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

[Celesta]

It seemed to become fashionable, beginning a couple of years ago, to call Sugden's book "dry". I completely disagree with that. Even after three or four readings it remains, for me, a page-turner. Dry, phooey. It's still the best book to read as an introduction to the case.

I don't see anything so dry about it, and I agree that it's a fine book. Think about how rambling Cornwell's book was. I kept wishing she'd get to the point!

[The Grave Maurice]

I had recommended to me Philip Sugden's The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. I have had private conversations with a few members HERE, and the criticisms are small. It is a bit dry.

It seemed to become fashionable, beginning a couple of years ago, to call Sugden's book "dry". I completely disagree with that. Even after three or four readings it remains, for me, a page-turner. Dry, phooey. It's still the best book to read as an introduction to the case.

[Celesta]

Techno,

If you will go to this thread, you will see a copy of Philip's and Rob's book. They are authorities on JtR and his territory. I should have mentioned it last night. They also have a lot of excellent photos posted on the East End photo and drawing thread, along with the other fine photographers on this site.


The London of Jack the Ripper - Robert Clack and Philip Hutchinson

[Celesta]

Feet of clay, some of us have. Feet of clay. No one likes Rob's and mine's book anymore.

Have you tried ABE BOOKS for the Sourcebook?

PHILIP

Philip, I apologize deeply. I didn't mean to slight you at all. I'm sorry. It was late when I made that post and I was only half awake. Everyone loves your book. I guess I was thinking of some of the older works. I do apologize. I feel terrible about this.

Celesta

[George Hutchinson]

Feet of clay, some of us have. Feet of clay. No one likes Rob's and mine's book anymore.

Have you tried ABE BOOKS for the Sourcebook?

PHILIP

[Monty]

Techno,

Think I saw a copy at Boarders.

Jack The Ripper Sourcebook, for me, is my bible. Thats the first place I turn to for facts. Second is a search here.

I think a few people went into Davids work with the objective to debunk it before they read and understood it. Belive me, Im not saying there is anything in it but I feel it was a different way at looking at the old Mussus.

Monty


PS Cant we have something on Casebook re reccomended books as this question does crop up fairly regularly. No offence Techno, you arent to know, but when a newbie joins I can guarantee that 'which book do you reccomend?' will appear at some stage.

[Blackkat]

Celesta's list was a good one, and I of course like Philip Sugden's The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. Good straight basic facts kind of book.

[technohead]

Thanks for the feedback guys, much appreciated. Can you suggest somewhere I may buy a new copy of the Jack The Ripper Sourcebook as suggested above? I've tried the usual eBay (nothing), Amazon (the only new copies hardcover and paperback were £80!!!), Waterstones (not available) etc etc.

I also noticed whilst trawling the pages of available books on the subject that there is really no point in this casebook as at least 50 people seem to have solved the case according to their book titles! Don't you wish one of them could have let us so we didn't waste anymore time discussing it!

[Supe]

Technohead,

Unfortunately, David died last year and is no longer able to able to defend his theory actively. But, while a tour de force, it is fair to say that in the ensuing (and nearly interminable) discussions after the dissertation was published a number of contradictions or misstatements in the theory were suggested by posters, some few of which David even accepted without acknowledging that they changed his overall thesis. His theory remains a fruitful area of stidy, but is most probably not the final answer.

Don.

[Celesta]

Hi Tech,

First of all, have you read The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion (aka Sourcebook), An Illustrated Encyclopedia, by Stewart Evans & Keith Skinner? It compiles the actual records that are available, and you can make up your own mind about the cases. It's my bible for the JtR cases.

Also try The Complete History of Jack the Ripper by Philip Sugden.

Anything by Donald Rumbelow, Stewart Evans, or both. Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates by these authors, is a very good overview of the times and the police officials, as well as the case.

Of course, there is Jack the Ripper A to Z.

There's a list of books somewhere within the outline up on the left side, written in black letters. Or there was before the crash!

There are also authors who post right here on the site.

Good luck to you.

Best,

Celesta

[Magpie]

Congratulations on immediately homing in on two of the most controversial topics in casebook history!

The Doc's recommendations are pretty solid.

[Doctor X]

I will not touch the Maybrick thing since it brings bad karma, but I had recommended to me Philip Sugden's The Complete History of Jack the Ripper. I have had private conversations with a few members HERE, and the criticisms are small. It is a bit dry. It does not debunk/address all of the standard "popular" suspects like the Royals/Masons/Gull, or Sickert, but it does a very good job. More exciting, but not as complete is Rumbelow's The Complete Jack the Ripper.

Heh . . . I am waiting for the Incomplete Jack the Ripper.

If you go to the book section you will find some recommendations for other source books which I do not have yet, such as Evans and Skinner's The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, Begg, Fido, and Skinner's Jack the Ripper A to Z.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[technohead]

I've been reading through some of the dissertations on the casebook and after reading Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders by David M. Radka 2004 it struck me how definitive it sounded. I'm finding this a real problem with reading up on the Whitechapel murders, that after reading each book or theory I find myself totally convinced until I read the next thing which totally smashes the previous opinion and goes off on a different tangent! How solid is the above dissertation as regards the theory contained within? Which book will give me an unbiased, realistic overview of the subject? Is there a book that is based on the actual evidence as opposed to someone wanting to prove a theory and editing the facts to suit(this seems to be a common thread).

One last question! Why on earth would anybody still think that the Maybrick diary is genuine? Other than certain writers who need it to be true because they've spent so much time and money trying to prove its genuine (see 'editing facts') even I as a newcomer can find nothing but supposition and the needs of individuals to support it.

If anyone can answer these questions it will help me to put aside issues that are at present putting me off looking into the subject further. Thanks.