|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through August 30, 2003 | Glenn L Andersson | 25 | 1 | 8-30-03 8:23 am |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
R.J. Palmer
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 10:13 am: | 
|
Brad--I like it. I've never noticed it until this month's Ripperologist , but she's also got a body like Marlene Dietrich. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 305
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 11:08 pm: |
|
Glenn,
My point is that her reputation as a "scholar" has never been established. I'll give her credit - she's a good author who can hook her readers, but her medical/forensic credentials leave much to be desired.
B |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 146
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 7:12 am: |
|
Hi Brian,
Aah, I though that was what you meant. Yes, I agree.
Although I though the scientific investigation and detection skills revealed in the book were far worse than the forensic credentials.
All the best 
P.S. Nice to see another guy having the courage to show up a photo on the profile page.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 307
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Hey...I'm single again. I've got to advertise. 
B |
Glenn L Andersson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 149
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 7:13 am: |
|
Brian,
I'm single too ... but I don't do it for advertisment (I'm think I like things the way they are for the moment), I simply do it because I'm vain and self-absorbed.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Jerry Only
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 9:47 am: |
|
Hi all.
New here, so I've not yet scoured every single thread, but as I've browsed through your posts regarding a more recent Ripper book (Cornwell's) and the nasty habit Truth sometimes has of scampering away from us, to say nothing of the points made regarding the endless selection of Ripper books available to even the most diehard investigator, my question is this: Will JTR's identity EVER be known? |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 163
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Hi Jerry,
Welcome to the board.
To your question I will give you a simple answer: probably NOT!
Author Paul Begg has stated, that we can't be virtually certain, though, since the investigation methods has undergone a rapid development during the last years and new material -- formerly lost -- has been discovered. However, to crack the case of Jack's identity, I believe extraordinary discoveries of evidence will be necessary in order for this to be reality.
As I've also stated before, the most interesting Ripper books are in my view those who doesen't deal with a special Ripper suspect, due to the fact that their investigations and treatments of facts is done from a subjective point of view. The relatively objective, factual books are the ones that I feel contribute the most to the Ripper detection field.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Jerry Only
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 2:16 pm: |
|
If we don't know for certain who JtR was, how can we know for certain who he was not? |
Alex McKenzie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 12:06 am: |
|
"The commonalities between the Ripper’s profiled mind and what is known of Sickert is also amazing."
Now granted I've read 3 or 4 different psychological profiles of JtR, but which one is he talking about? None of them resemble Sickert at all.
"Also, because of the inconsistencies in the misspelled words and the consistent language used throughout different letters, long thought to be from different writers."
But if you look closely, most of these letters were written after October 3, 1888, when the police posted the "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jack" (which I believe to have been written by a journalist), so they are actually copying the style and tone of those two.
Furthermore, wouldn't the cold, calculating, intelligent murderer that she makes Sickert out to be realize that all the unfulfilled predictions made in some letters would cast doubt on all of them?
Everyone reading this probably already knew that, but I felt it had to be said.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 180
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 4:07 pm: |
|
And well said it was, Alex.
I've also read a number of psycological profiles on JtR and I personally think that John Douglas & Co. -- labelling him as an disorganized, paranoid loner -- is the most valid one. And this definetely rules out Sickert, who probably was highly intelligent, organized and an exhibitionist (at least if we are to believe Cornwell's description of him) -- and maybe even, as Cornwell states, a sociopath. Jack most probably hadn't these characteristics, though.
Hey, Jerry,
"If we don't know for certain who JtR was, how can we know for certain who he was not?"
Exactly. That's just the point -- we can't be sure of anything.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Rick Paulas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 25, 2003 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Glenn,
I saw your post on the other message board. Although this is the first time I have responded since my original new thread post, I have been lurking here, seeing what other people post. The problem with this argument is that, well, there is no argument. Everyone has the same complaints about the book and I was hoping to open a discussion where some people who actually thought the book was well done would have a place to discuss what they enjoyed about it. Like I said, I'm not going to defend this to the death, or consider it an end all-be all of Ripper history. I do think that, whether or not it was the full intention, the book brought the case back to the forefront and maybe introduced a few others into this 'secret society' of Ripperologists.
So, there you have it, I suppose. A response.
A defense? Maybe. |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 25
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 9:54 am: |
|
Rick
That is a very good point, and this was mentioned also on the "From Hell" thread recently, that if that film or this book has brought people to the case who might make a lasting contribution then they will have served a very useful purpose.
Also you will have noticed that I hated this book, but that was not because of what Cornwell said rather than the way in which she said it. She is perfectly entitled to publish a book arguing the case for Sickert being the Ripper, there are countless other books out there that I vehemently disgree with, it is the "I am right and everyone else is wrong" attitude I take issue with. That said I very much enjoyed her explanations of modern forensic techniques in the book and I would say that this is one area at least in which the lady definitely knows her stuff. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 279
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 10:15 am: |
|
Hi Rick,
I must say I don't see your point at all. What do you mean, no arguments? I think a great deal of people here (not all, but some) actually have tried to list the most important ones regarding what's bad and good about the book, and in quit a thorough way. Have you really read all the threads? Of course the same arguments comes back, that is often the case when one for example debates with new people, but that is just the nature of the board. So do you mean that the complaints have no value, just because they repeat themselves once in a while? Strange argumentation...
"I was hoping to open a discussion where some people who actually thought the book was well done would have a place to discuss what they enjoyed about it."
Ah, interesting. So you mean that only the ones with the same opinions are welcome to the thread and that others should be excluded? OK, I get the message... Strange rule on a discussion board, though.
In addition: among my critizism, I have actually mentioned the things I think was credible and well done in the book. Namely some of the postmortem discussions, the descriptions of the social conditions in East End, the development of the police force and I also think the parts about the lives and last hours of the victims were very well written (here I think here ability as a novelist has paid well off).
Although I've loudly critizised the book, I expected that these positive points I put forward would be neglegted totally -- and I was right. Sad.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
Rick Paulas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 26, 2003 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Glenn,
I do admit that I have not read ALL of the threads posted in the subject, but I have read a number of them. There have been very small mention of positive points here and there inside of the threads, which is really all I can ask from a site devoted to hardcore Jack the Ripper investigating.
It's not that the complaints lose value with the same arguments being posted over and over, but it does make for some repetitive reading (which could explain my failure for reading ALL of the threads). If you have one hundred people talking about the same particular aspect of what they found wrong with the book, well, it's just tedious.
My intentions when opening the thread was to give those who enjoyed the book a place to say what they liked about it. Plain and simple. Instead it has turned into the same type of thread that was already up. Basically, just one used to show the downfalls of the book. There is no difference between the posts in this one and the old one. Might as well get rid of the seperation.
Maybe my problem was thinking that other people really liked the book like I did, and were able to look past obvious forensic faults and reliability of certain 'leads' and simply see it as a new point of view on the subject.
And no, the same opinions as mine are not the only ones welcome to the board. To suggest such echoes childish name-calling.
The thread was opened to provide a new point of view. Apparently, it is only MY point of view. I am in a large minority.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 299
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 9:02 am: |
|
Hi Rick,
Well, the fact that you belong to a minority and that little good is said about the book, could just be the simple result of that there really isn't that much positive to say about it (although I've tried to list a few such points -- which you once again chose to disregard, by the way).
"The thread was opened to provide a new point of view [...] My intentions when opening the thread was to give those who enjoyed the book a place to say what they liked about it."
I understand your ambitions here, Rick, but the problem is that this is a discussion board. That means that when someone opens a thread one must expect to meet opinions that are opposite in view. Why don't you instead try to argue for your own views and discuss with us "critics" instead of just waiting for those who agrees with you? Because that is how a discussion thread works, in my experience. Or did you say all you had to say in your first message?
"...but it does make for some repetitive reading (which could explain my failure for reading ALL of the threads). If you have one hundred people talking about the same particular aspect of what they found wrong with the book, well, it's just tedious."
Wel, you have had (and have) the chance to change that!!!! When you wrote your first message I hoped that you should return to argue in favour of your opinion, but you never did! If you or anyone else with the opposite opinion than ours doesen't get involved in the discussions, then they do become tedious and repetitive. You had the opportunity to change that, and (although I won't speak for anyone else) we would welcome such an effort.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden
|
F Tunnicliff
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 7:24 am: |
|
Ok I find if difficult to believe that Sickert is the killer but the Cornwell book did bring up the subject of the batches of paper used to write some of the Ripper letters. As far as I can recall she made a good case to prove that some of this paper came from a small batch printed especially. Does that not at least prove that he hoaxed some of the letters. Or have I missed some research that disproves it.
On the case of "who" the Ripper is, I have read everything I can lay my hands on and have now started reading the earliest books I can find on the subject and still I can't find a suspect I truly believe in!
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
