Jack the Ripper and the Case for Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect - Rob House

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jonathan, I complete agree with you there. In my book I intend to have a chapter looking at various theories, but NOT with the aim of simply knocking them down to build up my own as you see in so many books. In fact, I intend to recommend Rob's book to my readers along with a VERY select few that I consider valuable and responsible for the newish reader. Of course, the rest of the theories I will call complete crap. LOL. It's definitely time for a reconsideration of the Druitt theory. At present, I consider him a rather lousy suspect. Tumblety even lousier. Kozminski, to my mind, is the only real alternative right now, but I'd love to change my mind on that. Incidentally, I imagine Macnaghten and crew favored Le Grand over their public suspects, though I can't prove it. Littlechild found Tums an interesting suspect, but I didn't get the impression from the letter that he actually thought he was the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Rob,

I didn't mention the title of the book because once people read THAT, they wouldn't see what else I had to say about YOUR book. The book is O.J. Is Innocent And I Can Prove It, by William C. Dear. Remarkably, he seems to have done so. Dan Rather, one of the biggest news guys in the world back in the 1990's, who was very involved in the case, has even said he now fully believes OJ is innocent and that the suspect named in the book committed the murders. I'm now at only 32% and I'm saying 'WOW'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

The book is O.J. Is Innocent And I Can Prove It, by William C. Dear. Remarkably, he seems to have done so. Dan Rather, one of the biggest news guys in the world back in the 1990's, who was very involved in the case, has even said he now fully believes OJ is innocent and that the suspect named in the book committed the murders. I'm now at only 32% and I'm saying 'WOW'.

Betcha you'll change your mind about 50% into the book, Tom. Yes, it reminds me of Kozminsky, but it also reminds of the people who suspect Burke Ramsey for the murder of his sister (per Asperger's Syndrome etc.).
One hilarious inaccuracy in the book which reminds of the old D'Onston debate in Ripperology is when W. Dear talks about Jason Simpson having suffered form "mycological epilepsy". The epilepsy caused by mucus? LOl. The correct term is "myoclonic seizures".
Plus Dear completely mixes up the timeline as seen by the defense and by the prosecution. This is a hastily written, shallow book for the quick dough.

[robhouse]

Hi Rob,

I didn't mention the title of the book because once people read THAT, they wouldn't see what else I had to say about YOUR book. The book is O.J. Is Innocent And I Can Prove It, by William C. Dear. Remarkably, he seems to have done so. Dan Rather, one of the biggest news guys in the world back in the 1990's, who was very involved in the case, has even said he now fully believes OJ is innocent and that the suspect named in the book committed the murders. I'm now at only 32% and I'm saying 'WOW'.

Hi Tom,

I have not read the book, but I am interested in hearing you expand more on this. I understand that the author proposes OJ's son as the killer, which seems plausible. Can you elaborate a bit on how you think this is similar to Kozminski, etc etc.

Thanks!

Rob H

[mariab]

Can you elaborate a bit on how you think this is similar to Kozminski, etc etc.

Perhaps you've noticed my post #123? OJ Simpson's eldest son is suffering from myoclonic seizures. (Only the author Dear mixed it up, D'Onston like. As in the “neurasthenia-gate".)

[robhouse]

I did notice your post Maria, but as I am not an expert in "myclonic seizures" and in fact know nothing about them, I was hoping that Tom or you or anybody might explain to me how this suspect is similar to Aaron Kozminski. I am not disagreeing with anyone, I am just hoping I might get some information without having to read the entire book myself.

Rob H

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Rob. No, I really don't want to elaborate too much, as mental medicine really isn't my thing. But the symptoms of his remind me of Kozminski. Do you have a Kindle? Once I'm done reading the book I'd be happy to let you 'borrow' it. I haven't used that feature before, but I believe it allows you to let someone else have it on their kindle free for 2 weeks.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Only thing I know is that a "myoclonic" seizure refers to the muscles. I'm sure it can be googled or referenced in a medical lexicon. The author totally gets it wrong though and calls it "mycological epilepsy", which is complete nonsense, as it translates into epilepsy caused by mucus (mushrooms?), lol. What's significant to sustain from all this is that Simpson Jr. is an epileptic of some sort, and this is the part that reminds of Kozminski.
Another idea for Rob House until he gets the book on loan from Tom is to try the online feature and check out the reviews on www.amazon.com. Some of them are very pertinent.

PS.: After I FINALLY manage to read Rob House's book (in a few weeks hopefully) I was planning on posting a praising review on the amazon site, if it's OK.

[tji]

[QUOTE]

Only thing I know is that a "myoclonic" seizure refers to the muscles. I'm sure it can be googled or referenced in a medical lexicon. The author totally gets it wrong though and calls it "mycological epilepsy", which is complete nonsense, as it translates into epilepsy caused by mucus (mushrooms?), lol. What's significant to sustain from all this is that Simpson Jr. is an epileptic of some sort, and this is the part that reminds of Kozminski.

Maria maybe instead of taking Lisa Ferris review from Amazon on the book literally word for word in your post above you should maybe try and do some research yourself (imagine that?!)

While I haven't read the book personally so can't say for sure I would imagine a mistake of that gravity getting picked up by the proof readers, so the logical conclusion would be that instead of mushroom it would be fungus and so he is saying something along the lines of the epilepsy being a fungal infection and not mushrooms


Tracy

[mariab]

The amazon review in question is spot on.

Proofreaders? Lol.
And FYI, a mushroom is fungus.

[tji]

The amazon review in question is spot on.

Well that would have to be a matter of opinion since I haven't read the book I can't comment. Maybe it is spot on, but it isn't yours, as you led us to believe, that's the difference,

However when you quote someone else's review (and mistakes) it should make you think whether it is not just worth posting your own opinion's instead.....or just not posting if you can't think of anything of your own.

Proofreaders? Lol.

I'm sorry I didn't realise you knew every proofreader there is, to be able to scoff at them.

And FYI, a mushroom is fungus.

????- you telling me it is a mushroom when I have just explained it to you in my last post?!

[Tom_Wescott]

Maria,

Stop being obnoxious. You don't read books. You don't even read the Ripper journals that you're always commenting on. I think everyone knows this by now. ALL you read are excerpts from google books and amazon.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Just love the "obnoxious" accusation. The William Dear book on OJ Simpson is NOT good, and you'll figure it out soon enough.

You don't even read the Ripper journals

Terribly behind on the Ripper journals, but as you very well know I have 2 books and a dozen articles on deadline, not to mention the international conf I'm in the process of preparing for next month.
My only comments on Ripper articles were on the Tabram article I recently mentioned to you and on Mark's Ada Wilson piece, which are the only ones I've managed to read of lately.

ALL you read are excerpts from google books and amazon.

Yes, I'm doing everything to keep the costs down. www.amazon.com and www.amazon.uk feature the possibility to read entire books on certain days.

[tji]

Just love the "obnoxious" accusation.

You should.


[QUOTE]

The William Dear book on OJ Simpson is NOT good, and you'll figure it out soon enough.

Maria, try answering the comments posted instead of trying to skip over them, no-one is disputing the fact the book is no good - It has been acknowledged that that is your opinion (if it actually is and not another reviewers!) it is the fact that you keep trying to dodge the fact that practically just copied someone else's review/idea and passed them off as your own.

Terribly behind on the Ripper journals, but as you very well know I have 2 books and a dozen articles on deadline, not to mention the international conf I'm in the process of preparing for next month.

How could we not, you tell us often enough!

[Cogidubnus]

Yes, I'm doing everything to keep the costs down. www.amazon.com and www.amazon.uk feature the possibility to read entire books on certain days.

And this is the poster who was so condescending and patronising towards me regarding my reading material, when I first posted on this site? Un-sodding-believable

Dave