Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tom Slemen!

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

  • Dusty Miller
    replied
    >Sorry, Dusty, but in which way is H. H. Holmes "well worth a serious look" as you put it...<<

    Worth a serious documentary subject matter. Nothing to do with jtr.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Dusty Miller View Post
    Re Holmes: The strange thing is, the subject is well worth a serious look, but that has been all glossed over in the tv show.

    The object seems to be to glamourise Holmes and pay no respect to his victims.

    Particularly today, the anniversary of Mrs Nichols death, it is worth noting that often the most fascinating part of this field of research is uncovering the victims stories.
    Sorry, Dusty, but in which way is H. H. Holmes "well worth a serious look" as you put it, from our perspective?

    Holmes was a Chicago killer, plain and simple, and was not the Whitechapel murderer.

    His motives don't match up in the least with the motives of the killer in the East End of London.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dusty Miller
    replied
    Re Holmes: The strange thing is, the subject is well worth a serious look, but that has been all glossed over in the tv show.

    The object seems to be to glamourise Holmes and pay no respect to his victims.

    Particularly today, the anniversary of Mrs Nichols death, it is worth noting that often the most fascinating part of this field of research is uncovering the victims stories.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Pat Dunn View Post
    Absolutely, Chris. I thought Moore's "Dance of the Gull-Catchers" was harsh on Ripperology in general, but I've come to realize it was fairly honest.

    In my opinion, most Ripperologists are honest and genuine in wanting to advance the field. Rather, it's those who come into Ripperology to write about a specific suspect -- not really Ripperologists at all -- who give the field a bad name.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pat Dunn
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris G. View Post
    Hi Pat

    As you will be aware, a theory about Jack the Ripper doesn't have to have credibility. You just have to attach the name "Jack the Ripper" to your suspect and you can get a publisher and obtain publicity for your book. No matter how empty your ideas about the case might be, it's going to get attention. Unfortunately, that's what we've come down to.

    Best regards

    Chris
    Absolutely, Chris. I thought Moore's "Dance of the Gull-Catchers" was harsh on Ripperology in general, but I've come to realize it was fairly honest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Pat Dunn View Post
    I don't know.

    I've been watching it because I'm interested in Holmes, but Mr. Mudgett is terrific at ignoring the evidence that doesn't support his theory (no match in the handwriting samples, for instance), and veering off in different directions. Now he's digging up his ancestor's grave to see if it is occupied!

    It's unfortunate that the Ripper field today is plagued by such pseudo scientific investigations. So much promised and so little gained. As many of us can predict beforehand!

    Leave a comment:


  • Pat Dunn
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post
    I've been watching the American Ripper series.

    Why can't you 'unwatch' stuff?
    I don't know.

    I've been watching it because I'm interested in Holmes, but Mr. Mudgett is terrific at ignoring the evidence that doesn't support his theory (no match in the handwriting samples, for instance), and veering off in different directions. Now he's digging up his ancestor's grave to see if it is occupied!

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael Banks
    replied
    I've been watching the American Ripper series.

    Why can't you 'unwatch' stuff?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Dusty Miller View Post
    ... or an eight part TV series!

    American Ripper defines the expression, "fake news".
    YES indeed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dusty Miller
    replied
    ... or an eight part TV series!

    American Ripper defines the expression, "fake news".

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Pat Dunn View Post
    Sounds as if this book received the lack of notice it deserved. I can't imagine a "trained assassin" bothering to cut open and remove internal organs from his victims if their death was his main objective.
    Weak, indeed.

    Hi Pat

    As you will be aware, a theory about Jack the Ripper doesn't have to have credibility. You just have to attach the name "Jack the Ripper" to your suspect and you can get a publisher and obtain publicity for your book. No matter how empty your ideas about the case might be, it's going to get attention. Unfortunately, that's what we've come down to.

    Best regards

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • Pat Dunn
    replied
    Sounds as if this book received the lack of notice it deserved. I can't imagine a "trained assassin" bothering to cut open and remove internal organs from his victims if their death was his main objective.
    Weak, indeed.

    Leave a comment:


  • admin tim
    replied
    Wow, I missed all that? Thanks, Chris.

    My only excuse was this came out in the Rip when I was unemployed and my priorities lay elsewhere. Still, one would have thought there would have been some board discussion on this book.

    No surprise, though, that both Slemen and book were but a flash in the pan.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Yes but please note that those are NOT my words but those of publisher Colin Wilkinson of The Bluecoat Press, as quoted in post number 9 above! In any case, Paul Begg's review of the book in the Rip provides the lowdown on the book.

    Ripperologist No. 116, September 2010

    JACK THE RIPPER: BRITISH INTELLIGENCE AGENT?
    Tom Slemen with Keith Andrews
    Introduction by Richard Whittington-Egan
    Liverpool: The Bluecoat Press, 2010
    Softcover, illus, index, 381pp
    £8.99

    Tom Slemen has chronicled Liverpool’s weird and wonderful paranormal past for a long time, penning a series of popular books and a regular column for the Liverpool Echo. They are great fun, but it has to be said that rigorous factual analysis and historical accuracy don’t appear to be among his highest priorities, and one didn’t really expect Jack the Ripper: British Intelligence Agent? to bring us any nearer to the identity of Jack the Ripper.

    And the book met one’s expectations.

    Slemen’s theory that Claude Reignier Conder (1848-1910) was Jack the Ripper has been kicking around for over a decade and the book promised for almost as long, so researchers have had an opportunity to see if the idea has legs, and it hasn’t, not as far as folk could see, but with the instinctive desire to champion the underdog, one really hoped that Slemen had some eye-popping evidence, or at worst a compelling argument. Sadly Jack the Ripper: British Intelligence Agent? is the damp squib one thought it would be. It’s a moderately enjoyable read, but it isn’t serious history.

    The basic theory is that all the Ripper’s victims were somehow implicated in Fenian and Anarchist activities and were murdered by Conder, a trained assassin.

    Conder was born in Cheltenham and after being educated at University College London and the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, he carried out survey work in Palestine, where he became a friend of Kitchener and Charles Warren. He twice undertook surveys for the Palestine Exploration Fund and in later years wrote several scholarly works. According to Slemen, it was when working for the Palestine Exploration Fund that Conder acted as an intelligence agent for the British, but if that was ever the case it was purely in the capacity of collecting topographical information. There appears to be little or no reason to suppose that Conder was ever or would ever have been employed as an assassin.

    This prima facie daft idea is compounded by Slemen’s claim that the Ripper’s victims were subdued by the murderer using pressure points, something a killer trained in martial arts would know how to locate. Slemen supposes that Conder had martial arts training, but as far as facts are concerned, there’s no evidence that Conder could karate chop through a paper bag.

    Other ‘evidence’ implicating Conder is a claim that the murderer carved glyphs from the Moabite language on Eddowes’ face. Why he should have done that isn’t clear, and the significance of said glyphs is equally obscure, as is the claim that ‘Juwe’ is a Manchu word meaning two. Equally, of course, it was a misspelling of Jews.

    Thankfully there’s an index, but notes and a list of sources would have been appreciated.

    Leave a comment:


  • admin tim
    replied
    Originally posted by CTG
    "It has taken a long time but at last Tom's book on Jack the Ripper is now in the shops. At 400 pages, it is a pretty heavy read but I look forward to hearing people's opinions in due course. There will always be new theories on who was the Ripper but Tom has a very original take which has drawn admiration from Richard Whittington-Egan, widely recognised as one of the foremost Ripperologists in the world."
    The trail seems to have run cold here - was there ever any followup to this?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X