I recently read this piece: "Urban myth at Toowong Cemetery remains a mystery" [1]. The article focuses on local business man, Cameron "Jack" Sim (my opinions of this individual are expressed elsewhere) and Haunts of Brisbane's Liam Baker discussing the story of Toowong Cemetery’s ‘spook hill’. The first issue was that no one provided the details (not even what hill of the Cemetery is reputedly 'spook hill'). I was left wondering if the mystery is indeed a mystery at all. After all, have any of those involved actually tested the claim? Is there a real case that shows ‘spook hill’ to be anything but a story?
By way of disclaimer, this is far from the only 'spook hill' (even in Brisbane) and the tale is a basic format often seen in localised folklore of modern Western societies. The narrative runs as follows: a car is placed in neutral at the bottom or middle of a hill (or sometimes on one side of train tracks) then proceeds to move up (or across) by means unknown, a supernatural story including ghosts is then overlaid to account for the car's movement. Such sites have also been referred to as 'magnetic hills' in efforts to account for the phenomenon in more naturalistic terms. To illustrate the supernatural version, let's look at Baker's quoted account:
"The traditional tale is that the graves of two young sisters killed in a car accident lie at the top of `spook hill' and if you sit in the car and put it into neutral the car will defy gravity and roll forwards up the hill ... Legend has it the spirits of the two girls drag the car up the hill and everyone in the car will meet a grisly end.'' [1]
Although that story is open to the same kinds of factual assessment that Baker uses for his Haunts of Brisbane writing (i.e. are there verified reports of a car accident that killed two young sisters and are said girls buried at the top of 'spook hill'?) I haven't seen a piece from him on that particular story. As such, Baker’s views on ‘spook hill’ are as yet unknown. After this quote the article shifts to Sim's perspective. Without really establishing that there exists a verifiable account of a car moving on 'spook hill', Sim states:
"Over the years people have put forward numerous explanations, some say it's an optical illusion or a magnetic pull but the urban legend is that its super natural force ... I searched all the graves along the edge of the cemetery where spook hill is reported to be and have not found any link to the stories which circulate ... It remains a mystery.''[1]
Thus far there are explanations for a non-existent mystery. A simple explanation is that the model for 'spook hill' was adapted to Toowong Cemetery. Perhaps the originators took that basic phenomenon of the moving car from Mt Cotton's 'spook hill' or an international example. Without even a single case of a car moving uphill (let alone the occupants meeting a "grisly end") all of this could be attributed to the universal propensity to invent stories, especially those that lend themselves to the type of "legend tripping" wherein one ends up in secluded place in the comfort of a car with the right company.
Toowong Cemetery is a big place so where exactly is 'spook hill'? I am aware of the particular location that Sim claims to be the site - at the Richer Street Gate looking towards the shelter on Boundary Street. A cursory viewing of that position brings into doubt the applicability of the word 'hill' given that an incline is barely present. Other accounts, indeed most of the ones I’ve come across, have centred on 12th Avenue (a much larger incline). I don't know whether Baker concurs with Sim's positioning of 'spook hill' or not. One such account is worth quoting (for the purposes of dissecting pseudohistory and folklore):
"Apparently a tombstone near the top of the hill [12th Avenue] marks the grave of a child who died in a car accident. His spirit draws all cars towards it, with such a powerful attraction that it overcomes even gravity. The 'scientific' explanation isn't much better: there's a natural magnetic lodestone at the top of the hill, strong enough to drag even large metal objects (like cars)."[2]
Immediately we see the mix of similarities and divergences that characterise such tales. As in Baker's account, the child killed in a car accident is still present but has changed gender and become one instead of a pair. What this indicates, especially when put alongside the different location to Sim's, is that there's no firm description of 'spook hill'. The significance of that rather rudimentary point is that it serves to further demonstrate that we are not witnessing attempts to explain an actual well documented occurrence. The scientific response to 'spook hill' would involve first verifying the existence of the phenomenon (i.e. testing to see if a car did move as suggested) then proceeding to find an explanation.
I recall Sim's site having been investigated by a local paranormal group with the conclusion that the hill is actually an incline downwards. For those unaware of the geometry of Toowong Cemetery, the whole location is on the side of a hill with various plateaus, valleys and slopes all across it. By this account, Sim's site only seems to be uphill from where one is on the slope itself, but in actual fact one is looking down. We should also recall that the fact that Sim's 'spook hill' is fairly level greatly diminishes the contrast of gradients. 12th Avenue would at least make for an impressive story as that really is a slope uphill.
Given the absence of any first-hand accounts (let alone reliable ones) all we can say is that there are stories about certain locations in the Cemetery that are not dissimilar to other stories about hills where cars move due to the alleged influence of spirits. Simply put, there isn't a mystery until someone documents a car moving unaided (by the usual causes of vehicular movement) on 'spook hill' (either one) towards the direction that is uphill and thus contrary to what one would expect. Until then, there isn't a mystery to be solved, just a story to be enjoyed or dismissed as one pleases.
[1]http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/west/urban-myth-at-toowong-cemetery-remains-a-mystery/story-fn8m0u4y-1226636562059
[2] http://www.weekendnotes.com.au/4-spookiest-urban-legends-in-brisbane/
A blog confronting pseudohistory, pseudoscience, and other questionable pronouncements of fact
Showing posts with label Jack sim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jack sim. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Friday, December 28, 2012
The Battle for Boggo Road
Almost a month in and there is no resolution of the Boggo Road Gaol fiasco. On a recent Boggo Blog post (written by Chris Dawson of the Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society) [1] I raised the following point: "It would be more than interesting to hear a full account of what happened and why Mr. Sim was given the deed (and under a newly adopted business name)." Dawson's post had dealt with claims made by Mr. Sim that other potential operators (i.e. BRGHS) could not run the Gaol as they rely upon 'gold coin donations' and volunteers. It was stated by Mr. Sim that a commercial operation was necessary and implied that only a private business could achieve such. In showing that other major Gaols in Australia are run as commercial ventures by not-for-profit groups Dawson effectively rebutted Mr. Sim's assertions. What I meant to indicate through my comment is that an account, by those responsible for making the decision, outlining the reasons for Mr. Sim being granted the Deed of Licence would help to explain what happened and also potentially offer ways to constructively resolve the issue.
"The 'why' of all this is quite straightforward. Campbell Newman believes that the way to get Queensland "back on track" is through the private sector and a smaller government - despite all the national evidence showing that this is not how the low-profit heritage sector works. What we saw and heard suggests that the basics of this decision were made months before the BRGHS even found out about it: A private business model would be implemented at Boggo Road while trying to shoehorn community groups in there too. However, and as you point out, 'Ghost Tours' is hardly a successful business. Campbell Newman was convinced otherwise though, and here we are." [1]
Therein rests the crux of my comment: what evidence was there to show that Mr. Sim should be given the Deed of Licence? Even assuming the need for private business to guide the project, the question remains as to what grounds anyone had for selecting Mr. Sim. Leaving aside the why of the inverted commas, nothing seems "straightforward". By Dawson’s account it was down to political policy and personal evaluation on the part of Campbell Newman. I presume that Dawson is speaking of Campbell Newman in the abstract sense though, given that, as per Liam Baker's post on the matter, it was Bruce Flegg, and subsequently Tim Mander, who were directly involved [2]. If Mr. Sim was such an outstanding candidate that not even public tenders were deemed necessary then why not give the reasons? All I ask for is a degree of transparency in the matter.
In the second last sentence of the above quotation, Dawson alludes to the fact that I had noted my own reservations about Mr. Sim's capacity to run a commercial operation. That opinion is based on the fact that I would hardly consider his main venture, Ghost Tours pty ltd, to be a particularly successful one. Fiscal matters aside, I have seen more than enough to suggest that Mr. Sim has a rather lax attitude towards historical accuracy and would therefore be a poor choice of individual, to my mind, if the preservation of Brisbane’s heritage is part of the plan. In other words, there are neither self-evident nor obvious reasons for the decision hence warranting justification.
Perhaps the more salient part of Dawson’s response is its second paragraph which reads:
“There is a basic conflict of interest issue here, in that the private business has a financial motivation to stifle any 'competition' from community groups. The result is that third parties STILL have no access to Boggo Road (which was supposed to be a requirement of the Deed of License). Mr Sim still wants third parties like the BRGHS to pay him $100 per hour to access the gaol, and we understand that he is now arguing that he should have SOLE access rights, i.e. no other organisation can offer tourism services there. So much for this 'fair and equitable' access to a public asset we keep hearing about.” [1]
I would not deny Mr. Sim an equal opportunity to contribute or operate in the local history scene. However, I do think he needs to either meet the standards of historical study or present his work in such a way as to indicate plainly that it is not particularly useful in an educational sense. Excluding others (namely the Gaol’s own historical society – BRGHS) from running tours is not in the best interests of the site itself. In the end such action can, as Dawson remarks, only benefit the business side of things. Given that the BRGHS has shown that they wish to channel the proceeds of their work into the Gaol, and also the fact that their tours would attract different audiences (I, for one, would not be interested in tours involving costumed folk – Mr. Sim included – frolicking about the place) there is valid reason to open the doors to others.
Part of the causal structure behind Mr. Sim being in a position to get such access to historical sites and appear in the media is that there has yet to be an outright challenge of him in the public arena. While the deconstructions of his pseudohistorical pronouncements on this site as well as Haunts of Brisbane and the Boggo Blog are public in the sense that they can be freely and openly accessed, the audience for such challenges is limited. When I speak of the 'public arena' I mean to suggest that such a challenge needs to be articulated in the mass media. Perhaps the Boggo Road Gaol situation affords an opportunity for Mr. Sim to be held to account, and for his efforts to peddle questionable material as history and monopolise local heritage sites to be put to an end.
[1] http://boggoroad.blogspot.com.au/#!/2012/12/gold-coins-straw-men-who-really-runs.html
[2] http://hauntsofbrisbane.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/recipe-for-disaster-cocktail-1-rotten.html
"The 'why' of all this is quite straightforward. Campbell Newman believes that the way to get Queensland "back on track" is through the private sector and a smaller government - despite all the national evidence showing that this is not how the low-profit heritage sector works. What we saw and heard suggests that the basics of this decision were made months before the BRGHS even found out about it: A private business model would be implemented at Boggo Road while trying to shoehorn community groups in there too. However, and as you point out, 'Ghost Tours' is hardly a successful business. Campbell Newman was convinced otherwise though, and here we are." [1]
Therein rests the crux of my comment: what evidence was there to show that Mr. Sim should be given the Deed of Licence? Even assuming the need for private business to guide the project, the question remains as to what grounds anyone had for selecting Mr. Sim. Leaving aside the why of the inverted commas, nothing seems "straightforward". By Dawson’s account it was down to political policy and personal evaluation on the part of Campbell Newman. I presume that Dawson is speaking of Campbell Newman in the abstract sense though, given that, as per Liam Baker's post on the matter, it was Bruce Flegg, and subsequently Tim Mander, who were directly involved [2]. If Mr. Sim was such an outstanding candidate that not even public tenders were deemed necessary then why not give the reasons? All I ask for is a degree of transparency in the matter.
In the second last sentence of the above quotation, Dawson alludes to the fact that I had noted my own reservations about Mr. Sim's capacity to run a commercial operation. That opinion is based on the fact that I would hardly consider his main venture, Ghost Tours pty ltd, to be a particularly successful one. Fiscal matters aside, I have seen more than enough to suggest that Mr. Sim has a rather lax attitude towards historical accuracy and would therefore be a poor choice of individual, to my mind, if the preservation of Brisbane’s heritage is part of the plan. In other words, there are neither self-evident nor obvious reasons for the decision hence warranting justification.
Perhaps the more salient part of Dawson’s response is its second paragraph which reads:
“There is a basic conflict of interest issue here, in that the private business has a financial motivation to stifle any 'competition' from community groups. The result is that third parties STILL have no access to Boggo Road (which was supposed to be a requirement of the Deed of License). Mr Sim still wants third parties like the BRGHS to pay him $100 per hour to access the gaol, and we understand that he is now arguing that he should have SOLE access rights, i.e. no other organisation can offer tourism services there. So much for this 'fair and equitable' access to a public asset we keep hearing about.” [1]
I would not deny Mr. Sim an equal opportunity to contribute or operate in the local history scene. However, I do think he needs to either meet the standards of historical study or present his work in such a way as to indicate plainly that it is not particularly useful in an educational sense. Excluding others (namely the Gaol’s own historical society – BRGHS) from running tours is not in the best interests of the site itself. In the end such action can, as Dawson remarks, only benefit the business side of things. Given that the BRGHS has shown that they wish to channel the proceeds of their work into the Gaol, and also the fact that their tours would attract different audiences (I, for one, would not be interested in tours involving costumed folk – Mr. Sim included – frolicking about the place) there is valid reason to open the doors to others.
Part of the causal structure behind Mr. Sim being in a position to get such access to historical sites and appear in the media is that there has yet to be an outright challenge of him in the public arena. While the deconstructions of his pseudohistorical pronouncements on this site as well as Haunts of Brisbane and the Boggo Blog are public in the sense that they can be freely and openly accessed, the audience for such challenges is limited. When I speak of the 'public arena' I mean to suggest that such a challenge needs to be articulated in the mass media. Perhaps the Boggo Road Gaol situation affords an opportunity for Mr. Sim to be held to account, and for his efforts to peddle questionable material as history and monopolise local heritage sites to be put to an end.
[1] http://boggoroad.blogspot.com.au/#!/2012/12/gold-coins-straw-men-who-really-runs.html
[2] http://hauntsofbrisbane.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/recipe-for-disaster-cocktail-1-rotten.html
Monday, December 10, 2012
Joy to the World, a Prison is Re-opened
After being closed for several years, Boggo Road Gaol, one of Brisbane's iconic historical sites is to be reopened to the public. Well, partially at least. Instead of the much anticipated return to full operation as a tourist attraction and educational resource, two floors of a single cell block and parts of the yard are all that will be made accessible [1]. Even so this a move in the right direct. Or so I thought...
When I saw the initial news reports and declarations of tour dates on the part of Haunts of Brisbane (to be run in conjunction with Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society [BRGHS]) I was pleased by the fact that genuine historical groups would be involved in offering tours. A quote from Tim Mander (Public Works minister) was especially heartening:
“The interim agreement includes provisions to ensure fair and equitable access to other organisations including the Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society, the Queensland Prison and Penal Historical Association and the National Trust of Queensland" [2]
From the above one may expect that fairness was ensured such that the holder of the Deed of Licence (Cameron "Jack" Sim of Ghost Tours pty ltd) had to play nice with community groups. Given his track record of interacting with the BRGHS specifically, one might suspect that such documented stipulations would be essential to make sure Mr. Sim doesn't monopolise the site.
However, it appears that fairness is not guaranteed. In a post on the Haunts of Brisbane Facebook page, Liam Baker points out a number of troubling facts [cf: 3]. Firstly, third party activities including historical tours by the BRGHS et al are to be booked through Mr. Sim (by the groups not the visitors). Resultantly, I expect Sim would have final discretion over when and for how long other groups use the site giving him quite a high degree of control.
Secondly, Mr. Sim is "entitled to collect a site access fee" (quote from Baker, not sure of the specific wording of the Deed). The amount of that fee is at Mr. Sim's discretion. Presumably, Mr. Sim could decide to charge legitimate, non-profit, historical groups an access fee of $0. Such a decision would show that he understands the basic distinction between a business enterprise (Ghost Tours pty ltd etc) and a community group whose proceeds go to the upkeep of heritage sites (BRGHS etc). In actuality Sim is not going down the route of being what I would consider a decent person and is instead asking for "$100 per hour" for "non-profit activities" [3]. I had to read the section twice. Initially I though it must have been $100 for anything but non-profit (as is usually the case) and that perhaps Sim was claiming that certain tours don't count as non-profit.
When I say certain tours I specifically mean a proposal to conduct "Haunted Cellblock" tours. Based on what I have read and heard in the past, it appears Mr. Sim is concerned that anyone else who goes to cemeteries after dark or talks about ghosts on tours is trying to move in on his business. Indeed, based on what Mr. Sim is listed to have said concerning negotiations for site access, he believes allowing the BRGHS/Haunts of Brisbane tours would financially cripple his own operation [3]. Based on Mr. Sim's general habit for paranoia about competition this is not surprising. The problem for Mr. Sim is that these are not business tours as far I can tell. He doesn’t say they are but that leaves open the issue of how one can ethically charge a non-profit group.
So the question for me became: why shouldn’t there be another crime/ghost tour operator in Brisbane? A rather basic answer may be that ‘this town is only big enough for one’. That’s an empirical claim and it would rest on the shoulders of the one making it to prove the case. Given the multiple operators in Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide I suspect competition is not an inherent destroyer.
Perhaps the case is more one of ‘competition will destroy only a specific operation’. That would only be the case if the operation in question were unable to compete. In other words, that operator may be said to require a monopoly because they couldn’t offer a product which would stand up in comparison when consumers are given a choice. Is that the case with Mr. Sim’s business? I don’t know. The only objective way to assess this would be to see how he fares in a competitive environment. In my opinion, if Mr. Sim is not able to provide tours which draw in sufficient paying customers and at a competitive rate then he should try his hand at another business. My personal view is that Ghost Tours pty ltd is overpriced. Aside from that capitalistic consideration, I would also say his tours don’t do justice to the wealth of folklore and cultural history possessed by Brisbane.
Making my opinion clearer still I don’t believe there would necessarily be genuine one-to-one competition. From what I’ve seen, Cameron “Jack” Sim’s business offers a rather entertainment-centric experience. All of the rhetoric about history aside, much of which I consider part of the pantomime (i.e. helping to sell the story by positioning it as fact not fiction), Ghost Tours pty ltd doesn’t seem to be about history in the same way a BRHS tour is. Edited versions of self-collected oral tales (whether true or not) spoken by costumed ‘ghost hosts’ in an after dark setting where people are on the lookout for ghosts is what I would call light entertainment.
Voyeurism in the form of night time jaunts through cemeteries and prisons is fine on its own and sells. Therefore there’s a place for entertainment. But entertainment neither equates to nor displaces education. To my mind, conducting more-than-nominally historical tours would not render an entertainment-centric company unviable unless said historical tours were more entertaining than those offered by said company. Is that what troubles Mr. Sim? I don’t know.
I certainly think that if Brisbane is only big enough for one crime/ghost tour operator then that operator should be the best and attract attention on the basis of merit not monopolisation. If Ghosts Tours is up to that then I openly invite Mr. Sim and Co. to show they should be the only game in town.
1 http://boggoroad.blogspot.com.au/#!/2012/12/confused-about-boggo-road-reopening.html
2 http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/brisbanes-historic-boggo-road-gaol-to-reopen-as-tourist-attraction-after-seven-years/story-e6freoof-1226530457162
3 http://www.facebook.com/notes/the-haunts-of-brisbane/the-boggo-road-gaol-saga/517989281552862
When I saw the initial news reports and declarations of tour dates on the part of Haunts of Brisbane (to be run in conjunction with Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society [BRGHS]) I was pleased by the fact that genuine historical groups would be involved in offering tours. A quote from Tim Mander (Public Works minister) was especially heartening:
“The interim agreement includes provisions to ensure fair and equitable access to other organisations including the Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society, the Queensland Prison and Penal Historical Association and the National Trust of Queensland" [2]
From the above one may expect that fairness was ensured such that the holder of the Deed of Licence (Cameron "Jack" Sim of Ghost Tours pty ltd) had to play nice with community groups. Given his track record of interacting with the BRGHS specifically, one might suspect that such documented stipulations would be essential to make sure Mr. Sim doesn't monopolise the site.
However, it appears that fairness is not guaranteed. In a post on the Haunts of Brisbane Facebook page, Liam Baker points out a number of troubling facts [cf: 3]. Firstly, third party activities including historical tours by the BRGHS et al are to be booked through Mr. Sim (by the groups not the visitors). Resultantly, I expect Sim would have final discretion over when and for how long other groups use the site giving him quite a high degree of control.
Secondly, Mr. Sim is "entitled to collect a site access fee" (quote from Baker, not sure of the specific wording of the Deed). The amount of that fee is at Mr. Sim's discretion. Presumably, Mr. Sim could decide to charge legitimate, non-profit, historical groups an access fee of $0. Such a decision would show that he understands the basic distinction between a business enterprise (Ghost Tours pty ltd etc) and a community group whose proceeds go to the upkeep of heritage sites (BRGHS etc). In actuality Sim is not going down the route of being what I would consider a decent person and is instead asking for "$100 per hour" for "non-profit activities" [3]. I had to read the section twice. Initially I though it must have been $100 for anything but non-profit (as is usually the case) and that perhaps Sim was claiming that certain tours don't count as non-profit.
When I say certain tours I specifically mean a proposal to conduct "Haunted Cellblock" tours. Based on what I have read and heard in the past, it appears Mr. Sim is concerned that anyone else who goes to cemeteries after dark or talks about ghosts on tours is trying to move in on his business. Indeed, based on what Mr. Sim is listed to have said concerning negotiations for site access, he believes allowing the BRGHS/Haunts of Brisbane tours would financially cripple his own operation [3]. Based on Mr. Sim's general habit for paranoia about competition this is not surprising. The problem for Mr. Sim is that these are not business tours as far I can tell. He doesn’t say they are but that leaves open the issue of how one can ethically charge a non-profit group.
So the question for me became: why shouldn’t there be another crime/ghost tour operator in Brisbane? A rather basic answer may be that ‘this town is only big enough for one’. That’s an empirical claim and it would rest on the shoulders of the one making it to prove the case. Given the multiple operators in Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide I suspect competition is not an inherent destroyer.
Perhaps the case is more one of ‘competition will destroy only a specific operation’. That would only be the case if the operation in question were unable to compete. In other words, that operator may be said to require a monopoly because they couldn’t offer a product which would stand up in comparison when consumers are given a choice. Is that the case with Mr. Sim’s business? I don’t know. The only objective way to assess this would be to see how he fares in a competitive environment. In my opinion, if Mr. Sim is not able to provide tours which draw in sufficient paying customers and at a competitive rate then he should try his hand at another business. My personal view is that Ghost Tours pty ltd is overpriced. Aside from that capitalistic consideration, I would also say his tours don’t do justice to the wealth of folklore and cultural history possessed by Brisbane.
Making my opinion clearer still I don’t believe there would necessarily be genuine one-to-one competition. From what I’ve seen, Cameron “Jack” Sim’s business offers a rather entertainment-centric experience. All of the rhetoric about history aside, much of which I consider part of the pantomime (i.e. helping to sell the story by positioning it as fact not fiction), Ghost Tours pty ltd doesn’t seem to be about history in the same way a BRHS tour is. Edited versions of self-collected oral tales (whether true or not) spoken by costumed ‘ghost hosts’ in an after dark setting where people are on the lookout for ghosts is what I would call light entertainment.
Voyeurism in the form of night time jaunts through cemeteries and prisons is fine on its own and sells. Therefore there’s a place for entertainment. But entertainment neither equates to nor displaces education. To my mind, conducting more-than-nominally historical tours would not render an entertainment-centric company unviable unless said historical tours were more entertaining than those offered by said company. Is that what troubles Mr. Sim? I don’t know.
I certainly think that if Brisbane is only big enough for one crime/ghost tour operator then that operator should be the best and attract attention on the basis of merit not monopolisation. If Ghosts Tours is up to that then I openly invite Mr. Sim and Co. to show they should be the only game in town.
1 http://boggoroad.blogspot.com.au/#!/2012/12/confused-about-boggo-road-reopening.html
2 http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/brisbanes-historic-boggo-road-gaol-to-reopen-as-tourist-attraction-after-seven-years/story-e6freoof-1226530457162
3 http://www.facebook.com/notes/the-haunts-of-brisbane/the-boggo-road-gaol-saga/517989281552862
Friday, August 17, 2012
The Ghost (Stories) of South Brisbane Cemetery & Beyond
In the preceding post I mentioned a recent “Moonlight Tour” of South Brisbane Cemetery. Besides the recurrent gripes at Toowong what also stood out was the occasional ghost tale and paranormal allusion. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with the inclusion of such content it did go counter to some of my expectations. Quite early there was mention of a ‘Lady in Black’ who is reportedly sighted in the upper part known as the ‘teardrop’ (called so because the portions look like a teardrop shape on the map). This same story was reprised when we headed back up to the main gates. Members of the group were told to keep a look out for the spectre.
One point that bothered me about the description of this 'Lady in Black' was that we were never given any historical backing. As told that night, the tale/explanation behind the ghost was that she was in life a loving wife whose husband died young. She tended her husband’s grave side constantly then herself died not long after he had. I carried on wondering if there was an actual grave site in the 'teardrop' which housed the bodies of a man and his wife suitably timed in their deaths to match the narrative. In lieu of that it seemed like no critical reasoning was being applied. Because the tour was conducted by two main guides I should note that this particular narrative was told by Tracey Olivieri.
There was also supposition on the part of the other guide – Liam Baker, from Haunts of Brisbane – that an area around the grave of the captain responsible for the Pearl Disaster (which also contained the graves of a number of its victims) was subject to fluctuating temperatures due potentially to the close proximity of these bodies. Unless the area were shown to be one where temperature fluctuations were not to be expected or at the very least incredibly uncommon yet happening at high frequency then the supposition is meaningless. To posit a causal relation between a location’s temperature and who is buried/what happened there is rampant pattern seeking in the extreme.
With my interest peaked I decided to take a look at Olivieri’s, The Ghosts of South Brisbane Cemetery: Tales from my Backyard (2011). Although there is something of a disclaimer in the ‘Introduction’ where the author states, “I am not a ‘non-believer by any means”, we are nevertheless told that these tales are being cast as stories and nothing more (p.5). To a fair degree we may consider the book to be a brief memoir, comprised of personal and second-hand recollections concerning South Brisbane Cemetery. That provides one way to account for why the tales are simply told and not subjected to full critical evaluation.
Hints of criticality do emerge but are usually abandoned before reaching a conclusion. In an early example we are presented with the same story of the ‘Lady in Black’, then told that some versions of the story feature a nun in habit, while some connect the apparition to a lady who committed suicide in the river adjoining the cemetery in 1900, and others claim the ‘Lady’ is executed prisoner Ellen Thompson (pp.6-8). Giving an answer to the unrequited curiosity I experienced on the tour, Olivieri states in the following section, “out of respect for the deceased and any family members I believe it is always inappropriate to try and ‘identify’ any alleged ghost” (p.12). But isn’t that disrespect just paying the piper? In my view, if one chooses to draw on the appeal of ghost stories during historical talks or tours then it is inevitable that questions of accuracy and tenability will arise. Those questions may well lead to the necessity of assessing if a situation matching the story exists (as with the question of a suitable grave for the ‘Lady in Black’ above) and hence to identification. Furthermore, such inquiry may actually be respectful to the deceased and their descendants when a supposed ghost has previously been given an identity but that identification is entirely inconsistent with historical data (a recent case being that of ‘Mary Mayne’ in the Brisbane Arcade).
Subsequently, the author seems to pursue identification despite the earlier attitude to the contrary. Relating a story told to her by “an old and trusted friend” (p.19), Olivieri writes:
“He later heard from a neighbour that a young man had hanged himself years ago near the cemetery, at a place that was not yet within the cemetery grounds at the time. I looked into this myself and sure enough there have been a few suicides around the cemetery over time, including men who hanged themselves from trees. Are those stories related to this story? I cannot say, because that would just be meaningless speculation” (p.20)
One may try to argue that this isn’t identification because no names are given. However, it must be remembered that due to the very accessible National Libraries Australia online database of newspapers it is quite easy to find out the details of suicides potentially including names as in the case of the ‘Lady in Black’ suicide mentioned above.
Personally, I wouldn’t engage in such efforts as the identification of ghosts. Not in the least because the nature of the phenomenon is in question – are people seeing spirits of the dead, experiencing hallucinations, or something different? We cannot simply assume we all know what a ghost is, nor has anyone proven a connection to demonstrate that such localities as cemeteries, hospitals, or murder sites give rise to a phenomenon and that phenomenon is what we call a haunting. What I do find quizzical is that Olivieri holds these attitudes but nevertheless conducts tours in conjunction with the author of Haunts of Brisbane, a blog that persistently tries to identify the ghosts behind various tales and engages in what Olivieri seems to be describing as “meaningless speculation”.
Of course, the speculation is only meaningless if one doesn’t ascribe to some loose assumption that ghosts exist and hauntings are the product of tragic circumstance. That kind of assumption certainly appears to me to be present on the Haunts of Brisbane where existing accounts behind hauntings/ghosts are disputed and attempts are made to explain what are still taken to be valid occurrences. Putting history into the picture frequently debunks ghost stories in a way distinct to the use of historical material on Haunts of Brisbane though. If a story is shown to be unsubstantiated then it undermines the validity of the account, which in turn pulls the sheet off of a fraudulent ghost.
In my assessment, the efforts of Olivieri and Baker remain qualitatively different from the spurious ramblings of many ghosts and paranormal enthusiasts. Olivieri's book doesn't purport to be anything other than a collection of stories. On that note we may consider it in a different class to the similarly titled, The Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery (originally published in 2007, but reprinted in 2008 minus glaring errors that listed the cemetery as being open between sunset and sunrise only, and intimated that Samuel Blackall was a time traveller, born decades after his death – all quotes are from the 2008 edition) by Jack Sim. So, "Who the hell is Jack Sim?" you may ask. Well, going by his website with the just-quoted title one may be tempted to say he's a vigorous self-promoter. I should also make it clear that this is a different Jack Sim from the man of the same name who heads the World Toilet Organisation. I respect that Jack Sim. Actually, the author and Ghost Tours business owner is only using "Jack" as a trading name (http://businessprofiles.com/details/cameron-owen-sim/AU-54451041904). For the sake of not really caring what people call themselves let's henceforth refer to him as Mr. Sim so that everyone is happy.
Like Olivieri's Ghosts of South Brisbane, there's some author-info in the back of Ghosts of Toowong. Here we are told that Mr. Sim "has dedicated his life to preserving the details of things and subjects that all of us find both macabre and thrilling" and is described as a "dark historian" (p.41). When I want something "macabre and thrilling" I will read Lovecraft. To my mind, trite and irritating are words more fitting to Mr. Sim's self-publications.
Let's now deal with the "historian" label. On no documented occasion has Mr. Sim ever offered proof that he is a legitimate historian. It seems almost a running joke to ask for Mr. Sim's qualifications, in full knowledge that the only response will be silence. But what about amateur historians one may ask. Well, I would argue that Mr. Sim falls far short of even that designation.
Firstly, I say he falls short of being even an amateur historian because for a man supposedly "dedicated ... to preserving the deatils" he fails on some quite basic points. In the ‘Introduction’, Toowong Cemetery is listed as "257 acres (57 hectares)" (p.i). Actually, 257 acres would be a little over 104 hectares but that's not the real issue with Mr. Sim's claim. The problem is its completely wrong - Toowong Cemetery covers an area of just over 108 acres. The sign near the gates has the accurate area so it wouldn't be hard to ascertain, qualifications or not.
Another noticeable piece of historically misinformed writing is the chapter concerning the Mayne family (pp.27-9). Disgracefully the entire family is dubbed "the murderous Maynes" (I have never seen that label used outside of Mr. Sim's work or tours). Even the year that the only suspected murderer (and focus of the chapter), Patrick Mayne died is incorrect: it was 1865 not 1875 as Mr. Sim states! The story he presents has already been summarily deconstructed by Haunts of Brisbane so those wanting to know how it differs from history may visit: (http://hauntsofbrisbane.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/murderous-maynes-patrick-did-um-didnt.html).
A final glaring error is the mislabelling of 11th Avenue as 13th Avenue (p.37) despite the real 13th avenue being the short stretch of road that connects 8th Avenue to Boundary Road. Tragically in my opinion, Mr. Sim doesn't even give us a replacement 11th Avenue. Given that the false 13th Avenue is connected to a story in the book (about the Cemetery's own vampire no less, which "is said to be walking Thirteenth Avenue in the heart of the cemetery) and on Mr. Sim's tour (allegedly the sign is missing because people frequently steal it), I would conclude that the defacing of the Cemetery's map is based solely on Mr. Sim wanting to force it to fit his tales. Not what I would consider the actions of a genuine historian.
Interestingly, Mr. Sim appears to get a mention (albeit without direct identification) towards the end of The Ghosts of South Brisbane. Olivieri tells us that a “few years ago” she was approached and given the opportunity to work as a “ghost tour guide” at South Brisbane (p.36). After deciding not to take the job and “quite recently ... planning a series of not-for-profit night tours”, Olivieri reports that legal action was threatened because the company feared she would use material from its script and claimed their stories were “not common knowledge or in the public realm”. In my opinion, Olivieri is correct in her evaluation that “an attempt was being made to privatise public history and folklore.” Unless the stories were someone’s intellectual property (i.e. they made them up and can prove this) I would greatly doubt anyone’s ability to claim sole ownership of genuine local stories.
Do we have any comment relevant to this in Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery? In the ‘Introduction’ Mr Sim claims "these stories are not made up. They come from local people, old grave diggers and cemetery staff." So what this really means is that the stories are not made up by Mr. Sim. But considering he did not create or invent the stories who is he to claim ownership? Moreover, simply because local people are telling stories provides nothing to assess their truth by. Therefore it’s entirely possible his “local people, old grave diggers and cemetery staff” are making things up. This pertains to the discussion of whether Mr. Sim is a historian because if we look at the references page he states that all chapters use "Various personal oral histories (withheld by request). Authors own collection" (p.40). Unlike the academic history that I practice, there is no accountability whereby source material is available for collective scrutiny. In the case of Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery we are asked to trust that these are valid accounts without ever knowing who, when, where in the cemetery or any other details.
All I see in Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery is a loose compilation of allegedly genuine accounts, perpetuating a set of standards that accepts hearsay at face value. On the occasions previously listed when we can evaluate the accuracy on its contents, the book is sorely lacking. In a final summation I certainly believe that if there was greater concern and awareness of history then what I describe as these commercial sideshows would be either brought up to par or laughed out of existence. Now, I have no problem with ghost stories being presented as nothing but fun and folklore, but when assertions of accuracy or historical capacity are suggested then the standards of the discipline should be met.
One point that bothered me about the description of this 'Lady in Black' was that we were never given any historical backing. As told that night, the tale/explanation behind the ghost was that she was in life a loving wife whose husband died young. She tended her husband’s grave side constantly then herself died not long after he had. I carried on wondering if there was an actual grave site in the 'teardrop' which housed the bodies of a man and his wife suitably timed in their deaths to match the narrative. In lieu of that it seemed like no critical reasoning was being applied. Because the tour was conducted by two main guides I should note that this particular narrative was told by Tracey Olivieri.
There was also supposition on the part of the other guide – Liam Baker, from Haunts of Brisbane – that an area around the grave of the captain responsible for the Pearl Disaster (which also contained the graves of a number of its victims) was subject to fluctuating temperatures due potentially to the close proximity of these bodies. Unless the area were shown to be one where temperature fluctuations were not to be expected or at the very least incredibly uncommon yet happening at high frequency then the supposition is meaningless. To posit a causal relation between a location’s temperature and who is buried/what happened there is rampant pattern seeking in the extreme.
With my interest peaked I decided to take a look at Olivieri’s, The Ghosts of South Brisbane Cemetery: Tales from my Backyard (2011). Although there is something of a disclaimer in the ‘Introduction’ where the author states, “I am not a ‘non-believer by any means”, we are nevertheless told that these tales are being cast as stories and nothing more (p.5). To a fair degree we may consider the book to be a brief memoir, comprised of personal and second-hand recollections concerning South Brisbane Cemetery. That provides one way to account for why the tales are simply told and not subjected to full critical evaluation.
Hints of criticality do emerge but are usually abandoned before reaching a conclusion. In an early example we are presented with the same story of the ‘Lady in Black’, then told that some versions of the story feature a nun in habit, while some connect the apparition to a lady who committed suicide in the river adjoining the cemetery in 1900, and others claim the ‘Lady’ is executed prisoner Ellen Thompson (pp.6-8). Giving an answer to the unrequited curiosity I experienced on the tour, Olivieri states in the following section, “out of respect for the deceased and any family members I believe it is always inappropriate to try and ‘identify’ any alleged ghost” (p.12). But isn’t that disrespect just paying the piper? In my view, if one chooses to draw on the appeal of ghost stories during historical talks or tours then it is inevitable that questions of accuracy and tenability will arise. Those questions may well lead to the necessity of assessing if a situation matching the story exists (as with the question of a suitable grave for the ‘Lady in Black’ above) and hence to identification. Furthermore, such inquiry may actually be respectful to the deceased and their descendants when a supposed ghost has previously been given an identity but that identification is entirely inconsistent with historical data (a recent case being that of ‘Mary Mayne’ in the Brisbane Arcade).
Subsequently, the author seems to pursue identification despite the earlier attitude to the contrary. Relating a story told to her by “an old and trusted friend” (p.19), Olivieri writes:
“He later heard from a neighbour that a young man had hanged himself years ago near the cemetery, at a place that was not yet within the cemetery grounds at the time. I looked into this myself and sure enough there have been a few suicides around the cemetery over time, including men who hanged themselves from trees. Are those stories related to this story? I cannot say, because that would just be meaningless speculation” (p.20)
One may try to argue that this isn’t identification because no names are given. However, it must be remembered that due to the very accessible National Libraries Australia online database of newspapers it is quite easy to find out the details of suicides potentially including names as in the case of the ‘Lady in Black’ suicide mentioned above.
Personally, I wouldn’t engage in such efforts as the identification of ghosts. Not in the least because the nature of the phenomenon is in question – are people seeing spirits of the dead, experiencing hallucinations, or something different? We cannot simply assume we all know what a ghost is, nor has anyone proven a connection to demonstrate that such localities as cemeteries, hospitals, or murder sites give rise to a phenomenon and that phenomenon is what we call a haunting. What I do find quizzical is that Olivieri holds these attitudes but nevertheless conducts tours in conjunction with the author of Haunts of Brisbane, a blog that persistently tries to identify the ghosts behind various tales and engages in what Olivieri seems to be describing as “meaningless speculation”.
Of course, the speculation is only meaningless if one doesn’t ascribe to some loose assumption that ghosts exist and hauntings are the product of tragic circumstance. That kind of assumption certainly appears to me to be present on the Haunts of Brisbane where existing accounts behind hauntings/ghosts are disputed and attempts are made to explain what are still taken to be valid occurrences. Putting history into the picture frequently debunks ghost stories in a way distinct to the use of historical material on Haunts of Brisbane though. If a story is shown to be unsubstantiated then it undermines the validity of the account, which in turn pulls the sheet off of a fraudulent ghost.
In my assessment, the efforts of Olivieri and Baker remain qualitatively different from the spurious ramblings of many ghosts and paranormal enthusiasts. Olivieri's book doesn't purport to be anything other than a collection of stories. On that note we may consider it in a different class to the similarly titled, The Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery (originally published in 2007, but reprinted in 2008 minus glaring errors that listed the cemetery as being open between sunset and sunrise only, and intimated that Samuel Blackall was a time traveller, born decades after his death – all quotes are from the 2008 edition) by Jack Sim. So, "Who the hell is Jack Sim?" you may ask. Well, going by his website with the just-quoted title one may be tempted to say he's a vigorous self-promoter. I should also make it clear that this is a different Jack Sim from the man of the same name who heads the World Toilet Organisation. I respect that Jack Sim. Actually, the author and Ghost Tours business owner is only using "Jack" as a trading name (http://businessprofiles.com/details/cameron-owen-sim/AU-54451041904). For the sake of not really caring what people call themselves let's henceforth refer to him as Mr. Sim so that everyone is happy.
Like Olivieri's Ghosts of South Brisbane, there's some author-info in the back of Ghosts of Toowong. Here we are told that Mr. Sim "has dedicated his life to preserving the details of things and subjects that all of us find both macabre and thrilling" and is described as a "dark historian" (p.41). When I want something "macabre and thrilling" I will read Lovecraft. To my mind, trite and irritating are words more fitting to Mr. Sim's self-publications.
Let's now deal with the "historian" label. On no documented occasion has Mr. Sim ever offered proof that he is a legitimate historian. It seems almost a running joke to ask for Mr. Sim's qualifications, in full knowledge that the only response will be silence. But what about amateur historians one may ask. Well, I would argue that Mr. Sim falls far short of even that designation.
Firstly, I say he falls short of being even an amateur historian because for a man supposedly "dedicated ... to preserving the deatils" he fails on some quite basic points. In the ‘Introduction’, Toowong Cemetery is listed as "257 acres (57 hectares)" (p.i). Actually, 257 acres would be a little over 104 hectares but that's not the real issue with Mr. Sim's claim. The problem is its completely wrong - Toowong Cemetery covers an area of just over 108 acres. The sign near the gates has the accurate area so it wouldn't be hard to ascertain, qualifications or not.
Another noticeable piece of historically misinformed writing is the chapter concerning the Mayne family (pp.27-9). Disgracefully the entire family is dubbed "the murderous Maynes" (I have never seen that label used outside of Mr. Sim's work or tours). Even the year that the only suspected murderer (and focus of the chapter), Patrick Mayne died is incorrect: it was 1865 not 1875 as Mr. Sim states! The story he presents has already been summarily deconstructed by Haunts of Brisbane so those wanting to know how it differs from history may visit: (http://hauntsofbrisbane.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/murderous-maynes-patrick-did-um-didnt.html).
A final glaring error is the mislabelling of 11th Avenue as 13th Avenue (p.37) despite the real 13th avenue being the short stretch of road that connects 8th Avenue to Boundary Road. Tragically in my opinion, Mr. Sim doesn't even give us a replacement 11th Avenue. Given that the false 13th Avenue is connected to a story in the book (about the Cemetery's own vampire no less, which "is said to be walking Thirteenth Avenue in the heart of the cemetery) and on Mr. Sim's tour (allegedly the sign is missing because people frequently steal it), I would conclude that the defacing of the Cemetery's map is based solely on Mr. Sim wanting to force it to fit his tales. Not what I would consider the actions of a genuine historian.
Interestingly, Mr. Sim appears to get a mention (albeit without direct identification) towards the end of The Ghosts of South Brisbane. Olivieri tells us that a “few years ago” she was approached and given the opportunity to work as a “ghost tour guide” at South Brisbane (p.36). After deciding not to take the job and “quite recently ... planning a series of not-for-profit night tours”, Olivieri reports that legal action was threatened because the company feared she would use material from its script and claimed their stories were “not common knowledge or in the public realm”. In my opinion, Olivieri is correct in her evaluation that “an attempt was being made to privatise public history and folklore.” Unless the stories were someone’s intellectual property (i.e. they made them up and can prove this) I would greatly doubt anyone’s ability to claim sole ownership of genuine local stories.
Do we have any comment relevant to this in Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery? In the ‘Introduction’ Mr Sim claims "these stories are not made up. They come from local people, old grave diggers and cemetery staff." So what this really means is that the stories are not made up by Mr. Sim. But considering he did not create or invent the stories who is he to claim ownership? Moreover, simply because local people are telling stories provides nothing to assess their truth by. Therefore it’s entirely possible his “local people, old grave diggers and cemetery staff” are making things up. This pertains to the discussion of whether Mr. Sim is a historian because if we look at the references page he states that all chapters use "Various personal oral histories (withheld by request). Authors own collection" (p.40). Unlike the academic history that I practice, there is no accountability whereby source material is available for collective scrutiny. In the case of Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery we are asked to trust that these are valid accounts without ever knowing who, when, where in the cemetery or any other details.
All I see in Ghosts of Toowong Cemetery is a loose compilation of allegedly genuine accounts, perpetuating a set of standards that accepts hearsay at face value. On the occasions previously listed when we can evaluate the accuracy on its contents, the book is sorely lacking. In a final summation I certainly believe that if there was greater concern and awareness of history then what I describe as these commercial sideshows would be either brought up to par or laughed out of existence. Now, I have no problem with ghost stories being presented as nothing but fun and folklore, but when assertions of accuracy or historical capacity are suggested then the standards of the discipline should be met.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Fighting Local Pseudohistory: The Case Against Ghost Tours
Today I found this blog post by Chris Dawson, author of several interesting books on local history and member of the Boggo Road Gaol Historical Society:
http://boggoroad.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/brisbane-ghosts-busted.html
In the post Chris argues against the claims being made by a local business that Brisbane is the "2nd most haunted city in the world." According to their website this status is established by none other than National Geographic who allegedly voted on the matter. Chris Dawson was unable to find the poll and when National Geographic was contacted they informed him that their records showed no such information.
Despite being asked to substantiate the tagline no evidence has been offered by the business. So as far as anyone can tell the evidence that their claim is based on doesn't exist. If that's so then we may be dealing with a case of misleading advertising. In my opinion, if they're asking the public to take claims of paranormal activity at face value and believe their tour guides can pass for vampires (at least they don't sparkle...) and dead governors then they may well think people are gullible enough to fall for such assertions.
Personally I see this as one of the outcomes of trying to sell history. When business and the investigation of the past mix it often results in the prerogatives of the former outweighing the ethics of the latter.
I would also like to know why the proprietor of the business in question constantly refers to himself as a historian. Nowhere have I been able to find evidence that he possesses the requisite qualifications (i.e. a bachelor degree or higher in history).
http://boggoroad.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/brisbane-ghosts-busted.html
In the post Chris argues against the claims being made by a local business that Brisbane is the "2nd most haunted city in the world." According to their website this status is established by none other than National Geographic who allegedly voted on the matter. Chris Dawson was unable to find the poll and when National Geographic was contacted they informed him that their records showed no such information.
Despite being asked to substantiate the tagline no evidence has been offered by the business. So as far as anyone can tell the evidence that their claim is based on doesn't exist. If that's so then we may be dealing with a case of misleading advertising. In my opinion, if they're asking the public to take claims of paranormal activity at face value and believe their tour guides can pass for vampires (at least they don't sparkle...) and dead governors then they may well think people are gullible enough to fall for such assertions.
Personally I see this as one of the outcomes of trying to sell history. When business and the investigation of the past mix it often results in the prerogatives of the former outweighing the ethics of the latter.
I would also like to know why the proprietor of the business in question constantly refers to himself as a historian. Nowhere have I been able to find evidence that he possesses the requisite qualifications (i.e. a bachelor degree or higher in history).
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
More Ripping
Given the current popularity of the Porriott case I decided to listen to 4BC radio's classic crime last night to see what they had to say. For those that don't know, classic crime is a short segment of 4BC presenter Ian Maurice's show featuring local "historian" Jack sim. Each week a different crime or criminal is discussed.
Last night the focus was on Walter Porriott and the idea that he may have been Jack the Ripper. Cr Paul Tully also joined in to comment on the case and his research. A woman who had known Porriott and his last wife (she married Bessie Porriott's nephew) also called in. Her first-hand information provided a nice post-script to what's already appeared in the articles.
Sim didn't seem to add anything new to the debate and in usual fashion criticized police and eye witnesses as "untrained". While the forensic technologies of today were lacking in nineteenth century England, concepts such as deductive reasoning and scientific method were not unheard of. Perhaps the training that Victorian detectives received would have been different to that of their modern colleagues but they were not uneducated in investigative procedure.
One comment that he made which I found particularly interesting was that he is going to be holding a murder tour of Toowong Cemetery later this month. He claimed to have done these periodically in the past but I have my doubts. I've heard of sim running many tours but never seen anything about that one. This is unusual seeing as my longstanding interest in local history has prompted me to keep well-informed about such goings on.
Seems odd to me that someone would think of a commercial tour of this kind when the Friends of Toowong Cemetery do it for free. The FOTC conduct monthly public walks (each month is based around a different theme). In addition to this, we also produce small tour booklets of each topic so that people can conduct their own self-guided walks. The booklets are free and available on request.
Anyone interested in seeing the grave of Porriott or hearing more about claims that he was the Ripper should come along to the next Friends of Toowong Cemetery walk. It will take place on Sunday September 7 at 10:30am (meet under the flag pole just behind the gates). The main theme of the walk will be Maritime history but myself and others would be happy to answer any questions. No bookings required and no entry fee (gold coin donations are appreciated).
I will be conducting the October tour. It will be another first run new tour and will feature stories about the home front during World War I, political dissidents, the birth of Queensland, and other colourful characters.
For more info see the Friends of Toowong Cemetery page:
http://www.toowong.cemetery.org.au/default.asp?PageID=2
For a free copy of the Crime & Punishment tour booklet please contact us via:
FOTC@aussiemail.com.au
Last night the focus was on Walter Porriott and the idea that he may have been Jack the Ripper. Cr Paul Tully also joined in to comment on the case and his research. A woman who had known Porriott and his last wife (she married Bessie Porriott's nephew) also called in. Her first-hand information provided a nice post-script to what's already appeared in the articles.
Sim didn't seem to add anything new to the debate and in usual fashion criticized police and eye witnesses as "untrained". While the forensic technologies of today were lacking in nineteenth century England, concepts such as deductive reasoning and scientific method were not unheard of. Perhaps the training that Victorian detectives received would have been different to that of their modern colleagues but they were not uneducated in investigative procedure.
One comment that he made which I found particularly interesting was that he is going to be holding a murder tour of Toowong Cemetery later this month. He claimed to have done these periodically in the past but I have my doubts. I've heard of sim running many tours but never seen anything about that one. This is unusual seeing as my longstanding interest in local history has prompted me to keep well-informed about such goings on.
Seems odd to me that someone would think of a commercial tour of this kind when the Friends of Toowong Cemetery do it for free. The FOTC conduct monthly public walks (each month is based around a different theme). In addition to this, we also produce small tour booklets of each topic so that people can conduct their own self-guided walks. The booklets are free and available on request.
Anyone interested in seeing the grave of Porriott or hearing more about claims that he was the Ripper should come along to the next Friends of Toowong Cemetery walk. It will take place on Sunday September 7 at 10:30am (meet under the flag pole just behind the gates). The main theme of the walk will be Maritime history but myself and others would be happy to answer any questions. No bookings required and no entry fee (gold coin donations are appreciated).
I will be conducting the October tour. It will be another first run new tour and will feature stories about the home front during World War I, political dissidents, the birth of Queensland, and other colourful characters.
For more info see the Friends of Toowong Cemetery page:
http://www.toowong.cemetery.org.au/default.asp?PageID=2
For a free copy of the Crime & Punishment tour booklet please contact us via:
FOTC@aussiemail.com.au
Labels:
crime,
Jack sim,
Jack the Ripper,
Toowong Cemetery,
tour
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)