|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Mark Groak
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 5:49 am: | 
|
I was listening to the DVD commentary of this mini series last night and the director David Wickes made some interesting comments about the research they did for the show.
His researcher was allowed access to the official home office files a year before they were officially released to the public on the 100th anniversary of the case in 1988. Wickes claims the fact the files were embargoed for 100 years is baffling and can only mean they were extemely politically sensitive. He says the files must have contained evidence that Jack was a member of the 'establishment' as otherwise there would be no reason to keep them secret for a 100 years.
More interestingly Wickes also claims that even in 1987 when they were looking into the files they were been altered, tampered with and some even disappeared altogether.
I was wondering what memebers of this board made of these claims? |
Sarah Long
Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 11
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 10:36 am: |
|
All very possible. There are many files that seem to have vanished, interviews lost, etc. I have no idea if this means something more sinister though or if they just got lost over time. |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 371
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 11:10 am: |
|
Mark,
I was led to believe that all official documents which relate to unsolved crimes are closed to the public for 75 - 100 years after they were officially closed or the date of the last entry.
Nothing sinister. Its a rule which protects the names/families of any suspects mentioned within those files.
As for the altering and disappearing of documents again, this is nothing new. The Crippen and Christie files have been plundered. Souvenir hunters within the police have taken these files...perhaps with hope of selling them for a certain price. Dr Bonds report on Kelly was missing until 1988.
I may be wrong of course. I shall have a look.
Monty
 |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 112
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Hi Mark
Although it is standard procedure for police files and such to be normally kept sectret for 100 years from closure of the file; the first people to have access in the early seventies were BBC researchers who used them for a TV programme, recorded in the book "The Ripper File" by Elwyn Jones.
Between that time and 1988 when PRO put the full details on microfilm a good many files went missing. However we still have an idea what these were about, from the notes made by BBC researchers at the time.
For a fuller description please have a look in "The Jack The Ripper A-Z"
John Savage |
Mark Groak
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 3:11 pm: |
|
I didn't realise it was a standard procedure for police files to be kept secret for 100 years. Wickes repeatedly pointed to this as something unusual to back up his case that there was a conspiracy.
John, is the programme you are refering to the 1973 Barlow and Watt TV series? Oddly enough I think David Wickes was also the director/producer of that. He mentions his involvment with it briefly on the commentary to the Jack the Ripper DVD.
Another piece of evidence he refered to was the death certificate of William Gull, which was signed by his son in law, something that is apperently highly unusual. Although why this incriminates Gull I don't know.
Even as a relative newcomer to the subject I could see several massive flaws in the Wickes theory. For instance, he is adamant that the Ripper must have used a coach, yet to my knowledge no witnesses ever mentioned seeing or hearing a coach.
Wickes has clearly had a large part to play in Ripperology over the last 30 years, so his claim that his work has personally suffered at the hands of some sort of conspiracy is interesting. |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 114
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 8:34 pm: |
|
Hi Mark
I was indeed refering to the Barlow & Watt TV series. I am afraid that the name David Wickes means nothing to me, and just checking back in Stephen Knights "The Final Solution" it says that the producer was one Paul Bonner.
Regarding Gull's son in law (Theodore Dyke Ackland) I qote Knight "While there is no specific law forbidding a doctor from certifying the death of a relative, it is generally considerred preferable he should not do so......Relatives are considered more likely to have a motive for falsifying a death certificate than non relatives"
If you want to learn more about the royal conspiracy I suggest you read Stephen Knight's book, also for more information on Gull, Andy & Sue Parlour's book The JTR Whitechapel Murders is a good read.
Regards,
John Savage |
Jason Scott Mullins
Sergeant
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 18
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 7:39 pm: |
|
Hello All -
I'd be inclined to agree.. because evidence is missing, something had to happen to it.. though, I don't think it has sinister overtones.. but then again, what do I know?
crix0r |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 6:17 pm: |
|
I SAW THE MOVIE JACK THE RIPPER WITH CAIN AS ABERLINE AND I LIKED IT I DONT CARE MUCH FOR THE ROYAL CONSPIRACEY AND IF I REMEMBER RIGHT THE CLAIM WAS THAT GULL ACTED ON HIS OWN WITH OUT ANY ROYAL INVOLVEMENT NOR DID THEY MENTION THE FREE MASONS oops sorry for the caps. I would like to see the dvd version. I have one question I heard that this story was taken from actual files and in studing the case most description of the ripper doese not match. In the movie the ripper is described as anywere between 5'7 and 6'0. He is described between 35 and 40 years old. This flys in the face of most reasearch I have done so far so I was wondering how acurate the movie was. Thanks. Take care CB |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 237
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 27, 2004 - 7:01 am: |
|
my favourite part of this movie is the bit with the cat!!
sorry just a personal thing!
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Ray Windlow
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 5:00 pm: |
|
Yes it was well done BUT for my part I didn't agree with the conclusion. However on saying that (and betting each way) the theory of a seemingly respectable individual turning "crackers" at night is very plausible and probably correct. Innumerable times we have seen or heard of indivduals converted from their daytime persona by virtue of malignant ailments or accidental drug dependecies. Looking at the time where strychnine and arsenic abuses were commonplace (I seem to recall snuff in much earlier times was horribly addictive and laced with poison) one could see an addict of such poisons damaging their systems to the point of transforming themselves into a dark creature of Ripper proportion.
Cheers
Ray Windlow
Melbourne , Victoria, Australia |
Eric Skinner
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 10, 2004 - 10:05 am: |
|
Overall, I enjoyed the film. I really enjoyed Michael Caines' performance in the film and how they showed the tension between the different police forces. One of the strongest moments in the film for me is when they find Mary Jane Kelly's body. The way they showed the horror of the crime scene through the detective's reaction was excellent.
One element I could have done without was the useless romantic sub-plot. I like Jane Seymour as much as any guy, but her character had no business being in that film. |
B.N.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 4:27 pm: |
|
I wonder if the ripper film with Michael Caine will be released on dvd in North America? I hope so it was great! |
Bruce
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 8:18 am: |
|
When can we expect to see the Michael Caine film of Jack on dvd in a North American format? |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 290
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 9:58 am: |
|
Has anyone had a chance to check out "Ripper: Letter from Hell" yet?
I found a trailer for it at the IMDB site:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0268579/
It didn't look altogether to bad. But, you can't really go off of trailers now adays
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end."
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 171
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Coincidentally, last night I decided to review it for Amazon's web site. I don't remember the whole spiel I wrote, and it's not online at Amazon yet, but suffice to say I found the movie a total failure in every way. The absolute worst part is that we are supposed to believe these characters are the best and the brightest being trained on how serial killers work and yet they all run around like bleating sheep getting slaughtered by a killer ripping off the plot of Scream 2. The minor references to the Jack the Ripper case are inconsequential and rather pathetic, like when the senior serial killer instructor says straight out that (I believe he said) Druitt was the Whitechapel Murderer and that he was the first one to prove it. There's nothing like being like two or three decades behind the times.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 18
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Hi,
I'm a great fan of Michael Caine, i think he played a good part...but most Ripper movies seem to base the killer on the Prince of Wales Albert Victor. Good piece of pure Dramitisation. |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 11:01 pm: |
|
Hi Shelley, yes Michael Caine, the definitive 'Abberline', in my opinion.
But, I still think his best movie was ZULU, possibly one of thee greatest movies, in its category, of all time.
regards, Jon |
Shelley Wiltshire
Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 39
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 01, 2004 - 11:47 am: |
|
Hi Jon,
Yes i think Caine played a good Abberline too, you might be right that he was best in Zulu, that film zulu always reminds me of the sketch on operation good guys, did you ever watch the series? DI Beach got suckered in a cult movement and ended up being brainwashed by Harry the Hypno! If you haven't watched it you can get it on dvd or video, i think at the moment it's on cable TV on uk gold 2, it's hilarious. Another good film that Michael Caine was in with Sean Connery was the man who would be king.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1287
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 02, 2004 - 11:34 am: |
|
Shelly,
Operation Good Guys......
BUNDLE !!!
.....and the one with the open day and the Police dog display !!!
Man, that killed me !
Monty
PS Best Michael Caine film ever??.........The Italian Job.
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski.
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 633
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 8:13 am: |
|
Wot, is nobody going to vote for Jaws: The Revenge???
I'm with Monty on this one, deffo the Italian Job, closely followed by Alfie and Get Carter.
Had a conversation with someone the other week about who we would cast in a Ripper film if we were making one. We agreed that the role of Abberline would definitely have to go to Ray Winstone.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1293
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 11:11 am: |
|
Alan,
I see David Jason as Abberline.
Looking at the only drawing Ive seen of Fred and Jason in Frost mode with tashe I see a very distinct likeness.
Sarah....see Ray Winstone !
Monty....who is a sexy beast !
PS Alan, fav scene from Sexy Beast belongs to Ben Kingsley, a plane and a cigarette...I was most perturbed !
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2772
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 03, 2004 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Monty, I too see Jason as Abberline - just as long as he doesn't eat the kidney (Frost manages to eat everything else).
Robert |
L.K. Cook
Sergeant
Username: Xinda
Post Number: 11
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 11:34 am: |
|
I have just watched "Jack The Ripper" with Michael Caine,(an acquaintance of mine in England was generous enough to send me a DVD formatted for American DVD players) I found it very exciting and that it followed the available information and documents closely. It is the best representation of the case that I have seen thus far. Caine is an excellent and passionate Abberline. The dvd that I received has the documentary of making the movie, and the research done for the movie. You can listen to it while the movie plays and it takes you step by step on the research and interviews on that particular person or event that is on screen at the time. Or you can hit the language button on the dvd player and watch the movie without the documentary. My opinion is that it was very informative and entertaining.
Xinda
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1408
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Hi Xinda
I would agree that it is entertaining and I have watched it quite a few times. What I feel less certain about are the claims at the end of the film that is it heavily researched and can claim to be a realistic "solving" of the case. Apart from minor anachronisms - e.g. Prince Albert Victor is referred to as the Duke of Clarence and Avondale, which title he did not receive until 1891 - it is the portrayal of some of the leading characters that worries me. I agree that Caine is an entertaining and passionate performer but the character he portrays has very little to do with the actual Fred Abberline. The alcoholism and the affair with an invented female character, all are far wide of the mark. R J Lees as the camp, neurotic creature portrayed in the film is also, as far as I am aware, totally lacking in historical truth. Perhaps the most unfounded portrayal is that of Richard Mansfield. He was not hounded by the police as a suspect, he did not, as far as we know, go whoring in Whitechapel - or anywhere else for that matter - at the height of the murders. A close second must be George Lusk who is transformed from a neatly dressed, repectable Victorian builder, to a club wielding rabble rouser intent on ushering inthe revolution.
I repeat I did enjoy the film - it caught much of the atmosphere and some of the set pieces such as Miller's Court were visually impressive. But the cavalier way in which leading characters were dealt with did seem at odds with the research claims made for the film.
Regards
Chris
(Message edited by Chris on September 24, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1096
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Chris,
glad you mentioned the portrayal of RJL before I could start moaning about it. There's nothing wrong with being camp, but it is a misportrayal when the bloke had 16 children! Where were they and his wife in this film?
Jenni
sorry that's 16 children in all, by that point there were only 12(i think i'm going on memory) and we think two of those had sadly died in infancy.
shameless plug for the Robert Lees website follows
http://www.rjlees.co.uk
(Message edited by jdpegg on September 24, 2004)
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
L.K. Cook
Sergeant
Username: Xinda
Post Number: 12
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 1:04 pm: |
|
Abberline is single in the movie, his "girlfriends" name is Emma in the movie, if I am not mistaken, that was Abberlines wife's name. Funny, all movies that I have seen on JTR, Abberline is portrayed as single. Did he marry after the Ripper case?
Xinda
|
Sarah Dove
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 4:52 am: |
|
Abberline's second wife was named Emma, and he was already married to her when the Ripper case began. I think filmmakers like to make him single because that makes him less complicated and allows them to portray him as some sort of lonely hero. I thought the Michael Caine portrayal was quite, quite awful. |
Adam Went
Police Constable
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 7
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 2:39 am: |
|
I have watched this movie several times now. It's an interesting movie, and I acknowledge that it was initially a mini-series, but to me it seems like they drag it on too much. Out of 3 hours, only about 1 hour of it has overly interesting scenes. The rest just seems like a time-filler. But then that has its advantages, because it allows time for more facts to be presented. The way in which it largely sticks to the facts and isn't a really glorified version of events makes it easier to watch. It's also commendable that they used as few blood & guts scenes as possible, and the ones they did use were only minor. The cast is also well suited.
My overall rating of the movie: 3 1/2 out of 5 stars.
Regards,
Adam. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1382
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 4:33 am: |
|
Hi Adam,
I do enjoy this film. Honestly I do, but just not for it's factual accuracy!!
Jenni |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 6:03 am: |
|
I think the ending is a cop-out (reversion to the Knight conspiracy theory which was already discredited in 1988).
However, if you watch the film carefully you can see the film-makers putting other options into place.
I think until a late stage they may have planned a "Jill the Ripper" solution, as Jane Seymour just fades out - no final clinch with Caine, and in the final scene he has facial scratches which would be consistent with a scene in which Seymour struggled, but don't match the circumstances of the existing ending half as well.
Each alternative ending (they were all filmed i believe0 seems to involve 2 people, a main killer and an assistant (as in Gull/Netley). It's been a while since I watched the film, and I have forgotten the pairings i worked out. It's not difficult.
Quality as a film (ie as "art") apart, i think this a fine example of a production where the researchers, designers and set people did a wonderful job - look at the details of the Buck's Row cottages for instance, or the backyard at 29 Hanbury St; also the casting of Bagster Phillips, Warren, Anderson etc, and you can see that much care was taken to get the look and feel RIGHT. All wasted by a heavy-handed and insensitive director seeking to box-office success rather than to make a good film. Terrible main casting too - although Caine is acceptable to me as Abberline (drunkeness apart).
Phil |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 390
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 10:35 pm: |
|
I believe the film was unfair to George Lusk, painting him as some kind of rabble rouser. I understand he was a respectable businessman who was concerned about the killings and did the best he knew to stop them. |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 11
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 5:18 am: |
|
I agree with you both, Jennifer and Diana.
Michael Caine is one of my favourite actors, he's brilliant, and he played the part of Abberline superbly in a not so superb film. I like the film too, but it just drags on too much in some parts, has a reasonably flat storyline, and relies too much on the classic theory of the Royal Conspiracy.
Infact, the main reason I watch the film over and over again is because of the great sets, costumes, etc they did for it, it looks very 1800's-ish. And, as I said before, the gore in it was limited, making it easier to watch.
I agree about Lusk, in this film he is portrayed as a man who tries to start fights and riots, mocks the police effort at every turn, and sticks his nose in everywhere it's not wanted. In real life, though, I think Lusk's effort is quite commendable as well, he ran a difficult task in very difficult times.
For those of you who have not seen the movie yet, and that's probably very few, I would only recommend it if you are interested in 1800's fashions, sets and life in general, as well as many of the facts that really did happen. Don't watch it though if you are after an edge-of-your-seat movie all the way through, and a brilliant ending. It just depends on what you like.
9/10 for sets and costumes, but only about 5/10 for all the rest from me.
Cheers,
Adam. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 2:37 am: |
|
It was unfair to many people - the police shown as corrupt; Lees on the verge of madness; Mansfield as unpleasant...
As I said, an unsubtle director aiming at populism.
There's a good question though about how you would generate excitement/tension in a JtR film that stuck to the facts.
In this one they tried to suggest the UK in 1888 was on the verge of revolution, and I think merged Bloody Sunday, the Vigilance Committee, Lusk, anarchists; anti-semitism (a difficult one for a TV series to handle) and the incitement by reporters, into a single plot-line.
Coarse really, like Eddowes apron.
Someone once said about Peter jackson's Lord of the Rings that he had made a masterpiece and scrawled graffiti all over parts of it. This is a reference (with which I don't agree one iota) to his occasional taste for broad comedy. It is however a comment that might apply well to the Caine JtR series.
So much promise, such disappointing results.
Phil |
Richard_of_OZ
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 11:07 pm: |
|
One thing of interest that I heard on the DVD commentary is that Hugh Fraser (who played Commissioner Warren) wears the ACTUAL uniform that Warren wore to the parade thingy on the day Mark Jane Kelly was murdered!
No, NOT a reproduction of it, but the ACTUAL uniform itself. Pretty neat, eh?
Richard  |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 15
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 13, 2004 - 2:57 am: |
|
Yes, that's true. The clothes worn by Hugh Fraser were the originals of Sir Charles Warren himself. They must have been a pretty good fit!
The movie balances itself quite a bit. It takes the Royal Conspiracy Theory, which was still quite popular at that time, as the base of its story. It makes it sound like Lees played a huge part in police investigations, when infact he was repeatedly rejected when he offered help. However, putting the flimsy and false central theory of the movie aside, it does include a lot of the original facts, more so than other Ripper movies. It shows some interesting scenes from the famous Lyceum, and gets more involved with what the main characters in the Ripper case were up to. It makes everyone seem like a suspect - and then, it all boils down to the one nobody expects - Gull.
On the other hand, it is important to remember when watching this movie that it is from 1988, when many of the Ripper files were only just getting released, and they hadn't been fully examined and scrutinised at that stage.
Anyway, I think my thoughts on the movie have taken full form now I've made about 3 posts on the topic. If I was to choose my favourite between the 1988 movie and a movie like 2001's "From Hell", then the 1988 movie wins hands down in all quarters. But, when you watch it, just beware of needing to define between fact and fiction in the movie.
Cheers,
Adam. |
jddombrowski
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 11:06 am: |
|
greetings,
anyone here know where you can buy a region 1 dvd of this series? looks very interesting.thanks
jdombrowski |
Stef Kukla
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 9:09 pm: |
|
"I was listening to the DVD commentary of this mini series last night" [Mark Groak]
I'm listening as I type. Haven't read further down than about than about 3 or 4 messages, so it's possible I'll be making observations already on this page.
And why did I read no more? I JUST HAD TO WRITE DAMMITT!
The superior way in which David Wickes & Sue Davies refer to the truth & accuracy, of the mini-series, REALLY gets up my nose!! Actually, when you consider how much of the production's content reflects ANY degree of compitent research, their relentless boasts do make them look rather foolish.
There are many classic examples of this strange attitude. Wickes arrogantly asserts that no one else has ever researched JtR as thoroughly as him & Sue. He quickly concludes that that is probably why they always get it wrong.
But he doesn't stop there...He goes on to casually dismiss all the books as being just a load of rubbish.
A bold statement indeed. Pity his derision was so mighty that he let slip that he hasn't even READ most of them.
Ah! But why would he? They're just rubbish ;P
Sue made the same admission; but then again, she can't have read too many of the files either.
Near the end, despite having insisted again & again that his fabrications & fanciful theories are, for the most part, true...DESPITE this, he was pretty sure that the whole "Queen's Pardon"-being-offered thing was something that HE MADE UP!
Not surprisingly, Sue concurred.
Dear, dear, dear...
Gotta go now,
Stef
P.S. Have either of them EVER posted a comment/review/whatever here? |
CoreyPrechtel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
who was the Cop behind the Jack the Ripper Case in 1888? |
CoreyPrechtel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 01, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
who was the Cop behind the Jack the Ripper Case in 1888? |
J. Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 30, 2005 - 12:22 am: |
|
Hello,
I just wathched this film for the first time yesterday. I was wondering if anyone had the same experience as me. I thought it interesting right up to the point when Michael Caine( portraying Det Abberline) said after Kelly's murder " IF I CATCH THE BASTARD I AM GOING TO KILL HIM MYSELF" . What tripe!
From there, fantasy takes over. They catch SW Gull in the act and Caine trys to shoot him. In the whole movie, nothing is mentioned of the 3 suspects Scotland Yard actually did have at the time : Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrogg.
The only other suspect that gets overexposure is Richard Mansfield, who is scantly recognised as a legitimate suspect.
Finally - I have never herd this theory behind gull. I thought the Gull theory revolved around an extortion plot to silence the whores before they could tell about Prince Albert's affairs?
In this, he is suffering from a split personality that makes him like Jeckel and Hide. The producers of the movie seem so convinced.
Any thoughts ? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
