Reporting OLD news.

[richardh]

Not sure why this is being reported as NEW news but...
The real identity of Jack the Ripper has finally been uncovered (gentside.co.uk)

Is there anything new to this story?
I know that the bloke (Russell Edwards) has blocked me from Twitter for reasons unknown to me as I only tweeted him a single time about his website claim to have sold 1m copies which were demonstrably false.

Is he still dining out on this shawl ID story?

[erobitha]

Haters are gonna hate. Or something.

The provenance story has changed in recent years which just makes the whole thing rather peculiar. No, the ‘irony’ is not lost on me, but the DNA evidence is wobbly at best.

[mpriestnall]

I've not took any notice of this before now.

I'm not interested in the shawl as bona fide evidence.

That said, any one to care to give an opinion on Russell's book "Naming Jack the Ripper...". The ratings and reviews on amazon uk look decent. Is it worth reading?

I'm working on my suspect-based book, so I have a special interest in other books of that ilk.

Appreciate any thoughts on his book.

Martyn

[Ms Diddles]

I've not took any notice of this before now.

I'm not interested in the shawl as bona fide evidence.

That said, any one to care to give an opinion on Russell's book "Naming Jack the Ripper...". The ratings and reviews on amazon uk look decent. Is it worth reading?

I'm working on my suspect-based book, so I have a special interest in other books of that ilk.

Appreciate any thoughts on his book.

Martyn

Hi Martyn,

I read it a couple of years ago and personally wasn't terribly impressed.

I recall noting that Edwards appeared to have a colossal ego, and an apparent need to brag about his business achievements (as though that would somehow add credibility to his theory).

Unless you accept the DNA evidence and the (spectacularly dodgy) provenance of the shawl (table runner?), there's not a lot to recommend it.


Personal opinion only, but you did ask.....

[mpriestnall]

Hi Martyn,

I read it a couple of years ago and personally wasn't terribly impressed.

I recall noting that Edwards appeared to have a colossal ego, and an apparent need to brag about his business achievements (as though that would somehow add credibility to his theory).

Unless you accept the DNA evidence and the (spectacularly dodgy) provenance of the shawl (table runner?), there's not a lot to recommend it.


Personal opinion only, but you did ask.....

Thanks Ms Diddles.

I read ripper books, particular suspect books, for partly on their own terms, with the hope of learning something new that might be useful for my own research, and for anything I can learn from the author about the craft of writing. Think I'll hold fire now.

[Ms Diddles]

Thanks Ms Diddles.

I read ripper books, particular suspect books, for partly on their own terms, with the hope of learning something new that might be useful for my own research, and for anything I can learn from the author about the craft of writing. Think I'll hold fire now.

Hmmmm! I don't want to sound too critical, but if you're interested in "the craft of writing" I don't think there is much to be learned from this particular offering!!!

In terms of the writing, I'm a big fan of Bruce Robinson's They All Love Jack.

It's not to everyone's taste, but he spins an excellent yarn and has quite a way with words.

I also really like Rob House's Koz book (sorry, I always seem to be banging on about this) and Christer's Lechmere book is well written / presented / structured too.

Personally, I quite like the suspect books which lay out the case they are making, but also present the evidence which contradicts their argument so the reader can weigh up the pros and cons, and reach their own conclusions.

It's a while since I read it, but the Koz book does that really well IIRC.

[mpriestnall]

I've own and like both those books and agree with you on the points you make.

Robinson's book had some good insights on things like Packer, Freemasonry, the integrity of the inquests etc.

I think too that suspects books should have a balanced view of their suspects and the supporting evidence.
I like my rippers suspect books to have an academic foundation, but at the same time engage with the reader in a down to earth, conversational way. Bob Hilton's George Hutchinson book did this well.

And now back to the thread's topic...

[erobitha]

Hmmmm! I don't want to sound too critical, but if you're interested in "the craft of writing" I don't think there is much to be learned from this particular offering!!!

In terms of the writing, I'm a big fan of Bruce Robinson's They All Love Jack.

It's not to everyone's taste, but he spins an excellent yarn and has quite a way with words.

I also really like Rob House's Koz book (sorry, I always seem to be banging on about this) and Christer's Lechmere book is well written / presented / structured too.

Personally, I quite like the suspect books which lay out the case they are making, but also present the evidence which contradicts their argument so the reader can weigh up the pros and cons, and reach their own conclusions.

It's a while since I read it, but the Koz book does that really well IIRC.

Have to agree on all of the above.

I find some books easier to read than others. I am a simple man who enjoys a clear and honest style and for that alone, I found Robinson's book quite entertaining and refreshing. It's like have a very sweary and grumpy uncle telling you everything he thinks is wrong with the world. I have never come across that style in what is meant to be a history book.

I simply ignore any JTR book that has either "final" or the phrase "case closed" in it the title.

I guess that rules out most of the published authors on this website and probably most of the Ripperology category.

[mpriestnall]

I guess erobitha is going to ignore my book "The Ultimate Definitive Final Solution Case Closing True Story Of Jack the Ripper"...

[erobitha]

I guess erobitha is going to ignore my book "The Ultimate Definitive Final Solution Case Closing True Story Of Jack the Ripper"...

Ha ha!