-
-
No airs...
No airs and graces here Richard, I'm simply responding to what has been said. I am as fallible as the next man but at least I try to back up what I say with source material.Originally posted by richardnunweek View PostSPE
Treat me gently I'm a newbie.Comment
-
Liar...
Bloody hell. Liar, hypocrite and writer of piles of mistakes and confusion. I reckon I had better give up. (I thought he was going away - permanently).Originally posted by jmenges View PostSPE
Treat me gently I'm a newbie.Comment
-
Not as many times as you've gone away...
JMComment
-
SPE
Treat me gently I'm a newbie.Comment
-
Hello JM,
This thread was actually nice and pleasant.. with good quality input and some really funny moments of light relief. Then from out of nowhere.. bang!
The comment about "Death of the Ripper" from SPE's 16 year old book.
If you had a beef with Stewart.. could you not have pm'd or emailed him about it first? One called your comment snide. I call it poor taste. And I don't agree with Stewart all the time either.. but I believe I am correct in saying Stewart and I find no need for "below the belt" whacks on each other.
No doubt I will get hammered for that gentle opinion as well. Well go on.. have a pop at all of us you have that penchant for while you are at it and make a big exit...
I never expected you to come in from the outfield in this manner.
regards
PhilChelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙
Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....Comment
-
Thanks
Thanks for that Phil, I was actually beginning to feel I was being stalked. Quite amazing really as I had always been on good terms with Jonathan.Originally posted by Phil Carter View PostSPE
Treat me gently I'm a newbie.Comment
-
For my part, the drinking water is unsafe in Tajikistan and the bottled water is hit or miss. That makes me surly. I'd suggest everyone check their water sources/
Mikehuh?Comment
-
Hello Mike,Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
"All water in this establishment is passed by the management" sort of thing, eh?
No wonder some need a "hit 'n' miss" after drinking it.
kindly
PhilChelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙
Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....Comment
-
Thanks, Phil.Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
Left Field is, as Stewart mentioned, not unexpected as he has continually refused to admit to the research mistakes in his Tumblety book, which has readers to this day. Stewart and I have spoken of these issues on the phone and so I feel that when he accuses an author of bias towards a suspect, he should first acknowledge his own mishaps and not blame co-authors or publishers. Nice and Pleasant thread for you, maybe, but not for me.
That is all.
JMComment
-
Michael,
I'd suggest everyone check their water sources.
And that is why our ancestors went through much of life with a slight buzz on -- the water was unsafe. So, you drank beer, as in England, or in 17th C New England cider. An elderly widow was expected to consume between three and four barrels (real barrels) of cider a year -- and that beverage quickly became hard. Actually, more favored was perry (pear cider).
It must be understood there was no hypocrisy here. Puritans did not consider drinking alcohol a sin (au contraire, it was a "gift of God") but only drunkeness.
Don."To expose [the Senator] is rather like performing acts of charity among the deserving poor; it needs to be done and it makes one feel good, but it does nothing to end the problem."Comment
-
surly
Hello Don.
"And that is why our ancestors went through much of life with a slight buzz on -- the water was unsafe. So, you drank beer, as in England, or in 17th C New England cider. An elderly widow was expected to consume between three and four barrels (real barrels) of cider a year -- and that beverage quickly became hard. Actually, more favored was perry (pear cider)."
Right you are. Say, I've been feeling just a tad surly of late.
Do you suppose . . . ?
Cheers.
LCComment
-
Hello Mike, Don,
Although off topic.. were you aware that Evian water is, when spelled backwards.. Naive?
kindly
PhilChelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙
Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....Comment
-
Phil,
Yes, we are all off topic -- but I think we also felt there was a need for some time out. Anyway, how do you suppose I know how to spell naive? That trick was taught me by an old editor for whom I worked and is a great help.
Don."To expose [the Senator] is rather like performing acts of charity among the deserving poor; it needs to be done and it makes one feel good, but it does nothing to end the problem."Comment
-
'The Lodger: the Arrest and Escape of Jack the Ripper' (aka: 'Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer') by Stewart P. Evans and Paul Gainey, 1995, is an absolutely smashing book.
In South Australia, excerpts from this book have been enjoyed by high school students, and by other history teachers who have found the thesis fascinating -- even if they do not agree with it.
Yet it's central argument, that the Irish-American Confidence Man, Dr Francis Tumblety, was the leading Scotland Yard suspect of 1888, has -- in my opinion -- never been refuted.
Hardly a surprise considering it is backed by a police chief of that era, and elements of the trans-Atlantic tabloid press, and a fictional version of the story propagated later by a famous English writer -- and by the suspect himself in an interview!
Certainly, further research -- all building on Evans' and Gainey's breakthrough -- have turned up sources which challenge this thesis, but only at the periphery (it should be noted that Jack Littlechild never mentioned Batty St, or a grotesque uteri collection, et. al.)
These sources been counter-balanced by other primary sources (eg. Tumbley's interview, Anderson contacting other American police authorities) which have, arguably, buttressed the original theory.
The recent articles in 'The Examiner', about Inspector Walter Andrews' hunt for intelligence about Tumblety, by R. J. Palmer, are a wonderful, in fact quite brilliant, companion trilogy to 'The Lodger'.
Furthermore ...
Stewart has shown a propensity to look at Tumblety quite differently in different books by himself and collaborators on this case.
For example, 'Scotland Yard Investigates' (2006), with Don Rumbelow, does attempt to debunk Anderson's suspect (devastatingly I think) bot does not then regurgitate arguments for Tumblety from the earlier work -- nothing of the kind.
Furthermore ...
As the Evans/Gainey book of 1995 goes into other suspects I learned about not only Montague Druitt, but also about George Sims, and Major Griffiths. The latter's characterisation of Macnaghten as a 'man of action', and thus always pushing himself into notorious cases, began to alter -- rightly or wrongly -- my perceptions of that police chief and of the whole case.
In other words, a terrific, rich historical work will do just that; it will inspire in the discerning reader other possibilities, other avenues to explore -- not block them off.
That is why to characterize 'The Lodger' as flawed by bias, or the odd mistake here and there, is a totally anemic opinion.
All sources are biased as they are by individual humans. A grown-up should know that, and factor it in to their consideration of the work.
I have already stated on the Boards here that I believe that Rob House's recent book is way too narrow (eg. you would never know that Sims preferred the Drowned Doctor and dismissed the Polish Jew) at least for me.
People must make up their own mind about books, any book, any Ripper book, and not rely on what others say or claim about them.
Ironically, I agree with Rob -- up to a point -- and not Stewart, about something fundamental. I also think that the case was probably solved, at the time, specifically in 1891. I just think that the police chief who did this was Macnaghten, rather than Anderson, regarding Druitt, and not Aaron Kosminski, a provisional opinion based on limited data.
Rob writes that he wrote a book to answer the question: What if Anderson was right? He has my empathy, in principle, because I am writing a book asking a parallel question: what if Macnaghten was right? I just think that Rob's would have been a stronger book if it had fully outlined the arguments for Anderson being wrong, and then show how they (eg. the Sailor's Home theory) are less compelling than the counter-argument that this police chief was probably right.
But that is a matter of individual taste.Comment
Tweet
Comment