My book is called "JACK THE RIPPER-CASE SOLVED, 1891".
That is the title the publisher chose, as they did the price.
It was certainly case solved for Macnaghten in 1891.
That's close as we can get; the certainty of that competent, hands-on police sleuth, and the parallel certainty of the suspect's family.
It can never be an absolute solution just a provisional one.
But that is true of a multitude of historical theories.
I can live with provisional, but many here cannot and that is their perogative.
I think my book will be of no interest to Whitechapel buffs because out of seventeen chapters only two (and a half) are on the murders. It is really a loose biography of Sir Melville Macnaghten, and of his second daughter. The question is, will it be of interest to mainstream readers--perhaps not?
It contains four new sources:
1. Old sources that other books have chosen not to include and/or to sideline, such as Macnaghten's 1913 press conference, his 1914 memoirs--especially chapter IV, "Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper"--and the "West of England" MP articles from 1891 and 1892.
2. Newly unearthed material by George R. Sims that shows he knew the trtue details about Druitt, and was intent on disguising such data.
3. "The True History of Jack the Ripper" (1905) by Guy Logan that is a gold mine for accurate information about Druitt.
4. An embargoed source (until March), one unknown since 1922 which arguably proves Sir Melville knew that Druitt was a lawyer and not a doctor, and furthermore that he was desperate to prove the drowned man was not the fiend.
That is the title the publisher chose, as they did the price.
It was certainly case solved for Macnaghten in 1891.
That's close as we can get; the certainty of that competent, hands-on police sleuth, and the parallel certainty of the suspect's family.
It can never be an absolute solution just a provisional one.
But that is true of a multitude of historical theories.
I can live with provisional, but many here cannot and that is their perogative.
I think my book will be of no interest to Whitechapel buffs because out of seventeen chapters only two (and a half) are on the murders. It is really a loose biography of Sir Melville Macnaghten, and of his second daughter. The question is, will it be of interest to mainstream readers--perhaps not?
It contains four new sources:
1. Old sources that other books have chosen not to include and/or to sideline, such as Macnaghten's 1913 press conference, his 1914 memoirs--especially chapter IV, "Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper"--and the "West of England" MP articles from 1891 and 1892.
2. Newly unearthed material by George R. Sims that shows he knew the trtue details about Druitt, and was intent on disguising such data.
3. "The True History of Jack the Ripper" (1905) by Guy Logan that is a gold mine for accurate information about Druitt.
4. An embargoed source (until March), one unknown since 1922 which arguably proves Sir Melville knew that Druitt was a lawyer and not a doctor, and furthermore that he was desperate to prove the drowned man was not the fiend.
Comment