Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bruce Robinson's Positions On........

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

  • Originally posted by Edward Stow View Post
    His opinion - this theory - carries weight with a certain type, as seen by the mainly glowing reviews. The reviewers think - in the main - that he has made a good case.
    Given what's been posted here about Robinson's arguments, I think it's clear that the only reason the reviewers think he's made a good case is that the reviewers know nothing about the subject, and can't be bothered to find out anything about it.

    To my mind, that just underlines the fact that the press doesn't consider the Whitechapel Murders a subject for serious historical study, but essentially just a bit of entertainment. If a writer of fiction produced a controversial book about - say - the Hundred Years' War or the life of Gladstone, the press would look for somebody who knew something about the subject to review it (or at least the broadsheet press would). As it's just Jack the Ripper, it doesn't occur to them to do that. They don't consider it a subject to which expertise is appropriate. They feel free just to plunge in and express an opinion born of complete ignorance.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by CGP View Post
      Given what's been posted here about Robinson's arguments, I think it's clear that the only reason the reviewers think he's made a good case is that the reviewers know nothing about the subject, and can't be bothered to find out anything about it.

      To my mind, that just underlines the fact that the press doesn't consider the Whitechapel Murders a subject for serious historical study, but essentially just a bit of entertainment. If a writer of fiction produced a controversial book about - say - the Hundred Years' War or the life of Gladstone, the press would look for somebody who knew something about the subject to review it (or at least the broadsheet press would). As it's just Jack the Ripper, it doesn't occur to them to do that. They don't consider it a subject to which expertise is appropriate. They feel free just to plunge in and express an opinion born of complete ignorance.
      Excellent post Chris

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Hi Trevor. Much as I'd like to dismiss Carl Feigenbaum as a JTR suspect, I've yet to read more than snippets of your work, so I hardly think that'd be fair.

        Also, Chris, I do wonder what an alcoholic simpleton (let's face it, that's what people who have met him think of him) like Mike Barratt was doing researching pre-1900's inks, as then unpublished police inventories for empty matchboxes & implanting minuscule, old fragments of brass into pocket watches to stitch-up a fairly random chap as JTR(!) when by rights he should've been either down the pub or selling scrap metal.
        Maybe someone put him up to it? Then it'd be a conspiracy though, and I know you don't believe in those.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Stephen Collyer View Post
          implanting minuscule, old fragments of brass into pocket watches
          That's a point. Does Mr Robinson think Michael Maybrick faked that watch as well?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by CGP View Post
            That's a point. Does Mr Robinson think Michael Maybrick faked that watch as well?
            Robinson's theory has that covered.
            According to him, Michael wrote the diary etc to fit-up James as JTR.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by CGP View Post
              Given what's been posted here about Robinson's arguments, I think it's clear that the only reason the reviewers think he's made a good case is that the reviewers know nothing about the subject, and can't be bothered to find out anything about it.

              To my mind, that just underlines the fact that the press doesn't consider the Whitechapel Murders a subject for serious historical study, but essentially just a bit of entertainment. If a writer of fiction produced a controversial book about - say - the Hundred Years' War or the life of Gladstone, the press would look for somebody who knew something about the subject to review it (or at least the broadsheet press would). As it's just Jack the Ripper, it doesn't occur to them to do that. They don't consider it a subject to which expertise is appropriate. They feel free just to plunge in and express an opinion born of complete ignorance.
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              Excellent post Chris

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              I agree, Trevor and Chris, this is as much an indictment of the media as it is of Robinson's weaknesses and the flaws in other theories that they trumpet. It's true: the media are not discerning and they jump on the latest theory, and, in the act of doing so, do a disservice to the public.
              Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
              https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

              Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
              Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

              Comment


              • I have obtained the audio book...all 30+ hours of it. Have listened to the first 4 chapters today and will listen to the rest as time permits at work. I can say the narrator is very good at the emotive tones necessary to convey the story. Hearing it, instead of reading it, is certainly a different angle, with its obvious limitations of referencing but the ability for myself to remain physically productive while ingesting a rather long tome.

                Nevertheless, I will feel more comfortable with my criticisms considering the many layers of plot the writer is laying down. He seems to be a 21st century Tom Cullen picking at every scab the Victorians--at least those of class and privilege--left over the perceived sores of the time as Robinson sees it.
                Best Wishes,
                Cris Malone
                ______________________________________________
                "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                  He has issues with Phillips' performance at the Chapman inquest.
                  I see those issues now. He believed Phillips saw the masonic link in the mutilations of Chapman and sought to suppress it. The ever eager Wynne Baxter, didn't catch on and kept pressing Phillips for the details. When he got them, "bro" Baxter saw the conundrum, understood why "bro" Phillips was hesitant in divulging the mutilation details, so he concocted an outlandish American organ grab bag theory to cover his mistake.

                  Bullshit.

                  I guarantee that if "bro" Phillips was covering for what he saw as some masonic symbolism in Chapman's murder, "bro" Baxter would have known, privately, from Phillips before he would have jeapardized his reputation and his career on a ridiculous backpedaling effort.
                  Best Wishes,
                  Cris Malone
                  ______________________________________________
                  "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                  Comment


                  • I guarantee that if "bro" Phillips was covering for what he saw as some masonic symbolism in Chapman's murder, "bro" Baxter would have known, privately, from Phillips before he would have jeopardized his reputation and his career on a ridiculous backpedaling effort
                    'Bro' Malone

                    Robinson also, as you now know, claims Baxter invented the 'American Doctor" theory. Baxter must have taken an awful lot of guff, regardless of who told him or even if he had invented the story.
                    To Join JTR Forums :
                    Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                    Comment


                    • Baxter, in his desire to justify 2 long, concurrent and expensive inquests, took the unique circumstances of the Chapman murder (uterus removed supposedly with some ability) and a rumor that he heard about this American, and concocted his theory. In baseball terms, he had two strikes so he decided to swing hard and knock it out of the park. Instead, he struck out.

                      In other words, yeah, in a way Baxter invented it. It was his theory. But it wasn't out of whole cloth and he didn't just come up with it to get in line with Phillips.

                      Bottom line is. ..they didn't know what they were up against, but the arrogant Baxter wasn't going to settle for that. However, humble realism set in on his ass during the Stride inquest and he acted much differently.
                      Best Wishes,
                      Cris Malone
                      ______________________________________________
                      "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                      Comment


                      • A curate's egg...

                        A little late to the party, I've just come across this thread after just completing my second reading of this book. First time round of reading I considered this book very like the curate's egg. Second time round too.

                        I think little of Michael Maybrick (any other Maybrick) as a JTR candidate.
                        I think he should ditch this aspect of the book altogether ha ha!
                        I didn't see any convincing to support his canditure at all.

                        His publisher was 'Fourth Estate' owned by Harper-Collins, I believe. Don't know the relative size of H-C but a long established and large concern. I wondered whether they would have done some kind 'due digiligence' within Freemasonary, and if M.M. really was JTR, would they will really not have been persuaded not to publish the book?

                        On the upside, I liked and found convincing his treatise on Wynne Edwin Baxter's Womb Collector and the Packer's visit/interplay with the two private detectives. Also the appendix on the Special Commision re the Parnell setup a handy 'cheatsheet' for those like myself who haven't looked into that subject too much.

                        A good book in parts.

                        Martyn

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Stephen Collyer View Post
                          Robinson's theory has that covered.
                          According to him, Michael wrote the diary etc to fit-up James as JTR.
                          Maybe the "placer" of the Diary.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X