Best suspect book?

[Tom_Wescott]

Someone like Kelly, on the other hand, is highly unlikely only because there is zero evidence against him and that one cannot place him in Whitechapel at the time of the killings.

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'. But he's certainly a more sensible suspect than many I've seen put forth. Possibly more sensible than most, and definitely worth the close look that Tully gave him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Barnaby]

Good book about a very unlikely suspect. A bit outdated now, but a very solid factual effort for its time, considering the resources available to authors then.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I don't mean to derail the thread, so I will try to phrase this more generally but obviously I am interested in Kelly.

When a book is well-researched but about a "very unlikely" suspect, I suppose why that suspect is very unlikely is free to vary, and that there are degrees of unlikelihood. For example, a detailed bio of Prince Albert Victor could be well-researched but he is highly unlikely due to the fact that one cannot be in two places at the same time. Someone like Kelly, on the other hand, is highly unlikely only because there is zero evidence against him and that one cannot place him in Whitechapel at the time of the killings. At the risk of pulling a Patricia Cornwell, one also can't prove that his wasn't there. The completely subjective but good "psychological fit" between Kelly and the murders makes him a highly compelling character to many; if some evidence were discovered to place him in Whitechapel, surely he would become one of the more plausible suspects.

[Tom_Wescott]

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

Good book about a very unlikely suspect. A bit outdated now, but a very solid factual effort for its time, considering the resources available to authors then.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Many thanks to Dave and Paul for "voting" my book as the best.

Tom's comment puzzles me. I present a suspect's back-story, then list the reasons people have given to suspect he was the Ripper, then analyse those reasons. Sounds like a perfect blueprint for a Ripper suspect book to me.

Where is it written that a book about a JtR suspect HAS always to be trying to force people to believe that the person was the Ripper? It's THAT kind of attitude that makes people suppress any evidence to the contrary, and overblow, or - worse still - to invent a pack of lies to back up their arguments.


Helena

Hi Helena. I've never considered Chapman much of a Ripper suspect. And 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.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Good Michael]

Tully's book was unputdownable for me. He does stretch things a bit, and I so wish he could have published Kelly's confession/journal so we could have read for ourselves about his misadventures upon leaving England, but the character of Kelly himself plus the inability to dismiss him, makes him viable, and perhaps all thanks is due to Tully. Long sentence there.

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

Tom's comment puzzles me. I present a suspect's back-story, then list the reasons people have given to suspect he was the Ripper, then analyse those reasons. Sounds like a perfect blueprint for a Ripper suspect book to me.

It's far too good a biography for that, Helena. Besides, it seems to me that most "Ripper suspect books" have, as their raison d'être, a hell-bent desire to "sell" their suspect to the reading public. That's how I'd characterise a "Ripper suspect book" anyway.

Whilst you've produced a book about a Ripper suspect, it offers a whole lot more. If it must be classified as a "Ripper suspect" book then, like only a few others (Tully's included, I'd say), it stands out from the crowd.

[HelenaWojtczak]

I have trouble thinking of Helena's book as a 'suspect' book or even a Ripper book, but to each his own.

Many thanks to Dave and Paul for "voting" my book as the best.

Tom's comment puzzles me. I present a suspect's back-story, then list the reasons people have given to suspect he was the Ripper, then analyse those reasons. Sounds like a perfect blueprint for a Ripper suspect book to me.

Where is it written that a book about a JtR suspect HAS always to be trying to force people to believe that the person was the Ripper? It's THAT kind of attitude that makes people suppress any evidence to the contrary, and overblow, or - worse still - to invent a pack of lies to back up their arguments.


Helena

[Barnaby]

There's actually a number of suspect books I've enjoyed even though I was not convinced by the conclusions. The Diary books come to mind, as well as Euan McPherson's book on Bury. Ripper Legacy was a lot of fun. And Cornwell. A well-written suspect book is often easier to read for me at this stage than yet another dry run of 'the facts'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

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

[Barnaby]

Clearly it is VINCENT ALIAS JACK.

[Tom_Wescott]

I have trouble thinking of Helena's book as a 'suspect' book or even a Ripper book, but to each his own. And I don't think that answer was in keeping with the spirit in which JTRSickert asked his question.

Although in dire need of an update, I'd put 'The Lodger' by Evans & Gainey up at the top of the list along with Rob House's book. However, I can't agree that House's book was in any way unbiased, though it would be stupid to expect it to be.

There's actually a number of suspect books I've enjoyed even though I was not convinced by the conclusions. The Diary books come to mind, as well as Euan McPherson's book on Bury. Ripper Legacy was a lot of fun. And Cornwell. A well-written suspect book is often easier to read for me at this stage than yet another dry run of 'the facts'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Paddy]

Rob House's book on Prime Suspect Kosminski so far, as it is backed by facts and leaves it to us to decide....

Pat.....................

[Nemo]

I'd say so Tom

Chapman has been considered a suspect and if you are interested in him as such then Id recommend Helena's book which may change your opinions somewhat

PS
I just noticed there's something wrong with the times on current posts - yours shows as 11.30am and at the bottom of the page it says it is 12.30pm GMT whereas it's approx 7.20pm - strange

[Tom_Wescott]

Does Helena's book qualify as a 'suspect' book since, from what I've heard, she argues against Chapman as a Ripper suspect and not for him?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

George Chapman

Until recently it would have been Rob House on Kosminski, but now it'd have to be Helena...

All the best

Dave

[JTRSickert]

Thank you Nemo.