Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Abby Normal
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    It looks as though it's gone :


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
    Before I got online, I just used to buy JTR books if I happened to see them and they looked reasonable. E.g. I saw Martin's book just by chance in a small bookshop.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    Before I got online, I just used to buy JTR books if I happened to see them and they looked reasonable. E.g. I saw Martin's book just by chance in a small bookshop.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Banks
    replied
    Jack the Ripper: Design For Death by Alexander J. Parker. (Kindle only)

    Avoid.

    I bought it.

    With my own money.

    Of my own free will.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Butler
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    Gee.....aren't people outside the U.S. bombarded with misleading advertising on a daily basis? Especially on TV we are assaulted with ads for miracle products that do not do half of what is promised. The hucksters of these things expect us to whip out our credit cards and call 1-800-IAM-GULLIBLE within the next three minute so we can get double the offer plus a special (worthless) free gift.

    At least someone takes time to think about whether or not s/he wants to buy a book, wait for the paperback edition, wonder if it will be on Kindle, wait for reviews, hope the local library will get a copy, etc.

    I feel like I got burned in the past on two JtR suspect books. That was before I had the internet and I did not have access to good reviews. Now I carefully consider my book purchases and I fully intend to buy Jonathan's books because I believe there is good research within them.
    Yes Anna. I've bought a couple of stinkers in the last year or so. I should have known better with one of them at least. Jonathan's first book was not one of them. It's a very well worked through theory and a pleasure to read.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Gee.....aren't people outside the U.S. bombarded with misleading advertising on a daily basis? Especially on TV we are assaulted with ads for miracle products that do not do half of what is promised. The hucksters of these things expect us to whip out our credit cards and call 1-800-IAM-GULLIBLE within the next three minute so we can get double the offer plus a special (worthless) free gift.

    At least someone takes time to think about whether or not s/he wants to buy a book, wait for the paperback edition, wonder if it will be on Kindle, wait for reviews, hope the local library will get a copy, etc.

    I feel like I got burned in the past on two JtR suspect books. That was before I had the internet and I did not have access to good reviews. Now I carefully consider my book purchases and I fully intend to buy Jonathan's books because I believe there is good research within them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
    Hello Paul,

    I do apologise if you are offended in any way.
    I also take the suggestion that as long as a human being thinks, sincerely, that JTR is a Martian, its perfectly acceptable to be considered as serious. That is offensive. It's banal and ridiculous, and to say its perfectly OK to accept such stupidity on the basis of the personal belief and sincerity of the author.. It is also deeply offensive, to normal intelligence. It doesn't matter how great the sincere personal belief a person has in a theory. If there is no proof, it's just fishing for support.

    I could say I sincerely and utterly believe that horse raddish sauce has greater skill playing football than Pele.
    But to publish a book and be welcomed with the theory as serious, is plainly ridiculous. As is JTR being a Martian is.

    I also find it mildly (only mildly.. Sorry) offensive when others assume and accuse anger, ire, etc when told repeatedly, in writing, that all is calm...Something I'm obviously too stupid to do myself (irony). Apparently it takes clever prose. (irony) My public school education obviously doesn't cut the mustard. (irony) Must be a thing called believing another person's feelings when written by them.

    Now... I could give a thousand less "extreme" examples of human behaviour. The point, Paul, is that this person does not accept being force fed anything by any company, publisher or otherwise, just because the author, or inventor for that matter, is "utterly sincere in his beliefs". That, Paul, is to my mind, a poor excuse of giving a person in the genre a break.
    Sorry, it doesn't wash. I've seen it done before. Russell Edwards' theory, Patricia Cornwell's theory, Joseph Sickerts theory.. and many others. No.Sorry.


    As far as your presumption that the 7 points do not point towards the statement "Druitt was the Ripper".. The blurb is supposed to reinforce the theory. They are deliberately used to attract people to buying the book, with that last statement the icing on the cake. Promotion is that way. Deliberate.
    Having worked in public promotions, on a much larger scale, within the music industry, I can assure you that every trick in the book has been used, ad infinitum, to attract sales. And continues in every sales dept of every company. You probably don't need to be told how individuals are used to help "push" an idea within a genre.

    NB. I also happen to have been, many years ago, a qualified Purchasing Officer. "Buyers judge carefully before buying.".
    Still works today.

    As you agree in principle with my stance, we shall leave it there, I feel, and hopefully the merits of the 7 listed claims of the promotional blurb can be discussed, for and against.


    Phil
    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).

    And as a matter of interest, I didn’t say that the blurb wasn’t pointing towards the statement ‘Druitt was the Ripper’, I said the blurb says Druitt’s guilt was the conclusion reached by the police at the time, but that the full story had never been told. The seven USP’s, fresh, hitherto unpublished material, are part of that full story, ‘the real story of Druitt, the Ripper’. I’m not presuming anything, Phil. It’s what the blurb says.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul View Post
    Phil,
    Comparing Adolf Hitler’s ‘final solution’ to someone who writes a book theorising that Jack the Ripper was a Martian is deeply offensive and beyond absurd.

    My point was simply that a person has the right to write a book in which they express their personal beliefs. To prevent them from doing that is censorship and we should be very wary about denying someone their freedom of speech, be it spoken or written. And quite frankly, denying someone the freedom of saying something so banal as who they think Jack the Ripper was is ridiculous.
    Hello Paul,

    I do apologise if you are offended in any way.
    I also take the suggestion that as long as a human being thinks, sincerely, that JTR is a Martian, its perfectly acceptable to be considered as serious. That is offensive. It's banal and ridiculous, and to say its perfectly OK to accept such stupidity on the basis of the personal belief and sincerity of the author.. It is also deeply offensive, to normal intelligence. It doesn't matter how great the sincere personal belief a person has in a theory. If there is no proof, it's just fishing for support.

    I could say I sincerely and utterly believe that horse raddish sauce has greater skill playing football than Pele.
    But to publish a book and be welcomed with the theory as serious, is plainly ridiculous. As is JTR being a Martian is.

    I also find it mildly (only mildly.. Sorry) offensive when others assume and accuse anger, ire, etc when told repeatedly, in writing, that all is calm...Something I'm obviously too stupid to do myself (irony). Apparently it takes clever prose. (irony) My public school education obviously doesn't cut the mustard. (irony) Must be a thing called believing another person's feelings when written by them.

    Now... I could give a thousand less "extreme" examples of human behaviour. The point, Paul, is that this person does not accept being force fed anything by any company, publisher or otherwise, just because the author, or inventor for that matter, is "utterly sincere in his beliefs". That, Paul, is to my mind, a poor excuse of giving a person in the genre a break.
    Sorry, it doesn't wash. I've seen it done before. Russell Edwards' theory, Patricia Cornwell's theory, Joseph Sickerts theory.. and many others. No.Sorry.


    As far as your presumption that the 7 points do not point towards the statement "Druitt was the Ripper".. The blurb is supposed to reinforce the theory. They are deliberately used to attract people to buying the book, with that last statement the icing on the cake. Promotion is that way. Deliberate.
    Having worked in public promotions, on a much larger scale, within the music industry, I can assure you that every trick in the book has been used, ad infinitum, to attract sales. And continues in every sales dept of every company. You probably don't need to be told how individuals are used to help "push" an idea within a genre.

    NB. I also happen to have been, many years ago, a qualified Purchasing Officer. "Buyers judge carefully before buying.".
    Still works today.

    As you agree in principle with my stance, we shall leave it there, I feel, and hopefully the merits of the 7 listed claims of the promotional blurb can be discussed, for and against.


    Phil

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Banks
    replied
    I was going to respond to Phil but I can’t improve on Paul’s response.

    So I’ll say ditto.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Phil,
    Comparing Adolf Hitler’s ‘final solution’ to someone who writes a book theorising that Jack the Ripper was a Martian is deeply offensive and beyond absurd.

    My point was simply that a person has the right to write a book in which they express their personal beliefs. To prevent them from doing that is censorship and we should be very wary about denying someone their freedom of speech, be it spoken or written. And quite frankly, denying someone the freedom of saying something so banal as who they think Jack the Ripper was is ridiculous.

    I would also point out that the seven points you are discussing are clearly identified as USPs (unique selling points) – this is a publicity blurb of the sort usually supplied to a reviewer in which the publicist provides guidance as to what is new or different in the book or that the reviewer might make the focus of a review. They are not stated to constitute evidence that Druitt was the Ripper. Furthermore, the blurb states that ‘Montague Druitt was the original police suspect’ – he’s not Jonathan’s suspect, but a contemporary police suspect – and that ‘we have never had the full story before’ – the implication being that Jonathan gives the full story about this ‘police suspect’ in his new book. The seven points are part of that ‘full story’. Presumably they are part of the full story, not specifically proof that Druitt was the murderer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul View Post
    Hi Michael,
    I don't mind the suspect shoehorning so much. People like reading new theories and then dissecting them, the bulk of most early books was spent doing just that, and a lot of internet debate is still all about suspects. It is what Ripperology used to be about. As said, what matters, I think, is whether the author is sincere. Abby can throw Patricia's book across the room, but she's genuinely believes her theory and was very honest, encouraging research even when she knew it might destroy it. Her research produced some interesting material too. I believe Jonathan is the same. I have no doubt that he sincerely believes his theory. A lot of effort also appears to have gone into researching the forthcoming book, and if he's identified the vicar and other stuff, I look forward to finding out about it. I understand Phil's ire, I even agree with him in principle, as do you, but I don't think anyone in publishing is going to stop making exaggerated claims on cover blurbs, especially not on books about Jack the Ripper.
    Hello Paul, Michael,

    I thank you for your agreement, in principle, with my stance.

    The definition of the noun "ire" is

    anger, rage, fury, wrath, hot temper, outrage, temper, etc

    I prefer to describe it as "fed up annoyance". So that is clear.

    Now, Michael infers, incorrectly, that I judge a book by the name on the cover. Which shows that Michael has overlooked, (I don't know why) a very detailed 7 point synopsis of blurb that LEAD TO the final comment about Druitt being "The Ripper". That was a final, completing statement. I then noted that the "Case closed" comment, (whatever the year) was blurbed on Mr Hainsworth's previous book.
    I maintain that none of the 7 points promoted in that blurb has led to, nor infers truth in any way, with any proof, the final statement that Druitt was the "Ripper".
    And I note further that nobody has disagreed with that either.
    Therefore, based on the above. Once bitten, twice shy.
    The other, previous "Final Solution" type books have told me, again and again, all that glitters is not gold. Therefore, I won't buy fools gold. And I discourage any potential reader from being hoodwinked by such glib wording.

    Now. The JTR is a Martian theory comment that as long as the author sincerely believes in it, all is OK.
    Excuse me for objecting to that philosophy.

    Adolf Hitler sincerely and utterly believed in his version of a "Final Solution". Thankfully, many did not.
    To use another analogy therefore (Gareth), I've seen a "Crystal Night" before. And no, no matter how much sincere belief is behind something, the basic principle remains. Namely..
    I refuse to be goaded with glib words to believe, support, or be guided towards another belief because I'm somehow supposed to take into account the sincerity of the belief of the human being producing it. Its an extreme comparison.. But the point is the same. It doesn't matter how much anyone utterly and sincerely believes in their theory. I'm not buying into it on the basis of what I've been presented with.

    The 7 points made have nothing to do with the last statement. They do not give an iota, of proof to back up that statement.. Druitt was "The Ripper" . And I have judged from what I'm being told. It is, in my view, misleading to Joe and Frida Public. Whether the 2 authors sincerely believe their theory or not. I've seen the results of a crystal night before.
    (Which, you may not realise, was 9th November)

    If others want to promote the book on the behalf of the "believing authors".. Then they must expect, on the basis of blurb presented, critique. But, as I noted, nobody has objected to that 7 point analysis as yet.
    It seems to be a sticking point. Because it doesn't prove the statement that Druitt was "The Ripper".

    And not an angry, irate, hot tempered, raging, furious, wrath bellowing comment made... Please note. Shame eh? Try again Paul.

    Promotion thoroughly rejected.

    Phil

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post
    I have the same sympathy for Phil’s overall point about exaggerated claims by publishers of course but I’m sure that no one would want to miss out on a potentially very good book due to those claims. In Jon’s particular case we at least have the evidence of an excellent (imo) first book.

    To be honest I get just as irritated as Phil over authors simply alighting on a suspect by no more than picking someone who was around at the time then going through multiple contortions in order to shoehorn them into the frame. For me Hardiman is a recent example of this.

    Hi Michael,
    I don't mind the suspect shoehorning so much. People like reading new theories and then dissecting them, the bulk of most early books was spent doing just that, and a lot of internet debate is still all about suspects. It is what Ripperology used to be about. As said, what matters, I think, is whether the author is sincere. Abby can throw Patricia's book across the room, but she's genuinely believes her theory and was very honest, encouraging research even when she knew it might destroy it. Her research produced some interesting material too. I believe Jonathan is the same. I have no doubt that he sincerely believes his theory. A lot of effort also appears to have gone into researching the forthcoming book, and if he's identified the vicar and other stuff, I look forward to finding out about it. I understand Phil's ire, I even agree with him in principle, as do you, but I don't think anyone in publishing is going to stop making exaggerated claims on cover blurbs, especially not on books about Jack the Ripper.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X