|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
John Malcolm
Police Constable Username: Johnm
Post Number: 5 Registered: 3-2003
| Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 10:25 pm: | |
I finally tracked down this book (it arrived today) and although I do believe it will be a worthwhile addition, I am very disappointed with the pages about JTR, for the entry in the A-Z pertaining to this book (which was the initial source of inspiration to search for this book) I've found to be not only inaccurate, but disturbingly misleading. To quote the A-Z: "Acquaintance of Dr Robert Anderson, Sir Charles Warren and Sir Melville Macnaghten...He also remarked in the introduction to 'The Trial of George Chapman' that Anderson, Macnaghten and Major Henry Smith had all assured him that the Ripper's identity was known to the police." Actually, it seems (unless I'm missing something) like something completely different; To quote from page 50 of Adam's book: "As everyone knows, who this mysterious criminal was has never been cleared up. Several prominent officials have from time to time asserted that they had established his identity. The late Sir Melville Macnaghten, the late Sir Robert Anderson, Sir Henry Smith, and many others of less importance have assured us regarding this...These declarations, as mere declarations without evidence to support them, are unsatisfactory. It is quite certain that nobody ever did know for certain who Jack-the-Ripper was." Adam goes on to apparently suggest that a good case existed for Chapman being our man. This is just another frustrating example of how difficult it is to trust even our most sacred secondary sources...I can't believe that such a blatant misrepresentation could have found its way into such a revered book as the A-Z.} |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 163 Registered: 5-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 12:20 am: | |
I can't find my copy of A-Z at the moment, but it seems that Adam says just what A-Z indicates he says, namely that McNaughten, Anderson, and Smith told him the Ripper's identity was known. What A-Z apparently (from your quote) does not disclose is that Adam didn't believe them! Andy
|
John Malcolm
Police Constable Username: Johnm
Post Number: 6 Registered: 3-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 8:49 pm: | |
OK, maybe I've overreacted a bit...but I am disappointed with the A-Z's inaccuracy. (I've leaned very heavily on BFS's book from very early on and surely will continue to;) But one of my points in the above post was to show that by Adam using the word "us", (or my interpretation of this) would seem to imply that M, A and S did not directly relate their views to Adam...and this would change the weight of his statements entirely... |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 166 Registered: 5-2003
| Posted on Thursday, October 02, 2003 - 12:27 pm: | |
John, I'm really not disagreeing with you, but offering a caution. Adam's use of "us" may be what we used to call the "epistolary plural" or the "plural of authorship." In former days it was considered to informal for an author to refer to himself as "I." He would therefore resort to referring to himself as "the author" or as "we (us)." OTOH, this may be Adam's way of distancing himself from the information received from M, A, and S (as you suggest). I would agree with you that A-Z puts its own slant on the passage from Adam. Andy
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper. Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|