Anyone know of a good book detailing the Jack the Ripper murders? I need something that includes Whitechapel geographical information, and a time line for the killings. The more detail the better. Thanks.
Jack the Ripper
- Thread starter otterman
- Start date
Start with www.casebook.org -- lots of information (including what you're looking for) along with some of the biggest names in the Ripper field.
Keep in touch. I'm another Ripper reader.
Me too!
Paul Begg's book is great.
I'll be back later with a list of Ripper books I own. Some better than others, but the Begg one is the most in-depth I can think of off the top of my head.
Paul Begg's book is great.
I'll be back later with a list of Ripper books I own. Some better than others, but the Begg one is the most in-depth I can think of off the top of my head.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 3,711
- Reaction score
- 1,139
- Age
- 56
I know scarletpeaches LOVES the Patricia Cornwell book, simply adores and raves about it, so I'm shocked she forgot to recommend it.
*ducks*
*ducks*
Read Alan Moore's From Hell, but make sure to ignore the awful film adaptation. There's a list of useful references in his book.
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,095
- Reaction score
- 268
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- undeadwhispers.yuku.com
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,199
- Reaction score
- 335
The metropolitan police have a good web site www.met.police.uk/history/ripper.htm Here you can find all the basic facts plus references to furtherer reading.
I read most of the theories about the person behind the Whitechapel murders and I would put my money on Tumblety as being the most likely suspect.
I read most of the theories about the person behind the Whitechapel murders and I would put my money on Tumblety as being the most likely suspect.
Last edited:
There's a book called the Casebook of Jack the Ripper or something similar (not based on the aforementioned website). I'll have to take a look at the proper title. But it has maps and inserts and the like.
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,199
- Reaction score
- 335
The Truth is we will never know who was the Whitechaple murderer.
Because of this sad fact there have been a lot of books written speculating the murders identity and even adding false trails.To me the most relabel research that has been done so far is from P C Stewart Evans.He was given access to the original case notes and police note books . He concluded that the police believed ,at the time of the murders,that Tumblety was a strong suspect.Evens also researched Tumblety life and concluded that they were right to believe it was him.
More recently Chanel four commission a documentary about the murders.Using criminal profilers and psychologists to examine the known facts, Tumblety was again named as the main suspect.
So,of all the suspect it's Tumblelety that has been constantly named by the professionals.
Last edited:
I've never seen a documentary that made a convincing enough case for any suspect.
Even Kosminski or Maybrick.
Even Kosminski or Maybrick.
So wait... Cornwell's book isn't the book on the Ripper? Really?? Whyever not?
**looks all innocent, then ducks**
**looks all innocent, then ducks**
Last edited:
Quite true, which it is much fun to speculate and debate the options. Even to create options of our own.
I believe you mean "reliable" research. And you are aware that the vast majority of those original evidence and notes were destroyed in the world wars, lost in the storage moves or were stolen by individuals simply because they were in the Ripper files, right? What any modern person can inspect is crumbs.
Yet another reason why so much speculation is rampant and arguments can get fierce.
And Patricia Cornwell reportedly got access to the same information, personally paid for DNA testing of the items there and reportedly spend close to a USD$1,000,000 to prove her bullocks theory that Walter Sickert was the Ripper.
In the 100th Anniversary special I saw produced by the BBC in 1988, they concluded without a doubt that it was Aaron Kosminski (who was another prime suspect at the time), using the same evidence Evans saw.
The fact that numerous people can look at the same evidence and not agree on the same suspect tells me that not all the professionals agree.
But, then, if they did, where would be the fun (and profit) of that?
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,199
- Reaction score
- 335
If I am not mistaken, From Hell is just a conspiracy theory that has been disproven. Just something that made an interesting story? Unless you were just looking for his bibliography.
I would second The Casebook of Jack the Ripper.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 1,307
- Reaction score
- 124
Tumblety was probably in jail for the last murder, although he may have been out on bail. Plus he was tall and flamboyant looking, contrary to all witness statements, and he was being watched by the police and apparently just about everyone else in London at the time. Anyhow, the story of Tumblety, not just for himself, but also his incredible rediscovery as a possible suspect, is really fascinating.
Myself, I lean towards Kosminski. If you were to set up a scorecard and give all the suspects one point for being suspected by the police, one point for living in the very small area where the murders took place, one point for having a good reason why the murders would stop (incarceration, death, left the city), one point for a history of violence, and so on and so forth, Kosminski scores much, much higher than any of the other, more interesting suspects like Sickert (in France during the murders) or John Gull (someone told a story about him).
Myself, I lean towards Kosminski. If you were to set up a scorecard and give all the suspects one point for being suspected by the police, one point for living in the very small area where the murders took place, one point for having a good reason why the murders would stop (incarceration, death, left the city), one point for a history of violence, and so on and so forth, Kosminski scores much, much higher than any of the other, more interesting suspects like Sickert (in France during the murders) or John Gull (someone told a story about him).
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,199
- Reaction score
- 335
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 1,307
- Reaction score
- 124
One documentary I saw on the Crime & Investigation Network said it couldn't have been Tumblety because he was homosexual, and male homosexual killers don't murder women. I'm not a big fan of generalisations like that, but don't know enough about psychology to say whether it's true or not. Just throwing it out there.
I'd have been less irritated by Cornwell's book if she hadn't subtitled it 'Case Closed'. The arrogance annoyed me. It's a good read if treated as fiction and supposition, which it is.
I'd have been less irritated by Cornwell's book if she hadn't subtitled it 'Case Closed'. The arrogance annoyed me. It's a good read if treated as fiction and supposition, which it is.
I just finished reading (this morning as a matter of fact) a lovely novel entitled Dust and Shadow by Lyndsay Faye. It's one of the "Sherlock Holmes investigates Jack the Ripper" group. Delightful reading. She captures Doyle and offers a new, totally plausible suspect as Saucy Jack that I've not seen before, even in the many postulations. (No, I won't give out spoilers.) I think it quite an unbelievable theory sans Holmes, but Faye used the facts very well. Credit is given to all the mentioned authors (and more) as well as the Casebook website.
I enjoyed Dust and Shadow more than The Whitechapel Horrors (the first of the Holmes vs Ripper books I read) because the Ripper choice was far more believeable and the case better presented.
I love it when authors can use the facts to support a new theory.
I enjoyed Dust and Shadow more than The Whitechapel Horrors (the first of the Holmes vs Ripper books I read) because the Ripper choice was far more believeable and the case better presented.
I love it when authors can use the facts to support a new theory.
What bothers me about the Cornwell book is that, in all the shows I've seen (I confess, I haven't read much about it - which is now going to change since I've got a good reading list started here! ) no one else so much as mentions Sickert and yet, Cornwell pretty much has him tried and convicted.
) no one else so much as mentions Sickert and yet, Cornwell pretty much has him tried and convicted.
Actually, what bothers me most about the Cornwell book is not only that she aims in on a suspect that wasn't even mentioned by the contemporary investigation, she summarily ignores many Victorian facts (the style of art Sickert did--the focus on death, etc--was very much en vogue at time) and invented this horrible affliction for him that had absolutely no evidence to support it. Her suggestion of his motive was actually one of the more laughable and disgusting moments of the book.
I don't mind the supposition, but when you're claiming "case closed" I think there should be enough evidence, even circumstantial, to bring the case to a court of law. I wouldn't consider her case enough to even merit an episode of "Law & Order".
Though that book does possess one of the clearest explanations of how DNA tests are done. I'll give her that much.
I don't mind the supposition, but when you're claiming "case closed" I think there should be enough evidence, even circumstantial, to bring the case to a court of law. I wouldn't consider her case enough to even merit an episode of "Law & Order".
Though that book does possess one of the clearest explanations of how DNA tests are done. I'll give her that much.