** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]: Carroll, Lewis: Lewis Carol
Author: Pillow Saturday, 09 October 1999 - 02:05 am | |
I read on one of the Jack the Ripper sites that Lewis Carol of Alice in wonderland fame has in the past been cited as a possible suspect due to so called "Anagrams" in some of his books and i was wondering if anyone knew any real evidence of is it just another case of the 1960/70 lets see if we can say Jack the Ripper is someone famous.
| |
Author: Christopher-Michael Saturday, 09 October 1999 - 08:43 am | |
Pillow - Lewis Carroll was presented as a Ripper suspect by the American author Richard Wallace in his dreadful 1996 book "Jack the Ripper: 'Light-Hearted Friend'" (ISBN 0-9627195-6-0, Gemini Press). Wallace had written a previous book (The Agony of Lewis Carroll) in which he asserted that Carroll was sexually abused as a child and that all of his "nonsense" works are thinly veiled allusions to the massive rage within him. "Light-Hearted Friend" continues in this trend; Wallace believes that in his poems and letters, Carroll confesses to his involvement in the Whitechapel Murders. How? Wallace believes that the poems &c. contain anagrams which, when properly deciphered, reveal the truth. Ignoring that anagrams and word games reveal more of the interpreter's mind than the originator, Wallace blithely accepts that his theory is all the evidence that is needed, and does not even bother to provide a plausible explanation of how Carroll could have obtained his knowledge of Whitechapel. The book is worthless, and Carroll has absolutely no standing as a suspect. If you wish to read about Carroll, there are many good biographies on the market, the latest being "In the Shadow of the Dreamchild" by Karoline Leach.
| |
Author: anon Sunday, 10 October 1999 - 01:28 am | |
Now that'a how criticism of a bad Ripper book should be. Done by a knowledgeable person on a book that is a complete nonsense and offers nothing to the case.
|