Days of my years

[Jonathan H]

To Dave

You have every right to your opinion -- it's just wrong.

I am not arguing that House is a con man though he has written much worse about me -- whom he has never met -- but that the book is that of a fan and not a serious work of history. It's does not compare and cotrast sources which challenge it's own theory, not give the lay reader with any idea that they even exist, even that the full version of some of these sources are much more ambiguous anc apable of mulitple interpretations.

But it's pointless making this distinction for the witch-hunt is on now.

I want to thank the person who goes by the moniker 'Nemo' who was trying to be fair to me, for I can imagine what that will cost him ...

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Jonathan,

I am not arguing that House is a con man ... but that the book is that of a fan and not a serious work of history. It's does not compare and cotrast sources which challenge it's own theory, not give the lay reader with any idea that they even exist, even that the full version of some of these sources are much more ambiguous anc apable of mulitple interpretations.

You are no doubt thinking of Scotland Yard Investigates by Evans & Rumbelow, which has some extensive compare and contrast about police opinions. But that's not a suspect book. Rob stayed on subject, which a good suspect book should. The late James Tully stayed on subject with James Kelly. He didn't feel the need to do all that. Even Patricia Cornwell bless her heart stayed on subject.

I'm not being funny here, but you could write a book. Seriously. And you might find that if you were to make it a Druitt suspect book, yet do all that compare and contrast, well, I don't know, you'd simply have to attempt to make it work. In book format. I wouldn't think that would be easy, but you could try.

What's between you and Rob is none of my affair. But your harping on how Rob wrote his book, well, that's a done deal. The horse has left the barn.

Roy

[Nemo]

No need for thanks Jonathon but much appreciated

I just say it how I see it and your last post is a valid comment on both Rob's book and other Ripper books

There are many excuses for this and that, consideration of the audience, the theory, the sales etc which affect the content of a book

All these excuses are not valid for a true historical work and Jonathon is right to differentiate between the two cases

I'm going to refresh my memory by re-reading Rob's book before I comment further

(Apologies, it's on a Kindle which I appear to have mislaid)

[Chris]

I am not arguing that House is a con man though he has written much worse about me -- whom he has never met -- but that the book is that of a fan and not a serious work of history. It's does not compare and cotrast sources which challenge it's own theory, not give the lay reader with any idea that they even exist, even that the full version of some of these sources are much more ambiguous anc apable of mulitple interpretations.

On the contrary, I think Rob's book is unusual among suspect-oriented books in the degree to which it does put both sides of the argument and discuss conflicting evidence.

For example, with regard to Cox, Rob does include (and emphasise) his statement that the suspect he watched "was never arrested for the reason that not the slightest scrap of evidence could be found to connect him with the crimes" (on p. 231).

Obviously not everyone agrees with Rob's conclusions (I am a lot more sceptical about the case against Kozminski myself) and people differ in the importance they attach to the various pieces of evidence and speculation. But just because Rob referred to Griffiths's book as an 'article', or didn't include a particular theory about the Seaside Home or a particular example of Anderson getting his facts wrong, that doesn't mean his book is unbalanced. I think it is a balanced account, and I think most people share that view. To go further and dismiss it as 'severely biased' and 'not a serious work of history' is quite wrong in my opinion.