The Escape Of Jack The Ripper ( Hainsworth & Agius, 2020)

[Mark Kent]

Don't Judge a Book by It's Cover or Promo

To be totally transparent, I know Jon and Christina and I consider them friends.
I also know that Christina and Jon have done an amazing amount of research on this case and that research has led them to form this theory.

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't know that any other research team has produced as much detail on Druitt as they have.

I don’t believe they have created this book or Jon's previous one with the goal of scamming anyone for money. I believe it's been approached with the goal of sharing their research and supporting the theory that Druitt is their suspect as the murderer.

It's very hard to write a book. Trust me on this.

Jon and Christina know they are going to be attacked. Look at the old posts on Casebook if you want to see examples. The amount of ridicule and bile expressed towards Jon there is nothing short of online bullying.
So why would they subject themselves to this again? Because they truly believe this is the solution to the case.

I applaud that kind of dedication and passion.

That said, the publicity departments job of any publisher is to get your attention. Obviously, it has worked. Did Jon and Christine approve their promo piece? Maybe or maybe not.
Thousands of books are published every year and publicity staff try to get the ones they are working on to break through the noise. I've seen far more Ripper books come out with sensational promos that delivered little to no new information, and sometimes worse than that. I know you have too.

Even if Druitt is not the killer, this book provides additional and hopefully useful information that others have not been privy to. That in itself is a worthy addition to the suspect bio.

And in case you want to suggest anything about me, I have no financial interest in the success or failure of this book and have no connections to the publisher whatsoever.

I have not been asked to write this at the author's request, nor have I told them I am writing this. My only reason for entering into this conversation is to request fairness and respect to the authors.

Years of dedicated research deserves a voice. Read the book first before you criticize the contents.

[Mark Kent]

To be totally transparent, I know Jon and Christine and I consider them friends.
I also know that Christine and Jon have done an amazing amount of research on this case and that research has led them to form this theory.

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't know that any other research team has produced as much detail on Druitt as they have.

I don’t believe they have created this book or Jon's previous one with the goal of scamming anyone for money. I believe it's been approached with the goal of sharing their research and supporting the theory that Druitt is their suspect as the murderer.

It's very hard to write a book. Trust me on this.

Jon and Christina know they are going to be attacked. Look at the old posts on Casebook if you want to see examples. The amount of ridicule and bile expressed towards Jon there is nothing short of online bullying.
So why would they subject themselves to this again? Because they truly believe this is the solution to the case.

I applaud that kind of dedication and passion.

That said, the publicity departments job of any publisher is to get your attention. Obviously, it has worked. Did Jon and Christine approve their promo piece? Maybe or maybe not.
Thousands of books are published every year and publicity staff try to get the ones they are working on to break through the noise. I've seen far more Ripper books come out with sensational promos that delivered little to no new information, and sometimes worse than that. I know you have too.

Even if Druitt is not the killer, this book provides additional and hopefully useful information that others have not been privy to. That in itself is a worthy addition to the suspect bio.

And in case you want to suggest anything about me, I have no financial interest in the success or failure of this book and have no connections to the publisher whatsoever.

I have not been asked to write this at the author's request, nor have I told them I am writing this. My only reason for entering into this conversation is to request fairness and respect to the authors.

Years of dedicated research deserves a voice. Read the book first before you criticize the contents.

I have a friend named Christina. Apologies, but I realize I misspelled Christine's first name.

[Michael Banks]

To be totally transparent, I know Jon and Christina and I consider them friends.
I also know that Christina and Jon have done an amazing amount of research on this case and that research has led them to form this theory.

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't know that any other research team has produced as much detail on Druitt as they have.

I don’t believe they have created this book or Jon's previous one with the goal of scamming anyone for money. I believe it's been approached with the goal of sharing their research and supporting the theory that Druitt is their suspect as the murderer.

It's very hard to write a book. Trust me on this.

Jon and Christina know they are going to be attacked. Look at the old posts on Casebook if you want to see examples. The amount of ridicule and bile expressed towards Jon there is nothing short of online bullying.
So why would they subject themselves to this again? Because they truly believe this is the solution to the case.

I applaud that kind of dedication and passion.

That said, the publicity departments job of any publisher is to get your attention. Obviously, it has worked. Did Jon and Christine approve their promo piece? Maybe or maybe not.
Thousands of books are published every year and publicity staff try to get the ones they are working on to break through the noise. I've seen far more Ripper books come out with sensational promos that delivered little to no new information, and sometimes worse than that. I know you have too.

Even if Druitt is not the killer, this book provides additional and hopefully useful information that others have not been privy to. That in itself is a worthy addition to the suspect bio.

And in case you want to suggest anything about me, I have no financial interest in the success or failure of this book and have no connections to the publisher whatsoever.

I have not been asked to write this at the author's request, nor have I told them I am writing this. My only reason for entering into this conversation is to request fairness and respect to the authors.

Years of dedicated research deserves a voice. Read the book first before you criticize the contents.

Hi Mark,

An excellent post. I’m not disclosing any secrets here but Jon told me in an email that they had no control over the cover, the title or the blurb.

I don’t actually know Jon or Christine but we’ve exchanged a few emails in the recent past on the subject of Druitt. From their last book we know for sure that they are completely genuine and haven’t just alighted on a random suspect and tried to make him fit. As you said they uncovered some fascinating new information and I’m sure there’s more to come in March. Of course the book will come under scrutiny, as it should, but who knows if it will change opinions? It’s certainly on my list.

[Paul Butler]

Looking forward to it even more now. Thanks.

[Abby Normal]

To be totally transparent, I know Jon and Christina and I consider them friends.
I also know that Christina and Jon have done an amazing amount of research on this case and that research has led them to form this theory.

Maybe I am wrong, but I don't know that any other research team has produced as much detail on Druitt as they have.

I don’t believe they have created this book or Jon's previous one with the goal of scamming anyone for money. I believe it's been approached with the goal of sharing their research and supporting the theory that Druitt is their suspect as the murderer.

It's very hard to write a book. Trust me on this.

Jon and Christina know they are going to be attacked. Look at the old posts on Casebook if you want to see examples. The amount of ridicule and bile expressed towards Jon there is nothing short of online bullying.
So why would they subject themselves to this again? Because they truly believe this is the solution to the case.

I applaud that kind of dedication and passion.

That said, the publicity departments job of any publisher is to get your attention. Obviously, it has worked. Did Jon and Christine approve their promo piece? Maybe or maybe not.
Thousands of books are published every year and publicity staff try to get the ones they are working on to break through the noise. I've seen far more Ripper books come out with sensational promos that delivered little to no new information, and sometimes worse than that. I know you have too.

Even if Druitt is not the killer, this book provides additional and hopefully useful information that others have not been privy to. That in itself is a worthy addition to the suspect bio.

And in case you want to suggest anything about me, I have no financial interest in the success or failure of this book and have no connections to the publisher whatsoever.

I have not been asked to write this at the author's request, nor have I told them I am writing this. My only reason for entering into this conversation is to request fairness and respect to the authors.

Years of dedicated research deserves a voice. Read the book first before you criticize the contents.

thanks mk.
i trust your honest post. normally i would counter by saying that the usual response would be why buy the book if its the usual used car saleman stuff? ive been burnt before. after being nailed by the same read the book before you judge stuff i bought and tried to read cornwalls sickert book. ok i thought ill bite. i only got throught the first couple of chapters when she claimed sickert wrote most of the ripper letters and i tossed it in the trash can. literally lol. and god did it feel good.

but since druitt is actually a valid suspect and i trust posters like herlock, and now your heartfelt post im going to buy it.

and congrats to jh on his book. ill refrain from posting again till i read.

[Phil Carter]

The point is.. It doesn't matter if
A) the "vicar has been identified".. That's background. It doesn't make him a killer. So is the bit about
B) MJK being briefly held in a French asylum. It doesn't make him a killer.
C) Being a barrister defending a killer by blaming a prostitute doesn't make him a killer either. (Whoa.. Shock! Sensation!... NOT)
D) Now the "blood stained Druitt arrested in Whitechapel" sounds really interesting... IF the authors have come across a bona fide Met Police report on the matter NAMING Druitt... But I fear it's a case of trying to fit Druitt to a known occurrence. And.. It still doesn't make him a killer.
E) The Druitt family cannot possibly have "anonymously" alerted the authorities that the Ripper was dead if the author has found out PROOF of the Druitt family being the tipsters. Was the tip verbal? Written? I smell a rat...
Err, I think anonymous means name unknown? in which case, what is the proof family Druitt sent the tip off? Or is it speculation adding 2+2 and getting the desired number? No, it doesn't make MJD a killer either.
F) Sims "knowing Druitt identity" doesn't prove anything either. It means Sims found out the name. That's all.
It doesn't make MJD a killer.
G) So MJD was a medical student who "dropped out".
That doesn't make him a killer either.


Phil

Hello all,

First of all, thanks to Howard for his request to get the thread back on topic.

Next. Mark, As you have seen, I have already written that all respect to the authors has been kept, from my side. I will repeat, again, that my bone of contention is the promotional blurb. I am not, repeat not, judging a book pre release. I am judging the promotional wording. In post No. 1.

Now that Michael has confirmed that neither author knew if this promotional blurb (thank you for the confirmation), please allow me to raise a fair point concerning that.

It is very, very doubtful that any individual, at any publisher, bar perhaps Mr. Wood's company, would have intricate knowledge of the Whitechapel murders, it's details or the miriad of background information relating to any invidual. So..

In order to print, in promotional blurb, the "new revelations" as responded to, above, the publisher simply must have been informed or guided towards these specific revelations pertaining to Druitt. Insight from a publisher in a specific field is normally limited. There are only two people that would have passed on this information to be used and highlighted as part of the book promotion. The authors.
The 7 points are too detailed and a knowledge of Druitt and his life would need to be known. Publishing company individuals are not normally that knowledgeable. The obvious conclusion is that the publishers were guided to write those 7 specific points.
That being said, such is the norm in publishing world.
I question not that happening.

So, back to the promotional claims. 8, including the final one at the bottom. These I now discuss again.


1. The revelation that the vicar who may/may not have influenced Sir MM in some way. (It is not a "given")
That the vicar has been identified is excellent research. It is a background piece of information relating to a possibility/probability concerning the Memoranda influence. It neither makes MM's words true, nor does it contribute to the guilt of Druitt, nor prove he was a Murderer. It does not prove, nor show, Druitt was "Jack the Ripper". (claim No. 8)

2. Research to show Druitt was held, albeit briefly, in a French asylum, is again, excellent research, on the surface. In order to evaluate that information, one needs to know the dates of his incarceration, the name of the place, what the condition of his mind/body was, and fir what specific reason he was held there. (We are all too aware of the non violence shown in the remaining reports about Aaron Kosminski). Therefore, one should proceed with utmost caution before concluding that this incarceration had anything to do with, or at the time of, the Whitechapel murders. I have listed, elsewhere, a complete list of every known game of cricket Druitt played in England up to and including 1888. I will be therefore be most interested to see the dates of his incarceration. I also hope that Druitt is incarcerated under his own, real name.
All this, however, is again, background information. Unless incarcerated for violence towards women, it has no direct correlation to Druitt being either a Murderer of women, nor specifically Jack the Ripper.


3. The fact that Druitt was a barrister in a case defending a killer, is interesting. The part of Druitt attempting to blame a prostitute, is also interesting.
None of this gives any additional weight to Druitt being a suspect in a multi murder case. Because being a barrister was his job. Like publishers, he had to sell his clients side of the story to the best of his ability. It doesn't however, make him a killer, nor give further evidence of such a deed. The two things cannot be connected in order to make a case, nor indicate a case, nor contribute to a case of Druitt murdering women.

4. Sims knowing Druitt name. OK, so diligent research has shown that Sims knew the name of the "doctor" in the memoranda that Sir MM wrote of. What does that add up to? Well, we know Sims and MM we're in constant contact over the years, we know that Sims repeated the "drowned doctor" theory often, and we know Sims tried, in his writings, to promote the idea.
Sims "knowing Druitt identity" however, doesn't prove anything, apart from that it means Sims found out the name of the man to whom his theory pertained. That's all.I t doesn't make Druitt a killer, nor does it link Druitt, with any proof, or certainty, to being involved in the Whitechapel murders. It is merely a piece of excellent research combining Sims' beliefs with the memoranda.
It doesn't actually enforce a belief in Druitt actually being "Jack the Ripper". It may, may, confirm MM's suspicion that Druitt was "more likely than Cutbush". That is the most that can be said.

5. The discovery that Druitt "dropped out" of medical studies is not very sensational. Thousands of students drop out of University, or drop out of one study area to try another, or choose another. The reasons for such actions are many. Therefore I find nothing of a "revelation" in this happening. Unless the author has a piece of written reason from Druitt himself, or the University recording the event with a reason, I find it perfectly normal. It doesn't indicate a killer mind, nor does it make him a killer either.

6. The Druitt family cannot possibly have "anonymously" alerted the authorities that the Ripper was dead if the author has found out PROOF of the Druitt family themselves being the tipsters. Was the tip written, or verbal? If not written, sorry.. I smell a rat... Allow me to explain.

The Druitt family passing on "anonymously" to the police that the Whitechapel Murderer was dead, is a bit of a misnomer. First of all, if the authors have found out that the Druitt family, NAMED, in writing, informed this to the police, then they cannot have done it 'anonymously". If the tip off was verbal, then we are talking at least third hand gossip... From Family Druitt to the police, A third party told by a member of Family Druitt, and the authors discovering from the third party. Reason it must be third party? Many years ago Dan Farson contacted the then living Druitt family who were both surprised by the suspect revelation, and had not heard of it before at all. Had it been known, such a story would have been handed down through the years. So unless it is on paper, naming the Druitt family as the tipsters (they can't be anonymous then).. Verbally it must be through at least a third party.
That's why I smell a rat. It gets convoluted, as most theories tend to, I might add.
And it still doesn't actually prove Druitt was a Murderer. Only the possible, guessing even, that he might have been the Whitechapel Murderer, all, I add, without proof.

7. I've left the most interesting, most eyebrow raising "revelation" until last. Above, I wrote.. "Now the "blood stained Druitt arrested in Whitechapel" sounds really interesting... IF the authors have come across a bona fide Met Police report on the matter NAMING Druitt... But I fear it's a case of trying to fit Druitt to a known occurrence. And.. It still doesn't make him a killer."

We all know that no known official police recorded document from 1888 names Druitt in any way, shape or form. Unless, by sheer unbelievable research, or luck, the authors have uncovered hitherto unseen Met Police documentation naming Druitt, the only other viable source is a newspaper. As far as is known, in tens of thousands of newspaper articles so far found by hundreds or thousands of people, Druitt is not named in conjunction with the Whitechapel murders.
So, we are now hoping for either incredible research abilities re the police or the newspapers, or another possibility.. That written words about the bloodiest Druitt escaping have turned up in private correspondence, naming Druitt, between private/public citizens, etc. Now that's what I call amazing research, if so! We'd all doff our caps to that!
However. I find it more likely to be a case of fitting A to match D in the jigsaw puzzle, with questionable provable links... We've seen it many many many times in all of Ripperology from the very start. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.. But eagerness to fit up a suspect, us far from an unusual, nor unknown event. Is that me being sceptical? Or realistic? Forgive me, past experience means, I prefer the latter, sorry.

8. That Druitt was "The Ripper".
This particular comment I will put down to the publishers, and not the authors. If it gets mentioned once, in convoluted or straight written prose within the book however, then woe betide the authors. For then, then, we will have yet another claim from an author of "a final, finished, concluded, absolute, solution" Change the words to fit...
But back to the published garb.. The statement has been made. Not a claim. A statement. Druitt was "The Ripper".
Psst.. There's still time to change the promo wordings before release. Authors can do that.


Phil

[Anna Morris]

I still think my basic idea about the identity of JtR is the best. I believe police and other investigators of the time suspected a number of different men. Attempts were made to watch and/or account for the whereabouts and actions of these men. Druitt may well have been on the list. He drowned so he was no longer a risk. William Bury was hanged. Tumblety went back to America. Kosminski, or a man with a name that was similar, was sent to an asylum where he stayed till he died. James Kelly's mother-in-law was harassed by police right after MJK's murder. He may well have been on the list but apparently he was in North America and nobody could locate him. Etc.

So, we learn about these individuals who could have been JtR, but personally, I don't think any of them were. There is always something in their stories that, to me, creates major doubt.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Just one more question.

Exactly who is/are the publisher/publishers of this book?

Thanks


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Just one more question.

Exactly who is/are the publisher/publishers of this book?

Thanks


Phil

Hello all,

I will answer my own question.
It is being published by Amberley books, apparently.
Distributed through Amazon books.
For all those people interested.

Oh, and incase you didn't notice. Mr Hainsworth's last JTR book had "Case Closed" in it's title.

Sorry. For me, once bitten, twice shy.



Phil

[Anna Morris]

Only Amazon books? Last time I had anything to do with Amazon they refused to deliver a $13.00 item then started snatching funds off my credit card. My bank denied the charges & advised me to cancel the credit card which I did. When I finally got through to Amazon on the phone, in between me screaming and cussing I told them if they'd leave me alone I promised to leave them alone!

I know I can get Jonathan's former book through Barnes & Noble. Any chance of getting the new one that way?

[Paul]

Only Amazon books? Last time I had anything to do with Amazon they refused to deliver a $13.00 item then started snatching funds off my credit card. My bank denied the charges & advised me to cancel the credit card which I did. When I finally got through to Amazon on the phone, in between me screaming and cussing I told them if they'd leave me alone I promised to leave them alone!

I know I can get Jonathan's former book through Barnes & Noble. Any chance of getting the new one that way?

As far as I am aware, Amazon is not a book distributor, but an on-line bookseller. Amberley will distribute their books through their normal channels and if it is distributed or published in your country I imagine that you will be able to order it through any bookseller. Alternatively, you could order through any UK bookshop or even from Amberley themselves.

For various reasons I buy a lot through Amazon and have never had any trouble. It's a shame that you have.

[Paul]

Oh, and incase you didn't notice. Mr Hainsworth's last JTR book had "Case Closed" in it's title.

I assume Jonathan's case is still closed, the forthcoming book being the equivalent of sitting on the case to fasten it.

[Sam Flynn]

I assume Jonathan's case is still closed, the forthcoming book being the equivalent of sitting on the case to fasten it.

Excellent analogy!

[Michael Banks]

Only Amazon books? Last time I had anything to do with Amazon they refused to deliver a $13.00 item then started snatching funds off my credit card. My bank denied the charges & advised me to cancel the credit card which I did. When I finally got through to Amazon on the phone, in between me screaming and cussing I told them if they'd leave me alone I promised to leave them alone!

I know I can get Jonathan's former book through Barnes & Noble. Any chance of getting the new one that way?

I’ve just checked a comparison site that I use Anna and I was surprised to find that the cheapest that I can see the book at is £27 which is $33!

[Michael Banks]

Hello all,

I will answer my own question.
It is being published by Amberley books, apparently.
Distributed through Amazon books.
For all those people interested.

Oh, and incase you didn't notice. Mr Hainsworth's last JTR book had "Case Closed" in it's title.

Sorry. For me, once bitten, twice shy.



Phil

So are you dismissing the content of the book based on the title Phil? I recall Bill Beadle producing a very good (imo) book on Bury called Unmasking Jack The Ripper. An equally confident title I think. It might also be said, as far as Case Solved was concerned, that Jon’s position was that that as far as MacNaghten was concerned the case had been solved to his satisfaction when he received the evidence against Druitt. And so he was echoing Mac’s belief.

Come on Phil, do we refuse to eat certain foods, or suspect that they might be horrible, just because the advertisers say that it’s the greatest ever? We know two things. 1. Advertisers/Publishers exaggerate in an attempt to improve sales and 2. Jon Hainsworth genuinely believes that Druitt was the ripper (or at least the likeliest suspect that we have) Most of us bought The Final Solution, The Final Chapter, Jack The Ripper Revealed and The Diary Of Jack The Ripper.

Would you really dismiss the book on its title and blurb Phil?