Robert Chad Canter's Blog
February 16, 2021
Murder by Decree Review
In memoriam of Christopher Plummer. (Dec 13, 1929 – Feb 05, 2021)
May he rest in peace.
Whether you’re an avid reader or not, I’m sure you’ve heard of Sherlock Holmes. First appearing in A Study in Scarlet in 1887, Holmes went on to be one of the most celebrated detectives in fiction, if not the most celebrated.
One year after Holmes’ debut, London was terrorized by a murderer remembered only as Jack the Ripper. In the autumn of 1888, Jack the Ripper murdered as many as five prostitutes in London’s Whitechapel District, but what shocked the world was the sheer savagery of these murders. Despite the best efforts of police and concerned citizens, the killer was never caught. To this day, the Ripper killings remain history’s most infamous unsolved murders.
But could the great Sherlock Holmes have caught the Ripper? Several different entertainment outlets have tried to answer this question. One of these outlets was the 1979 film Murder by Decree, with Christopher Plummer as Sherlock Holmes and James Mason as Dr. Watson.
The film was largely inspired by Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, which was published three years earlier. It proposed that the Ripper killings were, in fact, a Masonic plot. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s start at the beginning.
The film starts on September 30, 1888, the night of the double murder. Holmes and Watson are at the Royal Opera House, ready to enjoy a performance of Donizetti's Lucrezia Borgia. Unfortunately, the performance is being delayed due to the unpunctuality of the Prince of Wales, the future King Edward VII. He is accompanied by his wife, Alexandra of Denmark, and his son, Prince Albert Victor. This will be important later.
While this is happening, Jack the Ripper claims his third victim, Elizabeth Stride. News of the murder quickly spreads, and both Holmes and Watson wonder why he hasn’t been asked to consult on the case, which is what the police usually do when they’re out of their depth.
It is worth mentioning that this is one point where the movie deviates from history, in that it screws up the order of the Canonical Five victims. It’s supposed to be Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Kelly.
Upon arriving home at Baker Street, Holmes is approached by men that live in Whitechapel, later revealed to be political radicals, and is asked to investigate the Ripper murders because they have little faith in the police. While Holmes is considering whether or not to get involved, the Ripper claims his fourth victim, Catherine Eddowes. Upon arriving at the scene of the murder, Holmes is ordered to leave by Sir Charles Warren, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police.
It is on this night that the Ripper leaves his only clue. At about 3:00 a.m., Constable Alfred Long of the Metropolitan Police Force discovered a dirty, bloodstained piece of an apron in the stairwell of a tenement, 108 to 119 Model dwellings, Goulston Street, Whitechapel. The bloody cloth was later confirmed to be part of the apron worn by Catherine Eddowes. On the wall next to it, written in chalk, was the following message.
“The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.”
It is unknown if the Ripper himself actually wrote this. Logically, it doesn’t make sense. If you’ve just committed two murders in one night, and you know the police in pursuit, you don’t stop to write an obscure message in chalk on the wall after you hastily dispose of the evidence. Also, suppose you possess the medical knowledge and skill to remove a woman’s internal organs in the dark of night. In that case, you should be intelligent enough to spell the word ‘Jews.’ In any event, Sir Charles Warren ordered the graffiti to be erased in both the movie and in real life. When Holmes confronts him about this, it’s revealed that Sir Charles Warren is a Freemason. It is also revealed that the reason he had the graffiti erased had nothing to do with preventing anti-Semitic riots. Sir Charles’ interest is protecting his fellow masons.
Here is another problem with this movie. Holmes tells Watson that “Juwes” is a Masonic term used to refer to the three men who murdered the architect of King Solomon’s temple. This story is meant to be an allegory so candidates will understand the importance of fidelity and the certainty of death. All Masons know the tale, but the three men who murdered Hiram Abiff have never been referred to as the “Juwes.”
At one point, Holmes receives a telegram from an anonymous source, pointing him in the direction of Robert James Lees. For the record, Robert James Lees was a real person. He was a spiritualist and medium. Allegedly, he had psychic visions of Jack the Ripper killing his victims. On April 28, 1895, the Chicago Sunday Times published a story where Lees led the police to the house of a physician who treated members of the Royal Family. Ripperologists disregard this story as a hoax, and I find it very unlikely that Sherlock Holmes, a man well-rooted in the world of logic and reason, would take the man seriously either.
Holmes and Watson do some digging and find that the Ripper’s four victims knew each other and that there’s another woman, Mary Kelly. Holmes attends Catherine Eddowes' funeral; there, he finds Mary Kelly, who fears for her life. Though initially reluctant to tell Holmes anything, she says that she is being pursued because she knows where Annie Crook's baby is. Apparently, this woman was involved with a man named “Eddy.”
Holmes and Watson track down Annie Crook to the asylum where she is being kept. Annie divulges that she married ‘Eddy’ and had a baby with him, but ‘they’ will kill it if she tells them where the baby is. I’m quite familiar with the canonical works written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and Holmes is usually a very detached person. However, following his interview with Annie, he shows genuine emotion, actually being brought to tears. Honestly, I’m having a hard time deciding on whether this is a bad thing or a good thing in this particular case.
On the train back to London, Holmes reveals to Watson that “Eddy” is, in fact, Prince Albert Victor, who historically was called “Eddy” by his family and biographers. This whole thing has been about covering up a royal indiscretion, but I imagine less than half of this film’s audience would be well-versed enough in English history to know this. I want to take this opportunity to point out another one of the major problems in this movie. While he’s on the train, I need to crank up the volume to hear what Holmes says. It makes the story really hard to follow in any movie when you can’t understand what the main character is saying.
Holmes and Watson return to Whitechapel, and it’s revealed that the political radicals hired him to catch Jack the Ripper to expose the corruption in the monarchy. Holmes and Watson are too late to save Mary Kelly, but they catch the murderers in the act. On watching this movie for the first time, we have no idea who these two men are, and their names aren’t disclosed until later when Holmes explains everything. Their names are William Slade and Thomas Spivy. You won’t find either of these names on any list of Ripper suspects because they don’t exist. They are analogs for William Gull and John Netley, the two men accused of being responsible for the Ripper killings in Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution.
Oddly enough, after unsuccessfully but gruesomely torturing Mary Kelly to death, Thomas Spivy goes into a catatonic state, but Slade runs for his life with Holmes in hot pursuit. This movie seems to suggest that Holmes chased him for the better part of a mile to the river, where after a brief skirmish, Slade gets caught in a hanging net and dies, which seems like a very weak ending for the world’s most infamous serial killer.
At the end of the movie, Holmes is summoned before the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and Sir Charles Warren. Here he explains everything to the audience, that this all happened because Albert Victor couldn’t control his urges, and the Masons didn’t want a Catholic on the throne of England. During this scene, Holmes outs all three of them as Masons, but Lord Salisbury and Sir Henry Matthews were not Masons in real life. Sir Charles Warren was a Mason, but Ripperologists tell us not to read too much into it.
Holmes has sufficient evidence to rock the entire monarchy, but he promises his silence in exchange for the safety of Annie Crook’s child. He tries to free Annie Crook from the asylum but is informed that she committed suicide after her interview with him. The film ends with Holmes reflecting on the corruption in the government and the depravity of man. However, Watson reminds him that there’s still decency in the world, as Mary Kelly and Annie Crook, two tragic women, died to protect a child.
As I said earlier, this film is based on Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, but this book has been discredited as nothing more than fiction by Ripperologists, and Stephen Knight’s source admits that he fabricated the whole thing. The film has some flaws, even some major flaws, but this is still an interesting story. If you’re looking for a movie where Sherlock Holmes pursues history’s most infamous serial killer, this is the movie to watch.
May he rest in peace.
Whether you’re an avid reader or not, I’m sure you’ve heard of Sherlock Holmes. First appearing in A Study in Scarlet in 1887, Holmes went on to be one of the most celebrated detectives in fiction, if not the most celebrated.
One year after Holmes’ debut, London was terrorized by a murderer remembered only as Jack the Ripper. In the autumn of 1888, Jack the Ripper murdered as many as five prostitutes in London’s Whitechapel District, but what shocked the world was the sheer savagery of these murders. Despite the best efforts of police and concerned citizens, the killer was never caught. To this day, the Ripper killings remain history’s most infamous unsolved murders.
But could the great Sherlock Holmes have caught the Ripper? Several different entertainment outlets have tried to answer this question. One of these outlets was the 1979 film Murder by Decree, with Christopher Plummer as Sherlock Holmes and James Mason as Dr. Watson.
The film was largely inspired by Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, which was published three years earlier. It proposed that the Ripper killings were, in fact, a Masonic plot. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let’s start at the beginning.
The film starts on September 30, 1888, the night of the double murder. Holmes and Watson are at the Royal Opera House, ready to enjoy a performance of Donizetti's Lucrezia Borgia. Unfortunately, the performance is being delayed due to the unpunctuality of the Prince of Wales, the future King Edward VII. He is accompanied by his wife, Alexandra of Denmark, and his son, Prince Albert Victor. This will be important later.
While this is happening, Jack the Ripper claims his third victim, Elizabeth Stride. News of the murder quickly spreads, and both Holmes and Watson wonder why he hasn’t been asked to consult on the case, which is what the police usually do when they’re out of their depth.
It is worth mentioning that this is one point where the movie deviates from history, in that it screws up the order of the Canonical Five victims. It’s supposed to be Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Kelly.
Upon arriving home at Baker Street, Holmes is approached by men that live in Whitechapel, later revealed to be political radicals, and is asked to investigate the Ripper murders because they have little faith in the police. While Holmes is considering whether or not to get involved, the Ripper claims his fourth victim, Catherine Eddowes. Upon arriving at the scene of the murder, Holmes is ordered to leave by Sir Charles Warren, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police.
It is on this night that the Ripper leaves his only clue. At about 3:00 a.m., Constable Alfred Long of the Metropolitan Police Force discovered a dirty, bloodstained piece of an apron in the stairwell of a tenement, 108 to 119 Model dwellings, Goulston Street, Whitechapel. The bloody cloth was later confirmed to be part of the apron worn by Catherine Eddowes. On the wall next to it, written in chalk, was the following message.
“The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.”
It is unknown if the Ripper himself actually wrote this. Logically, it doesn’t make sense. If you’ve just committed two murders in one night, and you know the police in pursuit, you don’t stop to write an obscure message in chalk on the wall after you hastily dispose of the evidence. Also, suppose you possess the medical knowledge and skill to remove a woman’s internal organs in the dark of night. In that case, you should be intelligent enough to spell the word ‘Jews.’ In any event, Sir Charles Warren ordered the graffiti to be erased in both the movie and in real life. When Holmes confronts him about this, it’s revealed that Sir Charles Warren is a Freemason. It is also revealed that the reason he had the graffiti erased had nothing to do with preventing anti-Semitic riots. Sir Charles’ interest is protecting his fellow masons.
Here is another problem with this movie. Holmes tells Watson that “Juwes” is a Masonic term used to refer to the three men who murdered the architect of King Solomon’s temple. This story is meant to be an allegory so candidates will understand the importance of fidelity and the certainty of death. All Masons know the tale, but the three men who murdered Hiram Abiff have never been referred to as the “Juwes.”
At one point, Holmes receives a telegram from an anonymous source, pointing him in the direction of Robert James Lees. For the record, Robert James Lees was a real person. He was a spiritualist and medium. Allegedly, he had psychic visions of Jack the Ripper killing his victims. On April 28, 1895, the Chicago Sunday Times published a story where Lees led the police to the house of a physician who treated members of the Royal Family. Ripperologists disregard this story as a hoax, and I find it very unlikely that Sherlock Holmes, a man well-rooted in the world of logic and reason, would take the man seriously either.
Holmes and Watson do some digging and find that the Ripper’s four victims knew each other and that there’s another woman, Mary Kelly. Holmes attends Catherine Eddowes' funeral; there, he finds Mary Kelly, who fears for her life. Though initially reluctant to tell Holmes anything, she says that she is being pursued because she knows where Annie Crook's baby is. Apparently, this woman was involved with a man named “Eddy.”
Holmes and Watson track down Annie Crook to the asylum where she is being kept. Annie divulges that she married ‘Eddy’ and had a baby with him, but ‘they’ will kill it if she tells them where the baby is. I’m quite familiar with the canonical works written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and Holmes is usually a very detached person. However, following his interview with Annie, he shows genuine emotion, actually being brought to tears. Honestly, I’m having a hard time deciding on whether this is a bad thing or a good thing in this particular case.
On the train back to London, Holmes reveals to Watson that “Eddy” is, in fact, Prince Albert Victor, who historically was called “Eddy” by his family and biographers. This whole thing has been about covering up a royal indiscretion, but I imagine less than half of this film’s audience would be well-versed enough in English history to know this. I want to take this opportunity to point out another one of the major problems in this movie. While he’s on the train, I need to crank up the volume to hear what Holmes says. It makes the story really hard to follow in any movie when you can’t understand what the main character is saying.
Holmes and Watson return to Whitechapel, and it’s revealed that the political radicals hired him to catch Jack the Ripper to expose the corruption in the monarchy. Holmes and Watson are too late to save Mary Kelly, but they catch the murderers in the act. On watching this movie for the first time, we have no idea who these two men are, and their names aren’t disclosed until later when Holmes explains everything. Their names are William Slade and Thomas Spivy. You won’t find either of these names on any list of Ripper suspects because they don’t exist. They are analogs for William Gull and John Netley, the two men accused of being responsible for the Ripper killings in Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution.
Oddly enough, after unsuccessfully but gruesomely torturing Mary Kelly to death, Thomas Spivy goes into a catatonic state, but Slade runs for his life with Holmes in hot pursuit. This movie seems to suggest that Holmes chased him for the better part of a mile to the river, where after a brief skirmish, Slade gets caught in a hanging net and dies, which seems like a very weak ending for the world’s most infamous serial killer.
At the end of the movie, Holmes is summoned before the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and Sir Charles Warren. Here he explains everything to the audience, that this all happened because Albert Victor couldn’t control his urges, and the Masons didn’t want a Catholic on the throne of England. During this scene, Holmes outs all three of them as Masons, but Lord Salisbury and Sir Henry Matthews were not Masons in real life. Sir Charles Warren was a Mason, but Ripperologists tell us not to read too much into it.
Holmes has sufficient evidence to rock the entire monarchy, but he promises his silence in exchange for the safety of Annie Crook’s child. He tries to free Annie Crook from the asylum but is informed that she committed suicide after her interview with him. The film ends with Holmes reflecting on the corruption in the government and the depravity of man. However, Watson reminds him that there’s still decency in the world, as Mary Kelly and Annie Crook, two tragic women, died to protect a child.
As I said earlier, this film is based on Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, but this book has been discredited as nothing more than fiction by Ripperologists, and Stephen Knight’s source admits that he fabricated the whole thing. The film has some flaws, even some major flaws, but this is still an interesting story. If you’re looking for a movie where Sherlock Holmes pursues history’s most infamous serial killer, this is the movie to watch.
November 30, 2020
Deleted Grinch Song Lyrics
In “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” featuring Jim Carrey, there’s a deleted scene where the Grinch is causing chaos on the streets of Whoville.
One of the things he does is gradually speed up the music a group of carolers are singing to, forcing them to sing faster.
For years, I couldn’t make out the lyrics, and it was driving me nuts.
During my lunch break, I finally found the lyrics.
The song is called “Who-liday Shopping”
My great aunt Penelope, Uncle Fred and Cousin Bea,
They’ll all need presents presently.
How I love Who-liday shopping!
Tom who tattoos my tattoo, high school chums, my guru,
Each of them must be gifted to.
How I love Who-liday shopping.
I’ll buy:
Slicers, dicers, skis and skates
Socks and clocks, and serving plates,
Gloves, galoshes, scarves and sleighs,
Scuba gear and negligees.
All my friends who never call, they’ll expect something small.
Let’s hurry scurry to the mall.
How I love Who-liday shopping.
I’ll be sure not to forget anyone I’ve that I’ve met.
They’ll get their bestest present yet.
How I love Who-liday shopping!
I’ll buy:
Puppies, guppies, sneakers, shawls,
Bicycles and bowling balls,
Tubas, tapes and barbecues,
Quilts and kilts and tennis shoes.
Cufflinks, muffs and mah jong sets,
Snowmobiles and chia pets.
I’ll shop until I drop and then
Next year I’ll do it all again!
One of the things he does is gradually speed up the music a group of carolers are singing to, forcing them to sing faster.
For years, I couldn’t make out the lyrics, and it was driving me nuts.
During my lunch break, I finally found the lyrics.
The song is called “Who-liday Shopping”
My great aunt Penelope, Uncle Fred and Cousin Bea,
They’ll all need presents presently.
How I love Who-liday shopping!
Tom who tattoos my tattoo, high school chums, my guru,
Each of them must be gifted to.
How I love Who-liday shopping.
I’ll buy:
Slicers, dicers, skis and skates
Socks and clocks, and serving plates,
Gloves, galoshes, scarves and sleighs,
Scuba gear and negligees.
All my friends who never call, they’ll expect something small.
Let’s hurry scurry to the mall.
How I love Who-liday shopping.
I’ll be sure not to forget anyone I’ve that I’ve met.
They’ll get their bestest present yet.
How I love Who-liday shopping!
I’ll buy:
Puppies, guppies, sneakers, shawls,
Bicycles and bowling balls,
Tubas, tapes and barbecues,
Quilts and kilts and tennis shoes.
Cufflinks, muffs and mah jong sets,
Snowmobiles and chia pets.
I’ll shop until I drop and then
Next year I’ll do it all again!
October 16, 2020
The Strange Case of Scrappy-Doo
One of my favorite things to do around Halloween is to rewatch all my favorite classic Scooby-Doo episodes and movies. Some of my all-time favorites are Scooby-Doo and the Reluctant Werewolf, Scooby-Doo meets The Boo Brothers, and The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo; but there is one thing that makes watching a lot of them very awkward.
When Scrappy-Doo was introduced in the late 70s, the show was at risk of being canceled, and he pulled it out of the fire when his debut gave the ratings a huge boost. I was born in the 90s and only ever watched reruns of Scooby-Doo on Cartoon Network. I never had a problem with Scrappy. To me, he was just another character. In the 2002 live-action movie, they went and made him the villain, and he hasn’t been seen since. What the heck happened?
I did some research, and despite being popular among the younger audience, Scrappy had his critics, believing he ruined the show's formula. It’s one thing to quietly retire him as they did in the late 80s; if you don’t want to show him again, the reaction from his fans wouldn’t have been as bad. Even Doug Walker, the Nostalgia Critic, who admittedly is no fan of the character, admitted in his review of the 2002 live-action film that making Scrappy a villain is a little extreme, and it makes the rest of the cast look like jerks. I mean, would you throw your nephew out on the side of the street in the middle of nowhere?
When Scrappy-Doo was introduced in the late 70s, the show was at risk of being canceled, and he pulled it out of the fire when his debut gave the ratings a huge boost. I was born in the 90s and only ever watched reruns of Scooby-Doo on Cartoon Network. I never had a problem with Scrappy. To me, he was just another character. In the 2002 live-action movie, they went and made him the villain, and he hasn’t been seen since. What the heck happened?
I did some research, and despite being popular among the younger audience, Scrappy had his critics, believing he ruined the show's formula. It’s one thing to quietly retire him as they did in the late 80s; if you don’t want to show him again, the reaction from his fans wouldn’t have been as bad. Even Doug Walker, the Nostalgia Critic, who admittedly is no fan of the character, admitted in his review of the 2002 live-action film that making Scrappy a villain is a little extreme, and it makes the rest of the cast look like jerks. I mean, would you throw your nephew out on the side of the street in the middle of nowhere?
August 30, 2020
Everything you need to know about Danial Adrian Angeleschu, The Shadow Angel
Five hundred years ago, in sixteenth-century Romania, Daniel Adrian Angeleschu was the eldest son of the noble, if violent, knight Alexander Angeleschu and his wife, Catalina.
One day, when they were on a pilgrimage to Rome, Danny's family was attacked by a coven of vampires. Danny's parents and his younger brother Teo were killed, but the leader of the coven, Elizabeth Megalos, wanted to keep Danny as her mate and turned him into a vampire.
Unfortunately for Elizabeth, the attraction wasn't mutual. Danny escaped and killed all of Elizabeth's sisters. Not wishing to spend eternity as the walking undead, he waited for sunrise, but for some reason, the sun didn't kill him.
Unsure of what to do next, he continued his journey to Rome, where he learned that the Church had been fighting a secret war with the supernatural since time immemorial. The cardinals had learned the hard way that the only thing that can kill monsters is another monster. From that day forward, Danny was welcomed into their ranks and fought monsters for the sake of Christendom under the guise of the Shadow Angel, the vengeful sword of God.
Daniel Adrian Angeleschu possesses superhuman strength, speed, and durability. But there's a wise old saying.
"Monsters that think they're invincible have very short lifespans."
After fighting monsters for 500 years, Danny has learned to carry the right equipment for each mission. If he's fighting fairies, he'll opt for armor and weapons made of iron. If he's fighting werewolves or vampires, he'll go with weapons made of silver. But not all monsters have specific weaknesses.
In the event that the mission has him fighting monsters with no known specific weaknesses, he uses his standard weapons and wears his standard armor made of celestium.
(Yet another fictional metal that's way tougher than anything in real life.)
Danny is an expert in hand to hand combat. He has mastered every fighting style known to man.
Danny is handy with any form of weapon, melee or projectile. But since he was originally the son a 16th century Romanian knight, Danny is most comfortable holding a sword. His celestium blades and claws combined with his superhuman strength can cut through practically anything.
Danny's brain can process information faster than a human being. Combined with his superhuman reflexes, he can easily block bullets with his sword, and ricochet them right back at the person who fired them.
Use the links below to buy the book today so that Danny can give Edward Cullen a much needed boot. REAL VAMPIRES DON'T SPARKLE!
August 9, 2020
Real Vampires Don't Sparkle!
Hello everyone. welcome to the official blog for The Shadow Angel Saga.
The Shadow Angel: Genesis
I hope you'll enjoy reading my books as much as I enjoyed writing them.
Book Trailer Link
Barnes & Noble Link
Amazon Link
The Shadow Angel: Genesis
I hope you'll enjoy reading my books as much as I enjoyed writing them.
Book Trailer Link
Barnes & Noble Link
Amazon Link
