Did that wonderful man just come up with the term “a tire pressure IQ”? Holy moly I love Bruce Robinson. He has his very own version of the English language and it’s a superior one.
the book is just a blast. the best book on the ripper case ever written, and I read a whole lot of them. really: the absolute best. not only in terms of investigative power but also the language. this guy knows how to write, to present a case, to really make a point and to present irrefutable prove. I read it now for the 4th time, it is so captivating.
A hidden gem of an interview, this upload deserves more recognition. Not being on the fast loop of JTR tourism, I'm a little late to the party, but I might treat myself to Bruce's book for Christmas sustenance. He's articulate, he has heart, he has balls - I'm interested. I could pay the same epithet to Brian Clough but his wit and wisdom is only ever disseminated in compendia of detached quips. Which is good in its own way but I want multiple hour shifts if I'm going to commit to a good read. Yes, I am familiar with 'Withnail and I'. Favourite part: 'All Along the Watchtower' (Dylan) - Hendrix. I don't go around reciting phrases from the script (in fact, having a brother who did, I used to misquote phrases to annoy his uptight friends. Brother was immediately tacitly appreciative to where I was coming from with that) ... but I've enjoyed the film many times.
If you haven't read his book,do so. He either has it or he's a fantastic story teller with the Ripper as the backdrop. His use of the more descriptive words and phrases is fun.
Exactly, Ive read his book many times! He never did! This Bruce hasn't done any research, hes just blagging it and copying Steven with stupid changes to the facts!
A.N. Wilson may have a rather plummy voice but he's an excellent novelist, biographer and critic and the fact that he loves Withnail should be enough of a clue that he's a good egg. And anyway WHAT'S YOUR NAME - MCFUCK?
Same as RU-vid: where you can have graphic videos of real suicide, gory accidents resulting in death, assassination and capital punishment.. yet no real sex or anything even hinting at obvious sexual gratification... Is the world we live in. Utter contradiction, double standard, obvious agenda and invertion.
For me the best point he makes in his book is how Michael Maybrick (and his brother) was expunged from Freemasonic history. Gone. No longer a member. Why? This guy was a musical hit-writer of his day. How did he wrong his brothers?
All London police were required to be Freemaaons. Its interesting WHEN you look more into the Long Island Seriel Killer. Its all rituals now from west to east coast in the U.S.
@@worldeconomicforumbarbie9323 I just read a book on Waterloo - completely none conspiratorial in tone, very mainstream - that casually drops in the fact that the French who showed that they were Freemasons through various hand signs, were spared the fate of other soldiers and put at the back of the line, where they were safe. Even in war, that sacred oath sticks.
@@Stantheman848 I found it fascinating. Even if you don’t like his writing style, it evoked the period well, and was firmly on the side of Ripper’s victims. It didn’t ‘sex him up’. Read it twice now...
His facts are quite wrong. Hes just copied other Ripperologists! Read The Final Solution by Steven Knight first and then read Jack the Ripper and the Case for Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect by Robert House to get a different suspect than Steven Knights!
Richard E Grant has a fragrance called Jack... No connection, I just thought it a coincidence how both men now so intertwined have had success with the same name. Though one Jack smells sweet and is the essence of joy itself, and the other the essence of dank horror.
Stephen Knights research is the definitive theory of the Whitechapel murders. These so called historians constantly use the term "serial killer" to describe Jack the Ripper, which is rubbish, because there's no evidence that the killings were carried out by some deranged serial killer. Knight mayve got a few things wrong or missed out, but his general suggestion that the 5 women were specifically targeted because they were going to blackmail the Royal family of Eddy's affair and child to Annie Crook, is bang on imo. The only decent researcher that has followed up on Knights theory is John Hamer. In his book, Falsification of History, he basis his research on Knights, and agrees that the murders were a freemasonic ritual to silence those 5 women. You could argue that why did it take them 10 weeks to murder all 5 and not immediately. Many reasons why, maybe they didn't want to blow their cover, finding them was likely a challenge, by killing them over those weeks gave the police (those at the bottom not the ones in the know) and public the impression there was madman walking around biding his time in the dark ally's that could strike at anytime, or maybe they used specific dates to kill them on. I know Mary Kelly was killed in the 9th Nov (numbers 9 and 11?, just throwing it out there).
How can a person giving necessarily vivid descriptions of the ripper murders then be cautioned for simply using an odd mild word like ‘bugger’? It’s as crazy as RU-vid allowing explicit violence yet censoring an inoffensive woman’s nipple. Incomprehensible logic.
56:54 I'd tell this man if he was my friend. He should watch his back as he may well go to far in his outspokenness! I say go ahead my friend we need more welknown people speaking truth
@@jamescorlett5272 Believable. Very plausible. Look further afield beyond London. See who is being murdered elsewhere in the UK at the same time, in the same way. It's what all these TV documentaries never do.
@@susannamarker2582 I'm awake - have you watched the 1 - 10 part's ripper diary Documentary it mentions Stephen Maybrick but experts say the killer was Michael ( few E ) . Robinsons book is based on this diary which can't be proved either way , yet the " Expert's " don't ever consider brother Stephen may have wrote it - perhaps because they have His hand writteng and he did not . Murders along the march of the songbirds tour / look the think is in that diary Documentary they say the writteng matches some of the famous ripper Boss letters - but Stephen is Never a suspect (at the very least ) so has ALL the top bods been fooled or made to look foolish by Robinsons book ? . Imagine this Charlie Cross ( love him or hate him ) ran JTR 🏃♀️ food for thought I hope Susanna ? .
Michael Maybrick, who used the pen name Stephen Adams, is in the Oxford Dictionary of Music and Groves. I’m afraid Bruce is wrong here, The song The Holy City has been recorded by literally thousands of singers since the Victorian era, there are dozens of versions on RU-vid. Would be impossible to hide it
Mr. Robinson gives a slightly different version of the "Juwes" graffiti. This is usually rendered as: "The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing" but Mr. Robinson gives it as: "The Juwes are not the men to be blamed for nothing" which is considerably less enigmatic. It seems unlikely that a professional writer with such intensive research would mis-quote this well-known paragraph, especially three times, yet I've never heard this variant before. Could this be the original and proper version?
It's baffling to me how little publicity this book garnered, and, frankly, how anyone can doubt its conclusions after reading it in full. I can only assume it's more of the same concealment.
'Murder by Decree' is based on the Knight book - which is unambiguously dismissed in this discussion. It's quite an admirable potboiler of a film, though.
Can anyone other than me see how crazy and absurd it is that these two eminent people have to wear utterly ridiculous ID placards. It’s about time people refused to conform with such ridiculous degrading regulations.
I worked on a Theatre restoration in Central London and Martin Scorsese came along to see the work being done, i was amazed to see him but i reckon at least 8 out of 10 people in that workplace had no idea what he looked like and apparently he was stopped at the Site Entrance and was refused entrance until a Senior Manager turned up and brought an ID clearance pass!!! There is a theory that even the most famous people in the Western world would be recognised than less than 3% of the worlds population, so as brilliant as Bruce Robinson is, i think not many people would recognise him.
Why ridiculous? Just let anyone by security, friend or enemy. This is the most unnecessary and absurd comment ever to be posted, obviously not from someone with a tyre pressure IQ.
what a fantastic question right at the end .. , indeed has much changed ? A brilliant expose. Bruce has gone up in m y estimation. He has courage as well as talent .
There was interesting info recently regarding the second murder and the supposed witness who found her. He cclaimed to have discovered her alone and was seen by the second witness leaning over her as she lay on the ground. As it was a long straight road , the man who found her could easily see and hear the second witness arriving for along enough to prepare himself. The second man suggested getting the police and both left to find one. As they found one they gave their names and stories. IT was found the next days that the first man , who claimed to have found her alone, had given a false name and address. But in all the confusion and panic, his story of being a witness seemed to slip by . he was identified later and claimed to live in the area that was at the centre of all murders, he also worked as a slaughterman at the nearby abattoir, having knowledge and the skills of using knives and the dissection of animals. When this story was rediscovered recently, a detective and FBI psychologist both said he would be a prime suspect today and that his obvious lies for no reason, his supposed discovery of the body alone in a long street is very suspicious. He could so easily have been the killer, who having just killed the woman, heard the steps at a distance of the second witness as he walked to work. If he ran away he would raise alarm so he seems to have pretended to have found her but disappeared as soon as he could once the policeman saw them, leaving a false name and address ! I've not heard anyone speak of this man apart from this one programme and if anyone knows anything else about him and subsequent events I would love to know.
Lechmere/Cross has been accused of being the ripper, but someone had to be first on the scene. Just because he was standing over the body doesn't mean that he was the killer. I admit that there is circumstantial evidence that looks bad for him, including giving his father-in-law's name (If I remember correctly), but there was a distrust of authority endemic in the East End at the time, so he didn't want to make himself more available to the police than necessary. The whole thing is a mystery, too long ago to be able to be solved.
Hello, Bruce! I have an idea that's been tugging on my coattails for a long time. See what you think. I wonder if you've ever considered working with Patricia Cornwell on a combined Ripper theory. It seems that you could both be right, and that Maybrick and Sickert could not only have known one another, but been working in tandem. They were both upper crusty, and I don't know for sure, but wonder if they weren't both Masons. They both had ties to Whitechapel. They both traveled in Britain and on the Continent, and Maybrick was known to have visited America, as well. Certain physical evidence links each of them with the killings, as both you and Ms. Cornwell have demonstrated conclusively. I also think that perhaps you should look into a snippet of information I noticed in a book called, "The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper" by historian Hallie Rubenhold. She mentions that Mary Jane Kelly (she calls her Marie Jeanette) spent some time in France (Paris), but that she returned suddenly, telling friends that it "didn't suit her." I wonder if you could delve further into the details of this trip and see if one of your boys wasn't in Paris during the same time frame. If so, the perpetrator of her murder is probably "the other guy", since in all probability, it was either a revenge killing for Mary Jane's hasty retreat or perhaps a way of getting rid of a girl who knew too much (were there any similar killings in Paris at the time?). If she accompanied, say, Sickert, to Paris, then Maybrick, whom she would presumably not recognize when accosted by him, would be her killer, and vice versa. Come to think of it, you, Mr. Robinson, as well as Ms Cornwell AND Ms. Rubenhold should put your heads together. I think the answer is that all three of you are holding pieces to the final solution of this skin-crawling case.🧐 Forgive my buttinskyism but I doubt if anyone who's ever read the facts of these brutal crimes can resist having a go at closing the Ripper files. 🩸🩸🩸🔬🧪
The whole thing about the West End was luxurious and the East End was terrible poverty and slums. Then, as today, London was a place where the upper class in their town houses very often lived literally a 1/4 of a mile from people who lived in semi starvation and in extreme poverty. A close look at the Booth poverty maps from 1888/89 and the second series from 1898/99 show that not all of the poverty in London was concentrated in the East End, nor was the West End an area of wealth and prosperity. Slum areas existed in North, South, West and East London.. and prosperous areas were found in all parts of London.
Brilliant talk by the juggernaut of intelligence and wit, Mr. Robinson. But why couldn't anyone get him a chair? The poor guy is so poorly but soldiering on regardless.
Michael Maybrick was performing on Thursday night 8 november in Redhill Surrey. Mary Jane Kelly was murdered that night, 8 november - 9 november. How could Michael have done that if he was performing that night? Honest question.
@@alanmccaffrey8950 It's stated in the Surrey Mirror Saturday 10 November, 1888. I double checked it and have the paper as a pdf on my computer. It says that Thursday night (8 november) Michael was performing in Redhill, Surrey. I can sent it if you want. I guess he still could go on a killing spree after his performance, but it seems unlikely because normally these people would talk afterwards and have a drink.
29:00 "he was like, one of us" little in jokes me thinks. I'm not sure about Robinson! I really like him I get a good vibe from him. But he knows more than he lets on.. they both are speaking words that are not spoken
Bruce Robinson has come up with a composite of two different JTR stories, that of Stephen Knight, and the Diary of Jack the Ripper, and changed things around a little, and claims it all to be his own work. Instead of giving due credit to the real authors, he has the gall to disparage them, and call their stories rubbish. Well Bruce, If these stories are so wrong, then why are you using them? If the original authors of these stories are so bad, then why are you copying their work? You seem to think of yourself as an intelligent man. I have to question why such an intelligent man can't come up with his own ideas.
Jerry , the latest on the Diary is that it is authentic. The finder of the diary has admitted to stealing it whilst renovating the property. If this is true , it is the final piece of evidence we have our man - Michael wrote it as part of his game.
@@FantasyVisuals The diary is not authentic at all. The diary turned out to be a photo book with pages being torn out. Barrett's case for how he obtained the book has changed frequently. He even confessed to it being a hoax. It's a big con. The Maybricks are not suspects. The fact that Robinson has the audacity to insult our intelligence by using the diary and leads as evidence when it was and always has been a hoax is rubbish. He thinks hes smart by satirising Ripperology when hes giving just as stupid of a case as Stephen Knight.
@@chrisclarke4665 At least there is some evidence for the things Joseph Sickert (Gorman) gave to Stephen Knight. And it wasn't stolen from other writers, as Bruce Robinson and Patricia Cornwell has done.
Bruce calls the work of Stephen Knight nonsense, yet he steals his work, just as Patricia Cornwell has done. Then he pretends to be the one who discovered that the murders were Masonic ritual, and the police covered it up. This comes from Stephen Knight, not Bruce Robinson. If Bruce were a real researcher, as he likes to present, he'd know that Stephen Knight did not claim Prince Eddy to be the ripper. And this, once again, is the problem with people who dismiss things without first learning what it is they're dismissing. This is not characteristic of a good researcher. Do your research, Bruce. If you're going to use another man's work and claim it as your own, then you should at least know what he actually said.
Bruce credits the late Stephen Knight with the Masonic link in a speech I’ve seen him do. What he rubbishes is the Duke of Clarence connection. I studied Knights book closely...he quoted telegrams and communications which implied the royals knew about the Duke’s involvement. I found the originals of these telegrams and letters and Knight had edited them to make it look as if the royals knew something in order to give credence to his theory. He manufactured evidence. An innocent letter from Queen Victoria about the lack of lamps in certain dark areas became a fear that the public would link the crimes to the Duke. I lost a lot of respect for Knight for doing this. Sadly he died before I could call him out
You didn't read the book. If you had, you'd never say that. Robinson spends numerous pages going through the Stephen Knight book. to say he isn't a researcher ... wow. robinson and his paid professional researcher (keith skinner) spent 12 yrs digging through basements. you must read the book.
Cuthbert Drinkwater I agree that Stephan knight should not have edited notes. I personally think that it would not have affected his case that much if he didn’t. However that being said, and considering that evidence has been either lost destroyed and withheld by the criminal justice department. I think it’s the closest that we’ll get to the truth. The undying truth in my humble opinion stinks of a freemasonry cover up.
If the killer was a Freemason or a member of high society what's to say that he knew he could get away with the murders?. He was taunting the police. Is it possible as well that the killer disguised himself in Mary Jane's clothing to make himself look like her which could explain the eyewitness report of seeing her at 8.30pm after the murder? Could have been the work of a gay killer as dressing in drag would have been easy for him. Another theory that has surfaced is that the killer was a boyfriend of Prince Albert who was reportedly a homosexual who frequented brothels in Whitechapel. Also, there were reports - not confirmed - that Prince Albert had syphilis and as a result, a close acquaintance did the killings. Prince Albert was definitely not the Ripper. If it was a cover-up then the police knew who it was and dismissed any eyewitness sightings as mistaken identity. I instantly dismissed any royal or masonic connection as total fantasy but having now viewed more documentaries on the subject am now starting to believe that the whole Jack The Ripper was a ritual performed by the rich element of society. Maybe the killer was hired to do it at the bequest of a wealthy individual - a man - who wanted to do it for himself but didn't have the courage for fear of being exposed. We'll never know though. In my opinion, this has the makings of a cover-up at the highest levels, and the fact that they did over 2000 interviews of potential suspects further confirms this. The killer stopped because he possibly died soon afterward.
This guy obviously did not read Knight's book, otherwise he would know that Knight never implicated Prince Eddy (the Duke of Clarence) as the Ripper. A total fabrication to say the least.
charles cross was jack the ripper he killed nicholls about 10 minutes before robert paul came along the body was still warm so cross had to make up his mind weather to run or face paul so he decided to bluff his way out
Yes it is brilliant. A bit exaggerated as Chief Inspector Abberline did not take drugs and he retired to Bournemouth, where he died, aged 86! And Mary Jane Kelly didn't escape back to Ireland with Annie Crooks and Prince Albert's child!
There is so much misinformation regarding this case. There are a ridiculous number of theories as to the perpetrator and the motive. Even the agreed upon facts don’t make sense unless things have been left out, or conclusions have been incorrect. No psychopathic serial killer starts out full throttle. It takes several attempts before they get to their final ritual. It has never happened this way. Therefore, either these were planned killings or, as I believe, these were not the first attacks committed by the same person. Either there were earlier attacks in the area that were not attributed to the ripper, or the perpetrator was from elsewhere and had committed former atrocities in a different location. Even planned murders would mean the killer had killed others before or afterword in the same or a similar manner. I’ve seen no theories that address this issue, which is a fact obvious to anyone who has ever studied cases of serial killers. Until I see a theory that addresses this elephant in the room, I take any of them with several grains of salt.
I think you mean "Charles" ... better yet, I think you mean, "I don't know who it was, but I saw a convincing documentary on RU-vid in favor of Charles Allen Cross"
@@shanegrant8441 I dont think it's Maybrick ,I have looked into Charles Allen Cross aka Charles Allen Lechmere. I believe he could be the Ripper because of where he lives worked and walked to work the job he did would mean Lechmere could easily blend in to East End life, Lechmere lived all his life around Whitechapel and worked for Pickfords which is a slaughter place and he also had a horse and cart, Lechmere knew Whitechapel like the back of his hand knowing full well where the prostitutes would take him, he lived at 22 Doveton Street Martha Tabram lived near by I feel she might of been the 1st victim but I believe he killed before Tabram, Polly Nicholls he said she was already on the floor and thought she was a piece of tarpaulin it turned out that he was distracted by Robert Paul who also was walking to work and he even said to the police Lechmere looked shifty. Lechmere lied about his name not once but twice. I believe he had time to kill Polly Nicholls but stopped he is very clever and cunning and the fact that he passed every murder scene says he would have been of great interest if only the police had spotted the routes Lechmere took too work and where he visited his mother also she lived very close too the double event murders and where the piece of torn apron was found... I think Charles Allen Lechmere is JTR
@@sidmicheals9739 so not knowing it was Michael they the Cops were after him - Robinsons book based on the diary written by bro James mentioned Michael but you reckon Michael wrote it framing James Maybrick ( WHAT ) ? .
@@jamescorlett5272 im not sure if im understanding you correctly. the cops were after the ripper the entire time, but they didn't establish it was Michael Maybrick (as per Bruce Robinson) until 1902.
@@sidmicheals9739 i dont understand what's not to understand - maybe it's my not making myself clear cos I'm tired mate - I'll write again when I've had sleep .
The brothers Maybrick did it as Israel Schwartz witnessed 2 men harassing Elizabeth Stride at about 12.45 a.m. on the morning of 30 September 1888 in the gateway of Dutfield's Yard in Berner Street. One of the suspects insulted Israel by calling him Lpski so he legged it followed by one of the suspects! Ha Ha!
@@milchmanuk24 Yes you could use the Israel Schwartz account! One of the men he bumped into threw Elizabeth to the ground and called him Lipski as the other suspect walked towards Israel in a menacing way. The Maybrick brothers, Michael a composer of religious songs best known under his pseudonym Stephen Adams and his real life brother James Maybrick, later a suspect in the actual Jack the Ripper case because of his Diary! lol
Stephen Knight did not claim the Duke of Clarence was the ripper. This is disinfo. Read his book; The final solution. This book and 'The Ripper and the Royals' are the only two books that give us the truth. All the rest are disinfo, including the book trumped up here.
Bah. Bulls hit. I don't believe a shred of it. The one fact everyone doesn't want to admit is that we will NEVER know who the notorious "Jack the Ripper" is, or WHY they did what they did. That is all lost in time; and unless someone finds other evidence, all we can do is give our hard earned money to these authors who come up with these outlandish theories.
Interesting chat here, but this whole Ripper conspiracy bit has been thoroughly debunked by many serious scholars/historians. The Ripper, who will probably never be identified, was almost certainly a local man who blended in seamlessly with the rough Whitechapel surroundings.
Micheal Maybrick! LOL The idiots taken the name from James Maybrick, a possible suspect. He wrote a song called "They All Love Jack" lol This Robinsons not right in the head!
I never saw a person so pathetic in his old age. Strong bitter about his own country, europeans, and the canon of the occident culture. Patetic is the word.
55:30 .. uh oh.. at least two (kinda three) incorrect facts about Ted Bundy rattled off with great confidence. Definitely gives me pause to keep learning from this dude / the F Masons route. I'll see what JTR Forums / Casebook have to say. But we all know who controls those..
That's how your mind works? That's like rejecting a biography about Beethoven, because the author of the book misremembered a few facts about Stravinsky. It's COMPLETELY beside the point and NOT the point of Robinson's book. Jack the Ripper takes place in a different era, different country and different culture than the one in which Ted Bundy lived. It's irrelevant to the book.
Robinson is completely taking a piss on our intelligence. Instead of giving us a fair case for a potential candidate. He just satirises Ripperology and give a subversive take that pushes the goal post aswell provide very little proof but more circumstantial . It might aswell be historical fiction. Is he seriously implying all 700 alleged Ripper letters (which 99% of them were clearly hoaxes) was done by one person mobile enough to intimidate and confuse the police. Someone get into Bruce's head that not all the Jack the ripper letters were authentic. Alot of the public was taking the piss on the police's incompetent to catch the ripper. There were over 700 cases of Jack the Ripper letters which meant most of them had to be ruled out. Quite sensational but maybe he should put it into a fictional film than try have us believe it all in his book.
He couldn’t have been, he was in America at the time of one of the murders. He was also into a heavy drug addiction that affected his coordination. The Maybrick diary is a hoax. But considering it was written by an unemployed alcoholic and his little educated wife it is an amazing achievement. It contains many errors for a supposed Victorian era work.
I couldn’t believe the way this man ignorantly dispelled Stephen knights book, Knight never claimed the price was the ripper but was a cover up to hide his baby he had with a catholic woman that would have caused unrest within the public, also knight claimed it was a Freemason an was a 3 man job. Knight also highlights that only 5 victims out of all the women working the street at the time only 5 an he explains how these victims all knew each other some lived on the same street some drank in the same pub an they all knew that the prince had a child with this catholic woman an it had to be kept secret, that explains the Masonic rituals.
what on earth are you talking about? Bruce Knows all the above! i) Knights book doesn't account for the Duke of Clarence being away from the country ii) Knights book doesn't address the fact that Sickert was in France during the killings iii) The queens physician was a 70 something year old man(half paralyzed ), who wasn't well enough to kill these people. Knights theory is dispel-able without Bruce's input. Do you really think 5 east end unfortunates managed to have a child WITH ROYALTY, and then the establishment foolishly killed these women as LOUD as they possibly can even with the heavy press coverage ? Why wouldn't the establishment kidnap these women, and make them disappear one by one? They didn't have CCTV back then or DNA testing methods ! They could of dealt with this very easily ! The women drank at the same Pub, and all rubbed shoulders with one another because they operated in the same areas, many east end unfortunates likely knew each other ! its just common sense !
