|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
brianirons
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 11:05 pm: | 
|
I am new to this site, and I must say that it is wonderful. A cornucopia of ripper delights. However, there is one similarity between this site and all the others out there: I mean this with no disrespect but this web site is highly biased. I have reading some of the answers to some questions in this site and I'm astounded to read that some of you our trying to push your views on to others. This will not do. If a reader is missinformed please tell him so in an educated manor. But on the contrary, if you want to talk about being missinformed then I have a question for you: How much longer are going to have to listen to this dribble about Aron Kozminski, or Michael Ostrog as supects? I can tell you for certain that they are not. It's almost like the Ripper comunity does not want to discover the identity. Then you all would have nothing to do. RUBISH!!! Also, I am certainly not new to the Ripper case. It is not only a hobby of mine but but it was the subject of my senoir thesis in college. I have met with Mrs. Cornwell and I find her discoveries to be very enlightening. Walter Sickert is the closest thing that we have to a genuine suspect and yet you list James Maybrick as the #1 suspect. Odd don't you think. Great site!!! Keep up the work lads. |
Kris Law
Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 49
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 9:37 am: |
|
Hello Brian,
I do agree with you that Ostrog is not a very viable suspect anymore, but that doesn't seem reason to discount him. I don't think there is reason to discount anyone until we know more facts.
I, too, have read Ms. Cornwell's book, but on the contrary didn't find it enlightening at all. I found all her reasoning highly specious, and I think it is unproffesional to enter into a search with a suspect already in mind. The facts should bring forth a suspect on their own. The only thing Patricia Cornwell proved was that Sickert might have written some phony-baloney letters to the police. If that was reason enough to hang someone, imagine what would be done to Michael Barret and ol' Hobo Sickert? |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 310
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 10:27 am: |
|
Brian,
I have not read Corwall's book but I did watch an extensive interview in which she presented her case. I found it most unimpressive and unconvincing. I went into it with more than an open mind, thinking that she may have shed some light on the case, but was sadly disappointed by a flimsy case. I don't plan to spend money on the book. Perhaps I'll borrow it from a library.
As to the other suspects to which you allude, Ostrog does not seem a likely candidate at all. Yet he warrants attention by virtue of his inclusion in the MacNaughten Memorandum. It is highly unlikely to me that Mac would have included him without good reason. It is always possible that Mac was thinking about someone else, maybe another Russian, and just got the names confused.
I do think the Kosminski/Kaminski/Cohen theory is quite viable in some form. My entrée into the case was a walking tour conducted by Martin in which he presented his theory. I read his book right afterward. At that time I believed this was the solution. I've backed off from that now, but I still think it plausible.
Andy S.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 171
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 27, 2003 - 10:47 am: |
|
if there was an obvious suspect i wouldn't be here!!!!
jennifer
|
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 10:25 pm: |
|
Cornwell is a disgrace to Ripperologists everywhere, and her ego is only surpassed by her ignorance. Only she, is brazen enough to declare (and by her own admission, after a mere 6 months of studying the case) that she has definitively "solved the case". Only to turn around and take that statement back, upon the threat of litigation by Sickert's remaining family. She is a fiction writer. Not a certified pathologist, or a criminal detective. She has ZERO training in either fields. I know of persons in both fields, with over 30 years of experience. Many of whom have followed the case for just as long. None of which, would be so bold and egomanical, to make such unabashed declorations or guilt. Espeically ones based on bad science. The likes of which she herself funded (at a VERY high cost at that), and subsequently has a biased interest in seeing pan out. Her statement, about Ripperologists not wanting her to be right, because it would take attention away from them, is beyond idiotic. It's brings ignorace to an all-time high. If anyone is clearly "biased", it's Cornwell. The above statements emphatically prove so.
In short, any second or third rate Ripperologist, with even a minimal understanding of the case, could rip her to shreads in a debate. Which would be entertaining. Had she not already set the case back years with her new, so-called "evidence".
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 172
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 10:38 pm: |
|
Dustin,
I hear you loud and clear.
Cornwell should have stuck with fiction (which she did with her clap-trap about Sickert).
I may know little about Jack the Ripper, but I at least know a phony author.
Bestest,
Lyn |
extendedping
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 1:35 am: |
|
"A cornucopia of ripper delights." This is precious brainirons I'd have to put it up there with...
"ripperArt...An ideal Christmas gift."
as the two strangest/funniest statements I have encountered on this site. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 8:48 am: |
|
Two things:
a) on what basis did Sickert's descendants threaten legal action? I didn't think it was possible, under UK law, to libel the dead.
b) Ostrog was included in MM's memo because his whereabouts at the time were unknown. Does anyone still regard him as a genuine suspect? |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 149
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 5:43 am: |
|
Hi all,
Phil,
I haven't heard anything about Ostrog being a suspect for quite a while now. I think he has died out somewhat in recent years. And rightly so, too. He was a serial thief, not a serial murderer. Some might say that thiefs can turn into killers over time, but it seems that all Ostrog did during his life was steal, regardless of the punishments he received.
I don't think he is regarded too highly as a plausible Ripper suspect anymore, though.
Brianirons,
Well, that is a major part of this site. To share and combine thoughts with one another, to see if we can come up with anything new. There wouldn't be a point to having a site where everyone agrees on everything, would there?
So I think the site is quite good as it is, though the debate over Jack the Ripper was will most likely rage on for centuries to come yet. I doubt the case will ever be conclusively solved, but then that makes it all the more interesting! The mystery of who Jack was!
Keep the site and discussions as they are, I say.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Vicki Michelle,"Allo' Allo'"
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
