|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
angel_eyes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 15, 2004 - 4:35 pm: |       |
sir william gull, in my opinion, was Jack the Ripper. agree or disagree |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 280
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
HI
what evidence do you based that statement on? I disagree with you as I think it unlikely gull would have been able to commit the crimes due to medical reasons
all the best
Jennifer |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 854
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 3:30 pm: | |
Hi Angel eyes,
Sir William Gull , has to be the worst suspect ever put foreward, he was a most respected Doctor, who treated the royals, he also at the time of the murders was a sick old man.
And unless one believes like the Caine movie, he travelled around in a coach,which is in complete contrast to any facts known, and killed them inside before dumping the bodies, Im afraid he is a non starter.
Richard. |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 2:18 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
Agree Sir william Gull was not JTR. But if there was a conspiracy afoot he is very likely to know who was.
Regarding him being a sick old man. This is a misnomer. He was still touring the country and giving lectures, also holding surgeries and visiting patients, after his strokes albeit, not as vigourously as before.
In the next months or possibly a years time there will be some compelling evdence published which will make a lot of people alter their whole perspective on the case. This will be backed up with good hard honest research which, we have been doing for several years since our book was published. Some very respected names are involved including our own.
A&S |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 2:26 pm: | |
well look forward to your book. you never know I might get my mind changed! Anything about my old friend robert lees in your book???
I guess i will have to wait and see
all the best
Jennifer |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1751
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 2:38 pm: | |
Angel_eyes wrote:
"sir william gull, in my opinion, was Jack the Ripper. agree or disagree."
The answer is short and simple: disagree!
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
angel_eyes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 7:09 pm: | |
EVERYONE:
I am pleased with the response that you have all given and from the bottom of my heart I am glad you all replied. I can see by simply the size of this message board that not everyone tends to believe that Gull could be the Ripper. However, it is my theory that Sir William Gull killed those women to cover up the many bad habits of the Prince. Gull treated the royals yes, and also was a Freemason. One might ask what exactly this has to do with anything and the answer is simple. As a Freemason and doctor to the royals, it was Gull's duty to do whatever task was appointed to him and in order to keep safe the Freemason's, Gull needed to take action, thus, the Ripper murders. Now, while writing this I understand that many or all of you are going to enjoy tearing up my rather simplified hypothesis, but bear in mind, Gull had the opportunity, the means, and most certainly the motive. If you would all do me the simple courtesy of looking into Gull's medical history before you bash everything I have said, you will find that NO ONE knows for absolute certainty whether or not Gull was institutionalized for "mental illness".
Thank you all,
Angel_Eyes
If you do as I have requested and respond with not only feedback but also your findings, I will let you know the significance of you research. |
angel_eyes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 7:12 pm: | |
EVERYONE:
I am pleased with the response that you have all given and from the bottom of my heart I am glad you all replied. I can see by simply the size of this message board that not everyone tends to believe that Gull could be the Ripper. However, it is my theory that Sir William Gull killed those women to cover up the many bad habits of the Prince. Gull treated the royals, yes, and also was a Freemason.
One might ask what exactly this has to do with anything and the answer is simple. As a Freemason and doctor to the royals, it was Gull's duty to do whatever task was appointed to him and in order to keep safe the Freemason's, Gull needed to take action, thus, the Ripper murders.
Now, while writing this I understand that many or all of you are going to enjoy tearing up my rather simplified hypothesis, but bear in mind, Gull had the opportunity, the means, and most certainly the motive.
If you would all do me the simple courtesy of looking into Gull's medical history before you bash everything I have said, you will find that NO ONE knows for absolute certainty whether or not Gull was institutionalized for "mental illness".
Thank you all,
Angel_Eyes
If you do as I have requested and respond with not only feedback but also your findings, I will let you know the significance of you research. |
James Glyn- Howlett
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 11:34 am: | |
Hi Angel Eyes
Yes I agree that there does seem to be a lot of evidence to support this theory - it seems to be underpinned by prominent media coverage (the Graphic Novel & Film adaptation From Hell & the TV Mini series, etc). It's attractive, as everyone likes a conspiracy theory with colourful and well-known characters involved - though this could in fact be counterproductive. Conspiracy theory fans in general will be familiar with the Hoch Ratio Test, which states that, the more well-known names that appear in any account is the tipoff that the theory does not hold water. As researcher Paul Hoch himself puts it:
"I suspect that a useful measure of the plausibility of an allegation could be derived from the percentage of well-known names."
(JFK assassination home page)
Certainly eevryone short of Holmes appears in the "Ripper and The Royals" theory!
For years I was a confirmed 'Gullible' - though I now believe that if someone invented a time machine, went back with a camera to Mitre Square in 1888, they'd most likely come back with pictures of a complete nobody committing the terrible deeds.
|
angel_eyes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 4:48 pm: | |
James,
You agree that there seems to be a lot of evidence to support the theory but you don't entirely believe that it is true, right? You make a good point saying that many people believe in a conspiracy theory. Who do you believe could be Jack the Ripper?
Angel |
Glyn James Howlett
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 8:36 am: | |
Hi Angel Eyes
After reading your messages I have re-read portions of the vastly entertaining but oft-derided 1976 book 'The Final Solution' by Stephen Knight. This was the book I read as a nipper which convinced me of Gull's guilt. However, all the books published since seem to dismiss much of the evidence / research amassed by Knight. He couldnt answer back, as he himself died soon after (also subject of consipracy!)
I would still like to hear of evidence to clear Gull's name of the fact that he was seen covered in blood with a dazed memory on one of the murder nights - his love of dispensing grapes (used to poison suspects?) was also a strong clue, though circumstancial. I certainly think that the Royals would go to any lengths to cover up the involvement of their royal surgeon -one of the main arguments against the Maybrick Diary/watch is that why would anyone spend such money/time/effort on discrediting someone unconnected with the case - It could be the royals!
I personally think it is someone much less interesting - like one of the Russian Jews originally suspected, or David Cohen (name change permitting). Strong evidence too points to Joseph Barnett. I can highly recommend a recent book I read (Jack the Ripper Casebook)which has lots of viewpoints by acknowledged ripperologists- and some strong emiprical research. It presents a good balanced view. I think a lot of books published fall down as they concentrate too much on 'story' at the expense of 'facts'.
Thanks for listening!
Glyn |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 862
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:17 am: | |
Hi Everybody!
Can i just ask what were Gulls views on vivesection?
Yes its odd question day!
Cheers
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 103
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:29 am: | |
Dr Gull was strongly pro-vivisection Jenni. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 865
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 27, 2004 - 10:35 am: | |
Simon,
thats a shame for him - in more ways than one!
Its also a shame for me!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Azriel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2004 - 10:21 pm: | |
Hello Everyone,
Well, I can't say that I'm unhappy with the fact that there are still people writing on this topic. It's been a while since I've written, of course, due to lack of a computer and I intend to start posting again. Thank you all for your responses. As far as my unshakeable belief that Sir William Gull was Jack the Ripper goes, yes I still believe that he was for the exact reasons that Richard, I believe, stated, " he was a most respected Doctor, who treated the royals, he also at the time of the murders was a sick old man." Despite popular belief being a 'sick old man'does not hinder one in completing extensive tasks and commiting acts of crime. There are and forever will be 'sick old men' who commit crimes simply because they can or, as I believe, could be like Gull and have been ordered to do so. Please, let me know what you think
Azriel aka Angel
|
Azriel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 21, 2004 - 10:16 pm: | |
By the way,
Though this has nothing to do with anything, I'm still going to say it! I cannot believe that I'm no longer allowed to post with my name, Angel, anymore because someone had an account created with their name slightly resembling mine! I just thought that it was not fair. Oh well. I'll simply use my middle name. Azriel.
Thank you all for listening!
Azriel |
James V. Bianco
Police Constable
Username: Jamesvbianco
Post Number: 2
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 11:00 am: | |
I would love to hear the source on Dr. Gull being found blood covered and dazed on the night of one of the murders. Also...the grape thing, very interesting if true.
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2217
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 12:46 pm: | |
Hi, Azriel
I got some pointers for you.
1) It is questionable that it was a doctor who performed the murders and mutilations. He didn't need to be a medical man (and I don't think he was), maybe someone with rough anatomical knowledge.
2) There is no link -- except for the bogus one created by Joseph Sickert, the Gull-supportrs and Stephen Knight -- in the Ripper murders that goes to the Royals. None whatsoever. Nor are there any true indications on that the murders were a part of a larger over-all scheme.
3) Dr. Gull does not in any way fit the witness descriptions by either Mrs Long or Levy. Too old, too well dressed etc. etc.
4) These types of crimes are generally performed by young men or men in their young middle age.
Sorry, Azriel, but I sometimes wonder why this nonsense about Dr Gull and the Freemasons is still being taken seriously. Hollywood...?
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on November 10, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 10, 2004 - 1:58 pm: | |
Hi all,
I would like to know were the evidence is that Gull was coverd in blood the night of one of the murders? Sounds just like another story to me.
Your friend,CB |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 8:04 am: | |
Picking up some points from this thread:
What earthly connection is there between being a freemason and killing to protect the monarchy?
One could aseasily argue that that made contemporary Knights of the Garter, Guards officers or members of the royal household (to indicate just a few groups) automatic suspects, since they had a closer relationship to the Crown and individual members of the royal family.
The basis of the royal conspiracy is also flawed. eddy was a source of embarrassment quite apart from him being JtR (his unfortunate romantic entanglements with catholic women; his inability to concentrate etc; Cleveland St/his sexuality) and there is no evidence that the royals took action to slence those who knew.
The secret marriage theory was always flawed - it was no marriage in law given the Royal Marriages Act. So far as royal bastards are concerned, there was never much bother about that, and Edward, Prince of Wales's sexual antics were well-known. Any perceived republican threat to the monarchy was well passed by 1888. It might have been real around 1871, but the days of Dilke and Chamberlain's radicalism were gone. So why a cover-up?
Not one description of potential Ripper's resembles Gull, who was "Napoleonic" in appearance.
One must also bear in mind that by accent, appearance, bearing, look, dress, authority and personality, a "gentleman" like Gull would have stood out like a sore thumb in the East End of 1888. Yet we find no descriptions that fit this - Hutchinson's always strikes me as a picture of a bourgeois, NOT a menmber of the upper-classes.
All this, of course, leaves out questions of Gull's health.
If anyone still adheres to thie now outdated and discredited theories of Gull and royal conspiracies, please, please tell me why!!
Phil |
Azriel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 9:08 pm: | |
Phil,
This is Azriel and I do still believe that there was a conspiracy to cover everything up. I mean, if you think about the eyewitness accounts, and the things that these people saw, then doesn't it sound even remotely probable that Gull could very well have dressed down, maybe covered his appearance? None of the witnesses saw him up close and personal. All they saw was an older male, well dressed but not overdressed, around the vicinity of the murders, right? (Of course they were a little more detailed than that, but still.) The point isn't simply that I will forever believe that Gull and the Royal Family helped to murder these innocent women, but also that one cannot cast aside so easily the possibility that a human being could commit a crime such as these. Disagree if you will, but I will not budge. Some say that I believe too much in Hollywood, but that is not the case. I simply believe the fact that Human Beings can and more than likely are, the most disgusting creatures in the world. We are capable of much more than torture and mutilation, whether you want to wrap your presciouse psyche around it or not. As I have said before, " Agree or Disagree." I will believe it.
Thank you and I love getting responses like yours,
Azriel
PS. Touche on the "picture of a bourgeois, NOT a menmber of the upper-classes" bit. Touche, indeed. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 426
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 7:23 pm: | |
Azriel,
None of the witnesses reporting seeing an "older male" -- at least not an "older" that would be close to Gull's age. I don't know how old you are, so perhaps you lump everyone over 30 into the same age group. Maybe that's where the confusion comes in.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 332
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 10, 2004 - 8:09 pm: | |
Azriel,
I do not understand your: one cannot cast aside so easily the possibility that a human being could commit a crime such as these.
Except perhaps in jest, I am not aware that anyone has applied a Murders in the Rue Morgue solution to the Ripper murders. Thus, whether you want to believe in Dr. Gull, Joe Barnett, M.J. Druitt, a Kosminski in-law or the Seven Dwarfs severally, everyone agrees the murders were commited by a human being or beings. Indeed, I think I can confidently state that even Mr. Norder and Mr. Radka are as one on that point.
Don.
|
mvario
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 8:56 am: | |
I think a lot of people find the Gull/royals theory so inviting because it provides a logical reason for the murders. Other serial killings show us that outside of the murderers head there are no logical reasons. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 7:26 pm: | |
mvario wrote:
"I think a lot of people find the Gull/royals theory so inviting because it provides a logical reason for the murders. Other serial killings show us that outside of the murderers head there are no logical reasons."
>>Had a look at A?R in the Dissertations section? It identifies all the reasons behind the murders quite logically.
David
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 2:18 am: | |
Gull conspiracy a LOGIGAL reason for the murders? You MUST be joking!!
First what was the motive of the conspiracy? There was no republican threat? No immediate royal scandal?
Second who was party to the conspiracy? Who initiated it?
Third, where is a shred of evidence of Gull's involvement? - please don't cite discredited sources like Lees' ramblings, films, Knight (proven dishonest as a researcher) or Spiering's findings in libraries that cannot now be traced.
mvario - your post doesn't make it clear whether you personally support the conspiracy theory or are just playing devil's advocate. But this is one horse that has been flogged to death and beyond - it won't run any more!!
Phil |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 429
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 7:54 am: | |
Hi Phil,
Considering mvario's second line, I suspect that he's not really saying the theory is logical, just that some people think it is.
Overall I think a better way of looking at why people find outlandish dramatic plots compelling is the search for meaning. People want to find some reason behind why things happen, to explain it, like a story.
The idea that these women were picked at random and killed for no other reason than Jack liked to kill strikes some people as unsatisfactory. Humans are scared by the concept of coincidence. When bad things happen, there must be some sort of link, they say to themselves, because otherwise there's no way to make sure things like that don't happen to you. So they grab anything they can think of to try to explain them away. What they come up with tends to just reinforce their pre-existing worldview.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 162
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
If you need to kill 5 women in order to cover up some Big Royal Secret the very LAST thing you would do is murder them in the manner of the JTR killings!
These were not middle class housewives. These were streetwalkers . It would have been easy to abduct them and dispose of them quietly, especially if you had all the resources of the Crown behind you.
If you want to keep a secret quiet, you don't go around leaving a trail of mutilated carcasses.
Mags |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 334
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
Mags,
You might want to read the posting rules again as I fear you are in violation of the the caveat that strictly prohibits any use of logic or just commonsense in regard to Royal Conspiracy threads. Unless, of course, the conspirators suffer from a certain form of psychopathy, in which case they are permitted to do anything that fits a theory.
Don. |
mvario
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 7:13 am: | |
Let me add one more reason I see for the mainstream popularity of royals/Gull, and that is along with providing a motive a sane mind can grasp it also removes randomness. In real life serial victims are usually chosen at random (though often from within a group, such as by sex, or race). It's just circumstance that chooses a victim. To extend my parallel with movies, in films this usually isn't the case, there is a selection process that the protogonist just has to discover, so that he can save the last victim ans stop the killer. The Gull/royals theory eliminates randomeness, instead of hapless victims in the wrong place at the wrong time the victims are specific people who have something in common. Again, I am not advocating this, but it is, I feel, something that explains why some people find this theory appealing. |
mvario
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 9:31 pm: | |
D. Radka wrote:
">>Had a look at A?R in the Dissertations section? It identifies all the reasons behind the murders quite logically."
I just did. Okay, that's sort of what I was trying to say only more succinctly...
"externalization of consciousness counterintuitive to the understanding of normal people, but typical of the syndrome of psychopathy"
I think the Ripper was a psychopath, but I think a lot of "normal people" are much more entralled with a grand tale of a killer with a motive that "makes sense" be it greed, jealousy, duty, or a grand conspiracy, even if it doesn't really fit all the facts (just jam that square peg in that round hole, it looks better). To a lot of people it "makes a better story".
That's just my stupid theory on why the royals/Gull/conspiracy theory lives on. My personal theory right now is that the Ripper was some nobody that no one has ever heard of.
-Mike
|
Jeff Stone
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 11:10 am: | |
I've been following this website for about a year now, and enjoy it. However, sometimes the reaction to various theories of the killer's identity is a bit harsh. It is most likely the killer was just some depraved citizen of Whitechapel, but who knows? One thing I don't understand about the case against Gull as a suspect is the automatic reference to his health. As I understand (though I don't know anything about medicine), a stroke can, in fact, cause violent tendencies. I haven't heard anything about preventing them. Also, independent researches have produced an "Annie Crooks" admitted to the Marleybone Workhouse when Knight says "Annie Crook" was. It would be kind of strange for him to go the workhouse, pick out a name around which to weave a bogus story to make some money, and forget the "S". Back in the those days, it wasn't unusual for people to add and leave off the "S" from their surnames (from Flower to Flowers, for instance). Just a thought. I don't think Gull is a strong candidate, but then, who is? |
Jeff Stone
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 3:32 pm: | |
oh well thanks anyway guys (that's five) |
mvario
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 9:08 pm: | |
No, sorry. I don't support it at all, nor am I trying to play devil's advocate. I was just conjecturing on why I think people find the royals/conspiracy theory inviting.
I suppose I wasn't clear. As far as I am acquainted with such cases, serial killers are in their own world, in their own mind. Their reasons for their crimes make no sense to "logical" people. I'm thinking of say, Son of Sam, Dahmer, Bundy, De Salvo, etc. I don't think anyone can comprehend their rationale. There is no "logical" motive.
On the other hand look at how hollywood tends to protray serial killers in fiction. It's usually either someone with a hidden "rational" motive (usually greed, sometimes jealousy, but something explainable the audiance can grasp), or degenerates into some sort of personal conflict between the killer and the protagonist police officer, dropping clues and creating a puzzle that can be decyphered The movies rarely portray a serial killer in a realistic way, as someone with no logical motive.
I think this is because movie creators feel the audience doesn't feel comfortable with with a villian whose motives they can't in some way understand. And I think in this case they are correct. I think a large amount of people want a motive they can grasp.
I believe, like most serial killers, Jack's motive is removed from rational thought, so that when a suspect with a motive that people can somewhat understand (in this case a grand conspiracy to protect the crown from scandal) comes up a lot of folks are attracted to it.
I think this tends to explain its popularity, why this theory is still around, and why it is one so often emulated in fiction.
So when I say "logical" I don't mean it's a logical theory, I just mean it provides a logical motive. I don't believe a logial motive is, well, logical, when it comes to serial killers, I just believe that most people feel less uneasy if they feel there is a motive they can understand.
I should probably shut up now.
|
mvario
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 8:36 am: | |
Dan,
Thanks, that is what I was trying to say, though far less eloquently.  |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 12:55 pm: | |
"...These were streetwalkers. It would have been easy to abduct them and dispose of them quietly..."
As the Whitehall torso murderer appears to have done. We have no idea who the victims were!!!
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 10:54 am: | |
Some sage and sound reasoning, Dan, with which I largely agree.
But I think there are a lot of people "out there" who have seen one of the films or read an out-dated book (Knight - still unapologetically in print!!) and think that because it is a big-budget film, or in print it must be true.
For that reason, I feel that such demonstrably unsound views ought not to be challenged regularly.
Phil |
Azriel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Hello, everyone,
I'm pleased with the fact that everyone is so comfortable with posting their opinions and so comfortable with bashing me. ;) I'm just kidding. I must say that the opinions are more than strong in refuting the conspiracy theory. Well, happy holidays to everyone and when I come back, I'll fight some more with the rest of you on why I believe it was William Gull.
Azriel
Oh, and a PS to Dan, my age is none of your concern. ;) |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 10:10 pm: | |
mvario,
Thank you for your fine post of Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 9:31 pm above. Look for a response to it appearing in the A?R thread soon.
Best regards,
David
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 11:57 am: | |
Azriel - why embark on a losing battle? |
Kitty
Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 29
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:22 pm: | |
Good conspiracy theory analysis here! Keep it going! Alot of losers try to state that there is nothing in the whole conspiracy business just because it has been badly presented in the past. But it still remains the focal point of interest, all over the world, except to losers from remote back streets of Sweden or in the USA who learned case study in huts, in the back of beyond.
Cyniscism is not objectivity.
Good thread! |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1191
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:34 pm: | |
Kitty,
If it is your intention to get up everybodys back, with your carefully framed posts , you are succeeding.
You have posted to date 29 entrys, please therefore have the good manners to respect people who have more knowledge than you, i am not meaning that disrespectively, i am sure you feel passionately what you are saying, but Honestly 'Back streets of Sweden'. or people learning case studys in huts'in the back of beyond is not only offensive , but extremely immature.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2430
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:45 pm: | |
"But it still remains the focal point of interest, all over the world, except to losers from remote back streets of Sweden or in the USA who learned case study in huts, in the back of beyond."
Well well, Kitty. And with "all over the world" you mean... Hollywood? Because I am afraid that is the only institution "all over the world" that takes the these conspiracy theories seriously.
I would like to hear from you in exactly what way the crime scene evidence, for example, points at a conspiracy being responsible for the Ripper murders, but I suppose that will never happen, since your only arsenal consists of insults and ridicules, not knowledge and experience.
I feel bad for you.
All the best
from the remote back streets of Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1192
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:57 pm: | |
Hi,
I Second Glenns remarks, Hollywood love this kind of British conspiracy nonsence, to make a realistic picture concerning the whitechapel murders is beyond there comprehension, and the researchers that make the movie semi accurate, are only intresting in the mega bucks that go with the deal.
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2432
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:13 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
Well, I think the researchers and consultants involved are trying their best to get their voices heard. Without their efforts (regardless how fruitless in the end), I think we would have seen even worse creations of garbage.
And yes, I believe there are good money involved, but we can hardly blame them for that. I wouldn't mind a piece of the action myself...
But I agree; Hollywood just loves these elements from British mythology. And especially conspiracy stories (just look at Watergate and the JFK murder). One wonders when BBC or Granada will finally sink there teeth into a Ripper picture...
There must be some reason for why Hollywood's renderings of the East End murders are so attached to the Royal Conspiracy theories -- as we know, realism is hardly the goal...
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 360
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:15 pm: | |
Glenn & Richard,
Don't blame Hollywood, blame all the people that love movies about hi-jinx in high places. There have been several such about the Ripper and they sell -- alas. In contrast, it will probably be a long time before Hollywood does another gay-themed movie about Alexander the Great because that has been a box office bust.
Actually, Richard, I remember the two us discussing months ago how wonderful it would be to do a gritty, grimy, accurate movie about JtR -- and we decided it wouldn't sell. Too bad, but unless enough of us have backed a White Christmas in London and it snows like the devil that day so we can produce our own film it ain't gonna happen.
Don.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2436
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:26 pm: | |
I am afraid you're right, Don.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 5:11 pm: | |
Hi Glen,
Re. your post earlier asking when BBC or Granada will make a programme on JTR.
The BBC did make a series in the 1970's. It was based on the reveleations of Joseph (Gorman) Sickert.
Incidentally most of the research in Stephen Knight's book is lifted straight from the BBC research for that series.
Regards
John Savage |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1193
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 5:12 pm: | |
Hi Don ,
Snowing on Xmas day is a possibility now according to the weather forecast, which is not good for my company as i laid freely 7/2, a week ago , and it is now a firm 7/4.
However regarding the film discussion, i firmly believe that if experts on this case got together, and produced the basic facts as it happened without naming historical figures as a sell point, then a massive intrest would be in attendence. and therefore the best Ripper movie ever would be shown.
Dream on Richard.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2437
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 5:38 pm: | |
Hi John,
Yes, I know - I was mainly referring to a film (because that's what's missing), not a television documentary series.
In the 1970s the Royal connection was still in its prime so it's not strange that even BBC went along that trail as well.
What I'd like to see, is -- as Richard partly suggests -- a well-made fiction movie based on the best research done so far, focusing on a lone "nobody", and displaying the same historical and aesthetical quality as the Granada Sherlock Holmes series.
It would of course not be without problems, but it could hardly get any worse than what's been done so far. I am not so sure, that a movie based on the new "lone killer" theories, would be of less commercial value; on the contrary, many such movies about serial killers (displaying this type of character) have been made and become immensely popular.
I think it's a mistake to assume, that if the Ripper is not shown in a movie as a posh Royal or freemason, it wouldn't reach its audience. The large amount of movies about the lone and rather common serial murderer has proved just as exciting and successful, as well as easier to relate to for the general public than a wide-spread upper class conspiracy.
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on December 22, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
