The London of Jack the Ripper - Robert Clack and Philip Hutchinson

[Rob Clack]

Thread for discussing 'The London of Jack the Ripper'. All questions welcome. Whether you get an answer is debatable.



Rob

[George Hutchinson]

I'd like to ask if Robert Clack has ever been on a Ripper tour before.

PHILIP

[Rob Clack]

I've done the Donald Rumbelow tour. I'm taking a good friend of mine on a tour next Saturday. Unfortunately De Locksley's fully booked and I don't know if Don is doing any more so I'm lumbered with some bloke from Guildford. I'll ask him what he thinks about Druitt.

Rob

[Jdombrowski89]

Philip and Robert's book is probably one of The best ripper books out there to date when it comes to the murder sites. The new photographs of Buck's Row as well as Hanbury Street were well worth the 2 week waiting period until it was shipped to my house. Extremely Reccommended.

Regards,
Justin

[Monty]

I've done the Donald Rumbelow tour. I'm taking a good friend of mine on a tour next Saturday. Unfortunately De Locksley's fully booked and I don't know if Don is doing any more so I'm lumbered with some bloke from Guildford. I'll ask him what he thinks about Druitt.

Rob

For heavens sake, dont get him started on Karen Trenouth.

Monty

[Mike Covell]

I loved Philip and Rob's book, the pictures are of a clear quality. the text is informative and it stands up on the shelf proudly next to "Letters from Hell"

Mike

[Mike Covell]

Here is a link for those who wish to buy the book,

http://www.amazon.co.uk/London-Jack-Ripper-Then-Now/dp/1859836003/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203341140&sr=8-3

Regards Mike

[George Hutchinson]

For heavens sake, dont get him started on Karen Trenouth.

Monty

Don't go dissing my bird, Bell.

PHILIP

[Monty]

*Monty touches forelock*

Sorry Sor, wont be happenin again Sor.

Would ye be wantin the tin bath tonite Sor or shal I be gettin out porcelain one.....wid der fancy french parfumary?

Monty....who knows his place.

[George Hutchinson]

I would actually like half the kidne, please, Mr Mont.

PHILIP

[aspallek]

I just want to register my objection once again in this otherwise excellent book to the dismissal of Druitt as a suspect on the grounds of him being away from London playing cricket at the time "most of the murders" were committed (last page of the book). There is no publicly known evidence that suggests this. Druitt has plenty of time to get to his known whereabouts after each canonical murder.

It has been suggested that Phil has uncovered new evidence. If so, we'll have to wait until he makes it public before we can evaluate it. Until then, we must go by the currently available evidence, none of which suggests Druitt was away from London at the time of the canonical murders. If Phil has come up with irrefutable evidence giving Druitt such an alibi, I propose that he and I meet in Dorset to lay a wreath on Montague's grave. I mean that as a friendly gesture.

[George Hutchinson]

Dear Andrew

I have not replied to your concerns because I watched the saga unfold with others who did. It is a pointless procedure, as you are like a terrier on this count that will not let go. I was informed by a reliable source that there was proof that MJD was away. I trust that source and I do not have that proof myself. I am happy to acknowledge that the source may have been wrong, but I do not know this for a fact.

Please, please, will you just drop this? It is getting more than a little annoying that you seem to be obsessed with a pedantic point you yourself agree does in no way prove that your man was JTR.

Most people would disagree with you. I disagree with you. Rob and myself have no interest in suspect-led theories and the book was not about that. Your constant comments - and this, being your first on the new forum too - are beginning to me to read like SPAM or even benign trolling.

I know you are a better person than that. This is my one and only answer.

PHILIP

[Suzi]

Or half of JPdL's kidne!!!

[aspallek]

Dear Andrew

I have not replied to your concerns because I watched the saga unfold with others who did. It is a pointless procedure, as you are like a terrier on this count that will not let go. I was informed by a reliable source that there was proof that MJD was away. I trust that source and I do not have that proof myself. I am happy to acknowledge that the source may have been wrong, but I do not know this for a fact.

Please, please, will you just drop this? It is getting more than a little annoying that you seem to be obsessed with a pedantic point you yourself agree does in no way prove that your man was JTR.

Most people would disagree with you. I disagree with you. Rob and myself have no interest in suspect-led theories and the book was not about that. Your constant comments - and this, being your first on the new forum too - are beginning to me to read like SPAM or even benign trolling.

I know you are a better person than that. This is my one and only answer.

PHILIP

Philip,

I am very sorry to have offended you. I repeated my objection only because of the loss of the previous data to to the server crash. If not for this I would not have brought it up again. Please understand this. It is hardly "SPAM," since I mentioned it in this thread once on the old boards and afterward only replied to the comments and queries of others. I then started a thread in the Druitt section where you will have to agree it is a most appropriate topic for discussion. Even there the vast majority of my posts on the subject where in response to others. This is certainly nothing personal.

Philip, I have indicated many times that Rob's and your book is an excellent one. I agree that your book is not and should not be about suspects and that is why I think you should have ended it without going into to them.

I do not say this to be "tooting my horn" but I have put countless hours of research into Druitt's whereabout during the period in question and I have documented his known movements near the times of the canonical murders quite clearly, showing it that he had quite ample time for those known movements. To have someone come along and make an unsubstantiated statement that Druitt was away from London at the time is quite bothersome. Now you acknowledge that you had no actual proof and yet you made a statement of "fact" in your book. I fail to see how setting the record straight is inappropriate. This is not about proving the Druitt was JtR. Frankly, I believe he probably was not. This is about accuracy and possibly unintentionally misleading people into thinking that he has an alibi when as far as anybody knows (save your contact, apparently) he does not.

As an author, you are entitled to say whatever you wish, or at least whatever your publisher will bear. However, when you make a statement that runs contrary to known facts and you do not substantiate that statement you must expect criticism. You may choose either to ignore that criticism or to counter it by providing documentation in defense of your assertion. Merely to respond by saying "Stop criticizing my unsubstantiated statement" is not reasonable, however. I have had my published articles criticized as well, deservedly so.

I would like nothing more that to prove Druitt innocent. However, I know of no evidence that will do so. If you have evidence, or know of someone who does, please do what you can to bring it into the open so that it can be evaluated by the community. My offer still stands. If I see compelling evidence that Druitt was away from London during one of the canonical murders I will acknowledge that he is not a viable suspect and I will invite you to meet me in Dorset to lay a wreath on poor Montague's grave.

Best wishes to you and congratulations on your fine book and once again I am sorry to have offended you.

Oh, and, me a terrier? Yes, I guess that fits.

[Dan Norder]

I'd recommend a thread about Druitt for discussing these kinds of issues. The line about Druitt in Rob and Philip's book, no matter whether you agree or disagree with it, is so small and insignificant compared to the rest of the book that it seems unfair to give it so much attention in this thread.

As far as the book itself goes, without taking the time to sing its praises like it deserves all I can do is repeat what I said last time around: it's worth its price just for the new photos of the crime scenes alone. Anyone with a serious interest in the case is going to want a copy.

And, seriously (OK, I guess I will sing its praises some), anything anyone can do to continue to support and encourage Rob and Philip in gathering up new information and photos for the benefit of the whole field is a good thing. They are among the relatively small but dedicated group of people who don't have agendas to push and who are genuinely interested in facts about the case and the era just for the sake of the knowledge. If you've read these boards for a few years you have already seen examples of them changing previous views on topics when new information came in (often from sorting through the minutia of maps and plans that most of us don't have the patience to wade through ourselves) and unselfishly sharing images and so forth at no profit to themselves just for the sake of getting them out there so others can appreciate them. They put a lot of effort into it, so when they do put part of the fruits of their labors for sale in a format far more convenient than just unsorted computer files (and we can see from the recent server crash here how transient those can be sometimes), I strongly encourage people to both show their support and get a great new addition to their bookshelves in the process.

And of course that's not to suggest that we have to agree with them on every single point they ever raise (nobody agrees with anyone on everything anyway) but I think we risk losing sight of what really matters when we (on this thread and elsewhere) focus on those parts we disagree with instead of the bigger picture.