Talk:Spring-heeled Jack/Archive 1

message: While most of this article is an original creation made by myself based on the sources credited at the main page, a few paragraphs have been trancripted from Jacqueline Simpson's excellent leaflet on the subject (specifically at the Official recognition & The legend spreads subsections), while some others have served as a basic model and have been rewritten with further information. Ms. Simpson, whom I contacted a few months ago regarding my interest on the legend of Spring Heeled Jack, has generously granted permission to use her work, giving her with the proper credit, which I hereby do.
Unfortunately, there are many websites who have plagied Jacqueline's article without knowing how easy it is to obtain her permission to distribute and reproduce it, in part or as a whole, at no economic cost, but with the sole and simple (and most fair in my humble opinion) exigence of recognizing her hard work. I have no intention of publishing Ms. Simpson's email address, so if any confirmation of this copyright permission is needed by an administrator of the Wikipedia, let me know and I'll be happy to put you in contact with her. Shauri 00:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note: permission to use some copyrighted material 

message: I've been alerted that the John Keel and Jacques Vallee articles already contain detailed information on their theory, thus an explanation of such ideas at Spring Heeled Jack would be considered redundant. However, I'm keeping a basic mention linking SHJ with Keel's hypothesis, while directing to those articles for further reading on their complete thoughts (yes, it is me under IP 81.202.171.91, I merely forgot to log in). So please, no reverting to previous version(s) due to my edit, I did it for a good reason. Thanks, -- Shauri 17:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please read

message: According to Jerome Clarke's book, UFO Encounters & Beyond, German soldiers experimented with springs concealed in boot heels during World War II. Another web page also mentions WW2: "Spring Heeled Jack - An inspiration."The Spring Heeled Jack article mentions WW1 for the German experiments. This is at variance with the above cited articles. Which is correct?
Bivariate-correlator 31 Mar 2005.
:It's an interesting point, and I am aware of the contradiction between some sources. In fact, when I was writing the basic outlines of this project I only had news of the WW2 version, which upon further research I changed to WW1 (with proper references and notes) when I actually undertook the full development of the article. So far, the only WW2 versions I've read are a couple of websites which cite no references to support that claim, namely this one here and the one you mention, which I've also read some time ago. The webpage I've pointed above deserves no consideration due to its incompleteness and total lack of seriousness (like calling SHJ "this Dracula-like being"). The one you address is a forum on Jack the Ripper where someone posted a text of dubious origin about SHJ (I've tried to locate it at any other place of the web to no avail), plagued of flagrant errors like dating the Ripper's murders  in 1877 instead of 1888 (factual mistakes that are flamed at the same thread by other users of that forum). However, until now, I had no news of books supporting that version, and I thank you for bringing that to my attention. The WW1 version is mentioned by Mike Dash and Steve Moore at Fortean Studies and by The Triangle, which struck me as more solid sources than two below-average (to say the least) websites. Also (and although it's just mere speculation on my part), the spring heeled boots appear more consistent with 1910's warfare than the 1940's, when mechanized and air units had acquired a much more preminent role, while significantly diminishing infantry's importance (not that infantry wasn't important, just not as important by itself as in WW1 times). This contradiction between the sources could even suggest an unauthentic origin of the whole anecdote.
:In any case, now that you've informed me of this significant new reference of Clark's book, and especially since this article has become Featured, adhering to either version would be an unforgivable mistake as long as there exist other sources that assert something different. Choosing a particular book over the others would be POV. Therefore, I'm rephrasing the proper paragraph in order to still make reference to the story (which is a simple illustrative anecdote anyway, not central to the corpus of the article), but in an appropriate NPOV way. -- Shauri 12:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: German modified boot experiments conducted during WW1 or WW2?

message: I've heard that Spring Heeled Jack is the basis for Mick Jagger's "Jumpin' Jack Flash". Corroboration, anybody? — J M Rice 20:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another interesting point that I've wondered myself, but I have no information of solid sources to back it up. Indeed, some confirmation would be most apreciated and included in the SHJ in popular culture section of the article. Shauri 17:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow good question...makes sense. We can draw the parallel and question if that's the basis--Elysianfields 22:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jumpin' Jack Flash 

message: How can Spring Heeled Jack be an urban legend as it doesn't fit even Wikipedia's definition? Something happened to at least some of the 'victims' so it can not be 'a kind of folklore consisting of stories often thought to be factual by those circulating them'. Rsloch 1 June 2005.
:The urban legend was based on such reports. The definition of urban legend is, by its own nature, flexible. The same phenomenon occurs with, i.e., Alien abduction, where numerous reports of "victims" exist, which have created an urban legend out of them. Shauri 17:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not understanding Rsloch's argument at all. First off, we don't know what, if anything, really happened to anyone. Second off, it precisely is folklore thought to be factual, so it's an exact fit in that respect. DreamGuy 02:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban legend  

message: I wouldn't have made so much of a fuss, except that this article was put forward as "one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community" yet it FALSELY implied that this character of legend was a real person.
The article should have clarified the degree to which there is controversy over whether Jack really existed.
A better title for the article would have been "The Spring Heeled Jack controversy" or "The legend of Spring Heeled Jack". 
Treating him like he's real in the intro, and then revealing that it's just a legond halfway through the articcle is like the headline vs. body games of the disreputable tabloids
THIS KIND OF TRASH REALLY HURTS WIKIPEDIA'S REPUTATION. PLEASE DON'T DO IT AGAIN. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
===Controversy? Not really===
Usually, I'm glad to hear constructive criticism that may lead to enhancements not only to this article, but also to any other in Wikipedia. I've enjoyed the very constructive debate that Bivariate-correlator offered here, and I'd be happy to hear any thoughts in that direction. However your claims, Ed Poor, deserve no consideration whatsoever for multiple reasons, namely:
:*Among the hundreds of people who have read this article (during the two weeks it spent in Peer Review, the time it was under close exam when being FACed, the extensive review it passed when being nominated for the March 2005 International Writing Contest, where it obtained the third place, and most especially after being included at the Main Page), just you, and no one but you, has interpreted that the SHJ story is fictional or legendary. There are extensive contemporary records of his exploits, showing that it was a real person (or creature, depending if you believe in the paranormal or not), including, but not limited to:
::- newspapers of the time
::- public session records at the Mansion House and the London Mayor Office
::- Lambeth and Limehouse Police records
::- books
::When you blatantly scream that this article"FALSELY implies that this legend was a real person", one cannot help but to be amazed at the lack of reading comprehension that you show. It is even funnier to read your claim that the article first presents it as a real person and later reveals that he was fictional. Where exactly do you find proof of this argument at the article? At the paragraph that says that "skeptical authors have deprecated the SHJ legend"? If that's the case, I'll rephrase that somewhat poetic sentence (which meant an urban legend, not a mythological one) to a more precise "SHJ story" and voilá! Your argument has fallen. More proofs please?
:*It is also clearly explained that this phenomenon sparked an urban legend as a result of publicity (much like most unexplained phenomena has, like UFOs, Mothman, ghosts and the list could go on forever). With that factual base, it later entered fictional entertainment; it was not born as a legend, but the other way around. I honestly can't understand why this very clear concept is still so obscure to you... and to you only.
:*Your non sequitur claim that "it should have clarified the degree to which there is controversy over whether Jack really existed" is also laughable. It looks as if you had overlooked entirely the Theories section where most of the possible explanations of a widely recorded phenomenon are developed, all of them elaborated by respectable writers and investigators whose works are referenced and are available for double checking. And all of them, each and every author on the subject, be it supporter of the rational or the paranormal explanations, agree on the basic fact that SHJ, whether it was someone or something, did exist. The arguments deal on its nature, not its very existence.
:*Your contempt for the rules of Wikipedia etiquette is unacceptable, and this gets even more infuriating when you show that you're aware of it when "apologizing" for shouting in caps at your edit summary. Calling this article "TRASH" is also beyond any possible consideration. There exists no excuse whatsoever for such despicable manners both in form and in content, and at least an apology at this Talk Page is in order not only to me as the main contributor to this article, but also to every contributor who has put his/her effort here, and to all the Wiki community as well.
The position of this article is backed by all the referenced sources, which I repeat, are available as proof of the presented facts. Until you are able to present at least one solid source that actually demonstrates that SHJ never existed, that the Lord Mayor of London didn't call for two recorded public sessions to address the subject in January 1838, that The Times, the News of The World and any other newspapers never published reports of his activities and that all the existing archives contain forgeries, that the police records are inexistent, etc., I suggest that you refrain yourself from making any edits to this article on the grounds of unverifiability. I see that your previous attempts to edit this article according to your extravagant ideas have already been reverted by other readers who understand the concept of this article properly, like everyone else but you has. There is no need to ridicule yourself even more than you already have. Shauri 17:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Usually, I'm glad to hear constructive criticism that may lead to enhancements not only to this article, but also to any other in Wikipedia. I've enjoyed the very constructive debate that Bivariate-correlator offered here, and I'd be happy to hear any thoughts in that direction. However your claims, Ed Poor, deserve no consideration whatsoever for multiple reasons, namely:
:*Among the hundreds of people who have read this article (during the two weeks it spent in Peer Review, the time it was under close exam when being FACed, the extensive review it passed when being nominated for the March 2005 International Writing Contest, where it obtained the third place, and most especially after being included at the Main Page), just you, and no one but you, has interpreted that the SHJ story is fictional or legendary. There are extensive contemporary records of his exploits, showing that it was a real person (or creature, depending if you believe in the paranormal or not), including, but not limited to:
::- newspapers of the time
::- public session records at the Mansion House and the London Mayor Office
::- Lambeth and Limehouse Police records
::- books
::When you blatantly scream that this article"FALSELY implies that this legend was a real person", one cannot help but to be amazed at the lack of reading comprehension that you show. It is even funnier to read your claim that the article first presents it as a real person and later reveals that he was fictional. Where exactly do you find proof of this argument at the article? At the paragraph that says that "skeptical authors have deprecated the SHJ legend"? If that's the case, I'll rephrase that somewhat poetic sentence (which meant an urban legend, not a mythological one) to a more precise "SHJ story" and voilá! Your argument has fallen. More proofs please?
:*It is also clearly explained that this phenomenon sparked an urban legend as a result of publicity (much like most unexplained phenomena has, like UFOs, Mothman, ghosts and the list could go on forever). With that factual base, it later entered fictional entertainment; it was not born as a legend, but the other way around. I honestly can't understand why this very clear concept is still so obscure to you... and to you only.
:*Your non sequitur claim that "it should have clarified the degree to which there is controversy over whether Jack really existed" is also laughable. It looks as if you had overlooked entirely the Theories section where most of the possible explanations of a widely recorded phenomenon are developed, all of them elaborated by respectable writers and investigators whose works are referenced and are available for double checking. And all of them, each and every author on the subject, be it supporter of the rational or the paranormal explanations, agree on the basic fact that SHJ, whether it was someone or something, did exist. The arguments deal on its nature, not its very existence.
:*Your contempt for the rules of Wikipedia etiquette is unacceptable, and this gets even more infuriating when you show that you're aware of it when "apologizing" for shouting in caps at your edit summary. Calling this article "TRASH" is also beyond any possible consideration. There exists no excuse whatsoever for such despicable manners both in form and in content, and at least an apology at this Talk Page is in order not only to me as the main contributor to this article, but also to every contributor who has put his/her effort here, and to all the Wiki community as well.
The position of this article is backed by all the referenced sources, which I repeat, are available as proof of the presented facts. Until you are able to present at least one solid source that actually demonstrates that SHJ never existed, that the Lord Mayor of London didn't call for two recorded public sessions to address the subject in January 1838, that The Times, the News of The World and any other newspapers never published reports of his activities and that all the existing archives contain forgeries, that the police records are inexistent, etc., I suggest that you refrain yourself from making any edits to this article on the grounds of unverifiability. I see that your previous attempts to edit this article according to your extravagant ideas have already been reverted by other readers who understand the concept of this article properly, like everyone else but you has. There is no need to ridicule yourself even more than you already have. Shauri 17:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy? Not really

message: As detailed by Mike Dash in his article "Spring-Heeled Jack: To Victorian Bugaboo from Suburban Ghost" (Fortean Studies v3, pp 7-125, 1996), there is in fact an extensive paper trail regarding the historical sightings of SHJ. To say that he didn't exist is, simply, incorrect.
However, the Wiki entry on SHJ has some problems. 
For one, Peter Haining's work should be disregarded. Quoting Dash: "Haining enlivens and embroiders other accounts with circumstantial detail that was nowhere reported at the time and which he cannot possibly know is accurate...the author (Haining) laces his embroidery with outright invention which is nowhere admitted to, and which has passed into the Fortean literature without being questioned."
For example: there is no historical evidence that Lucy Scales' sister was named Margaret. There is no historical evidence of the initial "W" being seen on SHJ's cloak. There is no historical evidence that the attack on Polly Adams ever took place. 
For the research and writing of his article Dash went through the newspapers of the era, doing primary research. (Dash's article is being turned into a book). Peter Haining, on the other hand, has a well-earned reputation for claiming to possess evidence which he is unable to provide. (In doing research for the Encyclopedia of Fantastic Victoriana I found Haining's work on penny dreadfuls to be consistently incorrect). Jessnevins 11:59, 14 June 2005.
===Oh my God!===
:OMG! Jess Nevins himself has visited the SHJ article?? Well, Jess (if you don't mind me calling you that), feel free to edit absolutely anything you believe to be changed. You don't get a specialized writer to read something you wrote every day!
:I feel compelled, however, to say a couple of words. I had the chance to read your position on Haining's works when I consulted your Encyclopedia of Fantastic Victoriana (which is, as you may see, credited as one of the sources for the article), whom you call something like "a serial liar whose work is not to be trusted". Being only an amateur on the matter, I had no chance to go deeper into the sources to actually dismiss his book, especially since (as you know) many other sources are based directly on it. By the time you wrote that book, you said you still had not had the chance to read Dash's article, and unfortunately, at that version you didn't go deeply enough into the SHJ story to contribute further in that direction. Dash's work is unavailable in Spain, though I managed to get a briefing by a friend from Salisbury, UK; of course, that's certainly not enough follow his research fully. Hence the alledged "bias" that you mention.
:Due to the inherent nature of the SHJ phenomenon, the subject is open to a lot of discussion and arguments; this is not maths we're talking about. I formed my view of the whole issue through those sources that were available to me, and that's how I made this article, which (to be honest) I didn't expect at all to have such repercussions. I tried and give an amateur's idea of the story as it's told by most authors, as well as the possible explanations and the lasting influence in the UK's popular culture. But, like I said, I have no intention of putting it as the "ultimate truth" on a phenomenon which cannot have such an unanimous explanation; most specially when a true professional like you has something to say on the matter.
:I'm honored that you actually took your time to read this humble article, and I repeat, please, don't hesitate to edit anything you want, even the whole text if you believe that's the right thing to do. By the way, I really LOVED your book... any chance that you could sign a copy for me? :)
:Hugs, Shauri 17:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: :OMG! Jess Nevins himself has visited the SHJ article?? Well, Jess (if you don't mind me calling you that), feel free to edit absolutely anything you believe to be changed. You don't get a specialized writer to read something you wrote every day!
:I feel compelled, however, to say a couple of words. I had the chance to read your position on Haining's works when I consulted your Encyclopedia of Fantastic Victoriana (which is, as you may see, credited as one of the sources for the article), whom you call something like "a serial liar whose work is not to be trusted". Being only an amateur on the matter, I had no chance to go deeper into the sources to actually dismiss his book, especially since (as you know) many other sources are based directly on it. By the time you wrote that book, you said you still had not had the chance to read Dash's article, and unfortunately, at that version you didn't go deeply enough into the SHJ story to contribute further in that direction. Dash's work is unavailable in Spain, though I managed to get a briefing by a friend from Salisbury, UK; of course, that's certainly not enough follow his research fully. Hence the alledged "bias" that you mention.
:Due to the inherent nature of the SHJ phenomenon, the subject is open to a lot of discussion and arguments; this is not maths we're talking about. I formed my view of the whole issue through those sources that were available to me, and that's how I made this article, which (to be honest) I didn't expect at all to have such repercussions. I tried and give an amateur's idea of the story as it's told by most authors, as well as the possible explanations and the lasting influence in the UK's popular culture. But, like I said, I have no intention of putting it as the "ultimate truth" on a phenomenon which cannot have such an unanimous explanation; most specially when a true professional like you has something to say on the matter.
:I'm honored that you actually took your time to read this humble article, and I repeat, please, don't hesitate to edit anything you want, even the whole text if you believe that's the right thing to do. By the way, I really LOVED your book... any chance that you could sign a copy for me? :)
:Hugs, Shauri 17:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh my God!

message: Unfortunately, as Jess Nevins has already pointed out, several errors have crept into the Wikipedia article on Spring-heeled Jack. I have listed them below and I hope the author of the article will be able to incorporate corrections into the text.
I would like to stress that in listing errors I am not implying criticism of Shauri's work. Her article was carefully compiled from available sources and is conspicuously better written, better balanced and more carefully put together than anything previously available on the subject on the net. From what she's said on this forum, she tried hard to access my work on the subject and was unable to - I blame myself for this for not having made my material more readily available to a wider audience at an earlier date.
What this does illustrate, nonetheless, is the vital importance of two maxims that are dinned into every historian: never assume that all the sources you consult are of equal value and equal reliability; and prefer, wherever possible, accounts from primary sources to secondary sources.
The accretion of myth and legend around Spring-heeled Jack has been considerable over the years, and the internet has sharply accelerated the process. A sentence or two of inaccurate, exaggerated rubbish published on one web site quickly gets copied and passed on by others. I have gone carefully through Shauri's article and made the points listed below precisely because the Wikipedia article on SHJ pops up so high on the Google rankings that it is likely to be widely read by people with an interest in the subject, and because Shauri's work is so obviously well researched and carefully compiled that it will be assumed by readers to be accurate.
So, thanks again, Shauri, for putting so much effort into the article. I hope you can find time to make corrections. The Spring-heeled Jack story is such a remarkable one that it really deserves to be freed of all the junk and rubbish that has collected around it over the years.
Mike Dash
www.mikedash.com
5 July 2005
Note: My Fortean Studies paper on Jack (FS vol.3, 1996) contains as an appendix a complete transcript of all 85 contemporary sources relating to the subject and published in the period 1838-1996 that were known at the time of writing. As of now my revised an d expanded Calendar of Sources lists just over 200 articles published in the period 1837-2005; again, this calendar includes full transcripts of all known contemporary sources together with at least partial transcripts of every piece of secondary material that either adds something to our knowledge of the case or presents a novel interpretation of it. Where I comment: 'There is no evidence that...', the statement should be taken to mean that the Calendar of Sources contains nothing to support the contention in question.
Intro
•	There is no evidence SHJ attacks peaked in the period 1850–70; in fact absolutely no contemporary sources from this period have yet been discovered, though probably some exist. 
Description
•	There is no evidence Jack’s eyes were either ‘protuberant’ or ‘red’. The only description we have of them states that ‘his eyes resembled red balls of fire’, but this effect was apparently caused by his fire breathing. Times 22 Feb 1838.
•	Only one eyewitness (Jane Alsop) described Jack’s clothing as resembling white oilskin. Another (Lucy Scales) described him simply as wearing a cloak and ‘bonnet’. Sources: Times 22 Feb 1838, Morning Post 7 Mar 1838.
•	No accounts of Jack wearing a black oilskin garment exist.
•	No witnesses described Jack as ‘athletic and sturdy’.  1838 accounts describe him as of ‘tall, thin, and gentlemanly appearance, enveloped in a large cloak’ (Morning Post 7 Mar 1838.), ‘a tall person wrapped up in a large cloak’ (Morning Herald 23 Feb 1838), and as young, tall and thin (witness Richardson, Times 3 Mar 1838).
•	Absolutely no completely reliable reports of Jack’s alleged leaping exist. In the 1838 cases, Jack was described by eyewitnesses as making his escape by scampering across the fields (Alsop) or walking quickly away (Scales). Sources: Times 22 Feb 1838, Morning Post 7 Mar 1838.
•	No known reports refer to Jack having ‘an uncommonly deep voice’.
Early reports
•	There is no evidence that accounts of SHJ go back beyond 1837. No writer on the subject has ever produced any source, contemporary or otherwise, to reliably suggest that there were reports in either 1808 or 1817.
•	There are no contemporary reports concerning an attack on a businessman in Sept 1837.
•	No trace has ever been found of reports of Jack’s supposed assault on Polly Adams. The earliest known account of this case appears in Haining’s 1977 book.
•	There are no contemporary accounts of Jack’s supposed attack on Mary Stevens. The earliest known account of this case appears in Elizabeth Villiers' book on highwaymen, Stand and Deliver (1928) pp.241–2. This account makes no reference to Jack breathing fire, ripping Stevens’s clothes, or touching her with hands ‘cold and clammy as those of a corpse’. Even though Villiers’s account is quite a dramatic one, it simply describes SHJ pinioning the girl and kissing her.
•	No contemporary sources describe any attack on a coachman, escape over a nine foot wall, or babbling laughter. The earliest reference to Jack’s supposed shrieking laughter appears in Villiers’s book, 90 years after the fact. One would never guess this from the frequency with which this particular description appears in secondary sources and on the internet.
•	No contemporary sources describe any incident in a Clapham churchyard.
Official recognition
•	No ‘special police task force’ was ever formed to hunt for Jack. Investigation was carried out by the ordinary police and by the investigating magistrates at Lambeth–street court and their private police officer, Lea.
•	There is no evidence that the Duke of Wellington ever rode out in search of SHJ, much less actually encountered him.
The Scales and Alsop incidents
•	The Scales incident was not ‘widely reported in the press’. Only a solitary report, in a single paper, appeared. This was almost certainly because Alsop came from a comfortably well-off family, whereas Scales came from a family of tradesmen.
•	The date of the Scales attack was 28 February 1838, not 18 February.
•	There is no evidence that Lucy Scales’s sister was called Margaret.
•	The Scales attack took place half way along Green Dragon Alley, not at its entrance.
•	Jack did not ‘leap upon’ Lucy Scales. He ‘waited at an angle in the passage’ while she approached him.
•	There were only two witnesses to this attack — Lucy and her sister — and neither described Jack ‘bounding away’, much less leaping onto the roof of a house. As noted above, he simply ‘walked away in an instant’ (source for all the above: Morning Post 7 Mar 1838).
•	The Alsop incident took place 8 days before the Scales attack, not two days after it.
•	 As noted above, Jane Alsop said nothing about Jack having ‘great claws’ or hands ‘cold as ice’. Her actual description was that he ‘commenced tearing her gown with his claws, which she was certain were of some metallic substance’ (Times 22 Feb 1838).
•	William Scales did not testify before magistrates separately from his sister. They appeared together, at Lambeth–street police court, on 6 March 1838. (Morning Post, as above.)
•	Jack’s appearance in Turner Street did not take place a week after the attack on Jane Alsop. It occurred three days later, on 23 February (Morning Herald 27 Feb 1838).
•	Mr Ashworth’s servant made no mention of the timbre of Jack’s voice. Nor is any mention made of ‘glowing red eyes’, ‘an angry and frustrated groan’, of Jack ‘waving his clawed fist’, or darting off over nearby rooftops. No mention was made of ‘a golden embroidered letter “W”’ either. All of these elements are later inventions.
To be absolutely clear, the Morning Herald’s 27 February account of this incident — the only contemporary source currently known to exist — runs to only 80 words and reads, in its entirety, as follows:
‘On Sunday night one of the ‘Spring-heeled-Jack’ gang visited the house of Mr Ashworth, 2 Turner Street, Commercial Road. About eight o'clock a person called and inquired for Mr Ashworth, but before the boy who opened the door could give an answer ‘Jack’ had thrown off his cloak and presented a most hideous appearance. The screams of the poor lad having alerted the family, the villain, unable to accomplish any further mischief, succeeded in effecting his escape.’
The legend spreads
•	No contemporary reports of appearances in 1843 are known.
•	There is no evidence that Jack’s alleged murder of Maria Davis ever took place. The evidence Haining presents for its reality has been fabricated. Locating the supposed attack in Jacob’s Island — made so famous by Dickens in Oliver Twist — is intrinsically suspicious. See my commentary on the case in Fortean Studies 3 (1996) pp.26–8.
•	There is no reason to associate Spring–heeled Jack with the Devil’s Hoofmarks case of 8 Feb 1855. Contemporaries did not. There is absolutely no resemblance between the two phenomena. See Mike Dash, ‘The Devil’s Hoofmarks: Source Material on the Great Devon Mystery of 1855’, Fortean Studies 1 (1994) pp.71–150; a pdf download of this paper is available from my website.
The last sightings
•	Jack made no known appearances in London during the 1870s. Peckham, where a ‘ghost’ identified by one London paper as SHJ did appear in 1872, was not part of London at this time. The local Peckham newspapers, one of which covered the case extensively, did not identify the ‘ghost’ seen there as Spring–heeled Jack. Fortean Studies 3 pp.15–16, 70–86.
•	No contemporary reports suggest that a Private Regan encountered SHJ at Aldershot in 1877. Regan’s name first appears in an exaggerated account dating to 1954. Ibid p.28.
•	No contemporary report suggests Jack wore a helmet or oilskin costume at Aldershot, was tall and muscular, or breathed fire. The shots that were fired at him were all blanks. There are no reports of Jack ‘grinning’ at or taunting sentries. Local papers do not refer to any extraordinary agility, although a report in The Times and accounts in the Illustrated Police News do. One sensational report on the case that appeared at the time (World 11 Apr 1877 reprinted in Illustrated Police News 28 Apr) was roundly condemned by local Aldershot papers as inaccurate.
Contemporary descriptions are limited, but include:
‘dodging about the sentry box in a fantastic fashion for some little time’ (Sheldrake’s Aldershot & Sandhurst Military Gazette 17 Mar 1877)
‘the would-be ghost went direct the sentry-box, slapped the solder several times in the face, and before he could recover from his confusion, made off across the common with astonishing bounds’ (Times 28 Apr 1877)
‘he suddenly pounced upon a private in the 3rd battalion 60th Rifles, sentry by a powder magazine near the Basingstoke Canal. It appears that the ghostly visitor sprang on him from behind, and endeavoured to snatch away his rifle. A sharp struggle ensured, which ended by the solder receiving a pair of black eyes’ (ibid)
‘a tall man dressed in a tightly-fitting white coat’ who ‘distanced all its pursuers and was eventually lost to sight in some bushes’ (ibid)
‘His method of proceeding seems to be to approach unobserved some post, then climb the sentry box, and pass his hand (which is arranged to feel as cold and clammy as that of a corpse) over the face of the sentinel’. Also, ‘having nearly frightened the sentry out of his wits, by slapping his face with his death-like hand, he disappeared, hopping and bounding in to the mist.’ (Both Illustrated Police News 8 Sep 1877 — neither the most sober nor the most reliable of sources, incidentally.)
In fact, all later accounts become more dramatic, as one would expect thanks to a natural process of progressive elaboration and exaggeration of sensational incidents over time (this mechanism was analysed and described, in the case of accounts of the Indian Rope Trick, by Wiseman & Lamont in Nature v282 n6597). Thus:
‘Jack used to spring across the canal while the sentry, pacing his beat, was walking away from it, and then on to the man’s shoulders, sorely frightening him, and usually disarming him by carrying off his rifle.’ 
	Notes & Queries 10S, VII, 22 Jun 1907
‘Night after night sentries would be bonneted, cuffed and thrown down by an invisible assailant. Cavalry, infantry and artillery were all alike impartially victimised. In our own cavalry barracks, the story told next day by the nerve–shattered wrecks who had been on sentry–duty the night before was that Spring–heeled Jack came flying — without any preliminary warning — over the top of the stable buildings, dropped on their shoulders, knocked them down and was gone before they could recover their feet. Other reports were to the effect that a snow–white figure suddenly appeared from nowhere, hurled sentries about with superhuman strength and vanished into thin air. All accounts agreed that Spring–heeled jack’s movements were absolutely noiseless.’
	Lord Ernest Hamilton, 40 Years On (London, 1922). NB This account by Hamilton describes earlier appearances by Jack at Colchester barracks, but goes on to state that SHJ appeared in Aldershot ‘in identical fashion’.
‘On certain dark nights sentries at outlying posts would be startled by seeing a mysterious and awe-inspiring figure descend on them in a series of gigantic bounds, and, when chased, this remarkable apparition would lead its pursuers a dance straight across country, literally by leaps and bounds. On one occasion it was said to have jumped the Basingstoke Canal when hard pressed.’
	Major General Sir John Adye, Soldiers and Others I Have Known (London, 1925)
 
•	No known contemporary account describes Jack as ‘leaping over houses’ at Newport Arch, near Lincoln. Shots were fired at him, but no account states that they sounded ‘as if they were hitting a hollow metallic object, like an “empty bucket”.’ The only known contemporary report — Illustrated Police News 3 Nov 1877 — says:
‘For some time past,’ says our contributor, ‘the neighbourhood of Newport, near Lincoln, has been disturbed each night by a man dressed in a sheep skin, or something of the kind, with a long white tail to it. The man who is playing this mischief has springs to his boots, and can jump to a height of 15 or 20 feet. The other night he jumped upon a college, and got into a window on the roof, and so frightened the ladies that one has not yet recovered from the shock. Some other people were so much frightened by this object, that every night a large mob of men, armed with sticks and stones, assemble and attempt to catch him, but to no avail. The nuisance became so great that two men got guns out and chased him. The picture represents him jumping up the Newport Arch, a very old Roman building built in 45AD; as he was jumping up he was shot at, but so tough is the hide he wears, that the shot did not penetrate it, and running over the house tops on the other side he escaped, but soon appeared in another part of the town. He was again chased, and as he was running on the wall of the new barracks was shot at by a publican, but the shot did not appear to take effect.’
•	Jack did not appear at St Francis Xavier’s Church in Everton in 1904. His alleged appearance at the church dates to the 1880s. The actual account is non–contemporary and vague in the extreme. According to an interview reported by Richard Whittington–Egan in Liverpool Colonnade (Manchester 1976) pp.139-40:
‘An elderly man, still living, has also told how, one night in 1888, when he and a number of his fellow-members of Everton’s St Francis Xavier’s Boys’ Guild were playing in the school-room, someone came rushing in with the news that the dread Spring-Heeled Jack was in Shaw Street. Out into Haigh Street ran the boys, and up William Henry Street. When, however, they reached Shaw Street, they saw no sign of the weird creature, although an excited crowd told them that he was crouched on the steeple of a nearby church.’
•	No Liverpool witnesses in either 1888 or 1904 described ‘a tall muscular man, fully dressed in white and wearing an “egg shaped” helmet’. No accounts describe hysterical laughter, Jack running towards a group of dismayed women, or taking a gigantic leap over their heads.
The press reports in the Liverpool papers of the time actually describe an apparent poltergeist case and make no mention of SHJ. London papers of the same date do, but not in the exaggerated terms employed by later authors, who are plainly guilty of extensively elaborating their accounts. The most detailed account appeared in the News of the World (25 Sep 1904) - not, then or now, a paper of good repute - and even this states merely:
‘Everton (Liverpool) is scared by the singular antics of a ghost, to whom the name of ‘Spring Heel Jack’ has been given, because of the facility with which he has escaped, by huge springs, all attempts of his would-be captors to arrest him. William Henry-street is the scene of his exploits, and crowds of people assemble nightly to seen them, but only a few have done so yet and, ‘Jack’ is evidently shy. He is said to pay particular attention to ladies. So far the police have not arrested him, their sprinting powers being inferior.’
Years later, an elderly woman named Mrs A. Pierpoint, who had lived in the area at the time, gave an account to a Liverpool newspaper suggesting that the ‘Spring–heeled Jack’ rumour had originated in the activities of a local lunatic. The Liverpool Echo of 19 May 1967 reported:
‘Mrs Pierpoint also had a story to explain the so-called “Spring-Heeled Jack” of that same district at the time.
	“He was a local man slightly off balance mentally,” she said. “He had a form of religious mania and he would climb on to rooftops of houses crying out: ‘My wife is the Devil!’
	“They usually fetched the police or a fire-engine ladder to get him down. As the police closed in on him, he would leap from one house roof to the next. That’s what gave rise to the ‘Spring-Heeled Jack’ rumours.”’
Skeptical positions
As noted above, there are no contemporary reports of ‘devilish features’. Nor does any witness of the Victorian period seem to have suggested that one person or entity was responsible for all SHJ reports from 1837–1904. Apparent similarities between the reports of this era are almost entirely the product of the work of later writers. Contemporary descriptions of ‘Jack’ differed considerably one from another and contemporary newspapers invariably attributed his appearances to the work of jokers and petty criminals.
Footnotes
Note 3. There is no evidence that SHJ was ever known as ‘Springald’ in the 1830s. Jack’s original name appears to have been ‘Steel Jack’, probably a reference to his supposed appearances clad in armour. West Kent Guardian 30 Dec 1837.
Note 6. There is no doubt whatsoever that the witness’s name was Scales, not Squires.
Note 8. Despite Cohen's claim, he cannot have consulted 'Limehouse police records' for 1838 as no such records exist. Surviving police records of the period are gathered in the British National Archives under the head MEPO (Metropolitan Police) and are not divided up by district. Despite extensive searches in existing MEPO records, incidentally, no material relating to the Scales assault (or indeed any other supposedly committed by Jack) has yet been found. Cohen gives no references and I have no reason to believe he ever consulted any MS sources in preparing his article.
:No reactions to this? If this article really contains false informations it should not be featured (candidate for removal). I'll place the fac-error template on it. --217.186.222.229 08:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I love it when anonymous IP, newbie idiots find some flaw and overreact by placing tags on everything. Maybe you should get a REAL wiki account first, login and create your own articles before tearing up the hard work of others. This is yet another example of why I think IP's should not be allowed to edit or vandalize anything, just play in the sandboxes until they create an account. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, Ghost, I'm at wikipedia about six times longer than you have edits, so who's the newbie... And I don't need an account for valid edits *plonk* --217.186.222.229 10:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Tsk* *tsk*, what happens with your manners, please? Let's just all be nice... no need to create a dispute where there currently is none to be had. And yes, you may not need an account to make valid edits, but usually people will react just the way Ghost did to anonymous edits, especially to those with high significance like placing a NPOV tag. A friendly word of advice: if you plan to stick around, create one; it's extremely easy and it will give your edits a higher measure of consideration. Hope you enjoy your time in English Wiki! Shauri Yes babe? 12:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Apologies to the IP, who placed the tag to begin with and whom I've since discovered is a part of the German Wiki Talk.  I admit, I too overreacted. But, as you say, the NPOV tag was a bit harsh. By the way, it was my pleasure to support you for admin  my dear:) --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Shauri - I'm very pleased to see you're able to spare time to make revisions. I believe your article has the potential to make a big difference to the long term perception of SHJ - and to correcting the numerous errors all too often perpetuated on the net. Thanks Mikedash 11:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in Wikipedia article on Spring-heeled Jack 

message: Has anyone noticed a similarity to Monkey-man of New Delhi? Purportedly:
* both had glowing red eyes
* both had helmets
* both had claws
* both scratched their victims
I really don't buy the paranormal explanations, but if one tries to explain these two phenomenons by some kind of mass hysteria, it gets even weirder. What makes human mind imagine helmets? GregorB 19:20, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
::"What makes human mind imagine helmets? " hahahaahaha that was pretty funny but yeah you have to question that, but there are plenty of reports of mass hysteria where multiple people "see" the same thing in stunning clarity and detail. I'm with you on this one though.-Elysianfields 22:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spring Heeled Jack and Monkey-man of New Delhi 

message: Hola Shauri,
First I must add my voice to the chorus of praise you have gotten for this article. It is one of the best I've had the pleasure to read and reread...great story, very well told and very throughly researched!
The first time I read it, though, I could not help but think of Jack The Ripper....could there be some connection between the two, besides simply a shared first/last name? Consider, SHJ was fairly quiet in the years just before the Ripper first struck. Then suddenly there was a rash of appearences again. Perhaps these were products of mass hysteria, as some here have suggested, but maybe there was something more. Also, the last reported sighting of SHJ was in 1904, the same year the last of the serious Ripper suspects is said to have died. What I'm getting at here is, besides being the inspiration for such benign, fictional heroes such as Zorro and Batman, might SHJ also been an inspiration for the first modern serial murderer? This could be an angle worth exploring.
But I yield to your superior expertise and judgement on the matter.  Best to you M'dear ;)  --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 15:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ripper Connection 

message: All right! I've made a list of the points Mikedash have suggested as needed of revision. I'll rewrite the proper parts with the information he has provided at his very detailed paper on the subject, which is (trust me) by far the best serious source made ever on Spring Heeled Jack. Before you ask, allow me to tell you "why" I trust him so much as to review many significant points of the article. To whom of you who don't know Mike Dash, please let me introduce him: Mike is one of the most serious and dedicated investigators of anomalous phenomena of the world, despite his youth, and he was editor for 20 years of the English magazine Fortean Times. Mike has humbly and graciously pointed out several mistakes on this article, which are product of the vast quantity of exaggerated and distorted sources that abound on the matter. Unfortunately, his work hasn't been available to me until now, and despite I knew its existence when I wrote this article back in March, I had no way to get it at the moment. Hence, as I get to address each concern he raised, I'll scratch it from the list below. May take me a while, so feel free to help if you want!
*There is no evidence SHJ attacks peaked in the period 1850–70.
*There is no evidence Jack’s eyes were either ‘protuberant’ or ‘red’. The only description we have of them states that ‘his eyes resembled red balls of fire’, but this effect was apparently caused by his fire breathing.
*Only one eyewitness (Jane Alsop) described Jack’s clothing as resembling white oilskin. Another (Lucy Scales) described him simply as wearing a cloak and ‘bonnet’. I must indicate here that, to the best of my knowledge, the "tightly-fitting white coat" is also mentioned at the Aldershot incidents; am I wrong, Mike?
*No accounts of Jack wearing a black oilskin garment exist.
*No witnesses described Jack as ‘athletic and sturdy’. 1838 accounts describe him as of ‘tall, thin, and gentlemanly appearance, enveloped in a large cloak’, ‘a tall person wrapped up in a large cloak’, and as young, tall and thin. Some mentions to this matter remain at other parts of the article. I'll correct them as I get there.
*No completely reliable reports of Jack’s alleged leaping exist. Admittedly a sensitive point, but in the context, the reference to leaping is intended to show what several witnesses expressed (i.e. Aldershot and Lincolnshire episodes). At said events, it was stated that Jack did leap. I cannot judge the (un)reliability of the witnesses' testimonies (which did exist) on the basis of NPOV. However, a footnote will be added to express Mike's considerations. Also, I will correct other cases where Haining and others allege the existence of leaping by Jack (i.e. Scales) and, according to Mike, he did not make his escape that way.
*No known reports refer to Jack having ‘an uncommonly deep voice’.
*There is no evidence that accounts of SHJ go back beyond 1837. No writer on the subject has ever produced any source, contemporary or otherwise, to reliably suggest that there were reports in either 1808 or 1817.
*There are no contemporary reports concerning an attack on a businessman in Sept 1837.
*No trace has ever been found of reports of Jack’s supposed assault on Polly Adams. The earliest known account of this case appears in Haining’s 1977 book.
*There are no contemporary accounts of Jack’s supposed attack on Mary Stevens. 
*No contemporary sources describe any attack on a coachman
*No contemporary sources describe any incident in a Clapham churchyard.
*No ‘special police task force’ was ever formed to hunt for Jack. Investigation was carried out by the ordinary police and by the investigating magistrates at Lambeth–street court and their private police officer, Lea.
*There is no evidence that the Duke of Wellington ever rode out in search of SHJ, much less actually encountered him.
*The Scales incident was not ‘widely reported in the press’. Only a solitary report, in a single paper, appeared. This was almost certainly because Alsop came from a comfortably well-off family, whereas Scales came from a family of tradesmen.
*The date of the Scales attack was 28 February 1838, not 18 February.
*There is no evidence that Lucy Scales’s sister was called Margaret.
*The Scales attack took place half way along Green Dragon Alley, not at its entrance.
*Jack did not ‘leap upon’ Lucy Scales. He ‘waited at an angle in the passage’ while she approached him.
*There were only two witnesses to this attack — Lucy and her sister — and neither described Jack ‘bounding away’, much less leaping onto the roof of a house. As noted above, he simply ‘walked away in an instant’
*The Alsop incident took place 8 days before the Scales attack, not two days after it. The dates at the footnotes haven't been corrected yet. Since I plan to rearrange that section, I'll add the proper dates later.
*Jane Alsop said nothing about Jack having ‘great claws’ or hands ‘cold as ice’. Her actual description was that he ‘commenced tearing her gown with his claws, which she was certain were of some metallic substance’.
*William Scales did not testify before magistrates separately from his sister. They appeared together, at Lambeth–street police court, on 6 March 1838. 
*Jack’s appearance in Turner Street did not take place a week after the attack on Jane Alsop. It occurred three days later, on 23 February. 
*Mr Ashworth’s servant made no mention of the timbre of Jack’s voice. No mention was made of ‘a golden embroidered letter “W”’ either.
*No contemporary reports of appearances in 1843 are known.
*There is no evidence that Jack’s alleged murder of Maria Davis ever took place. The evidence Haining presents for its reality has been fabricated. 
*There is no reason to associate Spring–heeled Jack with the Devil’s Hoofmarks case of 8 Feb 1855. Contemporaries did not. There is absolutely no resemblance between the two phenomena.
*Jack made no known appearances in London during the 1870s. Peckham, where a ‘ghost’ identified by one London paper as SHJ did appear in 1872, was not part of London at this time. The local Peckham newspapers, one of which covered the case extensively, did not identify the ‘ghost’ seen there as Spring–heeled Jack. I also removed here the reference to Sheffield newspapers, which according to Mike's paper did not identify the "Park Ghost" as SHJ, although the local folklore did.
*No contemporary reports suggest that a Private Regan encountered SHJ at Aldershot in 1877. Regan’s name first appears in an exaggerated account dating to 1954. 
*No contemporary report suggests Jack wore a helmet or oilskin costume at Aldershot, was tall and muscular, or breathed fire. The shots that were fired at him were all blanks.
*No known contemporary account describes Jack as ‘leaping over houses’ at Newport Arch, near Lincoln
*Jack did not appear at St Francis Xavier’s Church in Everton in 1904. His alleged appearance at the church dates to the 1880s.
*No Liverpool witnesses in either 1888 or 1904 described ‘a tall muscular man, fully dressed in white and wearing an “egg shaped” helmet’.
*There is no evidence that SHJ was ever known as ‘Springald’ in the 1830s. Jack’s original name appears to have been ‘Steel Jack’, probably a reference to his supposed appearances clad in armour.
*There are no contemporary reports of ‘devilish features’. With this, I was mentioning SHJ's features as depicted by the contemporary penny dreadfuls and Alsop's testimony about the "eyes that shone like balls of fire". I'll rephrase it removing the "devilish" adjective.
*There is no doubt whatsoever that the witness’s name was Scales, not Squires.
*Despite Cohen's claim, he cannot have consulted 'Limehouse police records' for 1838 as no such records exist. 
That's about all of them. A few of these points may remain mentioned at the article, with a proper reference of its source and Mike's rebuttal (or correction). I believe this would be important, mainly because it will serve to rectify some widely accepted myths, rather than ignoring them completely. Feel free to provide your input here - it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your attention everybody! - Shauri  smile! 14:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision time 

message: Shauri - to answer the question you pose in 17/Revision Time, all available descriptions of the Aldershot Jack were given in my earlier post (13) - yes, you're right, one does mention a white tight fitting coat, but I'm not sure that necessarily compares to the white oilskin outfit reported in 1838 (which to me implies a shiny garment, though not necessarily the skintight bodysuit I know a lot of people envisage).
What we need to remember here is that white is the traditional colour of ghosts, hence also the colour likely to be adopted by anyone pretending to be a ghost. There are actually numerous cases of pranksters wearing white to do this. The interesting Hammersmith case of 1804, which involved the inadvertent  killing of a man who had been posing as a ghost in that village for some days (see my original paper on SHJ), revolved around a man dressed in white. In the Peckham Ghost scare of 1872, said by some newspapers to be the work of Jack, the perpetrator apparently wore a dark coat with a white lining that could be reversed to allow him to adopt the appearance of a ghost. On that basis, I wouldn't necessarily say that the fact the Aldershot Jack wore a tight fitting white coat  links him to any earlier appearances or implies anything definitely supernatural.
Good luck with the rest of the edits. Mikedash 17:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of Aldershot Jack 

message: While it's nice to see people pop in who write for Forteana Magazine and so forth, I would submit that their input, and the current version of this article, is highly slanted to the notion that Springheeled Jack really existed. It's one thing to cite sources claiming what witnesses report and another thing to report these claims as if they were factual. This article is a godawful mess. Articles writtten with a neutral stance report what others say, they don't take sides. This article takes sides in a major way, repeatedly making claims about paranormalism and historicity that simply have not been proven. DreamGuy 02:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so: the accounts of Springheeled Jack are historical. They existed. Contemporary accounts report that people said they saw things. Now, whether these accounts are reliable or what precisely they saw, if at all, is debatable, but the accounts are there. The article lead makes it clear that Jack was "said" to have existed, and the rest of the article is written to reflect the accounts accurately. It talks about the skeptics, and it puts forward their citicism as well as the paranormal theories, so where is the bias here? I would say that the position is not that Jack necessarily existed, but that there has to be a recognition that these accounts, and the various phenomena surrounding them, mass hysteria, theories, paranormalism or otherwise, did exist. Perhaps you could point to some examples in the article? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put Khaos! I think the author did an outstanding job in maintaining a neutral tone in this article, yet still kept it a compelling read. She has made it clear that she, personally, believes SHJ was a combination of hoaxers, hallucinations and hype. But she leaves it up to the readers to decide for themselves. Which is exactly as it should be.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, Khaos, the REPORTS are historical. They should treated and worded as REPORTS, not as things that DID happen. The article is not currently written that way. It's a matter of going through to say so and so reported/claimed/stated/said/according to/etc. This is a simple matter of basic objectivity in language, as standard applied in news reporting and encyclopedias that apparently many writers here just don't understand. You sound like you are arguing for a common sense approach, but that approach is not how the article actually reads at this point. DreamGuy 19:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Severe bias in the article