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

[Tom_Wescott]

I just didn't order it because it was suspect-oriented.

All Ripperology is, my dear. That's what keeps the genre alive. There's never been and never will be a Ripper book that is 100% free of author bias. And who knows, maybe there shouldn't be.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Celesta]

All Ripperology is, my dear. That's what keeps the genre alive. There's never been and never will be a Ripper book that is 100% free of author bias. And who knows, maybe there shouldn't be.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

True! I had read at least three that were specifically oriented to one suspect and there was not a lot of evidence, so I've been hanging back from buying them, to avoid disappointment, I guess. But there is only so much evidence, isn't there? Thanks, Tom.

[Tom_Wescott]

There's been a big backlash in recent years against suspect books. This has come about namely because of Cornwell and all the crappy self-published suspect books such as Trenouths. However, it should be remembered that suspect books are how most of us were introduced to the subject. For those who don't know, the Casebook was founded by Ryder as a way to investigate the Diary, which is what introduced him to the subject. Go back and look and you'll see that many of the major discoveries over the past 30 years came about due to authors and writers researching their theories - Stephen Knight, Stewart Evans, James Tully, Bruce Paley, Martin Fido, etc.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Celesta]

Hi Tom,

Yes, I was lured back into the subject by Cornwell's book. I have seen others make the same statement, so you have a good point. I think what finally put me off was a book that put forth a suspect but which gave no evidence, just a list of 'he could haves." The problem I have is that I don't come across that many books on the topic, so I can't take a look at them first hand. I end up ordering them. These recs here are an excellent resource.

Have a good 'un, Tom.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Magpie, Glenn, Sam, & Stephen,


Thanks, guys, for the recommendation on The Secret of Prisoner 1167. I have been curious about it for ages! I just didn't order it because it was suspect-oriented. At last I can indulge with confidence.

Thanks!

Celesta

You sure can, Celeste.
It is up to you are any other reader to decide whether James Kelly is a viable or interesting enough suspect, but it is the parts that deals with the case from a factual point of view (and not with the suspect) which is the book's great advantages (the same can be said for Fido's book). Those parts alone really makes it a valuable read.

All the best

[Monty]

Guys,

I must admit, James Tulleys book is one of the most underated in the field.

Sadly the author is no longer with us and, from what I have been told, he suffered greatly in his final years.

Its a fine piece. Shame it never gets the recognition it deserves, whereas Cornwall.....

Monty

[The Grave Maurice]

I didn't realize that Tully's book was underrated. I've been recommending it to people since it was published as one of the best examples of the "suspect" approach to the murders. Tully presents at least a plausible candidate and provides a better than average discussion of the eight victims ranging from Martha Tabram to Frances Coles. He also makes some cogent observations in his "Points to Ponder" section at the end.

I'm sorry to hear of his passing. If anyone has access to his obituary, maybe it could be posted.

[truebluedub]

regarding the backlash against suspect books I think this has carried over into documentaries. There was one on channel 5 a while ago which if i recall correctly steered clear of trying to name a suspect.

Chris Lowe

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I didn't realize that Tully's book was underrated. I've been recommending it to people since it was published as one of the best examples of the "suspect" approach to the murders.

I am not sure what Monty means with 'underrated' but Tully's book - in spite of being highly regarded by most people who are seriously into the Ripper - has not gained as much recognition as many others and is mostly known to hard core 'Ripperologists" while sadly unknown to the greater public. So on that particular point Monty is quite correct.

But it's also true, that Tully's book is one of the more respected ones in the field and one of those that is praised highly and spoken well off.
I for one, regards it as one of the Top Five of all Ripper books
- at least.

All the best

[Tom_Wescott]

Both Glenn and Monty are correct. Back in the '90's, when Tully put his book out, it didn't get a lot of attention because of other movements in the field, such as the Diary and the finding of Tumblety, among other things. It was not a highly publicized work, but it's readership grew by word of mouth. Nowadays, as Glenn points out, it's mentioned quite frequently as a good example of research and is talked about more frequently now. (it's got it's good share of errors, but some of the knowledge we take for granted now was brand new when his book came out). One of the strong points of the book is how Tully walks us through his research and his trials and tribulations, but without the pomposity of a Chris Miles or Patricia Cornwell.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Celesta]

You sure can, Celeste.
It is up to you are any other reader to decide whether James Kelly is a viable or interesting enough suspect, but it is the parts that deals with the case from a factual point of view (and not with the suspect) which is the book's great advantages (the same can be said for Fido's book). Those parts alone really makes it a valuable read.

All the best

That's what I'm looking for, Glenn. Thanks. Now to find it at a good price.

Best,

C

[Tom_Wescott]

www.abe.com, the only place to buy used books.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Celesta]

Ah ha! A new resource! Thanks, Tom!