Little Book of Jack the Ripper

[Lechmere]

Now this looks good - just released I believe at £10.

[Robert]

I wonder who wrote it.

[Rob Clack]

There is some Impressive contributors:

[Magpie]

I must say, I like the font very much

[Rob Clack]

It's a nicely designed book.

[Magpie]

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.

[GUT]

10 quid for this load of really good book

[Lechmere]

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?

[Rob Clack]

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?

[spyglass]

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

Regards.

[Lechmere]

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.

[Rob Clack]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Rob Clack]

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

[Michael W Richards]

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