Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #61
    Yes Paul, I don't remember seeing any JTR books in the shops except good ones. Martin's book was in an artists' materials shop that did a sideline in books, so it was a lucky hit.


    IIRC your Uncensored Facts was obtained in central London and Howells and Skinner's book at a motorway service station. I started reading it over my fry-up.

    Comment


    • #62
      I ordered all the centenary books at a local bookshop. My wife was cross that I was spending so much of what little money we had on them. Little did we know how the subject was about to dominate our lives for years to come. I did stumble across one of Don's revised editions in a bookshop. I bought McCormick's book from Lear's in Cardiff. I don't know if that bookshop is still there. I doubt it.

      Comment


      • #63
        It looks as though it's gone :


        https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/w...-close-8551898

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Paul View Post
          You saw Martin's book in a bookshop! My God, what's the world coming to.

          The thing is, like you I used to buy JTR books when I saw them, but there weren't so many of them in those days and ebooks and print-on-demand have given people the chance to produce more dross. Back in the day the chances were that the book would be reasonable to good, and if not you'd have lost a few quid. I pity anyone buying Ripper books these days because they can waste an awful lot of money on stuff that really doesn't cut the mustard.
          Ive bought a lot of ripper books and "suspect"books but the only one I felt that way was with cornwalls sickert book (and the carnac diary one-although I knew before hand more than likely to read as fiction). Ive restricted myself after that to only books from authors I trust and or the subject is a viable suspect IMHO.

          im cautious about this one, but have decided to buy it when it comes out since I do think Druitt at least is a viable candidate and from others posts about it on here.

          Two questions:
          when will you be reviewing it Paul?
          when is it available to purchase in the states? (an actual traditional book lol)

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
            Ive bought a lot of ripper books and "suspect"books but the only one I felt that way was with cornwalls sickert book (and the carnac diary one-although I knew before hand more than likely to read as fiction). Ive restricted myself after that to only books from authors I trust and or the subject is a viable suspect IMHO.

            im cautious about this one, but have decided to buy it when it comes out since I do think Druitt at least is a viable candidate and from others posts about it on here.

            Two questions:
            when will you be reviewing it Paul?
            when is it available to purchase in the states? (an actual traditional book lol)
            I'll be reviewing it in the first Ripperologist to be published after it's been published and I've read it. As for when it'll be published in the States, I have no idea. I know little more about the book than what it says on Amazon. I didn't much like Jonathan's first book, but it sounds like he and Christine have come up with a lot of new information for this one.

            I worked with Patricia on the second Ripper book and I think she brought some good stuff to light, in particular some slight evidence to suggest that Walter and Joseph knew one another. Peter Bower's discovery of those Sickert letters was interesting too, as was the discovery of artwork suggesting that Walter wasn't in France for the whole period of the murders. And on top that the press cutting book is a fascinating, albeit almost completely ignored, discovery. Overall, whether or not one buys into Patricia's conclusion, I think she brought to light the depth of Walter Sickert's interest in the case (he's an early Ripperologist!), and if one is interested in the origins of Joseph Sickert's story, I thought Patricia unearthed some stuff worth investigating further. Overall, to me that was worth the book's cover price. Personally, I liked Patricia and found her to be sincere and honest, more than happy to finance Keith's research in full knowledge that he was looking for evidence that could destroy her theory. But I do understand why many people are deeply frustrated with her book.

            The Carnac book is fiction, and very unusual for the time it must have been written, especially if it was written by Beaman. I'm interested in these associated mysteries - I want to know the truth about the Carnac book, I want to know the origin of Joseph Sickert's story, I want to know for sure who wrote the Maybrick 'diary', I want to know why Druitt was ever suspected, Ditto Kosminski and Ostrog... Answering those questions doesn't matter to most people, I think. Or they're happy with the answers they already have.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
              Shame. I remember it when it was a large shop, before Blackwell's took it over. I used to buy each new P.G. Wodehouse book there as they were published. A hardback book was a sizeable chunk of what I earned back then.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Paul View Post
                Shame. I remember it when it was a large shop, before Blackwell's took it over.
                Likewise. Apart from being an excellent all-round bookstore, Lear's was the de-facto Cardif University bookshop, so its academic section was very well-stocked - I bought a load of reference books there in the years leading up to and including my "A" Levels. Fond memories.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen"
                (F. Nietzsche)

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Paul View Post
                  I'll be reviewing it in the first Ripperologist to be published after it's been published and I've read it. As for when it'll be published in the States, I have no idea. I know little more about the book than what it says on Amazon. I didn't much like Jonathan's first book, but it sounds like he and Christine have come up with a lot of new information for this one.

                  I worked with Patricia on the second Ripper book and I think she brought some good stuff to light, in particular some slight evidence to suggest that Walter and Joseph knew one another. Peter Bower's discovery of those Sickert letters was interesting too, as was the discovery of artwork suggesting that Walter wasn't in France for the whole period of the murders. And on top that the press cutting book is a fascinating, albeit almost completely ignored, discovery. Overall, whether or not one buys into Patricia's conclusion, I think she brought to light the depth of Walter Sickert's interest in the case (he's an early Ripperologist!), and if one is interested in the origins of Joseph Sickert's story, I thought Patricia unearthed some stuff worth investigating further. Overall, to me that was worth the book's cover price. Personally, I liked Patricia and found her to be sincere and honest, more than happy to finance Keith's research in full knowledge that he was looking for evidence that could destroy her theory. But I do understand why many people are deeply frustrated with her book.

                  The Carnac book is fiction, and very unusual for the time it must have been written, especially if it was written by Beaman. I'm interested in these associated mysteries - I want to know the truth about the Carnac book, I want to know the origin of Joseph Sickert's story, I want to know for sure who wrote the Maybrick 'diary', I want to know why Druitt was ever suspected, Ditto Kosminski and Ostrog... Answering those questions doesn't matter to most people, I think. Or they're happy with the answers they already have.
                  Thank you sir
                  for me personally ive found im not interested in the associated mysteries that don't really have anything to do with the case or viable suspects-maybrick, sickert, royal conspiracy etc.
                  Im interested in the history of the ripper, not the history of ripperology (in terms of fringe or IMHO crackpot stuff).

                  Ive recently started re reading Rob House's Kosminski book and REALLY like/ed it. I think its one of the better suspect books.


                  re this one-Ive been critical of Hainsworths theory that Mac knew all along it was druitt but was trying to protect the family by not revealing, but who knows? lets see what he comes up with and new stuff and I congratulate him on his new book.

                  Thanks again and I look forward to your review!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                    Ive recently started re reading Rob House's Kosminski book and REALLY like/ed it. I think its one of the better suspect books.
                    As one who is cautious about suspect books, I bought the paperback and then the audio version. Rob presents his case without beating you over the head with it.

                    ...Ive been critical of Hainsworths theory that Mac knew all along it was druitt but was trying to protect the family by not revealing, but who knows? lets see what he comes up with and new stuff and I congratulate him on his new book.
                    Always enjoyed discussing Jonathan's theory with him. A little complex when the alternative stance on Mac is that he may have just been less than competent when it came to this case, but everything Jonathan has presented has been well thought out.
                    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


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Paul View Post
                      Of course it is ridiculous to claim that Jack the Ripper was a Martian, but you are missing or avoiding the point that we live in countries that cherish freedom of speech and that a person has the right to say Jack the Ripper was a Martian and a publisher has the right to publish the book in which he says so. If one accepts this principle of freedom of speech, which it is evident that you don’t, then the author’s sincerity is what distinguishes a genuinely held theory (albeit in this case a wildly improbable one) from a con job. I don’t defend con jobs, but I do defend a person's right to voice what they believe to be true (even if it is ludicrous).
                      Hello Paul,

                      Thank you for your reply. I will respond to one particular part, on this occasion.

                      So you say that "we live in countries that cherish freedom of speech and that a person has the right to say Jack the Ripper was a Martian and a publisher has the right to publish the book in which he says so. If one accepts this principle of freedom of speech, which it is evident that you don’t, then the author’s sincerity is what distinguishes a genuinely held theory (albeit in this case a wildly improbable one) from a con job. I don’t defend con jobs, but I do defend a person's right to voice what they believe to be true (even if it is ludicrous). "

                      To note...

                      The UK DOES NOT have unlimited freedom of speech, but then again nor do the people of ANY other country in the world. There is also no strict constitutional protection of free speech. Just about all laws and rights in the UK are enforced by act of Parliament, and thus can be withdrawn by a simple majority.
                      https://www.quora.com
                      Do the British have freedom of speech?

                      Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” in the UK. But the law states that this freedom “may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”.

                      So whilst you "defend a person's right to voice what they believe to be true" and quote censorship which you write, clearly you do not believe in, you are of course totally aware of the potentially dangerous acceptance if such belief?

                      It means, in principle, that any person can write whatever they "utterly believe in" and promote it upon the populace. Well, I'm sorry. We find ourselves in total disagreement. The principle you so fervently adhere to would allow any person to publish, distribute and, according to your beliefs in "free speech", stand on a soap box at Speakers Corner and blurb out. Really?

                      Example 1. A man "utterly believes" that all women acting with freedom on the same level as a man, dress as they please, and have choice of sexual contact with men, women, or both, are nothing but whores and should be treated with total disdain, physically punished and mentally, if not physically held in check. He writes all this, expanded, in a book, and ties in the actions of JTR as an excellent example to follow of the treatment of such women. His right to state such, under "utter belief" and "freedom of speech", should not be quelled nor censored in any way shape or form, according to your stance.
                      Pardon me for totally walking a long way away from your sense of non censorship and non restriction of freedom of speech.

                      Example 2.

                      Living in the society we do, one is limited in one's "freedom of speech", no matter how much a person "utterly believes" in something. It is unacceptable to be racist. It is unacceptable to call a person something that is grossly and personally offensive.. No matter how much the person "utterly believes" in their view. Certain laws, such as libel and the like, even personal vociferous abuse, slander, etc, prevent such "utter belief" from being said ad hoc. So if you accuse me of "not believing" as (you so ardently defend) , in free speech, forgive me. Free speech and "utter belief" must, must, have the censorship that controls it. So I'm sorry Paul , no, I clearly do not believe that a person has the right to say and write whatever they want just because they "utterly believe in it". And no, I find the uncensored defence of such action as unacceptable. Otherwise it would be perfectly alright to walk down the street shouting "Seig Heil" calling people of African ancestry the "n" word, and spouting "whores" at all women not locked to a kitchen sink.
                      In which case. You are correct. I do not believe in "free speech", I do believe in censorship to defend normality.
                      I believe in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

                      You, however, state.. "but I do defend a person's right to voice what they believe to be true (even if it is ludicrous).

                      My examples, above, are not just "ludicrous", they are highly unacceptable and offensive. Yet you " will defend those people the right to voice what they believe to be true".

                      I don't care for such "freedom of voice, or belief".
                      Naughty me for acting with unbridled censorship on the poor individual. Human rights have advanced beyond the outdated "utter belief" that a person can " voice what they believe to be true".

                      That's a stance I will stick by. Sorry.


                      Phil
                      from 1905...to 19.05..it was written in the stars

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                        Hello Paul,

                        Thank you for your reply. I will respond to one particular part, on this occasion.

                        So you say that "we live in countries that cherish freedom of speech and that a person has the right to say Jack the Ripper was a Martian and a publisher has the right to publish the book in which he says so. If one accepts this principle of freedom of speech, which it is evident that you don’t, then the author’s sincerity is what distinguishes a genuinely held theory (albeit in this case a wildly improbable one) from a con job. I don’t defend con jobs, but I do defend a person's right to voice what they believe to be true (even if it is ludicrous). "

                        To note...

                        The UK DOES NOT have unlimited freedom of speech, but then again nor do the people of ANY other country in the world. There is also no strict constitutional protection of free speech. Just about all laws and rights in the UK are enforced by act of Parliament, and thus can be withdrawn by a simple majority.
                        https://www.quora.com
                        Do the British have freedom of speech?

                        Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” in the UK. But the law states that this freedom “may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”.

                        So whilst you "defend a person's right to voice what they believe to be true" and quote censorship which you write, clearly you do not believe in, you are of course totally aware of the potentially dangerous acceptance if such belief?

                        It means, in principle, that any person can write whatever they "utterly believe in" and promote it upon the populace. Well, I'm sorry. We find ourselves in total disagreement. The principle you so fervently adhere to would allow any person to publish, distribute and, according to your beliefs in "free speech", stand on a soap box at Speakers Corner and blurb out. Really?

                        Example 1. A man "utterly believes" that all women acting with freedom on the same level as a man, dress as they please, and have choice of sexual contact with men, women, or both, are nothing but whores and should be treated with total disdain, physically punished and mentally, if not physically held in check. He writes all this, expanded, in a book, and ties in the actions of JTR as an excellent example to follow of the treatment of such women. His right to state such, under "utter belief" and "freedom of speech", should not be quelled nor censored in any way shape or form, according to your stance.
                        Pardon me for totally walking a long way away from your sense of non censorship and non restriction of freedom of speech.

                        Example 2.

                        Living in the society we do, one is limited in one's "freedom of speech", no matter how much a person "utterly believes" in something. It is unacceptable to be racist. It is unacceptable to call a person something that is grossly and personally offensive.. No matter how much the person "utterly believes" in their view. Certain laws, such as libel and the like, even personal vociferous abuse, slander, etc, prevent such "utter belief" from being said ad hoc. So if you accuse me of "not believing" as (you so ardently defend) , in free speech, forgive me. Free speech and "utter belief" must, must, have the censorship that controls it. So I'm sorry Paul , no, I clearly do not believe that a person has the right to say and write whatever they want just because they "utterly believe in it". And no, I find the uncensored defence of such action as unacceptable. Otherwise it would be perfectly alright to walk down the street shouting "Seig Heil" calling people of African ancestry the "n" word, and spouting "whores" at all women not locked to a kitchen sink.
                        In which case. You are correct. I do not believe in "free speech", I do believe in censorship to defend normality.
                        I believe in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

                        You, however, state.. "but I do defend a person's right to voice what they believe to be true (even if it is ludicrous).

                        My examples, above, are not just "ludicrous", they are highly unacceptable and offensive. Yet you " will defend those people the right to voice what they believe to be true".

                        I don't care for such "freedom of voice, or belief".
                        Naughty me for acting with unbridled censorship on the poor individual. Human rights have advanced beyond the outdated "utter belief" that a person can " voice what they believe to be true".

                        That's a stance I will stick by. Sorry.


                        Phil
                        Phil,
                        I didn’t say we have complete freedom of speech, I said we live in countries that cherish freedom of speech, which is true. Secondly, we’re talking about an author writing a book in which they advance a theory about the identity of Jack the Ripper, not about libellous or slanderous statements, not about writing offensive racist or sexist things, and not about the Nazis ‘final solution’. Thirdly, I did not say that I would defend people saying such things. If you insist on taking your argument to such ludicrous extremes then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Paul View Post
                          You saw Martin's book in a bookshop! My God, what's the world coming to.

                          The thing is, like you I used to buy JTR books when I saw them, but there weren't so many of them in those days and ebooks and print-on-demand have given people the chance to produce more dross. Back in the day the chances were that the book would be reasonable to good, and if not you'd have lost a few quid. I pity anyone buying Ripper books these days because they can waste an awful lot of money on stuff that really doesn't cut the mustard.
                          Best to read a review by that bloke in Ripperologist first.
                          Regards

                          Michael🔎


                          " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                            Thank you sir
                            for me personally ive found im not interested in the associated mysteries that don't really have anything to do with the case or viable suspects-maybrick, sickert, royal conspiracy etc.
                            Im interested in the history of the ripper, not the history of ripperology (in terms of fringe or IMHO crackpot stuff).

                            Ive recently started re reading Rob House's Kosminski book and REALLY like/ed it. I think its one of the better suspect books.


                            re this one-Ive been critical of Hainsworths theory that Mac knew all along it was druitt but was trying to protect the family by not revealing, but who knows? lets see what he comes up with and new stuff and I congratulate him on his new book.

                            Thanks again and I look forward to your review!
                            What a coincidence Abby. I was just about to start re-reading Rob House’s book too after just re-reading Fido.
                            Regards

                            Michael🔎


                            " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                              Hello Paul,

                              Thank you for your reply. I will respond to one particular part, on this occasion.

                              So you say that "we live in countries that cherish freedom of speech and that a person has the right to say Jack the Ripper was a Martian and a publisher has the right to publish the book in which he says so. If one accepts this principle of freedom of speech, which it is evident that you don’t, then the author’s sincerity is what distinguishes a genuinely held theory (albeit in this case a wildly improbable one) from a con job. I don’t defend con jobs, but I do defend a person's right to voice what they believe to be true (even if it is ludicrous). "

                              To note...

                              The UK DOES NOT have unlimited freedom of speech, but then again nor do the people of ANY other country in the world. There is also no strict constitutional protection of free speech. Just about all laws and rights in the UK are enforced by act of Parliament, and thus can be withdrawn by a simple majority.
                              https://www.quora.com
                              Do the British have freedom of speech?

                              Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, “everyone has the right to freedom of expression” in the UK. But the law states that this freedom “may be subject to formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”.

                              So whilst you "defend a person's right to voice what they believe to be true" and quote censorship which you write, clearly you do not believe in, you are of course totally aware of the potentially dangerous acceptance if such belief?

                              It means, in principle, that any person can write whatever they "utterly believe in" and promote it upon the populace. Well, I'm sorry. We find ourselves in total disagreement. The principle you so fervently adhere to would allow any person to publish, distribute and, according to your beliefs in "free speech", stand on a soap box at Speakers Corner and blurb out. Really?

                              Example 1. A man "utterly believes" that all women acting with freedom on the same level as a man, dress as they please, and have choice of sexual contact with men, women, or both, are nothing but whores and should be treated with total disdain, physically punished and mentally, if not physically held in check. He writes all this, expanded, in a book, and ties in the actions of JTR as an excellent example to follow of the treatment of such women. His right to state such, under "utter belief" and "freedom of speech", should not be quelled nor censored in any way shape or form, according to your stance.
                              Pardon me for totally walking a long way away from your sense of non censorship and non restriction of freedom of speech.

                              Example 2.

                              Living in the society we do, one is limited in one's "freedom of speech", no matter how much a person "utterly believes" in something. It is unacceptable to be racist. It is unacceptable to call a person something that is grossly and personally offensive.. No matter how much the person "utterly believes" in their view. Certain laws, such as libel and the like, even personal vociferous abuse, slander, etc, prevent such "utter belief" from being said ad hoc. So if you accuse me of "not believing" as (you so ardently defend) , in free speech, forgive me. Free speech and "utter belief" must, must, have the censorship that controls it. So I'm sorry Paul , no, I clearly do not believe that a person has the right to say and write whatever they want just because they "utterly believe in it". And no, I find the uncensored defence of such action as unacceptable. Otherwise it would be perfectly alright to walk down the street shouting "Seig Heil" calling people of African ancestry the "n" word, and spouting "whores" at all women not locked to a kitchen sink.
                              In which case. You are correct. I do not believe in "free speech", I do believe in censorship to defend normality.
                              I believe in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

                              You, however, state.. "but I do defend a person's right to voice what they believe to be true (even if it is ludicrous).

                              My examples, above, are not just "ludicrous", they are highly unacceptable and offensive. Yet you " will defend those people the right to voice what they believe to be true".

                              I don't care for such "freedom of voice, or belief".
                              Naughty me for acting with unbridled censorship on the poor individual. Human rights have advanced beyond the outdated "utter belief" that a person can " voice what they believe to be true".

                              That's a stance I will stick by. Sorry.


                              Phil
                              Surely you are going over the top just a tad here Phil?

                              There’s a far too dangerous move toward curtailing free speech going on across the world culminating, unsurprisingly, in people yelling the Orwellian phrase Hatespeach at anyone that they disagree with or seek to silence. Free speech absolutely has to include the right to mock, satirise, offend, exaggerate or upset. Any curtailing is the thin end of the wedge. Where does it end? Who makes the judgment on what is Hatespeech? We end up with an ever-expanding list of unacceptable opinions. Many of the things that we now know to be true were once themselves classed as unacceptable opinions. The only speech that should be curtailed is a direct incitement to violence.

                              That said we surely have to realise that Jon Hainsworth isn’t the Grand Wizard Of The Klan and that his publishers are just trying to sell a book. If we took your stance Phil we wold hardly ever make any kind of purchase. The vast majority of people look a the blurb on a book and take it with a pinch of salt. I'd go further and say that anyone already interested in the case in general will make their own mind up wen deciding whether to buy the book or not. No one will say - well he’s solved the case so I guess that I have to buy it.
                              Regards

                              Michael🔎


                              " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                With Mike's previous post, lets wait until Jon Hainsworth chimes in....failing that, let's just wait for the book to be released.

                                Thank you.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X