Archive through 11 September 2002

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through 11 September 2002

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Ripper Media: The Quest For Jack the Ripper (Whittington-Egan): Archive through 11 September 2002

Author: Tom Wescott Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 03:51 am
LATEST SCOOP: I have received information that Whittington-Egan hopes to have his latest masterpiece ready for publication in time for the Ripper bi-centennial in 2088. For reasons of inflation, it is not recommended that you pre-order the book at Amazon.com at this time.
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 10:55 am
Hi, Tom et al.: Well, all joking aside, what is the real story about Richard Whittington-Egan's magus opus, The Quest For Jack the Ripper? Is its appearance imminent? At the time of the first U.S. Ripper convention, lo so long ago, in April 2000, where I was one of the organizers, we put notices in the convention packages that we had received from RWE's publisher, Patterson Smith, who lived near the convention site of Park Ridge, New Jersey. We understood at that time, now 2 1/2 years ago (!), that RWE was rewriting the book, presumably to make the book a definitive authority on the case. Is the rewriting finished? Is the book going to appear any time soon? Or, dare I say it, is the book as mythical as Jack the Ripper himself? Heaven forbid! Can anyone help? All the best Chris George
Author: Stewart P Evans Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 01:19 pm
Tom/Chris, I spoke with Richard only last night and as far as he is concerned the manuscript is complete and finished. There was some recent delay with an illness of the publisher but, theoretically, there's seems to be no reason why publication should not go ahead fairly soon. And, yes, the manuscript does exist, I have a full copy of the first draft. Best Wishes, Stewart
Author: Tom Wescott Thursday, 05 September 2002 - 01:28 am
Hello all, See what I mean about Stewart having everything! Geez! Honestly, though, I can't wait to read this book. I have not had the priviledge of reading W-E's first book on the case, but have read his introductions and some things outside of Ripperdom. As you should know from reading Ripperologist and RN, there are a ton of books coming out this year (most of them in November), and a lot of them are MUST HAVES (News From Whitechapel, Begg's JTR: DEFINITIVE HISTORY, Begg's updated 'UNCENSORED FACTS', Edwards' JTR's Black Magic Rituals, etc.) as well as, of course, Cornwell's book, which is a must have for totally different reasons, and the paperback of Eddleston's book (for those of us with either the lack of cash or the abundance of sense not to have purchased the hard cover. I fall into the former category!), and a score of others. And then there's Christmas shopping to contend with! Ugh! Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Friday, 06 September 2002 - 01:30 am
Tom, as for Eddlestone's paperback, let's hope to God it's been revised. The hardcover is so full of errors that I would caution everyone from using it. Under the heading: Irony, it's not just another metal like Goldy or Bronzy, Eddelstone even has errors in his chapter, Myths and Errors, in which he is supposed to dispel myths and errors. Wolf.
Author: Tom Wescott Friday, 06 September 2002 - 04:09 pm
Wolf, As a reader of Rip and RN, I was gratefully warned about Eddlestone's book before I shelled out the dead presidents to buy it. Thanks to the review of 'Alias JTR' in RN, I was saved the $35 it cost (I recently purchased in at a much reduced rate as a curiosity item). So, you could almost say I profited through my subscriptions! From what I understand, Eddlestone's paperback will be reasonably priced, and if there are corrections, it may be worth having. Otherwise, I'm sure it will make for some amusing reading. As for Cornwell's book, I'm afraid it may be an angering read, but if we're lucky, a few of those $4 million didn't go to waste and we may learn something or be given a legitimate clue. Primarily, though, I'm looking forward to the new works from Begg and W-E. When's YOUR book coming out? Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Stan Russo Friday, 06 September 2002 - 05:23 pm
Wolf, Please e-mail me at jsduker@aol.com Thank you Stan
Author: Jack Traisson Friday, 06 September 2002 - 07:09 pm
Hi Tom, The first published review I read for 'JtR: An Encyclopedia' appeared in the October 2001 issue of RN. "John J. Eddleston has written the next great Ripper book." (CMD - I should add that he quickly changed his mind on this.) I unfortunately bought the book. Well, at least I have a collector's item. As you pointed out, though, at least there are some quality books to look forward to soon. Cheers, John
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Friday, 06 September 2002 - 08:23 pm
Tom, It looks like it's going to be a busy couple of months, what with several new Ripper books coming out. It kind of reminds me of 1987/88 when the centenary sparked a veritable flood of books. I agree with you though, the new Begg and the Whittington-Egan are must haves along with the Chisholm/DiGrazia/Yost work. I'm evan kind of looking forward to Cornwell's book but only to see how bad her argument really is. As for my book, funny that you should ask....... Wolf.
Author: Tom Wescott Friday, 06 September 2002 - 11:57 pm
Wolf, CM & Co.'s new book is a given. I've been looking forward to that for sometime, but that comes out this month, I believe. I was referring to the Nov/Dec Christmas book crowd. Now, give us a little tidbit about YOUR book. What's the angle? Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Christopher T George Saturday, 07 September 2002 - 06:08 am
Hi, All: In regard to reviews in Ripperologist and Ripper Notes, I firmly believe one of the duties of such magazines is to guide the readers on what books or videos and movies, etc., are worthwhile. Each of us only has a limited budget, and unless one is a collector who desires to acquire everything I think it is wise to be selective in one's purchases. I know that as a book buyer myself I rely heavily on reviews and personal recommendations to decide what is "out there" that will be useful to me. So in the case of the Eddleston book, when I wrote the review of that title for Ripper Notes, I thought it was important to point out that the hardback was overpriced and that the material contained in the book was unexceptional and not even as detailed as in Begg et al.'s A to Z. The author even adopts the very odd and misleading viewpoint that the so-called September 17, 1888 Ripper letter is a genuine artifact of the Autumn of Terror--a letter which, for good reason, was not included in the recent comprehensive overview of the Ripper letters by Evans and Skinner, who view it rightly as a crude forgery. As a reviewer for Ripperologist and Ripper Notes, I will continue to point out such failings in books or movies as well as to describe the strengths of worthwhile titles. All the best Chris George
Author: David Radka Saturday, 07 September 2002 - 01:04 pm
Failings? Who's got failings? And who has been in a position to know of those with a good number of them? Ah, how they do love to point out others' failings! And the figure of the Ripper, does it truly materialize in any of their own works? Really, there has been enough written by now to make way for the solution of the case. The road must be paved in solid gold by now! Why must there be little men? David
Author: Tom Wescott Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 12:09 am
David, Your ill-feelings toward the guys at Ripper Notes is not a secret. What ISN'T exactly clear, though, is WHY you continue to pay to read the ramblings of these 'little men' whom you obviously consider unqualified, and who you apparently think 'love to point out others' failings.' Doesn't that make YOU a chump? And on what authority do you have it that they do indeed derive some sort of pleasure from writing negative reviews? Or are you playing the pot to their alleged kettle? I also get the impression that the experience is entirely the opposite of pleasure for them, but is done out of duty to their readership. If you feel that you as a reader are being misled, then I suggest you cease your subscriptions immediately. I seriously doubt that either Ripperologist or Ripper Notes would stop publication as a result, and perhaps we could then see an end to your constant and unprovoked harrassment to individuals that most of us respect and many consider to be friends. I get the distinct impression that there's a lot of 'projecting' going on in your above post. Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Christopher T George Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 12:28 am
Why must there be little men? David Radka, Saturday, 07 September 2002 Talking about yourself again, David?
Author: Divia deBrevier Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 12:31 am
Dear David: You sound a bit stressed... do you think chocolate would help? Warm regards, Divia
Author: David Radka Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 08:34 pm
'Ripper Notes' has got exactly one worthwhile contributor: Scott Nelson. David
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 09:23 pm
Indeed, David? I take it, then, you find Wolf Vanderlinden's The Art of Murder, Dave Yost's Long vs Cadoche, Tim Mosely's series and Viper's Whitechapel Dossiers to be utter dross? If so, then I ask - in all seriousness and without a hint of sarcasm - why you continue to subscribe if the magazine does not satisfy you. I am always happy to hear from people who have constructive criticism, and would like to know where we fail you. Christopher-Michael
Author: David Radka Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 09:59 pm
I will continue to subscribe to 'Ripper Notes.' In addition, I will respectfully request advertising space in it for my "A.R." paper when it is ready. And no, I don't find anything wrong with Vanderlinden, Yost, or Mosely. On the other hand, there are all of these, and then there is Nelson. David
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Monday, 09 September 2002 - 08:58 am
Whenever you're ready to sell copies of "A.R.," we'll be happy to advertise it. Rates are found on the contents page. And I hope you'll be kind enough to send a review copy to us beforehand. Thank you for your thoughts on the magazine.
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 09 September 2002 - 10:18 am
Hi, David: I see we are again subject to your posturings and self-contradictions. Well, c'est la guerre, n'est pas? Chris
Author: David Radka Monday, 09 September 2002 - 11:19 am
If you had the full picture, which I haven't yet given anyone, then you wouldn't find self-contradictions in what I say. I'd agree with you that my words contain challenges to traditional thought patterns--that's what you pay a philosopher for. I would think that I'd have about as much chance for a fair review of my work in 'Ripper Notes' as a Jew had in Auschwitz. On the odd chance that the administrators of that journal deem it fit to review the paper, I would respectfully request the opportunity to provide a special introduction to the review. I'd essentially recommend that they ignore the paper. David
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 09 September 2002 - 11:37 am
Hi, David: I think you underestimate yourself as well as you do us an injustice. If your thesis has merit, it will be considered and reviewed just as we would consider any thoughtful and worthwhile treatment of the case. Best regards Chris George
Author: David Radka Monday, 09 September 2002 - 11:43 am
Let me rephrase what I said. I think I'd have about as much chance for a fair review of my work on the case in 'Ripper Notes' as a Jew had in Auschwitz, if Auschwitz were being run by Saddam. David
Author: Chris Jd Monday, 09 September 2002 - 01:57 pm

Author: judith stock Monday, 09 September 2002 - 02:10 pm
It would appear, dear David, that since you have already decided you will receive no fair review, then NO MATTER WHAT is said, you will consider it unfair. Sad to say, you have already condemned yourself from your own mouth. Perhaps you will receive no fair reviews, because you feel a fair review is only a complementary one? Interesting take, but not necessarily realistic. You can be guaranteed, David, that I will buy your book, but I also bought BLOODGUILTY...go figure. Judy
Author: David Radka Monday, 09 September 2002 - 02:39 pm
I'm just one little man against the whole Ripperlogical world. Little David vs. 100 Goliaths. If I didn't do the whole thing myself, it would be stolen. I don't mean anyone harm. But in the end, whatever it is, it must be good enough for little David. David
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 09 September 2002 - 03:47 pm
Hello Little David: It is a shame that you choose to adopt a paranoid view of the world. Again, I would reiterate, that if your thesis about the case has merit, we will treat it with the respect it deserves. I don't know why if you think, as you obviously do, that your theory has merit, you would also expect that we would pan it out of hand. Best regards Chris George
Author: David Radka Monday, 09 September 2002 - 06:46 pm
Two peas in a pod. Mr. George publicly labels me a paranoid; Mr. DiGrazia a misogynist. Neither man knows me personally or has ever once met me. How arrogant. David
Author: Howard Brown Monday, 09 September 2002 - 08:41 pm
Make that three peas.....Why insult anyone's intellect on these boards with appeals to knee-jerk genuflection to the suffering of ANY people who suffered in Auschwitz ? What the f*** does that have to do with HOW the two Christopher's responded to you? Do you or did you expect that to ease your way into their magazines? You aren't being paranoid,as Mr.George intimated......just calculating
Author: Howard Brown Monday, 09 September 2002 - 08:58 pm
P.S. Mr.Radka...No goyische kop here at CASEBOOK
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 01:24 am
David, I see by your profile that you are certified which does explain the situation to me!!! PS, Your tablets need changing for stronger ones.
Author: Christopher T George Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 09:05 am
That's okay, Ivor, after inhabiting these boards for some years, I can testify that there are many who visit this site who are certifiable, including, dare I say it, ourselves? David: I don't have to label you in any way. You do a superb job just by yourself.
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 09:42 am
This seems to be a rather pointless exercise for me (and really ought to be moved to 'Pub Talk' - perhaps under the heading of 'bias, perceived and otherwise' rather than clutter up this thread), since my words are bound to be either disbelieved or misunderstood. But as the editor of the journal in question. . . As CG has pointed out, David, if "A.R." is a thesis which has merit, then there is no reason to expect a bad review. Your work would be judged on its worth alone, regardless of my personal opinion of you. And there is no reason to suppose that either CG or myself would review the paper in any event; I do have a number of other reviewers whom I choose for certain works based on their own areas of expertise. I would not allow you to write a special introduction to the review; that isn't the place for such an apologia and defeats the purpose. You would be more than welcome to write us a subsequent letter if you felt the review distorted, defamed or otherwise misunderstood your work. But if your work is as important (or, in fact, as you intimate, as definitive) a contribution to Ripperology as you present, then we are obligated to review it and would be remiss in ignoring it, as you suggested above. I would certainly not advertise something we had never seen nor had a chance to evaluate on its own merits. However, if you believe that we have a personal animus against you - or a vested interest in preventing anyone from solving the crimes - then you would be wise to keep your material to yourself and not allow us near it. Regards, Christopher-Michael
Author: David Radka Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 01:18 pm
Notice how DiGrazia illicitly changes his position here. Yesterday he posted that RN would accept my advertising based on his current rates. But above, after I requested that RN not review my paper, he states that I must submit the paper to him for his review before my advertising would be accepted. This is one of his typical tricks. The purpose is to compel me to submit the paper to him in order to be able to advertise, so that he can be sure to have the opportunity to label my work a travesty, destroying my chances right off the bat. To my knowledge RN has no published policy of requiring submission of texts before advertising is accepted for them--it is apparently a 100% new policy springing right out of DiGrazia's head above. If RN is to be fair, then let it publish this policy in its next issue and follow it consistently with respect to everyone--not just me arbitrarily. And as far as assigning any review to someone else goes, DiGrazia had better be sure to assign it to someone who already has a well-developed independent publishing record in the field of Ripperology, not to a sucking sycophant owing him a favor. If you review me, the review will be signed Stewart Evans, Paul Begg, Martin Fido, or someone comparable. DiGrazia will not be able to launder his libel by using a stooge--that's the oldest trick in the book. It is a joke for them to claim that a review of my work would be fair. George and DiGrazia have a record of falsely and maliciously publicly labelling me a misogynist and paranoid, with no evidence as support. When I bring my paper to my attorney to be copyrighted, we will consider preparing a lawsuit naming RN, George and DiGrazia. It would be kept available in the event they publish any review of my work exposing its "failings", as George says, before both culprits post public apologies to me for calling me a misogynist paranoid, attempting to terrify me with the spectre of public humiliation, and to ruin my life. If I am accepted by RN for advertising, I may well be the first paid advertiser that journal has had. DiGrazia regularly posts his advertising rates, and also regularly includes two blank pages in each issue! In order to develop copy to fill these two blank pages, may I suggest that both culprits visit a local second grade class, and ask the students to draw them a horse's hindquarters. They will get many a pretty picture indeed. These ought to last them the full run of RN, replacing the boredom of blank pages with low-cost reader entertainment. End of thread.
Author: David O'Flaherty Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 01:32 pm
David, You don't need a lawyer to obtain copyright. The law is that the writer holds copyright the second ink hits paper. But if you're overly worried (read paranoid)about being ripped off, send your work to the U.S. Copyright Office, if you don't mind paying $20. The truth is that the vast majority of editors and consumer magazines operate on shoestring budgets. The last thing any of them would want to bring on themselves would be an infringement suit. But for cat's sake, you don't need to waste money on a lawyer. Dave PS An excellent way to ensure that your work never sees the light of day is to suggest to any editor that you're afraid they're going to steal your work. Editors seem to object to that, David.
Author: Ally Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 02:27 pm
I need a point of clarification here. David, are you saying that if RN publishes a negative review of your theory you are going to sue them? And if so on what grounds? You might want to think very carefully about how you answer this question as it will no doubt impact the advertisement and discussion of your theory on several different levels, publications and venues.
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 08:10 pm
Go on David , post the g'damn thing for crying out loud ! Go on ! Do it ! We've been waiting for ages to hear this ' A.R. ' theory , either its good enough by now or its never going to work. So lets read it ! -------------------------------------------------- *This is a message sponsored by the ' Casebook Readers who have been bored shtless over several years listening to all this ' Society.** --------------------------------------------------
Author: Howard Brown Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 08:30 pm
Simon,.....I gotta Aunt named Rose.Hmm..A.R.
Author: Tom Wescott Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 11:46 pm
David, All jokes aside. If I felt I couldn't trust, or didn't like a group of people, as you obviously feel out Ripperologists (the Goliaths to your lone David), with the possible exception of Scott Nelson, then why do you not find another hobby? Why post to people you don't like everyday? Why buy magazines you loath? Surely you could ask Mr. Nelson to email you copies of the articles he writes, as he's the only worthwhile contributor? And what exactly do you mean by suggesting that Evans, Begg and Fido are the only men 'comparable' to you? In what degree and on what level? Please help us understand your view on these matters, and what your REAL stand is on your fellow Ripperologists. And if the RN review of your work is one that you deem 'fair', would you come back and say so on these boards? CM, David's post above is the second time I've read that RN puts blank pages in. I believe the first time was in the recent Rip (I may be mistaken). I've received no copies with blank white pages. What's going on? Yours truly, Tom Wescott
Author: Monty Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 07:42 am
David, Release the beast...let the public decide.... or are they biased too ?? Monty