178 replies to this topic

[JeepersCreepers]

Jeeps, the book is totally laughable, not good evidence and not even entertaining. Sorry.

  I didn't do it this time..wasn't me!  

*lol*

[Lawgiver]

Oops, my bad. It was Helena.

[KyrieEleison]

Some of the suspects that give me a giggle are Mary Jane Kelly , the last ripper victim, some think she fabricated her death. The Jill the Ripper theory, Prince Albert and the whole royal conspiracy and lastly, Lewis Carroll, author of Alices adventure in wonderland.

Lewis Carroll?  I knew  Alice in Wonderland was twisted, but.... what did he do that made him a suspect?

[Augustine]

Lewis Carroll? I knew Alice in Wonderland was twisted, but.... what did he do that made him a suspect?

That's a new one to me!  I've heard of quite a few people who believe that Lewis Carroll was a pedophile (because his illustrations of Alice in the book made her look unusually mature and sexual--I don't see it that way personally--and because he spent so much time alone with the actual girl Alice is based on).  But I've never heard his name mentioned as a Ripper suspect.  What is his supposed connection?


Kate

[Lawgiver]

Some of the things he wrote were questionable. But, doesnt everyone at some point ?


http://www.casebook.org/suspects/carroll.html

[Sunniva]

Jeeps, the book is totally laughable, not good evidence and not even entertaining. Sorry.

I have almost finished the book now and I do see what you mean. I do not think it is THAT bad though. I think she makes a good case. Walter Sickert was definitely a weirdo, and a scary one, but a killer?

I think she is very convincing and her arguments are not to be laughed at more than any other JTR suspect I think. I think comparing Sickert´s paintings with the happenings in Whitechapel is interesting. I think the whole psychological background of Sickert makes a lot of sense, but I must admit too that some of the evidence is a little far fetched and must also admit that I have skipped a lot of pages in the book where goes on heavy detours on how the case would be handled today or unessesary details on Victorian London.

But a good read nonetheless - and, Lawgiver, honestly I don´t think that Walter Sickert´s status as a suspect should be doubted any less than the others, because we don´t know the thruth...

I think that people with an interest in JTR should read it. Most of the criticism I have is to the Danish translation (which is terrible   ). It is a very interesting book, I think.

Bless

[Lawgiver]

She does make a few good points, but ignores other things that dont fit like the fact he was in France during 2 of the mirders. She touched on it briefly and says there is no proof he was there, but in the Sickert library or archives, there are numerous letters from his mom to someone about Walter staying with them, there are also letters from his brother saying the same thing.  And it does sound convincing to anyone who hasnt read anything else on the subject, but after reading Philip Sugdens book and Paul Begg's there is too much Cornwell ignored to mae the pieces fit.

[Sunniva]

She does make a few good points, but ignores other things that dont fit like the fact he was in France during 2 of the mirders. She touched on it briefly and says there is no proof he was there, but in the Sickert library or archives, there are numerous letters from his mom to someone about Walter staying with them, there are also letters from his brother saying the same thing.  And it does sound convincing to anyone who hasnt read anything else on the subject, but after reading Philip Sugdens book and Paul Begg's there is too much Cornwell ignored to mae the pieces fit.

Yeah, you are probably right about that. I have noticed a few times when her theories are a bit far fetched or thought she ignores facts when she tries to explain why Sickert wasn´t there. I must also admit that I thought this to be strange: why doesn´t Sickert resemble any of the peope who were the last to be seen with the women? Because he used theater makeup and fabricated sideburns to cover himself...

But I do find the resemblance between the murders and paintings concerning, and his attitude towards the events is also mysterious. And then there is the whole HA HA HA. It could be accidental, but a scary coincidence...

What are the titles of the books you mention? I think I would like to read them to compare the suspects  

Edited by Sunniva, 17 December 2004 - 12:41 AM.

[Lawgiver]

But I do find the resemblance between the murders and paintings concerning, and his attitude towards the events is also mysterious. And then there is the whole HA HA HA. It could be accidental, but a scary coincidence.

I dont know but I can assume that he had friends on the police force who probably let him see the crime scene pictures.He was very famous and would be able to do things like that with little or no problem.


Philip Sugdens book is The Complete Jack the Ripper. It is probably the most comprhensive book out there. Paul Begg is Jack the Ripper A-Z which is a great companion guide.

[Lawgiver]

I think that was "the Jewes are the ones who will not be blamed for nothing" Or something to that effect. It was written on the side of a Jewish community center. The thought was that the graffiti may have caused some anti semitism.

[Lawgiver]

I agree and hindsight is 20/20 . I dont know why he wouldnt wait for the police photographer.

[Daemon]

While I feel Patricia Cornwall did a horrific job on that book, I do feel she made some good points.

I dont think it was the prince. He was more apt to pay a person off to shut them up than kill them.

I dont think it was a trained doctor. Any fool with a knife could do what jack the ripper did.

I wont say it wasnt sickert but I wont say it was either. There is no hardcore evidence either way. He certainly fits the profile but so do 100s of other people.

I find it interesting that alot of murders happened around sickerts apartments and that he obviously, at a very minimu, fabricated alot of ripper letters.

[Daemon]

She jumps to way to many conclusions and her overall theory is "if nothing proves it wrong then it must be right."

On many of the ripper letters, many penmanship experts have said that much of it looks like disguised handwriting. But there is obviously no way to prove that.

[cryptid]

That's the one thing that I noticed on the program last night. They showed a couple of different letters that were supposedly written by the Ripper. What I noticed was that the grammer, penmenship and the spelling in the first letter they showed was almost flawless. The other letters they showed were all pretty sloppy, and ripe with spelling and grammatical errors. I just found that strange, but they didn't seem to touch on that in the show. *shrugs* With all the bad reviews this Cornwall book is getting, I may just have to read it to see how bad it is!! lol

From what I've read, it is now believed the first letter signed 'Jack the Ripper' (the one with the nice penmanship and all) was written by a journalist, to stir up interest in the murders. The same for the letter mentioning the 'double event.' The only one possibly authentic is the letter addressed to Mr Lusk, 'from Hell.' The one sent with a piece of human kidney ('the other part fried and ate it was very nise').