Tom Slemen on Sir Jim

[admin tim]

http://www.slemen.com/maybrickdiary.html

Now here's an authority....

[Chris G.]

http://www.slemen.com/maybrickdiary.html

Now here's an authority....

Mmmmmmmm.

"I believe the so-called Diary of Jack the Ripper to be a rather corny and badly written fake, riddled with dozens of glaring errors."

Tom Slemen

[Lyn Resthal]

"When I read the Diary, I found myself laughing at the numerous historical errors." [Various examples thus quoted.]

Tom Slemen.

Mmmmmmm.

(Tim, you do come up with the most amazing finds sometimes.)

[admin tim]

Only sometimes? :sad::cry:

[Paul Butler]

"The diarist also repeats the common myth about the Ripper leaving rings and farthings at the feet of victim Annie Chapman, when the real Ripper took the woman's rings with him."

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Where does the diary say this?

Paul

[Caroline Morris]

***DIARY MYTH/RUBBISH ARGUMENT ALERT***

How does Tom know Jack never set foot in Liverpool, since he cannot know who Jack was?

I’ve just dealt with the stale old Poste House ‘off Dale Street’ assumption on another thread. At least two local men think of another pub entirely when asked about post houses in Liverpool - one that is entirely appropriate for the real Jim to have frequented.

How does Tom know what happened to Mary’s heart after it was removed from her body? Has he any evidence that the ripper took it home with him and could have had it for his supper?

Looks like our Tom is rather ‘ignorant’ when it comes to his own facts.

Love,

Caz
X

[SirRobertAnderson]

***DIARY MYTH/RUBBISH ARGUMENT ALERT***

How does Tom know Jack never set foot in Liverpool, since he cannot know who Jack was?




I had not realized that Slemen has a suspect. Looks like he's taking a page out of Melvins' Donston hoax. :crazy:

I think the thing that consistently gives me giggles is the way anti-Diarists themselves try to perpetrate even MORE outlandish suspects.

http://www.mara.org.uk/reignier_conder.htm

Was Claude Reignier Conder Jack The Ripper?

By Colin Veacock

A Critical Analysis of a Theory put forward by Merseyside author, Tom Slemen.

When I first heard that Liverpool writer, Tom Slemen, knew the identity of Jack the Ripper I allowed myself a wry smile. How many times had I heard that since I became interested in the Whitechapel murders way back in the early 1980s. Names like Joseph Barnett, Lewis Carroll, Dr Francis Tumblety, and of course, James Maybrick immediately sprang to mind. Therefore it came as a pleasant surprise when I, along with thousands of other avid listeners, tuned into Radio Merseyside to hear who Tom was going to finally unmask as the Ripper. I have to admit I hadn’t heard of Claude Reignier Conder before Tom’s programme, “Jack the Ripper-The French Connection”, but the tale I listened to was well thought out and for a while had me convinced that Mr Slemen had achieved what scores of other researchers, historians and criminologists had failed to do. In my, On The Trail Of Jack The Ripper (see the full article at mara.org.uk) I even wrote that the idea looked promising but needed more investigating. Unfortunately the “more investigating” revealed some fatal flaws and inaccuracies in Tom’s Ripper theory.

First of all I thought it was incredibly arrogant and conceited for Tom to announce that he, and he alone, knew who the Ripper was. It struck me as odd because having met Tom twice I have found him to be quiet, unassuming and likable, and not the type of man who would make such bold claims. I can only think that he had bowed to some outside pressure in order to hype the programme in an effort to increase listening figures. There was no need; we were all listening…

There are a number of points I wish to make before I go any further. For all I know Claude Reignier Conder could be Jack the Ripper, but so could James Maybrick, Francis Tumblety, or some, as of yet unnamed suspect who will be unearthed next year or decades from now. The problem is writers, me included, have to resist the urge to manipulate the known facts in order to make various aspects of a theory fit, while, at the same time, attempting to stay within the bounds of possibility.

The points I have to make are not intended to try and disprove Conders involvement in the Whitechapel murders, but to show that the Ripper wasn’t necessarily the super human he is made out to be by Tom Slemen for the following reasons.

(1) Besides what Tom implies in “The French Connection”, there is not one single scrap of evidence which adequately shows that Colonel Cook and Claude Reignier Conder were practising Satanists.

[admin tim]

http://icseftonandwestlancs.icnetwork.co.uk/icmaghull/localmysteries/tm_headline=tale-of-lust-and-envy%26method=full%26objectid=15813056%26siteid=60 252-name_page.html