boat possibility in their initial stories about the Kelly murder. Whether they had already been approached by Larkins about his theory or it was already an idea that was floating around is uncertain as they gave no attribution. In any case, that JtR was a sailor on vessels making regular stops in London is hardly new.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3234
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Trevor Marriott has been kind enough to answer several questions in relation to his investigation and the theories put forward in his book. This interview is now available on the Casebook at:
http://casebook.org/authors/interviews/int-tm.html
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Joanne Simons
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 11:39 am: |
|
Mr marriots theory does not revolve around cattle boats or anyone connected to such boats. So in itself it is a new theory and the way he documents his investiagtion showing positive proof of only a small number of boats being in London on the dates of the murders. he states that at any one time there were around 250 boats docked in the various London docks all having a crew between 40 -80 men thats a lot of boats and a lot of crewmen. For him to have narrowed it down to a handful is a feat in itself. If he could do it now after all these years why coulndt the police at the time have done the same thing ? Thre doest seem to be much in the way of corrooborative evidence to support the cattle boat theory. |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 355
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Dear Natalie
What you have been pondering is what Mr. McKenna theorized back in the 1999 article.
Anything's possible I suppose...
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 851
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 3:57 pm: |
|
I enjoyed the interview, Stephen. Thanks to you and Mr. Marriott for providing it.
I really disagree with some of what he says, particularly about providing a copy of this document he's seen. And while criticizing the great unwashed masses for hugging pet theories in the face of sensible evidence to the contrary, he still clings to his Goulston Street Toilet scenario.
Also, if Eddowes had relieved herself in the doorway, why didn't Long find evidence of that (some might argue that Long stepped in it anyway). And if she had relieved herself a few hours previously, why is there excrement at the crime scene?
By the way, I've checked the relavent section of The Eddowes Diaries, which is a collection of rags stitched together to form a loose book. Please don't ask how I obtained it, it's not for anyone to know. Just trust me that it's authentic (ahem, I'm a diary expert). Note what Eddowes says in relation to toilet practices:
September 30, 1888 12:43 am
Wish that old c*ck of a constable would hurry up and let me out. Oh well it gives me a spare mo to spend with you, old diary of mine. I am so late. Mister Kelly is going to be furious. I'll swear I will never drink again but he won't give a tuppence for that. Mister Kelly might go soft if I bring him a shirt or his boots, maybe. That's what I'll do, it'll only take a few jobs. I've got to drop a deuce wicked bad, but I'll just have to hold it for now. I don't mind. Oh good here comes the constable. L8tr, dear diary, old pal.
Clearly, my documentation shows that Eddowes had NOT relieved herself and had no intention of doing so.
In jest,
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on May 01, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 417
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
We should, IMHO, be VERY cautious about relying on documents that we have not seen and cannot verify.
I am not saying that the document in question is NOT genuine, but even a scan or a photograph could conceal a forgery. If the document is in Warren's handwriting, the original needs to be seen to check transcription (not least the unusual name as AP rightly points out).
I also have considerable concerns about the author cashing in on what has to be a stolen document (unless it is a rough draft akin to the Macnaghten Memorandum copy seen by Farson, which then raises its own questions about the reliability of a copy). We are surely all aware of the move today to restore stolen works of art from WWII to Jewish and other owners. Museums are surrendering items they paid for in good faith, because ignorance is seen as no excuse.
I would also cite the trade in Egyptological and Mezo-American art and artefacts to wealthy collectors (often Americans) it is illegal.
Now is not a new JtR document, not least one penned by warren himself akin, for us at least, to an ancient work of art? Should we not be registering a protest about this use by Mr Marriott - a former policeman who should surely no better - to his own financial gain?
As for the authors views - a sailor it might have been, but as for the apron scrap, I suspect he does not know london well and is reaching for anything new. I think even in 1888 the police would have recognised the inevitable difference in staining between a rag used in one way and/or as toilet paper; and a rag used to clean a knife or hands.
Nice to know that Mr Abrahamson (remember him) has company.
Sorry to have ranted on,
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 923
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Dave
L8tr, dear diary, old pal.
I feel very hesitant about accepting the Eddowes diary as a genuine Victorian document.
You may not have noticed, but I think the word "L8tr" is an anachronism in this context.
Of course, I can't absolutely disprove the theory that Eddowes may have had an extreme mental aberration, and written down these four characters by pure chance - their later use (in something which I'm told by young people is called "texting") being one of those spooky one-in-a-billion coincidences.
And I admit that Mrs Enid Strobes of the Basildon Needlewomen's Circle has given it as her "expert opinion" that the stitching together of the rags "certainly" indicates that the artefact is "at least a number of several tens of decades old".
But I still have my reservations.
Chris Phillips
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 852
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Yes, coincidence is possible if you care to go that route. My own opinion is that texting in Victorian times while unlikely, is still a remote possibility which should be considered. Unless you can prove that it was never used? Ever? I prefer to keep an open mind, sir.
You know what? It really is more fun to just make stuff up. In the case of Mr. Marriott, I certainly believe he has actually come across this document, which I have no idea is authentic or not. I hope he changes his mind and works to bring it to the light of day, or if it's too good for the general public, at least help make it available to other researchers (I'd like to hear what Mr. Stewart Evans thinks), people who know a thing or two about these kinds of records.
Cheers,
Dave |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 925
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Dave
Yes, on a more serious note, I thought the interviewer's suggestion that the document could be scanned while maintaining the anonymity of the person holding the document (I won't say "the document's owner") would at least be an improvement, though still far from ideal.
Chris Phillips
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2025
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
It is a rum deal and I prefer brandy.
All the great fraudsters of the LVP adopted French handles, we have the great and grand Lord de la Haye who was in and out of court for publishing great mounds of dung in 1875; and, well just too many for me to bother with.
What I did wonder about this new expert.
Did he ever investigate one case of murder?
I just find it funny that he thinks it must have been a visitor to our shores that did it.
Almost like he is a LVP cop himself, for they too thought that no Englishman could have done such an un-English thing.
It must have been a wog straight off a cattleboat.
This guy is setting us back a clear hundred years.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1866
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 6:26 pm: |
|
AP....and talking of great mounds of dung...did Thomas Cutbush roll around in mud or dung?I wo nder!His mother and Aunt had the vapours over him arriving back home at 3,4,5 am covered in brown stuff...what exactly was this?
I wonder did he do this to conceal the blood stains and maybe his own faecal matter?
I reckon you are probably right about the Trevor Marriott.So far it all sounds like a shot in the
dark!
Thanks Howard for that information.Will look it up!
Natalie |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3235
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 6:32 pm: |
|
Hmmmm, now I'm a bit sorry I raised the point about the origin of these documents.
Since I penned my original review, I've been told by people who would know that there are perfectly legitimate ways for such official documents as these to enter private hands, and that there's no reason to suspect they were ever stolen or otherwise inappropriately obtained.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3236
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 6:48 pm: |
|
A bit late, but I just now saw Howard's post about the McKenna article. Excellent catch, I'd not remembered this one.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3425
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 6:49 pm: |
|
I must say -- in all due respect to Mr Marriott -- that I give very little credence to his interpretations, considering his experience in the CID.
Based on the interview, he is in my view quite careless with certain details regarding the murders.
He questions the deal with the taking of the organs, by asking why there was "no organs removed despite the fact that she [Nichols] was killed in similar circumstances as later victims".
Well, to begin with she was NOT mutilated to same extent, something that Mr. Marriott forgets to mention.
This more or less suggests that the killer was either disturbed (most reasonably by Charles Cross) or else that he still was not experienced enough in his method.
If Nichols was mutilated to the same extent as Chapman or Eddowes I could see his point, but since she wasn't -- and "only" had a gash from where the intestines just about managed to protrude -- there actually is a reasonable explanation to why her organs were not taken -- he simply didn't manage to open her up enough (for whatever reason; time or inexperience)!
Then, regarding the medical knowledge of the killer and the insufficient light -- he also does the fatal mistake as many others, namely to take for granted that the killer knew what he was after! We simply don't know this!
His conclusions regarding the apron is horrific, to say the least and quite illogical. I still can't see why there would be faecal matter on the piece if it only was used for menstruation. Blood yes, but matter? I am still waiting for a valid explanation on that one.
One very simple reason for why the killer took a piece of the apron instead of wiping of his hands and knife directly on the site, could be that he might have heard a sound or someone approaching and therefore found it necessary to leave as quickly as possible! This simple deduction does not apparently hit Mr. Marriott.
I do agree with him about Tabram and Stride, though. I also agree on that there are strong indications on that the police possibly were set in certain directions when they investigated each murder and that they suffered from inexperience in handling cases like this.
As for his "suspects" I think he has a good point; there is a pattern, as far as I am concerned, regarding the dates of boats docking in London and bank holidays -- his research in this regard is no more invalid than many other ludicrous theories littering the case (and God knows there are many).
However, I think much points at a local man with rather good local knowledge of the area, but that in itself does of course not rule out a boat traveller; he could have been born and bred in Whitechapel just the same.
Mr. Marriott makes a rather big deal out of, that many of those who delivers opinions in the Ripper case are armchair detectives, but I am afraid I have seen much better and more logical fact interpretation from some of those than Mr. Marriott. He also forgets that a couple of the more distinguished ones actually have long experience in the police force themselves!
But OK, I think it would be fair to at least read the book before one comes down too hard on some of his points. It shall be noted that the above is based o the facts revealed in the interview. But that is telling enough to some degree.
Anyhow, I am not convinced.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 01, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 926
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Stephen
Since I penned my original review, I've been told by people who would know that there are perfectly legitimate ways for such official documents as these to enter private hands, and that there's no reason to suspect they were ever stolen or otherwise inappropriately obtained.
I realise that in British practice the ownership of official documents was sometimes a grey area.
Nevertheless, I couldn't imagine any legitimate objection to your suggestion that the documents could be scanned and made available for the use of legitimate researchers, without compromising the privacy of the document holder.
Chris Phillips
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 853
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 7:11 pm: |
|
Hi Stephen and Chris,
I get you, someone could have come across this quite honestly. But it seems to me Mr. Marriott owes more to his readers than "I have examined these original official documents, so I know they are genuine". I admit I haven't read the book yet, so please correct me if he does go into more detail about why he believes them to be authentic. What would be the standard practice in the CID?
Why can't the owner can keep his anonymity (I understand the need for privacy) and still provide a copy of the document as well as a provenance?
Until that happens, people who have been burned in the past (like we have), will remain skeptical because secrecy implies shadiness.
Dave |
Joanne Simons
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Mr Marriot says she may well have used the archway as a toilet and discarded the apron piece either before her arrest or after her release. that could have been for urination purposes only. Wasnt the rag described as being wet and bloodstained and smeared with faecal matter. Why cannot we accept this as being a plausible
explantion ? After all his thoughts on the accpted theories about the rag are equally plausible its time to perhaps change our thoughts about some of the theories.
Why should he have reason to lie about the document after all its not really taking us anywhere again some wont accept the truth even when its staring them in the face. Iwonder how many have actually taken the time to read his book ? |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
