Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Little Book of Jack the Ripper

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Little Book of Jack the Ripper

    Now this looks good - just released I believe at £10.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	little book.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	19.2 KB
ID:	671219

  • #2
    I wonder who wrote it.

    Comment


    • #3
      There is some Impressive contributors:

      Click image for larger version

Name:	20140912_131120.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	228.9 KB
ID:	665677

      Comment


      • #4
        I must say, I like the font very much
        “Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”

        Comment


        • #5
          It's a nicely designed book.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
            It's a nicely designed book.
            Hi Rob. Yes, it does. It's the kind of book you buy for it's bookness as well as it's content.
            “Sans arme, sans violence et sans haine”

            Comment


            • #7
              10 quid for this load of really good book
              G U T

              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

              Comment


              • #8
                Rob - or should I say Robert - that's the second time I've seen that chapter header page reproduced in less than a minute.
                I trust there are no 30 year old errors in that chapter?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
                  Rob - or should I say Robert - that's the second time I've seen that chapter header page reproduced in less than a minute.
                  I trust there are no 30 year old errors in that chapter?
                  Not in my chapter. Perhaps you can have a word with your new best friend about stocking it?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hi all,
                    Always look forward to a new book, but what type of book is it ? I always want a new angle.

                    Regards.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Spyglass
                      It is published by the History Press (I believe) but was produced by the Whitechapel Society, with each chapter by a different person. I think there are chapters on each victim and by all accounts one also on the other non canonical victims. And other chapters on related background themes
                      I believe there's a new angle in at least one chapter.

                      Robert (as you should henceforth be called)
                      I'm sure any Official Jack the Ripper Store would stock this book, despite any temptation to remove certain chapters.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
                        Robert (as you should henceforth be called)
                        I'm sure any Official Jack the Ripper Store would stock this book, despite any temptation to remove certain chapters.
                        Cheers Edward (as you should henceforth be called),

                        Robert.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                          There is some Impressive contributors:

                          [ATTACH]16230[/ATTACH]
                          Rob,

                          Is this supposed to reveal a knowledge that in reality no-one actually has, that one person killed the 5 Canonicals?

                          Other victims......how about providing enough evidence to make this a series of killings, rather than some individual acts married by timing, before we start looking for "others". From the physical evidence available just 2 victims can be safely assumed to have been committed by one man. The 2 that were responsible for the creation of this completely speculative and yet often promoted urban legend of a mad serial killer of 5 loose in Whitechapel.

                          Anyone who is serious about answers, not theory validation, should note that there isn't a single shred of evidence linking anyone to any of the Canonical murders.., let alone all of them to one killer. Even if the "shawl" findings are valid, that's one murder and one killer, not a phantom menace and 5 women.

                          That's why I ruffle at the suggestion of "others", like somehow the 5 assumed Ripper murders are already in fact, linked. They aren't.

                          That's not to say that I have anything but respect for Rob, just that we have to stop assuming so much about these cases, its killing any chance of finding out what really did happen.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            Rob,

                            Is this supposed to reveal a knowledge that in reality no-one actually has, that one person killed the 5 Canonicals?

                            Other victims......how about providing enough evidence to make this a series of killings, rather than some individual acts married by timing, before we start looking for "others". From the physical evidence available just 2 victims can be safely assumed to have been committed by one man. The 2 that were responsible for the creation of this completely speculative and yet often promoted urban legend of a mad serial killer of 5 loose in Whitechapel.

                            Anyone who is serious about answers, not theory validation, should note that there isn't a single shred of evidence linking anyone to any of the Canonical murders.., let alone all of them to one killer. Even if the "shawl" findings are valid, that's one murder and one killer, not a phantom menace and 5 women.

                            That's why I ruffle at the suggestion of "others", like somehow the 5 assumed Ripper murders are already in fact, linked. They aren't.

                            That's not to say that I have anything but respect for Rob, just that we have to stop assuming so much about these cases, its killing any chance of finding out what really did happen.
                            It's not my book, I was just asked to write a chapter on the non Macnaghten five. There are fourteen chapters written by 13 different authors.
                            The book is basically for beginners and we tried to cover as many different areas as we could. We also had to stay within a specific word count which I had found difficult. I had 3300 words to write about 6 victims. And I just went over that.

                            Also and this might seem rude, but we didn't write the book to meet your approval. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or tell you what, since you like preaching, write your own book.

                            Rob

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                              It's not my book, I was just asked to write a chapter on the non Macnaghten five. There are fourteen chapters written by 13 different authors.
                              The book is basically for beginners and we tried to cover as many different areas as we could. We also had to stay within a specific word count which I had found difficult. I had 3300 words to write about 6 victims. And I just went over that.

                              Also and this might seem rude, but we didn't write the book to meet your approval. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or tell you what, since you like preaching, write your own book.

                              Rob
                              Why write a book that claims there is no evidence that a serial killer existed in Whitechapel in the Fall of 88 Rob, the only people who read this kind of material already believe that there was!

                              And your comment was rude considering that I might have been a candidate for purchase of the book. But I suppose most Ripper authors don't do it for the money, they write about it because they want to be heard from. Because they believe they have the "take" on the facts that sets them apart from the plethora of Ripper authors. Not the evidence mind you,...their "take", their "story".

                              Every time a Ripper book is published with an assumed kill number our study is diminished, and no-one writes the actual truth....that there is zero evidence that Jack the Ripper existed or that he killed five, or more, women. No-one, including me, wants to be the one that comes out and tries to sell that idea to a publisher, not when everyone and their brother seems to prefer the assumptive approach anyway. But I do realize that many fledgling students start here, so I prefer to act as a Devils Advocate for them, so they don't start with a belief that isn't founded in the evidence.

                              If I ever did write one one day, it will be titled something like "Jack the Ripper Crimes; A Century of Assumptions."

                              I don't pretend to imagine that youd read it, or many of the more "experienced" members here, but some people who haven't already swallowed the dogma whole might.

                              Your a decent guy Rob, Ive known you from here for some time now. No offense to you personally. Its about the fictional premise, not the preachers as far as Im concerned.

                              cheers
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X