|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stef Kukla
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 3:08 pm: | 
|
It would be an understatement to say that the responses generated by the alleged "Ripper Diary" have been nothing short of extraordinary. Indeed, I have rarely ever seen such infamous behaviour from those who style themselves as taking the "moral highground", or seek only to establish the "truth".
What elevates these attitudes from the commonplace to the extraordinary is the unprecedented degree of favouritism apparent. Never before has a suspect been subjected to such intense scrutiny, interrogation & premature rejection.
Before James Maybrick was put forward, most Ripperologists seemed content either to accept Suspect-X on the basis of flimsy circumstantial evidence, or else reject X for the same reason. But there was always respect. The Diary appears to have turned debates into ugly, volatile affairs.
Be honest; was there ever such mud-slinging over Druitt or Kosminski? Despite the "Macnaghten Memoranda's" supposedly listing them [with Ostrog] as the three official suspects [which it certainly DIDN'T! They were merely given as a random three of many suspects more likely than Cutbush] - not to mention the numerous books written in support of this notion - any actual evidence against them is circumstantial & usually quite sketchy.
Yet who dares to cast stones at THESE theses?
Loath as I am to speak ill of the dead, but one of the most prominent detractors, Melvin Harris, constantly attacked the Diary [beginning before he'd even seen it], levelling unwarrented accusations at all and sundry, and all because he was honest & doing his duty to the public in shielding them from ghastly fraudsters.
Remarkably, any theory condemned by Harris has always been supported by far weightier evidence than he ever managed to scrape up for his D'Onston books -- a small handfull of aquaintances [mostly unreliable or just plain dodgy] who, at one time or another, suspected him. But wasn't this a common situation in 1888?
As for Tumblety, I consider it a joke that he was ever taken seriously as a suspect, particularly by such an intelligent ex-copper as Stewart Evans. It was even quite embarrasing to read how Mr. Evans had attempted to break Tumblety's alibi [for 9 Nov] by suggesting the occurance of some form of clandestine bail.
Always the critics make feeble excuses to defend their highly-flawed cases; yet these same scholars refuse Diary supporters the same privilege. Then again, time after time, whenever such flaws HAVE been identified in the Diary, it is the criticism [NOT the Diary] that fails to pass the test.
I have been an ardent Ripperologist since I was 8-years-old [I am now 28]. In that time I have examined most of the material written on the subject. What always impressed me about the Maybrick case (& the way it was researched) was the open-minded approach adopted by the "pro-Diarists". I used that term - for want of any better - to distinguish the healthily sceptical researchers from those whose sole purpose is to disprove the Diary.
Can someone explain how it has happened that such a likely suspect is rejected by "experts" who, having no-one better to suggest, promote the said "no-one better"?
Is it because it draws us away from the danger of discovering the truth, ending the confusion & subsequently ruining the bloated industry of "Ripperology"? I mean, who'd be interested anymore? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
