Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

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




    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Escape-Jack...s%2C193&sr=1-3



    The identity of Jack the Ripper is the most infamous mystery of the Victorian era. Montague Druitt was the original police suspect, but we have never had the full story before, and endless speculation in later books and documentaries: But it was him, after all: The toff in a top hat. Jack the Oxonian. The Victorian equivalent of Ted Bundy: young, handsome, professional and homicidal. Today, the average member of the public has actually never heard of the drowned Druitt; this century he has not been the subject of either a best seller, or movie. The fresh material and sources in the new book are not found in any other publication, including the following USPs:

    - Druitt was a medical student who dropped out.
    - As a barrister, Druitt defended a murderer and tried to blame a prostitute for the crime.
    - A blood-stained Druitt was arrested in Whitechapel but bluffed his way to freedom by pretending he was still studying medicine.
    - Druitt was placed by his family, albeit briefly, in a private, French asylum but had to flee as the police's dragnet closed.
    - The Vicar who published parts of the truth in 1899 has been finally identified (Reverend Arthur Du Boulay Hill)
    - The famous writer and police chief Melville Macnaghten's close pal, George Sims, published a profile of the un-named Druitt as early as 1891: a young toff, slightly built but athletic, who was not a qualified doctor and who had killed himself. This newly discovered source proves, once and for all, that the police chief and the famous writer knew exactly who Montie Druitt was and was not.
    - the Druitt family tried, fumblingly, to alert the authorities that The Ripper was deceased whilst remaining anonymous.

    This is the real story of Druitt, the Ripper.

  • #2
    Hello Howard,

    Please excuse my usual scepticism, and the cutting this off at the start of the race.. But these things have to be done..

    The 7 points of major peomotional release to the outside world, pronouncing MJD as "Jack the Ripper" are, what is called in good old con merchants language, a massive promotional smokescreen.
    Because, if the claim were to be true.. A few very direct questions would be answered in that promotional list.. Namely...

    1. The proven whereabouts of MJD on each of the nights of murder in question.
    2. The proof that the man was a homicidal maniac.
    3. The proof that he travelled to and from each vicinity, and by what means, on each night in question.
    4. The proof that MJD, the person, was seen and identified, on any of, if not all of, the nights in question.
    5. In order to prop up this rather unproven theory, the writers will have to denounce the supposed words of D. S. Swanson, in the so called marginalia, which back up the story of the Ass. Com Anderson rather definitively stating the killer to have been a Jew. Druitt was not.
    Therefore, if the marginalia becomes questionable, historically speaking, so must the words of another, non participant policeman in 1888, who supposedly wrote the Memoranda in 1894. You can't have it both ways.

    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.

    My apologies. But book after book after theory after theory gets ploughed out ad nauseum, and for some inane reasons best kept in house, some of these so called 'finally revealing" theories get back up, pushed, and faults glossed over.. Sometimes even because the author is a nice person and has always been friendly with certain others in the genre. Hopefully, nothing akin to that will happen this time...
    It's about time someone, somewhere, told it how it is.
    There is no more proof of MJD being Jack the flaming myth/Ripper/Bundy inspiration in this promotional diatribe than Queen Victoria's favourite manservant is.
    A certain female author recently had her work thoroughly put into the bin with her "sleeping" theories. Time to treat this the same, imho. Facts are, without proof, not facts. They are at best supposition.

    It's about time someone, somewhere, said STOP this nonsense. Without proof.. No one is a killer. Period.

    My apologies for the possibility of upsetting the status quo. Enough, I say.


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

    Comment


    • #3
      I was looking over a brief biography of the co-author Christine Ward-Agius. It said she "worked many years in the Welfare sector gaining particular experience in a program designed to help empower women to escape poverty via education and employment."

      That is very commendable.

      Comment


      • #4
        Although Hallie Rubenhold claimed her book was criticised before it was published, that was not the case. It was her pre-publication publicity and statements by herself in tweets and elsewhere that was criticised. This was legitimate criticism. However, I would be very reluctant to criticise a book on the basis of publicity materials alone because one can't be sure that the author has seen and sanctioned it.

        Part of Ripperology has always been about advancing and dissecting theories about the identity of the murderer. In the old days that's what Ripperologist did, was what Ripperology was all about. Richard Whittington-Egan was the doyen of that type of Ripperology. Discussing and debating theories is still something that people like to do (witness them doing it on message boards and social media), and it's what a lot of Ripper books are about, readers well aware that extravagant claims of final solutions can be dismissed, but prepared to give the theory a chance.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Paul View Post
          Although Hallie Rubenhold claimed her book was criticised before it was published, that was not the case. It was her pre-publication publicity and statements by herself in tweets and elsewhere that was criticised. This was legitimate criticism. However, I would be very reluctant to criticise a book on the basis of publicity materials alone because one can't be sure that the author has seen and sanctioned it.

          Part of Ripperology has always been about advancing and dissecting theories about the identity of the murderer. In the old days that's what Ripperologist did, was what Ripperology was all about. Richard Whittington-Egan was the doyen of that type of Ripperology. Discussing and debating theories is still something that people like to do (witness them doing it on message boards and social media), and it's what a lot of Ripper books are about, readers well aware that extravagant claims of final solutions can be dismissed, but prepared to give the theory a chance.
          Hello Paul,

          Giving a "theory a chance" is not the point. I do believe, on Casebook, when immediately attacked by others and myself, you suggested that the "shawl" theory be "given a chance. Youve also said the same about other, failed books with new theories and old.

          No, giving a theory, any theory, a chance, is not the point.
          When the publishers of an upcoming book promote that book, blaring out a sorts of wierd and wonderful finds, and claim that a person was" The Ripper".. It is the impression, a very clear impression, that this book is a done and dusted, full blown, we've solved it theory.

          In which case, the fundamental questions must be asked, as I did, above. Where is the proof that shows us, the expectant buying public, that this new theory really IS the bees knees. Why are the solid foundations of proof not printed in the promotion?

          As regarding this book, this promotion, all 7 blared out announcements to the world actually mean very little in determining the fact claimed beneath them.. That MJD was "The Ripper".

          I admit, freely admit, I'm an old sceptic. But let's be dead straight here. These types of promotions are actually giving a false impression. And we have seen them time and time again. It is monotonous. Basically, more food for an ailing horse that has no more gallops in it. Unless the food happens to be the equivilant of a Grand National viagra, it will always be that way.

          I apologised, three times, for my view and if it perhaps upset people. It is nothing personal to either author, I assure you. But I fail to see any book, from any author, trotted out claiming to have solved the Whitechapel murders mysteries, well in advance of publication, without genuine proof, direct documentary proof, can make such claims. For the promotion points, all 7, prove absolutely nothing of the kind.

          And no. I refuse to give such theories "a chance" because I'm somehow expected to do so out of some sort of literary good manners or etiquette. Because, I've read the promotional garb, sorted through the "new, revealing" finds, and see absolutely nothing that matches the claim. That, Paul, is a cleverly marketed smokescreen to sell books. I'm far too long in the tooth to encourage others to fork out money on falsities.

          The one, one point I actually looked at longer, in the list of "new finds" claims, was that MJD was caught, bloodied, in Whitechapel, and evaded arrest using his purported medical background. Now that Would indeed have been sensational.. Except.. There are no Met Police documents with Druitt name on from 1888, nor one naming him as being caught bloodied either. There are reports in newspapers alluding to various doctors having been stopped, but allowed to pass by, yes. But none of them are named Druitt. So, I'm sorry. Call me sceptic, but it smells of the usual "let's put Druitt into THIS/THAT situation to help fit the man up" , all without proof.

          And if readers are aware, as you say, of the false claim of a "final solution", then the advanced promotion of such should be pointed out, very clearly, to the buying public Before they cough up the cash.

          You write of "in the old days". Well, whether you, I or anybody else likes it or not, far, far more people have become "savvy" to the tricks of the trade, not just in publications of books, but false claims over health, wealth, diets.. The list is endless. People aren't fooled so easily anymore, thank goodness. And if that means X or Y or Z don't sell their product en masse, all the better.

          Example of the old days that WAS good. You could pick up a phone, ask to speak directly to a named person in a large company, make your query or complaint, and said person dealt with you personally. Today, you get fobbed off being pushed from pillar to post having waited a long time to actually speak to someone, having listened to a list of possibles to choose from, and even then be told, after a long long time, that it isn't the right department.
          People today are fed up with that. And people are fed up with having the wool deliberately pulled over their eyes.
          Books do it. TV does it. Documentaries do it. All promoted like Billy O... Leading people down a garden path.
          H. H. Holmes a prime example.
          We are sick of it.

          So if you personally, are "reluctant" to call out such promoted claims as utter garbage, that's fine. If you choose to pre-defend such nonsense, is a matter of your concience. Mine is clear. I don't believe b******* presented to me wrapped up in shiny paper. That's me. Sceptical, old, and tired of seeing it, all around me, ad nauseum.

          Please, please don't expect the potential buying public not to say "oh yes, look, another banana skin dressed up as a shiny band of gold". No. "Giving the theory a chance" won't happen based on promoted rubbish.

          And if, as you suggest, the authors knew nothing about, nor approved of that promotion, all I can say is this.
          They should have. Its their reputations at stake. Not the publishers.. Who will do the same to any book they approve of, written by anyone..ad nauseum.

          Again, I apologise if this comes off a little crass. It isn't meant to be. It's just truth. It isn't a personal dig at you either, despite the reference at the start. I'm just stating facts.
          However, that said, be honest Paul, and with the utmost deference, I could name a few handfuls of Ripper related theories or books put out in print in the past 10 years you certainly did NOT give "a chance" to.. rightly or wrongly.
          Not that a point is being made of it. Just stating facts.
          We all slate or like, that I admit. But it is wrong to take pre promoted garbage with a pinch of salt when under immediate examination, is is found very very wanting indeed. That's a deliberate con being served up. I don't take kindly to being force fed a con.

          Hope I find you well, and in good health.


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

          Comment


          • #6
            I did a bit of a double-take when I first saw the book's cover, thinking that it was a schematic representation of a masonic apron
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen"
            (F. Nietzsche)

            Comment


            • #7
              I've enjoyed following Jonathan's intriguing and plausible Druitt theory as it unfolded and am looking forward to reading his latest book and making up my own mind.

              There's always publisher's blurb promoting any book, that's their job. We're all grown up enough to take from it what we will.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post
                Hello Paul,

                Giving a "theory a chance" is not the point. I do believe, on Casebook, when immediately attacked by others and myself, you suggested that the "shawl" theory be "given a chance. Youve also said the same about other, failed books with new theories and old.

                No, giving a theory, any theory, a chance, is not the point.
                When the publishers of an upcoming book promote that book, blaring out a sorts of wierd and wonderful finds, and claim that a person was" The Ripper".. It is the impression, a very clear impression, that this book is a done and dusted, full blown, we've solved it theory.

                In which case, the fundamental questions must be asked, as I did, above. Where is the proof that shows us, the expectant buying public, that this new theory really IS the bees knees. Why are the solid foundations of proof not printed in the promotion?

                As regarding this book, this promotion, all 7 blared out announcements to the world actually mean very little in determining the fact claimed beneath them.. That MJD was "The Ripper".

                I admit, freely admit, I'm an old sceptic. But let's be dead straight here. These types of promotions are actually giving a false impression. And we have seen them time and time again. It is monotonous. Basically, more food for an ailing horse that has no more gallops in it. Unless the food happens to be the equivilant of a Grand National viagra, it will always be that way.

                I apologised, three times, for my view and if it perhaps upset people. It is nothing personal to either author, I assure you. But I fail to see any book, from any author, trotted out claiming to have solved the Whitechapel murders mysteries, well in advance of publication, without genuine proof, direct documentary proof, can make such claims. For the promotion points, all 7, prove absolutely nothing of the kind.

                And no. I refuse to give such theories "a chance" because I'm somehow expected to do so out of some sort of literary good manners or etiquette. Because, I've read the promotional garb, sorted through the "new, revealing" finds, and see absolutely nothing that matches the claim. That, Paul, is a cleverly marketed smokescreen to sell books. I'm far too long in the tooth to encourage others to fork out money on falsities.

                The one, one point I actually looked at longer, in the list of "new finds" claims, was that MJD was caught, bloodied, in Whitechapel, and evaded arrest using his purported medical background. Now that Would indeed have been sensational.. Except.. There are no Met Police documents with Druitt name on from 1888, nor one naming him as being caught bloodied either. There are reports in newspapers alluding to various doctors having been stopped, but allowed to pass by, yes. But none of them are named Druitt. So, I'm sorry. Call me sceptic, but it smells of the usual "let's put Druitt into THIS/THAT situation to help fit the man up" , all without proof.

                And if readers are aware, as you say, of the false claim of a "final solution", then the advanced promotion of such should be pointed out, very clearly, to the buying public Before they cough up the cash.

                You write of "in the old days". Well, whether you, I or anybody else likes it or not, far, far more people have become "savvy" to the tricks of the trade, not just in publications of books, but false claims over health, wealth, diets.. The list is endless. People aren't fooled so easily anymore, thank goodness. And if that means X or Y or Z don't sell their product en masse, all the better.

                Example of the old days that WAS good. You could pick up a phone, ask to speak directly to a named person in a large company, make your query or complaint, and said person dealt with you personally. Today, you get fobbed off being pushed from pillar to post having waited a long time to actually speak to someone, having listened to a list of possibles to choose from, and even then be told, after a long long time, that it isn't the right department.
                People today are fed up with that. And people are fed up with having the wool deliberately pulled over their eyes.
                Books do it. TV does it. Documentaries do it. All promoted like Billy O... Leading people down a garden path.
                H. H. Holmes a prime example.
                We are sick of it.

                So if you personally, are "reluctant" to call out such promoted claims as utter garbage, that's fine. If you choose to pre-defend such nonsense, is a matter of your concience. Mine is clear. I don't believe b******* presented to me wrapped up in shiny paper. That's me. Sceptical, old, and tired of seeing it, all around me, ad nauseum.

                Please, please don't expect the potential buying public not to say "oh yes, look, another banana skin dressed up as a shiny band of gold". No. "Giving the theory a chance" won't happen based on promoted rubbish.

                And if, as you suggest, the authors knew nothing about, nor approved of that promotion, all I can say is this.
                They should have. Its their reputations at stake. Not the publishers.. Who will do the same to any book they approve of, written by anyone..ad nauseum.

                Again, I apologise if this comes off a little crass. It isn't meant to be. It's just truth. It isn't a personal dig at you either, despite the reference at the start. I'm just stating facts.
                However, that said, be honest Paul, and with the utmost deference, I could name a few handfuls of Ripper related theories or books put out in print in the past 10 years you certainly did NOT give "a chance" to.. rightly or wrongly.
                Not that a point is being made of it. Just stating facts.
                We all slate or like, that I admit. But it is wrong to take pre promoted garbage with a pinch of salt when under immediate examination, is is found very very wanting indeed. That's a deliberate con being served up. I don't take kindly to being force fed a con.

                Hope I find you well, and in good health.


                Phil
                Hi Phil,
                1. It's not unreasonable to ask and expect readers to actually read a book before criticising it.

                2. Perhaps authors should know and approve the publicity for their books, but they can't know and approve it if they don't see it and know nothing about it. I know of what I speak, so I am wary of criticising a book on the basis of publicity handouts.

                3. Publishing is a business and the business is selling books. If the author(s) of a book believe they have solved the mystery of Jack the Ripper's identity, or that they've been abducted by Martians, or that sixteen pints of beer a night is the way to good health and well-being, then it is the publisher's job to support and promote their book. Publishers haven't grasped that nobody believes their final solution claims, but that's what the author believes then it is the publisher's job to say so. It's not a con job, it's stating what the author believes. And everyone has the right to voice their beliefs and theories, and if someone thinks Druitt or anyone else was the murderer, and they think they have evidence to prove it, they can say so - and we should not ever deny them that freedom!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Jon does his research and I thoroughly enjoyed his first book...He hasn't convinced me, but I'll certainly be watching out for this new one

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If I was of a more Politically Correct bent I’d be tempted to introduce a new word to the Ripperological lexicon. Druittophobia. We’ve been treated to a very fine example of it here. Very recently Phil, along with a handful of other posters over on Casebook, worked themselves up to a state of near apoplexy at the mere suggestion that Druitt might have been too easily dismissed as a suspect. Even bemoaning the fact that he was given suspect as a title! Posters like myself, Paul Begg, Wickerman and Roger Palmer all felt that Druitt is worthy of consideration and further research. Posters like Sam Flynn and Abby Normal (neither of whom feel that Druitt is a good suspect) felt the same. But no, the rabid anti-Druittists (Phil included) were adamant. They knew. Druitt definitely wasn’t guilty or even worthy of consideration. So much so that it was worth asking why they even bothered discussing him? After all it’s why most of us don’t spend much time on Lewis Carroll threads!
                    To them Sir Melville MacNaghten was either a liar (despite there being no evidence for this) or that he was a moustache twirling Victorian villain or even that he was a complete imbecile so denuded of reason that he was utterly incapable of receiving or assessing evidence. Even the very mildest of suggestions regarding Druitt or MacNaghten were treated as if they should have been shelved along side the Flat Earthers!
                    Have we come to this when can utterly dismiss and insult a book eight months before it’s publication? Is it reasonable to get so angry purely because a writer/researcher has a level of confidence in his work? Or that a publisher looks to sell the book to the public? Why does Druitt drive posters to such hysterical pronouncements about ‘con merchant language’ when it’s simple and understandable promotion?
                    I would have thought, and even hoped, that to all of us who are interested in this case any new information would have been welcomed? Not to Phil (and no doubt others) apparently. To them Jon Hainsworth and Christine are guilty of foisting some con on the unsuspecting public. Open minds are not required apparently.
                    Taking exception to the line - This is the real story of Druitt he Ripper - is, at the very least, disproportionate. At most it’s pure bias. Then again, from recent experience, proportionality is not something that I expect from some quarters on this particular topic. If Jon and Christine’s new research stand up to scrutiny (and scrutinised they will be) then they will be a welcome expanding of our knowledge of Druitt. They may cause some to alter their opinion of Druitt as a ripper suspect. Some opinions might not change and I wouldnt out of hand call them biased for that. Unbiased opinions should always be considered.

                    Will this book strengthen the case against Druitt? Will it give us new information? Will it be a good book? Who knows? We haven’t read it yet.
                    Regards

                    Michael🔎


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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post
                      If I was of a more Politically Correct bent I’d be tempted to introduce a new word to the Ripperological lexicon. Druittophobia. We’ve been treated to a very fine example of it here. Very recently Phil, along with a handful of other posters over on Casebook, worked themselves up to a state of near apoplexy at the mere suggestion that Druitt might have been too easily dismissed as a suspect. Even bemoaning the fact that he was given suspect as a title! Posters like myself, Paul Begg, Wickerman and Roger Palmer all felt that Druitt is worthy of consideration and further research. Posters like Sam Flynn and Abby Normal (neither of whom feel that Druitt is a good suspect) felt the same. But no, the rabid anti-Druittists (Phil included) were adamant. They knew. Druitt definitely wasn’t guilty or even worthy of consideration. So much so that it was worth asking why they even bothered discussing him? After all it’s why most of us don’t spend much time on Lewis Carroll threads!
                      To them Sir Melville MacNaghten was either a liar (despite there being no evidence for this) or that he was a moustache twirling Victorian villain or even that he was a complete imbecile so denuded of reason that he was utterly incapable of receiving or assessing evidence. Even the very mildest of suggestions regarding Druitt or MacNaghten were treated as if they should have been shelved along side the Flat Earthers!
                      Have we come to this when can utterly dismiss and insult a book eight months before it’s publication? Is it reasonable to get so angry purely because a writer/researcher has a level of confidence in his work? Or that a publisher looks to sell the book to the public? Why does Druitt drive posters to such hysterical pronouncements about ‘con merchant language’ when it’s simple and understandable promotion?
                      I would have thought, and even hoped, that to all of us who are interested in this case any new information would have been welcomed? Not to Phil (and no doubt others) apparently. To them Jon Hainsworth and Christine are guilty of foisting some con on the unsuspecting public. Open minds are not required apparently.
                      Taking exception to the line - This is the real story of Druitt he Ripper - is, at the very least, disproportionate. At most it’s pure bias. Then again, from recent experience, proportionality is not something that I expect from some quarters on this particular topic. If Jon and Christine’s new research stand up to scrutiny (and scrutinised they will be) then they will be a welcome expanding of our knowledge of Druitt. They may cause some to alter their opinion of Druitt as a ripper suspect. Some opinions might not change and I wouldnt out of hand call them biased for that. Unbiased opinions should always be considered.

                      Will this book strengthen the case against Druitt? Will it give us new information? Will it be a good book? Who knows? We haven’t read it yet.
                      A good post, Michael.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The thing about Jonathan's theory is that he could well be right about a lot of things and still Druitt doesn't have to have been Jack.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Paul Butler View Post
                          The thing about Jonathan's theory is that he could well be right about a lot of things and still Druitt doesn't have to have been Jack.
                          Very true Paul. He could also be wrong about some things and Druitt might still have been the ripper. None of us know for certain. I certainly don’t. I’m glad that most can keep an open mind on the subject. Personally, I feel that Druitt is at the very least an interesting suspect. I have no issue at all with anyone that feels differently but to dismiss someone of Macnaghten’s standing out of hand as a liar or a buffoon has always appeared bloody minded to me. We don’t know what his evidence was or how genuine it was.

                          Having just read the Drew Grey book (a shining example of a zero evidence suspect imo) then this is one to look forward to whether he convinces anyone that Druitt was the ripper or not.
                          Regards

                          Michael🔎


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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Yes Michael. Letting sleeping dogs lie to protect an innocent family, which is what Mac may well have been doing, just has a certain ring of truth about it at that point in British history.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post
                              If I was of a more Politically Correct bent I’d be tempted to introduce a new word to the Ripperological lexicon. Druittophobia. We’ve been treated to a very fine example of it here. Very recently Phil, along with a handful of other posters over on Casebook, worked themselves up to a state of near apoplexy at the mere suggestion that Druitt might have been too easily dismissed as a suspect. Even bemoaning the fact that he was given suspect as a title! Posters like myself, Paul Begg, Wickerman and Roger Palmer all felt that Druitt is worthy of consideration and further research. Posters like Sam Flynn and Abby Normal (neither of whom feel that Druitt is a good suspect) felt the same. But no, the rabid anti-Druittists (Phil included) were adamant. They knew. Druitt definitely wasn’t guilty or even worthy of consideration. So much so that it was worth asking why they even bothered discussing him? After all it’s why most of us don’t spend much time on Lewis Carroll threads!
                              To them Sir Melville MacNaghten was either a liar (despite there being no evidence for this) or that he was a moustache twirling Victorian villain or even that he was a complete imbecile so denuded of reason that he was utterly incapable of receiving or assessing evidence. Even the very mildest of suggestions regarding Druitt or MacNaghten were treated as if they should have been shelved along side the Flat Earthers!
                              Have we come to this when can utterly dismiss and insult a book eight months before it’s publication? Is it reasonable to get so angry purely because a writer/researcher has a level of confidence in his work? Or that a publisher looks to sell the book to the public? Why does Druitt drive posters to such hysterical pronouncements about ‘con merchant language’ when it’s simple and understandable promotion?
                              I would have thought, and even hoped, that to all of us who are interested in this case any new information would have been welcomed? Not to Phil (and no doubt others) apparently. To them Jon Hainsworth and Christine are guilty of foisting some con on the unsuspecting public. Open minds are not required apparently.
                              Taking exception to the line - This is the real story of Druitt he Ripper - is, at the very least, disproportionate. At most it’s pure bias. Then again, from recent experience, proportionality is not something that I expect from some quarters on this particular topic. If Jon and Christine’s new research stand up to scrutiny (and scrutinised they will be) then they will be a welcome expanding of our knowledge of Druitt. They may cause some to alter their opinion of Druitt as a ripper suspect. Some opinions might not change and I wouldnt out of hand call them biased for that. Unbiased opinions should always be considered.

                              Will this book strengthen the case against Druitt? Will it give us new information? Will it be a good book? Who knows? We haven’t read it yet.
                              Hello Michael,

                              Thank you for the reply.
                              Let's get a few home truths sorted out straight away shall we? Good. Excuse me if I correct you on a few points then, and add something to start with that is rather more to the point.

                              My post on here dealt SPECIFICALLY with the promoted claims referring to an upcoming book. At no point, if you care to read through the posting, was there any reference to my comments being made through being "Anti-Druittist" (more on that below). It was a thorough look at 7 specific claims made, followed by one massive big one. The last being not a claim, but a statement of fact.
                              At no point did I refer to, nor indicate, any personal dislike towards either author, nor the suspect featured, Druitt.
                              So let's just stick to the point, shall we?

                              Next. Referring to the claimed "state of apoplexy". I sadly must inform you that you are most wrong, in my case. I cannot speak for others. You will note I did not post much on that particular thread, a couple of posts only, if I recall correctly. The reason for that is lack of energy most of the time, and only in short periods do I find the energy or the desire to join in and comment. Apoplexy would, I assure you, probably kill me. Fact. So, take it as a truism, you are most certainly wrong. Again. I repeat.
                              This thread is about that promotion from the publishers, and deflection on and about the individuals commenting is off topic.

                              Then we have the claim that I am "Anti-Druittist". Well now. In that case, I'm an "Anti-Kosminskiite", "Anti-Sickertist", "Anti-Tumbletyist" "Anti-Nigh-on-Every-named-suspectist". So, trying to pin me into a "Phil is biased against Druitt" corner, really is way off the mark. I admit to being no fan of suspectology within the genre. I happen to believe it has caused more unwarranted argument and even loss of friendships within the field more than anything else. That's my personal belief. I neither see nor have a favourite suspect, and admit, again, to being an ageing sceptic.
                              So. Again. Pointing out a person's believed attitude towards an individual suspect deflects away from my post. Again. It is off topic and plainly incorrect. Sorry.

                              I'm just saying how it is. Book after book gets promoted with complete rubbish attached to it by the publisher. Yes, it is the publisher's job to promote. I'm pointing out that when statements like Druitt was "The Ripper" are made, I look at the new claims of new info belated out in said promotion and see major faults that do not, in any way, shape or form, back up or prove such a major statement. Then I will stand up and say, this is conning the public. It is being promoted on false pretences. Because in that promotion, nowhere does it say that the authors BELIEVE "Druitt was the Ripper" based on the following claims... Nowhere.
                              It just states 7 new sensational claims supposedly to back up the theory. A simple look immediately shows that none of the 7 claims do anything of the sort.
                              At best, background work. Rather like recent Tumblety works. Without documentary proof, every claim is even less, worthy. That, sir, is what the post, (post No. 2) was about.

                              I stated clearly that this wasn't a personal attack on the authors themselves. My only critique against them is their apparent (Paul Begg's suggestion) that they were not consulted/aware of the promotional wording.
                              I stated, simply, they should be. That was my only comment.

                              I disagree with over-promoted rubbish making false, unproven claims, in ANY field, as, stated. Whether the authors believe the claims or not, doesn't tell me it is anywhere near proven fact, nor, indeed truth.
                              I could, for example, utterly believe the Mears family who founded Chelsea FC in 1905, were infact behind the Whitechapel Murders 17 years previously. Utterly, personally believe it. But to present that claim as a fact, "The Mears family were the Rippers" on the basis of upcoming book release about it, without a scintilla of documentary proof, is plainly misguiding the public.

                              Belief is not truth without factual proof.

                              So. To sum up. No, I will continue to stand up and say "Enough of this claptrap" every time it happens, whoever the suspect be. And I remind you this has happened time and time and time again. And nobody seems to want it stopped. Well, I'm not riding that train. I'm not going to ignore false promotion, and I'm not going to let the public get hoodwinked yet again based on a false, unproven statement that "Druitt was the Ripper". If this was another remix of another suspect, churned out for the nth time, that has been systematically disproven time and again, or by A. N. author not roundly liked within the genre, people would be queueing up to take pot shots at the upcoming book. (Favouritism does, sadly, raise its head too in this field, I'm sad to say.. We all know it happens.. But it isn't talked up too much..) as I stated earlier, I hope this is not the case in this instance.

                              As regards waiting until a book is released before slating it. My only comment is this...

                              If the publisher's promotion is so off piste, so way off the chart in its claims, then I will slate the upcoming book based on what I'm being tempted to buy. Basically, it is diatribe, over pushed, and over claimed, unproven rubbish. Get the "Atkins diet, and lose lbs...."

                              How many times do you see people say.. "I'm sick of reading of another upcoming " Final Solution" type book.

                              This book fits that catagory. Don't blame me for pointing it out. Blame the publishers or the authors in failing to control or guide the publishers correctly.


                              Now.. I'm very tired. It will take a few days to recover energy again, as this posting has taken 3 hours to compose. My apologies.. Non apoplectic apologies, please note.


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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X