What was your first Ripper book?

[Robert]

I suppose they suspect that it's a tall story.

[Tom_Wescott]

It certainly explains why the Ripper would first target the neck.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Exactly, Tom. Hatred of short necks is the motive.
Too bad the only good witness was a fellow-giraffe and understandably declined to swear to him.

[RedBundy13]

1st JtR

My first book was Pat Cornwell's Portrait of a Killer. I was so amazed by that book that I became instantly interested on everything JtK. I must admit that after reading her book I became a fan of the Sickert is the Ripper whole scenario. But sadly, as I did my own research it seemed less and less likely that he was actually Jack the Ripper. But still a good book with lots of other facts.

[niko]

Hi everyone, read alot of pieces here and there about Jack the Ripper from an early age, but my first real good book was "the fact's" by Paul Begg, in 2006, I found it a very interesting book, although I must addmitt I don't like reading. I have two book's to read which were Christmas present's they are Rob House new book on Kozminski and Spiros new book on black magic, all the best,agur.

niko

[DVV]

Well, not that I'm a genius but even though Couarnwall was my first too, I've never believed one word of it. It both angered and amused me.
Suspect-unviability aside, it's a very stupid and ill-written book, with many a ridiculous page.
So many suspect-books are much more readable and pleasant, whatever the theory (Garry Wroe, AP Wolf...others, and old ones too), making her Sickert-thing a third-rate attempt.

[DVV]

In fact, I've read only one ripper-book worse than Cournwall : that of Sophie S.

I don't want to spell her full name, she would loom up on my sofa.

[RedBundy13]

Come on D, her book wasnt that bad was it? While I agree her facts are off on alot of the parts, but still she gets some of it right. And I also agree she wnt way, WAY overboard on her claiming Sickert was the Ripper for 100% certainty. I mean she did find some new material for example the watermarks on some of the Ripper letters. That was something new. And she also proved that DNA could now be used in the hunt for JtR. So in my opinion, and again its just my opinion, she does deserve a little credit.

[DVV]

Hello RedB

Come on D, her book wasnt that bad was it? While I agree her facts are off on alot of the parts, but still she gets some of it right. And I also agree she wnt way, WAY overboard on her claiming Sickert was the Ripper for 100% certainty.

400 pages for a man who was in France at the time of the murders... Sickert has no criminal records but is accused (at least strongly suspected) of having committed 30 or 40 murders. Millions invested and she only read the Times (hence PC Phail).

I mean she did find some new material for example the watermarks on some of the Ripper letters. That was something new. And she also proved that DNA could now be used in the hunt for JtR. So in my opinion, and again its just my opinion, she does deserve a little credit.

Aaaarfff, how can we "hunt" JtR with DNA ? Any sample handy ?
I admit, though, that she's been clever on one point : the bayonet suggested in the Tabram case is utterly ridiculous.

[Tom_Wescott]

Come on D, her book wasnt that bad was it? While I agree her facts are off on alot of the parts, but still she gets some of it right.

A broken clock is right twice a day, which is once more than Cornwell. You should ask and expect a little more from your non-fiction books, Red. Having said that, she's a fantastic author and her book is exceptionally readable.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Cornwell, a fantastic author ? She's certainly somewhere between Dante and Mickey Mouse, but closer to Mickey in my book.

Dvvvv

[The Good Michael]

My first book was a little-known one called: Of Mice and Giants. It was about a pair of guys, one stupid and 6'7" and the other slight and much shorter. Their names were Lenny Fleming and George Hutchinson. The book was full of humorous get-rich schemes such as pretending to be witnesses to a murder. I laughed uproariously when the big knucklehead went into his girlfriend's apartment to tell her of the plan to make it look as if she were murdered, only to find that someone actually had killed her. It took him ten minutes of talking to her before he realized that he had been talking to a pair of ears and eyes. It gave me fits to read that.

For some reason, the book never made the big time. In fact, I may have the only copy.

Mike

[RedBundy13]

My first book was a little-known one called: Of Mice and Giants. It was about a pair of guys, one stupid and 6'7" and the other slight and much shorter. Their names were Lenny Fleming and George Hutchinson. The book was full of humorous get-rich schemes such as pretending to be witnesses to a murder. I laughed uproariously when the big knucklehead went into his girlfriend's apartment to tell her of the plan to make it look as if she were murdered, only to find that someone actually had killed her. It took him ten minutes of talking to her before he realized that he had been talking to a pair of ears and eyes. It gave me fits to read that.

For some reason, the book never made the big time. In fact, I may have the only copy.

Mike

Are you sure its not "Of mice and Men"? Or is of mice and giants some kind of spoof of Of Mice and Men?

[RedBundy13]

Patrica Cornwell

I have to get a couple of things straight. 1st thing is is that I am not a fan of Pat's. I dont buy into her story(anymore ha). What happened was I knew next to nothing about the Ripper before reading her book. So that being said after reading her book, to me she made a pretty good case for Sickert being JtR. Well obviously after looking elsewhere on the subject that just wasn't the case. But I could definitely see how someone who knows nothing about the case, who after reading Cornwells book could be inclined to believe her.
2nd thing is if no one else will give her credit for sparking a whole new generation of people getting interested in the JtR case I guess I will. She probably did more for the Ripper communtiy than anyone else this past decade that being bad or good, wrong or right. She sparked alot of controversy over "her" claims and got alot of people interested in the subject.
So for all that I just cant bring myself to condemn her, the only thing I can say is that she got it wrong.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Red,

Of course you were convinced by her story. Why wouldn't you be? I found her book very well-written, passionate, and detailed. If it weren't for the fact that I already knew better, I'm certain I would have found her argument convincing. I personally don't 'condemn' Cornwell. She brought a lot of attention to the case and attracted valuable contributors who otherwise may never have found their way here. Plus her DNA work on the letters was groundbreaking and intriguing (though it's unfortunate we don't have access to her scientists reports yet. Also, she is still paying real researchers, such as Keith Skinner, to dig up new stuff, so we might continue to benefit from her involvement.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott