Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

5 Q With : Stephen Russell

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

  • 5 Q With : Stephen Russell

    Big thanks to the big daddy Steve Russell for pitching in !


    1. Which other serial killer case is most like the WM in your opinion...

    2. Is there anything about the Stride murder which suggests to you that it may not

    have been perpetrated by The Ripper ?

    3. Moving right along....how about applying the previous question to the three

    victims most would feel were murdered by the same hand...that of Nichols, Chapman,

    and Eddowes ?

    4. Are there any particular magazine articles that you've read lately that you

    think others might profit from themselves ?

    5. How long have you been interested in the study of the Whitechapel Murders ?


    1. I'm afraid my knowledge of other serial killers is sketchy at best. Plus of course we don't definitely know who Jack was, which victims he was responsible for, motive etc. so comparisons are difficult. Jack the Stripper sounds very like him but I'm sure other members will be able to come up with a closer (and less flippant) match.

    2. Not really. It's possible of course but I would say unlikely. To me it seems to be stretching things a bit to suggest that there were two killers out that night in close geograpical and temporal proximity who both chose a similar victim type and method of killing. The lack of mutilation in the Stride case is easily explained by the killer being interrupted by Diemschitz. And I don't buy that a different knife was used as I can't see how it's possible to tell from injuries the maximum length of the blade.

    3. I'm going to be boringly conventional here and plump for the C5 as Jack's victims with Martha Tabram a possible addition. But again, we'll never know for certain.

    4. I enjoyed Jonathan Hainsworth's recent piece on Druitt. Not that I agreed with his conclusions and I'm no Druittist. But I did feel it showed imagination and original thinking.

    5. I first became interested aged about fourteen when I read Stephen Knight's book. I swallowed it hook, line, and sinker and over the years would trot out the tale if The Ripper came up in conversation. After all, I was now an expert. I'd read a book. Around centenary time, a friend remarked that the Knight story sounded ridiculous and even as I spoke I foud myself agreeing with him. That's when my interest really began - I went out and bought Fido, Howells and Skinner, and Wilson and Odell. My Ripper shelf continues to grow but it was not until I joined The other site and this one that I realised how little I know about this fascinating case.
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]

  • #2
    Enjoyed the interview.

    Thanks How and Steve for putting this together.

    Since he mentioned some fine authors of some of the books he purchased around the centenary time, I would like to ask Steve, What is your all-time favorite book on this subject and why?
    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


    • #3
      Hello, Cris.
      Glad you enjoyed the Q&A. I'm afraid my answers were rather boring.

      That's almost impossible to answer.

      For reference, I find the A-Z absolutely indispensible and am beginning to rely on the Ultimate Sourcebook more and more. I also find Eddlestone's "Encyclopaedia" helpful although I know he has his detractors.

      For an overview of the case, Sugden and Begg (The Facts) are both superb in my view with Rumbelow a close third.

      For a complete beginner I would recomment Rumbelow or Whithead & Rivett, which looks reliable enough to me and is written in an accessible, almost jokey style.

      There are many more great books out there like Scotland Yard Investigates and The Man Who Hunted... (this is not about you). I also like Bruce Paley and Melvin Harris for suspect books, and, of course Martin Fido.* This last has stayed with me over the years as I find that I still don't want to believe poor old Jack Pizer was the original Leather Apron.

      In short, I really couldn't choose a single favourite. But to turn the question on its head, if I had my whole collection on a desert islant and had run out of firewood, Uncle Jack would be the first to go.

      How about your choices, Cris?

      Best wishes,
      Steve.

      * I don't have the Rob House yet but it sounds brilliant.

      Comment


      • #4
        Far from boring, Steve...quite far.

        If you want some more, by all means let me know.

        Help such as what you provided with your response (John Malcolm too, of course) makes the Fat One's life a little easier.
        To Join JTR Forums :
        Contact [email protected]

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Steve,

          You're right that the books should be divided into specific genre with each an important aspect and I sure can't dispute the titles you mentioned. If I had to pick a single book that had the most lasting influence on me, it would have to be Sugden's. It was a good balance of making the story interesting while presenting it with the facts of the case and not making it too complicated for the laymen; something very difficult to do with a story that has so many loose ends as this.

          If you plan to get Rob House's book on Kozminski, you will not be disappointed. There are many reasons why I do not care for most suspect based books, but this one has no problem for me. Kozminski was a contemporary suspect of which a book was long overdue and Rob did a fine job of presenting 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


          • #6
            Thanks for the recommendation, Cris.

            Steve.

            PS Having recommended Whitehead and Rivett for a beginner, I note that they speak of "Frances Tumblety". That aside, I would still recommend it as an introductory book.

            Comment

            Working...
            X