Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders by David M. Radka 2004

[Tom_Wescott]

And still Technohead's question about the Diary goes unanswered....

Graham

F*ck the Diary.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

The Definitive History was way more boring than the Facts, but that might be because the Facts had some halucinatory moments that where Begg veered off into some weird theorizing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Graham]

F*ck the Diary.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Up yours, too, redneck.

Graham

[jmenges]

I think that The Facts is a book that should be read after a book like Sugden's due to what Tom calls its halucinatory moments. Begg, in The Facts has a way of weaving different hypothesis, theories and suspects into the main body of the text as opposed to bringing divergent stuff up in exclusively the final chapters, as some others are want to do. This, to me, makes for better reading only if one is already familiar with the nuts and bots of the case.

JM

[Natalie Severn]

....and unfortunately we are all only too familiar with the "bots"
Nats

[jmenges]

But we don't know too much about the nuts, do we?

JM

[D.B. Wagstaff]

Greetings to all,

I've been lurking about reading the forum posts for quite some time, but this is my first time posting, so be kind to the newbie!

I found Radka's work a interesting attempt to use a different way of thinking to theorize about the Ripper. Although his arguments are well supported (in most cases), I do not believe his theory to be the final solution, nor even the best theory presented. I find it very thought provoking. After all, isn't that really what Ripperology, in the absence of of conclusive evidence, really about - pitting our minds and theories against a very complex and currently insolvable mystery?

[Tom_Wescott]

Up yours, too, redneck.

Graham

Hi Howard....er...Graham. I didn't realize you were a Diaryist who'd take an insult against the diary so personally.

Up Yours...truly,

Jethro Lee Wescott Jr., aka Bubba

P.S. F*ck the Diary.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Glenn, Tom, et al

I was curious about how you thought Begg's Definitive History compares to his The Facts. I disagree with your opinion that The Facts ranks as dry and lacking humor and vividness as Sugden, tho I find them equally enjoyable. Did The Definitive History strike you in the same way? Or, what are your impressions?

Thanks,

JM

Hi JM,

From my personal point of view, I found Definitive History to be more interesting because it provided an excellent account of the social history of the East End and the context of which the murders took place, while The Facts consisted of nearly one third of heavy political studies, which concerns me much less.
That is, partly, why I found The Facts to be very boring and dry. The heavy political stuff in The Facts could have been cut down to half, and I think the editor of the book should have stepped in.

The best thing with The Facts is the vast section of source references and footnotes, which in itself makes it invaluabe for anyone who indulge in research of their own.
The Facts was very much a disappointment to me, though, since it didn't contain any of the latest research issues of the day but was just as conservative as Sugden's book.
I don't think Paul Begg as a person lacks humour or an ability to express himself in an interesting way - in fact, I know he doesn't - but unfortunately his book does.

I find the Definitive History to be more vivid and interesting since it deals more with the social issues, the people and the places associated with the murders, thus the East End and its people becomes more alive while The Facts is a very dry account of the high political scene.

Both Begg's (The Facts) and Sugden's books are invaluable for research purposes but as books as such (if we by that means an exciting reading experience) I find them to be quite heavy.
Compare them to the incredibly humorous, clever and lively language of people like James Tully, William Beadle and Martin Fido (regardless of what you think of their theories) and the difference in THAT particular respect should be obvious.

Personally, I think Sugden's book is highly overrated - especially today, when it feels outdated in some areas.
If you're looking for a book that deals with the murders with factual accuracy combined with interesting reading, I prefer Evans' and Rumbelow's Scotland Yard Investigates.

All the best

[Natalie Severn]

Its funny that Glenn, because I find Sugden very enjoyable and not at all "dry".I love the way he enthusiasically dives into the research too.
But I agree it is beginning to need to be updated.
Best Wishes
Natalie

[Doctor X]

My warning on Sugden's dryness is more to dissuade the belief it will be an exciting "page turner" for someone getting started. It is currently sitting one inch from my Ancient Widdle Mac [His computer.--Ed.].

Is this "diary" a work of pornography?

Why else would someone want to have intimate relations with it?

--J.D.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

My warning on Sugden's dryness is more to dissuade the belief it will be an exciting "page turner" for someone getting started.

Agreed.

Is this "diary" a work of pornography?

Well, for some people it most certainly is, no doubt.

All the best

[Magpie]

Technohead also asked 'why anyone would think that the Maybrick Diary is genuine', but it appears that this question has somehow been ignored (which really doesn't surprise me in the least).

I would respond to the question by asking Technohead in turn, "Do you get the impression that anyone on these boards actually thinks that the Diary really is genuine?"

Cheers,

Graham

Well, Graham, I don't know of anyone at casebook who thinks the Diary is genuine--so there really isn't anyone in a position to answer that question.

I know there are a couple of groups on Yahoo where people still believe in the Diary, but not here.

As Tom so poignantly observed, if a person's interest lies in Jack the Ripper, then the advice he offers is spot on. The Diary has little to do with the Ripper anymore--it's a parallel but independent mystery of its own.

[Celesta]

Greetings to all,

I've been lurking about reading the forum posts for quite some time, but this is my first time posting, so be kind to the newbie!

I found Radka's work a interesting attempt to use a different way of thinking to theorize about the Ripper. Although his arguments are well supported (in most cases), I do not believe his theory to be the final solution, nor even the best theory presented. I find it very thought provoking. After all, isn't that really what Ripperology, in the absence of of conclusive evidence, really about - pitting our minds and theories against a very complex and currently insolvable mystery?

Hi DB, Welcome aboard the boards. I like the ones that provoke me to think along new lines. One of the later books I read was Rubelow's Complete JTR even though it is an older book. I loved that book. There were things in there that I had not come across before, and I really enjoyed hearing about his early days of trying to salvage the JTR records. I read that after JTR: Scotland Yd Investigates, and I was surprised at finding new things to pour over. I often wonder if there is a book just in his attempt to assemble all the records. There was probably other historic stuff that he salvaged, as well.

Before reading JTR: Scotland Yard Investigates, I had the wrong picture of Chief Commissioner Warren. The coverage of Warren is really good in that book, as I'm sure you know.

Best,

Celesta

[Dan Norder]

The short overview of Radka's theory is that the guy actually claimed straight out to be smarter than Einstein and used a lot of words he didn't understand to try to fool other people into thinking it was true. The best example of his brand of theorizing is that he insisted that the mutilations on Eddowes' face were actually tailor's marks which spelled out a specific word by word message via each individual wound... this despite being forced to admit later that he didn't ever actually find any tailor's marks that looked like that or that meant that in any reference work or source but that he HAD to be right ("evidence schmevidence" as he said) because he was a genius and everyone who failed to accept that was an idiot.

(It's strange how we have a bunch of new accounts showing up over the last few days to suddenly try to start discussions on Radka's theory, the Maybrick diary, astrology and so forth...)