Best suspect book?

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Helena. If I took your words in the wrong context and replied inappropriately, then I do apologize. But it appeared to me that you were reading a lot into my initial posts that were there and continued to do so even after I explained myself. Even so, I was a bit more snarly than I should have been. PM me your e-mail address because I've made something neat for you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I have not read your book yet because I want to keep this hardback copy in pristine condition. I'm waiting for the Kindle version to read it. So you get my money twice!

Tom, you most certainly did read my words wrongly in your mind. I am now very excited to find out what this neat thing might be. My emails is no secret it is hastings.press@gmail.com

And I'd love to take your money twice. Three times, if possible - can I interest you in a paperback? ;-)

Helena

[Tom_Wescott]

I do not understand why you are choosing to attribute some unpleasant attitude to my posting. My post was written from my heart, in absolute honesty and frankness, and explains my position clearly and without any "side" to it.

Therefore I do not appreciate your snarling response.

I await an apology as public as your snarl.

Helena

Hi Helena. If I took your words in the wrong context and replied inappropriately, then I do apologize. But it appeared to me that you were reading a lot into my initial posts that were there and continued to do so even after I explained myself. Even so, I was a bit more snarly than I should have been. PM me your e-mail address because I've made something neat for you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I have not read your book yet because I want to keep this hardback copy in pristine condition. I'm waiting for the Kindle version to read it. So you get my money twice!

[HelenaWojtczak]

No need to get smart with me.... Tom Wescott

I do not understand why you are choosing to attribute some unpleasant attitude to my posting. My post was written from my heart, in absolute honesty and frankness, and explains my position clearly and without any "side" to it.

Therefore I do not appreciate your snarling response.

I await an apology as public as your snarl.

Helena

[JTRSickert]

Did you notice the spelling of Eddowes name as Eddows? Money can't buy everything.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

good point

[Tom_Wescott]

I've pondered this for a bit. There is no evidence to assume him the Whitechapel murderer. But there is some evidence that makes him a person of interest in these murders. Calling him "very unlikely" might result in a loss of interest in a person that I'd argue we need to know more about.

I can assure you that my calling a suspect "very unlikely" would not result in a decreased interest in him. And I would certainly not dissuade anyone from further researching James Kelly. But my personal opinion is that he's very unlikely. But that's based on what we now know. Of course I'm completely open to changing my mind on him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I picked up Cornwell's book on Sickert and I have to be honest....I was giggling and sometimes outright laughing at some of the stuff I was reading:

1. Most of the Ripper letters are authentic (uh-huh)
2. Sickert's "fistula" that rendered him unable to engage in intercourse (despite us knowing that he was a frequent womanizer)
3. The spelling of Martha "Tabran" lol

I view it as a Ripper parody

Did you notice the spelling of Eddowes name as Eddows? Money can't buy everything.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[JTRSickert]

I picked up Cornwell's book on Sickert and I have to be honest....I was giggling and sometimes outright laughing at some of the stuff I was reading:

1. Most of the Ripper letters are authentic (uh-huh)
2. Sickert's "fistula" that rendered him unable to engage in intercourse (despite us knowing that he was a frequent womanizer)
3. The spelling of Martha "Tabran" lol

I view it as a Ripper parody

[robhouse]

I think any person who lived in the area, was convicted knife murderer, with sexual issues, and a hatred of women would be a likelier suspect that just some random person who lived in the area. That is pretty obvious, isn't it?

RH

[Barnaby]

To finish my train of thought, I like Kelly over some "pick your anonymous Polish Jew". While I would take the field of anonymous Polish Jews living in Whitechapel over Kelly, I'd take Kelly over any specific one. To me, his psychological profile is more compelling evidence than simple known proximity to the crimes.

[Barnaby]

Yes, now contrast this with the evidence for assuming him the Whitechapel murderer and you'll see which is weightier and why I called him 'very unlikely'.
Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I've pondered this for a bit. There is no evidence to assume him the Whitechapel murderer. But there is some evidence that makes him a person of interest in these murders. Calling him "very unlikely" might result in a loss of interest in a person that I'd argue we need to know more about.

Consider the following:

Suppose that we can verify beyond any doubt (from census records, employment records, and photographs passed down in the family) that Person A was in his early 30s, rented a room right down the street from one of the murder sites, fit the physical description of the killer, and had a reason to be on the streets in the early morning. This we know for sure, but we have absolutely no other evidence against him.

On the other hand, Person B was a convicted knife murderer, clearly had sexual issues, harbored a hatred toward women, and escaped from an asylum and went missing shortly before the murders began. This we know for sure, but we have absolutely no other evidence against him.

I know that I'd rather read a book about Person B first because what a great psychological fit! and second because there are thousands of people like Person A. But which is the more likely suspect? I'm having trouble answering this question.

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

I agree re Cornwell it was in my opinion "A rattling good yarn"

G.U.T.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm not Tom, but I thought Tully deserved a lot of credit for choosing an actual, verifiable knife murderer for his suspect. That alone is better evidence than a lot of Freudian speculation over an operation we don't even know for certain Walter Sickert had.

I can't decide whether the worst book is Cornwell's, or anyone with a Masonic-royal conspiracy.

I agree with you about Tully. I would not put down Cornwell's book as the worst, because there are many books that are just as absurd but not nearly as well-written and engaging. A good book educates as well as entertains. Cornwell's at least entertained.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hey Tom.

I am relatively new to the world of Ripperology and I did not realise that to qualify as a "suspect book" a work is required to promote a suspect, or rather to try to convince readers that he was the Ripper.

I just thought it meant a book about one of the many suspects.

You live and learn!

Helena

No need to get smart with me. You obviously took my words as some sort of slight to your work, which they clearly were not. The man who started this thread asked for recommendations of books where the author used facts to build a case FOR a suspect. When I saw two people recommend your book, I pointed out that your book does not argue for Chapman as the Ripper. Am I mistaken? Is that incorrect? Have I misrepresented your work? Clearly you want your book labeled a 'suspect book'. No problem. From here foreword I will refer to your book as a 'suspect book'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[RivkahChaya]

Hi Tom,

What is your opinion of Tully's book on James Kelly? I find Kelly to be a very interesting person of interest, despite the lack of evidence.

Barnaby

I'm not Tom, but I thought Tully deserved a lot of credit for choosing an actual, verifiable knife murderer for his suspect. That alone is better evidence than a lot of Freudian speculation over an operation we don't even know for certain Walter Sickert had.

I can't decide whether the worst book is Cornwell's, or anyone with a Masonic-royal conspiracy.

[HelenaWojtczak]

what I was saying was more along the lines of what Sam Flynn said after me. JTRSickert was asking about suspect books that argued FOR a suspect...yours doesn't, so I thought that should be pointed out.

Hey Tom.

I am relatively new to the world of Ripperology and I did not realise that to qualify as a "suspect book" a work is required to promote a suspect, or rather to try to convince readers that he was the Ripper.

I just thought it meant a book about one of the many suspects.

You live and learn!

Helena