I'm looking for a good book on 'Jack the Ripper'. I'm not so much interested on the rival solutions but the events themselves. Any suggestions?
Jack the Ripper
- Thread starter Captain Scarf
- Start date
Maybe one of the books by Paul Berg, such as this these:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1405807121/?tag=absolutewritedm-20
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1405807121/?tag=absolutewritedm-20
Don't think Cornwell's book was that bad. Didn't convince me of anything new. Then again, none of the other books did either.
When I was in England in 1990, I did my own little Ripper tour. However, I only found Mitre Square when Catherine Eddows was found. I hadn't done my research and was looking for streets and such that no longer exist under the original names. Ever since the buzz bombs got London in the war, they changed the names of many of the streets in Whitechapel. Live and learn.
Whitchchapel is still creepy, to this day. If there are ghosts anywhere in the world, they have to be in London, if nowhere else.
When I was in England in 1990, I did my own little Ripper tour. However, I only found Mitre Square when Catherine Eddows was found. I hadn't done my research and was looking for streets and such that no longer exist under the original names. Ever since the buzz bombs got London in the war, they changed the names of many of the streets in Whitechapel. Live and learn.
Whitchchapel is still creepy, to this day. If there are ghosts anywhere in the world, they have to be in London, if nowhere else.
I think if you're going to write on Jack the Ripper then you should read everything you can get your hands on; all the different theories.
So yes, I would read Patricia Cornwall's.
So yes, I would read Patricia Cornwall's.
Stick with Rumbenow and Berg as primary sources. Go to Amazon and look up the "Ripper Notes" series. Excellent investigative/research articles and not that expensive (about $10 a pop).
The primo site for Ripper facts is: www.casebook.org. I cannot praise this site enough. I've bought the CD-ROMs of it for several years so it could travel with me everywhere I couldn't get internet.
Since the OP didn't want individual theories, that automatically excludes Cornwall's theory from the reading list.
The primo site for Ripper facts is: www.casebook.org. I cannot praise this site enough. I've bought the CD-ROMs of it for several years so it could travel with me everywhere I couldn't get internet.
Since the OP didn't want individual theories, that automatically excludes Cornwall's theory from the reading list.
I think if you are writing on a historical fact you should read as many accounts as possible.
Cornwall is a scientist so I think the forensics would be useful for any author.
Cornwall is a scientist so I think the forensics would be useful for any author.
Cornwell made a couple of assumptions based on minimal evidence that, as a scientist, she should have known better than to do. She's not much of a historian, either - there were a few facts and theories she ignored or skimmed over to bolster her thesis. The book is badly put together, meandering all over the place with nary a trace of structure, and ends as abruptly as David Copperfield without really supporting her case very well. It is to Ripperology what Chariot of the Gods is to cosmology.
I wouldn't expect her to be much of a historian. About just as good as I am at being a scientist actually.
Thankee all.
I don't know if anything will come of my study but I thought it might be fun to know stuff. I saw a documentary on Cornwell's theory but I wasn't convinced by it. If I do write something then the solution will be somewhat different to any that exist (I won't say more at the moment because it's only half formed)
I don't know if anything will come of my study but I thought it might be fun to know stuff. I saw a documentary on Cornwell's theory but I wasn't convinced by it. If I do write something then the solution will be somewhat different to any that exist (I won't say more at the moment because it's only half formed)
Historical facts? In Cornwell's books? I think not.
Even her 'forensic' evidence was flawed. She fit the 'evidence' around her theory, not the other way round. She decided right from the off Sickert was her man and nothing, nothing in her book did anything to strengthen her case.
Was Sickert the Ripper? Dunno. Could he have been? Sure.
What did Cornwell prove? Fuck all.
If she's writing a historical book she damn well better be.
Last edited:
That there's enough suckers out there who will buy anything about Jack the Ripper to make it a bestseller.