What was your first Ripper book?

[Jonathan H]

That's easy for me to remember because it is relatively recent, about 2005 or 2006.

It was 'The Lodger: The Arrest and Escape of Jack the Ripper' (1995) by Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey, which I immediately ordered after seeing an enthralling UK documentary based on its findings, called 'Secret History: The Whitechapel Mystery' (the moody music alone is fantastic!).

The book was a joy to read, and re-read, but it also introduced me to George Sims as a source. This helped me to form a different theory of the case from 'The Lodger' over subsequent years -- for what that is worth (many believe: not much).

Though other sources have turned up which have strengthened the argument (Dr T's interview) and weakened it (he was probably not the Batty St lodger) the central thesis of Evans and Gainey that Dr Francis Tumblety was a -- if not the -- prime police suspect of 1888, and that the mystery makes no sense with the American Confidence Man forgotten and unknown in previous secondary sources, remains strong and compelling.

On this site, in the Dissertations section, the articles 'Tumblety Talks' by R. J. Palmer and 'A Slouch-Hatted Yank' by Evans are both must-reads.

Also, R. J. Palmer's marvelous and meticulous trilogy on Inspector Walter Andrews' investigation of Tumblety, in 'The Examiner', are an indispensable 'sequel' for 'Lodger' fans.

[The Grave Maurice]

Phil,

Did you get around to reading Odell and Cullen? Both of them influenced my thinking on this topic for a long time.

Robert,

Maybe you should get a paper route. Extra cash is always useful.

I still read Farson's book from time to time. He was a talented writer. I might also take this opportunity to recommend his autobio Never a Normal Man. It's fascinating, if painful, read.

[Phil Carter]

Hello GM,

I admit that I did, and Odell's book I found better then Cullen's, I must admit. However, I was wary of the his deduction as well. In this way, I suppose that these earlier books have influenced me as today I can see no one lone killer in all of this. No theory as to whom he or they are has caught the imagination completely, as yet. Having said that, I do like Lynn Cates' idea of JI being around for C1 and C2, but see problems with that too.
There have been other historical non-jtr books that have influenced my thinking though. Those that show the background surrounding all of this.

best wishes

Phil

[Mayerling]

Sort of complicated here. The first true crime book that got me hooked on the field was John Brophy's THE MEANING OF MURDER, which introduced me to the questionable theory that George Chapman was the Ripper. Then I was able to read the essay in the collection THE SUNDAY GENTLEMAN by Irving Wallace about Dr. Joseph Bell (the model - in part - for Sherlock Holmes) which touched upon Bell's possible involvement with Dr. Henry Littlejohn in solving the Whitechapel case (rendered useless information as their joint solution was not made public). The first all Ripper study was Tom Cullen's AUTUMN OF TERROR, although my copy is the American version, WHEN LONDON WALKED IN TERROR. In the late 1970s my collection of Ripper studies picked up when I got the first version of Donald Rumbelow's THE COMPLETE JACK THE RIPPER, and Michael Harrison's CLARENCE, WAS HE JACK THE RIPPER? I now have about four or five other books including JACK THE RIPPER WHO WAS HE? in which one of my essays appeared.

Jeff

[Limehouse]

LIke a good few others - my first book was Donald Rumbelow back in about 1974 and even then - as a teenager - I was more interested in the historial and social apsects of the case than I was the identity of the murderer. I think studying the case from this angle brings us much closer to the killer actually because it makes you realise how likely it was that the killer blended well into the local community.

[Critteranne]

Thanks for all the responses. Wow, I started a thread that went to two pages and didn't involve people getting into fights. (Hint: Don't start a thread about "Sword Control" in a science fiction and fantasy newsgroup.)

I envy the people who got to start with the Rumbelow book or something like that. On the other hand, Prince Jack was shorter, so that made it the perfect book to read for a book report.

[tylerxxlovex3]

My first was Philip Sugdens amazing book. After reading it I went JtR crazy and bought like 20 books that I selected with the help of all of you, so thanks! I still haven't read them all but I love being able to choose from different subjects.

Tyler

[The Grave Maurice]

I rather envy you, Tyler. It took me almost 30 years to get to Sugden's book, but only because he hadn't yet written it. I had to wade through a lot of rubbish (and some excellent books as well) until I got to it. You had the advantage of starting with the best.

[Phil H]

It took me almost 30 years to get to Sugden's book, but only because he hadn't yet written it. I had to wade through a lot of rubbish (and some excellent books as well) until I got to it.

Same here, GM, butthere was a certain excitement about that process!

I enjoyed McCormick in its day - not least because ten I had absolutely NO IDEA of its inaccuracies and inventions.

Farson and Cullen were cutting edge in their day, and I was a convinced Druittist for a long time.

I vividly recall buying Knight on the day of publication (it had previously been serialised in the London Evening Standard). I was stying in friends and must have been something of a bore because I couldn't put the book down! My friends were utterly confused next day - I had gone to bed scoffing at Knight's assertions and came down to breakfast saying I thought he was on to something - again I had no way of knowiing that he had falsified evidence and alleged things that were not true. All the same i had sat up most of the night reading.

Rumbelow was great because he provided a more distanced, factual approach - quite novel then.

The Barlow-Watt TV series was cutting edge and very exciting to watch over it's six weeks. I recently re-watched it and though it has undoubtedly dated in many ways, it remains powerful for me.

But as I remember, it was in the centenary year and just before that the torrent of books began, and some real research. Fido was amazing - though somewhat complicated to understand, but suddenly new avenues opened up.

But my aim in saying this is not to write a chronological, historiographical account of the Ripper books I have read. As Tennyson said, "I am a part of all that I have met," and these books - and all the rest - may seem dated now, but they were fresh and fascinating and fantastic at the time. I can look at their covers and recall.

There was also a pattern in those days. I had no time to do research of my own - though I delved as far as I could in libraries with out of print books like Matters, Odell and Stewart. This was - don't forget - before the files were public (that cam along with Knight in the mid-70s), I had no opportunity to check the facts authors claimed in their books. Thus each successive book, even up to the 80s had a certain pattern:

- set out the basic "facts" of the case;

- review ideas on suspects and firmly demolish the last author's claim that X or Y was "Jack";

- promote the author's own candidate as JtR.

The second "phase" was the only place one got to evaluate the evidence and see why writer A or B had made mistakes, why he could not be right etc. So one waited for the next "suspect" book with bated breath and read it avidly.

So, to conclude - I am hugely grateful for Sugden, the Ultimate, Letters, the A-Z, Eddleston, Scotland Yard invesitigates, Begg's various tomes and for the work that lies behind them - but I am also grateful for the "old days" and do not regret in one iota having lived through them.

Phil

[Steve S]

In order.....Cullen,Odell,Rumbelow,Knight.......Then it went mad in 1988.........

[Lejog]

I have only recently become interested in the Ripper case.
I have 2 ripper books.
"Ripper the facts" by Paul Begg and "Jack the Ripper Sourcebook" by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner.
I think I got them at the same time on amazon.

[E.J.H.]

"The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook" a real treasure, if you really want to dig inside the investigation and the police's side.

[Rubyretro]

My first 'Ripper' book was bought second hand back in the early '80s ( nothing between then and 2010, and then like the proverbial British Bus, books
started arriving in bunches). The very first one though, was Steven Knight's book, 'The Final Solution'.

I certainly didn't 'believe' 'the final solution' was credible....but it was the first time that I saw photos of Mary Kelly's 'murder scene' and it marked me indelibly. If anything, Knight made things seem worse than they even were..
I seem to remember that he described flesh hanging off the picture rails (!?).

I must have been very naïve then, because I didn't even have an inkling that such murderous depravity existed. I suppose I thought that Serial Killers cleanly topped their victims and hid the bodies.

Certainly I had an image of Jack, (in a top hat, of course), sneaking up on his victims out of the smog, and just stabbing them (ok - 'ripping' them) and then being 'beamed up' mysteriously.

Knight's theory had some familiarities for me, though : My Grand-dad (who was in his late '90s when he died a few years ago) was a parcel van driver in the East End for BR. He used to say -in the same hushed whisper no doubt all of these people 'with special knowledge' use- that 'the word on the 'streets'' was that the REAL Ripper was The Duke of Clarence. I had also seen the Barlow/Watts programme with my mum.

Knight's book had the effect of demolishing any belief that I had before in
anything that I thought that I knew about the Whitechapel murders (so you could say that it was totally counter productive in that sense), but with the photo of MJK set me on a realisation of the realities of the murders, and a long fascination for who the real killer might be....

[Carol]

My first Ripper book was 'The Last Victim' by Anne Graham and Carol Emmas. I found it in a second-hand 'Aladdin's Cave' in Minehead in 2007 when we were on holiday in England. It took me a year before I got around to reading the book and I was absolutely fascinated by it - not, I have to admit, for Jack the Ripper himself, but for the Maybrick saga. Wanting to find out more about the Maybricks I found myself on Casebook. Then I sent off through Amazon for a copy of The Diary of Jack the Ripper by Shirley Harrison.

Having digested that I then sent off for all the other books concerning Maybrick as the Ripper. I can't tell you the extent of my disappointment when the author of the book about the person who supposedly wrote the Diary was banned from Casebook. I sent off for a copy and found it very plausible as to who the writer of the Diary actually was. It would have been great for those of us who are interested in the Diary to have been able to 'talk' with Stephen Powell 'in public'. Yes - I do know the controversy surrounding the book and the possibility of libel cases in court.

Actually, I have a lot to thank the Maybricks for as their story was so all-embracing to me at that time that it helped me through a very tough year of my life. Strange, isn't it, how such awful happenings can have helped me over 100 years later?

Love
Carol

[Adam Went]

Like Tyler, my first Ripper book was Sugden's Complete History as well. Didn't realise it at the time, of course, but in hindsight I am constantly grateful that it was the case.....

Cheers,
Adam.