Jack The Ripper: 'non-fiction'

[dem bones]

How many murders did Jack the Ripper commit? Did he even exist or were the brutal slayings connected merely by geography? Who really sent the 'Dear Boss' letters? What goes on in the minds of those ghouls who stare transfixed at that last, appalling photograph of Mary Kelly and her mutilations (discovered by Donald Rumbelow, fact fans) in something akin to religious ecstasy? Was Prince Eddy the Monster of Glamis? Dr. Jekyll & Sister Hyde: fiction or dramatic reconstruction?

Lord Froggy and James Doig have already posted some covers on the recent finds thread, and there have been a phenomenal amount of author's who've claimed to identify the Ripper down the decades (usually to have their pet theories slashed to pieces on publications by fellow Ripperologists whose own books have received the same treatment).

Some, uh, 'favourites' to get things going.

Stephen Knight - Jack The Ripper: The Final Solution. A bizarre, extremely convoluted conspiracy nailing Sir William Gull, John Netley and Walter Sickert as the Ripper trio, galvanised into action over a pathetic blackmail plot by the Whitechapel prostitutes who've learned of Prince Eddy's "secret marriage". The Final Solution has been discredited as a factual work by just about every big hitter on the Ripper scene, and Knight hardly helps himself with his fluid approach to 'facts'. In short; totally unbelievable and my absolute favourite.

Paul Begg, Martin Fido & Keith Skinner - The Jack The Ripper A To Z: (Headline 1991, 1994, 1996, 2007?). A new edition was announced for 2007 but i'm not sure if it happened? Whatever, it's always best to get the latest edition of the A-Z to catch up on the state of play as new theories are forever joining and falling off the bandwagon, and you want to keep abreast of the more plausible/ most rubbish ones. And doesn't that 'Free Admission to the London Dungeon with this book' enticer look like it somehow belongs on the cover?

Maxim Jakubowski and Nathan Braund - The Mammoth Book Of Jack The Ripper (Robinson, 1999; new edition 2008). The first edition. The second replaced certain items with, in my opinion, slightly less essential essays and didn't contain anywhere near as much amusing bitching. Use in conjunction with the A-Z, and you've a fabulous introduction to the murky world of the Ripper authors, if not the Whitechapel Butcher himself.

Leonard Mathers - The Mystery Of Jack The Ripper: Cited as the first 'Ripperologist' (Mystery ... was first published in 1929), Mathers' finger-pointing at the mysterious 'Dr. Stanley' has been loudly pooh-poohed by Donald Rumbelow and the curmudgeonly Melvyn The Bloody Truth Harris who accuse him of peddling fiction. From this you might assume that Mr. Mathers' book reads like an exciting pulp novel (see also Knight's The Final Solution which virtually invented the Michael Slade approach to crime-writing), and you'd be right, but it's also very well researched given the means at his disposal. Later commentators, notably Dennis Meikle in his excellent Jack The Ripper: The Murders & The Movies (Reynolds & Hearn, 2002), argue that Rumbelow & Co., have done this eminent Australian journalist a huge disservice. Who knows? I love his book and that's all that matters to me.

Donald Rumbelow - The Complete Jack The Ripper: Bit of a dilemma with this one. The Star editions have the ace fancy dress fun & games covers, but the later Penguin (ditch-water dull packaging: i swear they do it to show off how serious and important the content is) is updated and includes more of Rumbelow's thoughts on Ripper fiction which you'll most likely want to read (Robert Bloch's Night Of The Ripper gets an awful coating).

J. E. Brewer - The Curse Upon Mitre Square: A wonderful piece of tosh rattled out by Brewer even as the murders were being committed. Brewer blames it all on the unquiet spirit of Brother Martin, a mad monk who in 1530, mistakenly murdered his sister on the altar steps of Holy Trinity Priory to curb his lustful thoughts. According to Brewer, the man committing the Whitechapel Murders is just the latest hapless soul to be demonically possessed by the maniac. Doesn't make it into the pages of the A-Z, so presumably the authors are trying to dismiss it as fiction.

[chastel]

Big part of Ripper "non-fiction" is either fiction or slanders... You mean there IS Ripper non-fiction? Seriously, though, someone should novelize Dr Jekyll and Sister Hyde and take a new print of Hands of the Ripper! Those were WONDERFUL movies!

[dem bones]

i agree with all of that. Ripper literature seems to operate in a twilight world between 'fact' and fiction unless, of course, it's the superlative Dr. Jekyll & Sister Hyde which solved the mystery once and for all. Such a shame that one never received the novelisation treatment, preferably from Michel Parry who did such a neat job on Countess Dracula.

[allthingshorror]

Avon (1968)



MARY KELLY HAD A CALLER

The wretched hovel which Mary Kelly called home was about twelve feet square and sparsely furnished. To the left of the window was a fireplace above which hung a cheap print. It was the room's sole attempt at decoration. In the far corner an open cupboard revealed a few bits of crockery, some empty ginger-beer bottles, and a crust of bread. From there the eye travelled downward to the bed, which was the chief article of furniture in the room.

Upon the blood-soaked mattress lay a raw mass of human flesh that had once been Mary kelly; and the ultimate horror was laid out on the table beside the bed. Between bed and table Jack the Ripper had performed an operation, a cold blooded experiment in anatomy which for sheer horror is unsurpassed in all the annals of crime.

There were bloodstains even on the wall. There were even bits of flesh hanging from the picture-frame nails.

[ripper]

I would recommend Jack the Ripper: The Facts by Paul Begg as another very good introduction to the JTR murders.

Knight's "Final Solution" is quite entertaining if you don't take it seriously. Also, if you're into the royal conspiracy, take a look at Melvyn Fairclough's "Ripper and the Royals." It takes the royal conspiracy theory a bit further by suggesting that Prince Albert Victor did not die in 1892, but instead was whisked away to Glamis, where he spent the rest of his days, and there's a photograph in the book purporting to be PAV in middle age at Glamis. Highly entertaining and great fun!

[dem bones]

Nov 26, 2012 14:10:36 GMT ripper said:

Knight's "Final Solution" is quite entertaining if you don't take it seriously. Also, if you're into the royal conspiracy, take a look at Melvyn Fairclough's "Ripper and the Royals." It takes the royal conspiracy theory a bit further by suggesting that Prince Albert Victor did not die in 1892, but instead was whisked away to Glamis, where he spent the rest of his days, and there's a photograph in the book purporting to be PAV in middle age at Glamis. Highly entertaining and great fun!

It seems that Melvyn Fairclough has since come to the conclusion that his 'was Jack the Ripper the Monster of Glamis?' theory doesn't stand up to close scrutiny on account of much of Joseph Sickert's testimony being "confused" - as if anyone's bothered about hard evidence at this late date.

Melvin Harris (1930-2004) wrote at least three corkers, Jack the Ripper: The Bloody Truth, The Ripper File and The True Face Of Jack The Ripper, arguing the case against a Prince Eddie/ Royal conspiracy while serving up Aleister Crowley's prime suspect, R. D'Onston Stephenson, as the Whitechapel Monster. Paul Begg, Martin Fido & Keith Skinner are lukewarm about him in The Jack The Ripper A To Z, warning the reader that, while his work is meticulously researched, "his occasional postulation of other writers' thought processes can be wildly wrong and actually conflict with impeccable written evidence, and his indignation when he believes he has perceived chicanery may lead him to make demonstrably unjustified assertions."

[pulphack]

In the lovely Ilford Recorder last week there was a mention of an ex-Scotland Yard man who is doing a one man show about the Ripper at the Kenneth More theatre. Wish I could name him but mrs PH gav the paper to our neighbour and he's not on the bloody KMT website (which is crap, and it's no wonder they're struggling, which is a shame as it's a cracking little place).

This Ripper cash-in purports to trash EVERY theory going and reveal that he didn't nick body parts and - using Scotland Yard files out man had access to - reveal that ALL suspects are off, and there's a new boy in town.

Hmm...

*Ah, found the info - missed it as it was this last Sunday. The gentleman in question is ex-murder squad detective Trevor Marriott, who has been carrying out his cold case investigation (ahem) since 2002. Any Ripper experts on here (hello Dem) heard of him?

[ripper]

Pulphack, Marriott wrote "Jack the Ripper: The 21st Century Investigation." I have not read it, but my understanding is that his theory postulates the murders being carried out by a merchant seaman. But surely the police in 1888 would have considered that possibility? Anyway, on the casebook.org website there is a podcast (15 Dec 2008) where Marriott is interviewed by a number of Ripper enthusiasts, and my recollection is that he got a pretty hard grilling from several of them.

Dem, yes I think you're right about the Fairclough book. Doesn't it also contain the claim that the Queen Mother was promised to be married into royalty as a kind of thank you for her family's agreement to keep PAV at Glamis?

As an aside, if you can get your hands on a copy of the six-part 1973 BBC TV series "Jack the Ripper" then I would recommend you doing so. It's an investigation by the fictional detectives Barlow and Watt into the murders. It's very entertaining and stays close to known facts, apart from the final episode where it strays quite deeply into royal conspiracy territory. At the time it was shown, I believe that it pulled in a very large audience. There was also an accompanying tie-in book "The Ripper File" by Elwyn Jones and John Lloyd. I can remember watching the series on friday nights at my gran's house and it scared me at the time...well I was only 11 years old back in 1973 :-).