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.
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.
Comment