The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Tom_Wescott]

I should like to add that I don't dislike either Christer or Ed, I haven't actually met either of them but I'm sure that we would have a lot in common. Ripperology is an emotive genre and I really do not enjoy these exchanges when they get nasty.

I like them both as well. Christer's arm-length posts are hard to handle at times but he's otherwise a cool guy. Ed is very charitable and one of the more solid researchers in my opinion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Great Read

Hi,
Personally I like all of the books written on the case. I prefer the better written ones of course, but they all keep the little grey cells active. Also even in the worst of them there can be a grain of something that can change your direction.
An example is this. I have never believed that Druit was the murderer, but Autumn of Terror was the first book I read on the case, and even now I remember how thoroughly I enjoyed it.
Best wishes.

Autumn of Terror was a great read, I plotted my visit to the East End to photograph the murder sites in 1967 from it.

I haven't enjoyed all of the books but certainly Matters, Stewart, McCormick, Odell, Farson, Knight, Rumbelow, Whittington-Egan, Messrs Fido Begg and Skinner, Sugden and a few others are very entertaining reads.

[Robert]

Ed drinks Darjeeling tea. Freaky guy.

[Stewart P Evans]

I don't...

Ed drinks Darjeeling tea. Freaky guy.

I don't drink tea, period. Freaky huh?

[Lechmere]

Is that the royal we?
'Ripperology' is hardly a matter of national importance and so any well adjusted person should have a thick skin so far as 'Ripperological' criticism goes.
But as a mere stripling who was not even born in 1961 (just - thank God), and as someone who has yet to have a suspect book punlished please forgive my enthusiasm for my preferred suspect who I am always more than willing to discuss.
I prefer friendly discussion and genial disagreement - as is more characterised by the parallel thread on the other forum.

[Tom_Wescott]

Autumn of Terror was a great read, I plotted my visit to the East End to photograph the murder sites in 1967 from it.

I haven't enjoyed all of the books but certainly Matters, Stewart, McCormick, Odell, Farson, Knight, Rumbelow, Whittington-Egan, Messrs Fido Begg and Skinner, Sugden and a few others are very entertaining reads.

I believe both Matters and William Stewart consulted you prior to publishing, did they not?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Peter Griffith aka gryff]

I wrote a suspect based book on Tumblety some twenty years ago

My daughters have a habit of buying me "Ripper" books at Christmas - unfortunately not always very good. I have warned them not to buy a recent book that Chris suggests I should not mention

I enjoyed your book very much. Perhaps because Tumblety spent time in my neck of the woods (as did Dr. Cream).

So TY for the enjoyment it gave

cheers, gryff

[Tom_Wescott]

My daughters have a habit of buying me "Ripper" books at Christmas - unfortunately not always very good. I have warned them not to buy a recent book that Chris suggests I should not mention

So that's why my sales have dropped. Damn those Aussie crime enthusiasts!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

We must...

Is that the royal we?
'Ripperology' is hardly a matter of national importance and so any well adjusted person should have a thick skin so far as 'Ripperological' criticism goes.
But as a mere stripling who was not even born in 1961 (just - thank God), and as someone who has yet to have a suspect book punlished please forgive my enthusiasm for my preferred suspect who I am always more than willing to discuss.
I prefer friendly discussion and genial disagreement - as is more characterised by the parallel thread on the other forum.

We must have a quiet chat some time. I do hope that you get your book published, you have obviously put a lot of work into it. You won't find me posting any bad reviews of it. No need to forgive your enthusiasm, it's to be admired.

We all need to thrash out our own views and it's better done here than attacking other's works in books, something I try to avoid. It is difficult, if anyone is passionate about a subject, to avoid becoming heated in a debate. I mean it seriously when I say that if there's any way I can help when you go ahead with your book, let me know. I shall certainly be honest with you.

[Stewart P Evans]

I can't remember...

I believe both Matters and William Stewart consulted you prior to publishing, did they not?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

I can't remember that far back...

[Stewart P Evans]

Thank You

My daughters have a habit of buying me "Ripper" books at Christmas - unfortunately not always very good. I have warned them not to buy a recent book that Chris suggests I should not mention
I enjoyed your book very much. Perhaps because Tumblety spent time in my neck of the woods (as did Dr. Cream).
So TY for the enjoyment it gave
cheers, gryff

Thank you for the kind words Peter, I guess a response like that means a whole lot more than most.

[Robert]

Yes, Stewart has contributed an important book on a new suspect, and a must-have reference work, and other books besides. My hat's off to him.

Pity he doesn't drink tea though.

[Hatchett]

Hi

I find have I have more sympathy for someone who has put a book together, than someone who just argues a case here. I suppose the difference is that the book writer has really put his head above the parapet, whereas a theorist on here often just wants to cut your head off if you point out any alternative views.

[Fisherman]

No fish I said all the newspapers say Paul's evidence was that it was the stomach.

And the name went when team Lechmere said it didn't matter.

No, the papes said it was UNDER the stomach. And even if all the papers say that, it stands to reason that you need to look at al sources Before you go ahead and congratulate yourself of having "picked holes" in the theory. It comes across as kind of juvenile, and when it has nothing behind it, well, so much the worse.

As for the name, please do what you always need to do - read before you post. Of course the name matters - but what has been said is that it is not a very large part of the total - as some seem to Think. Some even say that it is the whole argument, which is cotton candy crazy.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

If her abdomen had been on display, I agree it would show that the body/scene was left in the same way that the subsequent murders were, which would be interesting.

Yet it would also throw up more questions about why it wasn't mentioned by anyone in any statement and Paul and Cross failed to get blood on them while examining her.

Also it's not eliminating Cross, it would just show that he didn't cover her up just like he didn't in the other murders.

But he DID cover her up, Bitsie - Gut was a bit overenthusiastic about what he believed to be conquerings, thatīs all.

The best,
Fisherman