|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Greg Alexander
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 12:16 pm: | 
|
I have written a short book offering an entirely new theory on identity of Jack the Ripper. The theory is based upon the assumption that Mary Kelly was the intended target all along as the other victims had also used the name 'Kelly' and 'Mary' at some point in time.
The reason for her killing is linked to her return from France a couple of years previous. If Kelly had been employed in a Parisian brothel then it is highly likely she would have become acquainted with the impressionist painter and aristocrat Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec who is known to have regularly frequented these establishments and who was apparently obsessed by redheads (Mary Kelly was often given the nick-name 'ginger'). It is rumoured that Lautrec contracted syphilis sometime around 1886 the year of Kelly's return from France and that a red-headed prostitute had been responsible. Could it have been possible therefore that Kelly had been hunted down as a result of aristocratic retribution possibly by Lautrec's doctor himself?
However dispite the plausibility of my theory as well as its general interest, no publisher as yet have been willing to put my book into print. Is it just that my theory comes across as slightly outlandish or is someone trying to hide something? Make your own minds up. |
Jerry Maynard
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 8:44 pm: |
|
That is a very interesting theory. I would like to have more information on this suspect. I myself
have a theory that O'Donston Stevenson brainwashed
one or more of the other suspects to commit the murders to satisfy his black magic rituals.
I hope to hear your case against this suspect
I love to hear any info on new JTR theories |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 218
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 8:41 am: |
|
Dear Greg,
I do hope you will not think me too much of a wet blanket, but a possible reason why you are having trouble finding a publisher is that your theory appears to be based on a fiction.
You say MJK came back from France etc, there is absolutely no evidence at all to show she ever went to France. Now if you have proof that she did then that is a different matter entirely.
You cannot build a theory on a fiction and expect people to take it seriously.
Why don't you email me and explain your idea in slightly more depth. If there is anything I can do to help I most gladly will.
Bob |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 646
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:31 am: |
|
There appears to be two problems.
Firstly, as Bob says, what evidence do you have to back up your theory? There is only hearsay evidence that Mary was ever in France, and that evidence states that she went there with a gentleman, didn't like it and returned after a week or two. Yet your theory has her travelling to Paris, working in a Parisian brothel, meeting Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and giving him syphillis. None of this can be substantiated, it cannot even be said to be circumstantial evidence. You also fail to explain why Lautrec's doctor should go on the rampage in Whitechapel, when undoubtedly Mary would not have been the only prostitute ever to give one of his patients a social disease.
Secondly, and forgive me for being blunt here:
However dispite the plausibility of my theory as well as its general interest, no publisher as yet have been willing to put my book into print.
This sentence contains a spelling error, a punctuation error and a grammatical error. Sad to say but most publishers receive thousands of manuscripts per year. I don't know what the standard of your manuscript is, but most publisher's readers will not bother going any further than the first page or so if the quality of writing doesn't make it worth their while. Maybe you should get someone to proof read the document for you before you submit it again.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1307
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:45 am: |
|
Toulouse Lautrec certainly did suffer from syphilis but is usualy thought to have caught it from a prostitute named Rosa La Rouge whom he painted. The painting by him below is simply entitled Rosa La Rouge
Chris
 |
Julie Lambert
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Oh no! Not another artist-as-ripper story! If he died of this disease, he could not have contracted it in 1886 - it took at least ten years or even longer to kill its victims. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 8:16 am: |
|
Are you saying that Lautrec himself was the killer - if so, given his lack of height, he must have carried a box with him to stand on while he strangled his victims!!
Look out for the suspect with the box!!!
Seriously, this is the sort of "let's pick any name we can even remotely connect to JtR (like they were simply alive in 1888) and see what spurious logic we can drum up" that I ABHOR.
No wonder your book has not been published it doesn't deserve to be except as fiction!!
Appalled,
Phil |
Neil K. MacMillan
Detective Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 135
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Dear Greg;
The problem is as I see it. Your theory comes close to two previously discredited theories. namely the Prince Eddie theory and Patricia Cornwell's Sickert theory. And as a writer I can tell you for fact that a manuscript with spelling errors such as you show in your post would earn a quick trip to the rejection pile. However, I wish you luck in your quest. Neil |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 431
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 2:01 am: |
|
I'm sorry Greg, but I suspect you are having difficulty getting published for the reasons given above by others (proof reading, lack of evidence, implausibility of the theory etc etc) but also because your idea is second hand.
Change the name, and you effectively have Leonard Matters' 1929 "Dr Stanley" theory.
He was supposed to have sought our MJK because she had infected his son with syphilis and the son had died. The other women were killed either by mistake (Eddowes used the name Kelly) or because the Dr had asked them if they knew MJK. It was made into a film about 1958. So nothing original there.
But why should Lautrec's doctor go in search of the woman and kill her - why not paid assassins or friends?
Do you have evidence to support any of this?
And why, pray, should publishers understandable reluctance to take on your work (I use the word reluctantly) should that mean that someone is "trying to hide something"?
Please, Greg, be realistic. Whatever your claims, your theory is not "plausible" (expose the detail for an instant on here and it'll be ripped to shreds (pardon the pun) in seconds. As already indicated, you appear to have no evidence, just an idea.
Your theory is not even generally interesting, as you claim. Why should it be - because you mention the name of a famous painter? in today's Ripper world, famous names have been proposed and dismissed dozens of times (Barnardo, PAV, Sickert, Carroll, Gull, Stephens, Lord Randolph Churchill - to name but a few).
Neither is you "theory" outlandish in any way - what, in your opinion makes it so?
Finally, you ask us to make our own minds up. But on what - a few sentences of summary? This board regularly involves contributions from reputable scholars who set before us the EVIDENCE they have found (often after great tribulation and effort). We have been discussing the new book "Uncle Jack" based on a cache of material that can be scrutinised in detail. Do you really think the generalities you set out would catch anyone's imagination?
Sorry to be so blunt, but quite apart from the fact that the day of the full blown, all-encompassing theory is probably dead - you need to get some evidence behind you if you are to be taken seriously by anyone - publisher or us. the answer to the ripper riddle, IMHO, lies in single pieces of evidence which will act as a key on what we already know, or as a spur to new research.
I would suggest, in all good faith, that you go back to the drawing board. Lautrec did not do it, nor anyone associated with him. I am 100% sure of that!!
regards,
Phil |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
