name the 5 best Ripper books

[Marko]

I think I'd vote for five copies of Sugden's book.

Same here! The best book by far

[AndrewL]

Thanks Tom - a shame in a way, since Farson certainly deserves credit for discovering Lady Aberconway's notes.

In the same vein, has anybody read the books by Leonard Matters, Donald McCormick, Richard Whittington-Egan or Frank Spiering? And if so, would you recommend them? I know they are probably worthless as regards real evidence, but I don't mind that if the book is a good read in itself.

[Jonathan H]

Dear AndrewL

I argue you have it the wrong way round.

The theory on 'Kosminski' has been much weakened by Evans and Rumbelow, and what I call their 'Sailor's Home' theory of their great book of 2006.

I argue that Druitt was catapulted back to the top of the suspect list by Spalleck's 2008 piece 'The West of England M.P.--Identified' because it was the missing link between the sympathetic Druitt obits. and his unexpected resurfacing as a Ripper suspect, who was disseminated to the public from 1898 to 1917 -- though disguised.

Suspicion about Druitt began amongst those who knew him, and thus was not a mishmash later by a bumbling police chief wwhich has been the tiresome paradigm. The MP, Henry Farquharason, knew the Druitts and he knew Macnaghten: the Tory grapevine and the Old Boy Net.

I would refer you to my own Macnaghten trilogy in the Casebook 'Examiner' and the first issue of the 'New Independent Review' to see this argument fleshed out.

My contribution, for what it is worth, is to rescue Macnaghten's 1914 memoirs in which he did not claim that Druitt was a doctor, and to show that Sims' writings are a Mac source-by-proxy. The latteer show that Mac indulged in a fictional projection and protection of Druitt all along.

This was because Mac only found Druitt in 1891. Once you understand that -- that he is an embarrassing too-late suspect --then every other source, which seem contradictory, now make sense. For example, Abberline inevitably knew nothing about Druitt, nor did Littlechild -- and probably not Anderson or Swanson either.

I also argue that the 1899 'North Country Vicar' story is about Druitt, and thus we now understand why his family believed he was the fiend: he confessed to a priest after killing Kelly and before killing himself.

If the chips fall the right way, this will be the new paradigm, just as Gerald Posner brought back Oswald the lone gunman with 'Case Closed' (1995), overturning Stone's worthless, bombastic movie. This point of view was recently reconfirmed, last month, in pop culture by Stephen King's '11/22/63' JFK/time travel fantasia -- which nevertheless is pointedly not a conspiracy fantasia.

I should warn you that I am considered to be, here on this site, a colourful enthusiast with an empty hat.

I hate to write this, but no, Dan Farson's book is a terrible disappointment: thin, much less vivid than Cullen, infused with trendy psycho-babble, and involves a useless search for an alleged 'holy grail' source which never literally existed.

Farson should have employed his researchers to trawl the papers after 1889, and he, or they, would have found the 'West of England' MP source in 1959, arguably the real 'Rosetta Stone' of the entire case and not 'The East End Murderer--I knew Him!'.

[AndrewL]

Hi Jonathan,

Many thanks for that very full reply. I clearly have a lot more reading to do! Incidentally, can you tell me where to find those articles that you mention?

I quite agree with you about the JFK comparison - it does show that opinion can shift if enough evidence is presented in a clear and straightforward manner. Unfortunately, Gerald Posner had access to a lot more witnesses and documentary sources than we do... I've often felt that the JTR case is a bit like trying to do a jigsaw with the box cover and most of the pieces missing - we have just enough pieces left to get a sense of the picture, but not enough to visualise it in full.

Andrew

[Tom_Wescott]

In the same vein, has anybody read the books by Leonard Matters, Donald McCormick, Richard Whittington-Egan or Frank Spiering? And if so, would you recommend them? I know they are probably worthless as regards real evidence, but I don't mind that if the book is a good read in itself.

Matters - I haven't read all of it, because I don't own it yet. Again, only valuable from the stand point of seeing what Ripperology was like at the time it was written. Contains no information you can't get elsewhere.

Whittington-Egan - Would love to have this book, but don't. Missed on a chance to get it years ago and the few copies available are priced crazy high.

McCormick - Have it. Anything in there that makes you go 'wow' is completely made up by the author. Paperback copies are available cheap, but this is useless as research.

Spiering - Have it. Royal conspiracy theory. Otherwise, same as what I said about McCormick, but even more useless for research.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[AndrewL]

That's a shame, I'd hoped that the Spiering book in particular might be good fun. But thanks for putting me straight anyway.

[The Grave Maurice]

Wait a minute. Just because Spiering isn't a reliable source, doesn't mean that he isn't good fun. He is good fun. I enjoy his book, and it always gives me a chuckle. If we only read books that actually add to our collective knowledge about JtR we'd only read...well, not very many.

[Tom_Wescott]

You could read Spiering in 10 minutes. Very short book. If you want fun but altogether unreliable (though not on the low level of McCormick and Spiering) I would recommend Wilson & Odell's centennial book, 'JTR: Summing Up and Verdict'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Best 5 books?

Here's my thoughts, for what they are worth..

The Ultimate JTR Sourcebook..Evans and Skinner
Scotland Yard Investigates---Evans and Rumbelow
The JTR A-Z---Begg, Fido and Skinner
The Complete History of JTR--Sugden
Ripper Diary-The Inside Story..Linder, Morris and Skinner

honourable mention..

The Origins of the Vigilant State..Porter (Riiper reklated)

best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

Phil, could you perhaps elaborate on The origins of the Vigilant state by Bernard Porter (1987)? Does it refer to Victorian policing and to the Fennians? How informative is it pertaining to the Special Branch?

[lynn cates]

Porter

Hello Maria. It does indeed discuss Special Branch.

Great book, but needs to be updated since much new has been added to our knowledge of the British "political policing" since 1987.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil. In case you're wondering why more of the books you mentioned weren't in my list or others' lists, it's because the first post in this thread asked our fave 5 OTHER than the usual ones, such as A-Z, Ultimate, etc. It's funny if you took the opinions of the people on here who argue the most and agree the least, their lists of 5 fave Ripper books (all inclusive) would probably be the same on at least 4 of the 5 points.

I also have Porter and agree both that it's a great book and sorely needs updating.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

Whether I happen to agree or not with opinion doesnt sway me from knowing the best books on the subject. Present them as facts, and I will find things that do not add up. I look for answers that satisfy me more than the long accepted view, but I know a well written book when I see one!
That said, I wiil revise my list to come into line with the required criteria. I WILL include Porter even though not direct Ripper per se.

1. Porter, The Origins of the Vigilant State
2. Chisholm, DiGrazia and Yost, The News from Whìtechapel
3. Fishman, East End 1888
4, linder, Morris and Skinner, Ripper Diary, Inside Story
5. Connell and Evans, The Man Who Hunted JTR .

honary mention.. Bennett, The Making of the Myth.
honary mention 2.. Curtis, JTR and the London Press

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil. Just out of curiosity, why a Diary book? It's a great read, don't get me wrong. Not exactly one that would further your research though, which is what the other 4 on your list seem to be.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

Well, to be honest, it is because when I read the book I understood far more of the machinations of the subject.
The Diary was an enormous headache for just about everyone interested in the subject at the time, and still does, to a far lesser degree, effect the progress and direction of Ripperlogy. I always felt that I personally lacked the knowledge that I needed to have to be, if not "au fait" with the theme, then at least I could say that I knew and have the grasp of the whole picture. It would be very wrong of anyone to come to a fair conclusion without having read as much as is possible on the subject of the Diary.
There is obviously much still to be written on the subject, many unanswered questions, but at least now I can say that I am satisfied with my own knowledge on the subject.

The book itself is written in a style which was a pleasant read. The enormity of the complex nature of the problems made writing about it difficult, and I must say tthat I was really happy to have read through it without contantly having to re-read pages. It flowed without losing details. Excellently put together to explain to the unaware. Thats why. (No, I am not a Maybrickite..far from it) haha!

Thanks for asking Tom.

best wishes

Phil