|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through May 17, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Gull, Sir William Withey:
Archive through May 17, 2001
Author: Jules
Thursday, 17 June 1999 - 10:23 pm |        | G'day Becky,
Bloody good question mate. As far as I can make out the police didn't have any real suspects till they started puting pieces together after Mary's murder.
The streets were supposedly filled with vigilantes, undercover police and uniformed police who were all looking for SOMEONE but as far as I know they didn't know who. Someone who was between 5' and 6' somewhere between 30 and 50, possibly carrying a parcel but maybe not, possbly English with foreign features and maybe having the appearance of a sailor but wearing a salt and pepper coat with a bloody great gold chain hanging from it.
I've notice that police profiles haven't changed much over the years, I've often thought of handing myself into the police after hearing a discription of myself on the TV.
Basically mate, I don't think they had a clue who they were looking for. They had never come across anything so bizzare before and were therefore at a loss as to where to start looking.
Anyway mate, good luck with your line of questioning, sorry i couldn't be of any help.
Jules |
Author: Stern
Monday, 21 June 1999 - 12:31 am | | I'm new here, so forgive me if this question has been raised before.
I'm actually a complete neophyte when it comes to Ripper lore. I've only just started investigating for myself this bizarre case which has baffled better men (and women) than me for more than a century. In fact, my curiosity was piqued by a sixteen part graphic novel called "From Hell" by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell (at the present time, only fourteen of the sixteen parts have been published, that I know of). I know that Moore's book is fiction, and that the work it is based on ("JTR: The Final Solution" by Stephen Knight) is considered flawed at best, and an outright hoax by many. However, Moore's version of events is so completely logical! It only stands to reason that four of the five women (Nichols, Chapman, Stride, and Kelly) were conspiring to blackmail the crown and needed elimination. And given Gull's past (what little of it I know) and beliefs, he seems a likely candidate to do the deed. I know that Moore weaves a lot of magical thinking into Gull's motives, but given the ritual nature of the murders (especially Kelly's) it seems to fit. I guess what I'm asking is this: Has anyone here read "From Hell"? If so, what do you think of it? As a work of fiction, I think that it is one of the best things written in the past half century. It has been exhastively researched (Moore's endnotes are fascinating). Any thoughts? Does Moore's version of events make any sense to real Ripperologists? |
Author: Jon Smyth
Monday, 21 June 1999 - 11:52 am | | Hello Stern
One of the facinating challenges to murder/mystery authors is to come up with a fictional story based on fact.
Or maybe I should say, based on recognizable events & characters, so the line between fiction & fact becomes very grey to non existant.
I have not had the pleasure of reading the work 'From Hell' so will not comment on it. But regardless of it's content it is purely put forward as fiction. And regardless of the characters involved there is no attempt being made to fool the public.
So, your question of how realistic is the storyline is a valid question to anyone, even those who have not read the work.
Most of the regular people posting on these boards are well aquainted with the Stephen Knight proposal.
And will likely give you an answer that you would prefer not to read.
"It only stands to reason...." you say, this alone tells me that you are sold on the story.
The likelyhood of a few prostitutes attempting to blackmail anyone in the Royal household is preposterous.
Also, Gull himself was as high a person as could be in his position, and as we all know, those who enjoy such power do not dirty their hands on such matters.
Gull prowling the streets of Whitechapel is silly, even if he had accomplices, this is the stuff of Hollywood, The Knight storyline has been taken apart in key area's, so do your research and I'm sure you'll see it as nothing more than a creative enjoyable read.
You really must go thru the relevent boards on this site to aquaint yourself with what has been discussed before on this subject.
Don't feel bad though, I was intrigued by Knight's story at first, I was taken in for a while, until I started to check it out, I can honestly say I was disappointed to find out that he had made mistakes & then covered up known facts to keep his story alive. But thats life, the Ripper story will have nothing of the 'romance' about it, this is a study in the evils of a sick mind, and the frustrations of a society ill-equipped to deal with such events.
Stephen Knight did some fine research work but he embroiled it around a story that, towards the end, he even knew to be fiction, ..well I wont go into much detail here, as others have provided all the info you will need to read.
I really might try to get thru this 'From Hell' sometime.
Hey, Welcome Stern !!, hope you enjoy the company here, we can be a funny lot at times :-)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Caz
Monday, 21 June 1999 - 04:01 pm | | Hi All!
I guess someone was simply trying to 'gull' the public by introducing Gull as a suspect. Yet another play on words, this time not by me!
But one gal from the list of victims on this Casebook WAS a notorious blackmailer according to my suspect, Walter Weedon Grossmith. In fact, he wrote six pages about her attempt to try her usual tricks on him, which were apparently well-known to the coppers of the time (unless Weedy was lying through his teeth in 1913). But because her real name is a real corker, I must refrain from giving further details until I've done more research. Sorry folks! (She does not appear in the family trees available at the 'family seat'.)
Love,
Caz |
Author: D. Radka
Tuesday, 22 June 1999 - 09:29 am | | Caz,
Forgive me, but I can't take your above statement entirely at face value. It is difficult for me to accept that one of the victims, canonical or peripheral, was described in writing as a blackmailer by Weedon Grossmith. A discovery of this nature would be like finding a diary signed "Jack the Ripper" accounting for the crimes and their precise motivations in detail. It would be front page news, such as "Neil Armstrong Sets Foot On Moon" or "Doenitz Signs Armistice Pact Ending War In Europe." In other words, such a discovery would be so good to be true that I respectfully must consider it too good to be true, at least until reasonable proof of it were presented.
Now I don't want to be nosey, but could you please elaborate a little bit on this? I wouldn't want to bother myself continuing my 50-page opus on the case if I didn't have to; Weedon is not my suspect, you know; I have other responsibilities to attend. Thank you.
David |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 22 June 1999 - 02:45 pm | | Stern -
Welcome to the Casebook! Actually, all of "From Hell" has been published, and has been out since early spring. Unfortunately, the publishers, Kitchen Sink Press, have gone out of business, but your local comic shop can still get the complete set so long as you pester them.
I'm afraid I must second the wise words of Jon on this topic; "Final Solution" is a wonderful story, but it simply doesn't work as a valid solution to the Ripper crimes. Aside from the sheer implausibility of 5 broken-down alcoholic prositutes from the worst slum in the Empire conspiring to blackmail the government, the fact that no evidence for Prince Eddy's secret marriage or love child has ever been adduced beyond the ever-changing stories of "Hobo" Sickert tends to push the story to the edges of Grade Z fiction. It's a rattling good read over the weekend, but there are simply too many holes and inconsistencies in the plot for it to be taken seriously. Try to read Donald Rumbelow's "JTR: The Complete Casebook" or Melvin Harris' "JTR: The Bloody Truth" for dissections of the Royal Conspiracy, as well as pottering about the Casebook for some learned and informed criticism on the subject.
Caz - Again, I must second someone. Are you bloody serious? If you have truly discovered a near-contemporary reference to one of the canonical or peripheral victims engaging in activity likely to lead to criminal involvement which was known to the police and that can be shown to have an impeccable provenance, you've discovered something that must be considered potentially shattering and ought to be brought to the attention of recognized Ripper experts as soon as can be.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 22 June 1999 - 06:00 pm | | Hi All,
I do not tell fibs.
Yep, I've been there, done that, got the t-shirt with regard to sending copies of the relevant pages to certain 'recognised Ripper experts'. (Oh ye of little faith :-))
NOW will people begin to take little ole me seriously??
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jon Smyth
Tuesday, 22 June 1999 - 06:47 pm | | To All
Methinks m'lady is dangling a carrot.
Whatz cooking Caz-erole?
Where are you going with this Red Herring?
Lest thou wish to be Caz-taway, cough up and spill the beans.
Or M'lady may become Caz-toff |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 22 June 1999 - 07:57 pm | | Hi Jon,
Am I to be ever the hoaxer, like my Weedy mate born 100 years afore me? Never to be acknowledged as the real thing? He would have appreciated the irony :-)
What I dangle are 24 carats mate, or I tuck 'em away outta sight.
And who is Red Herring? I don't tend to date guys named after seafood.
I'm awaiting some 'expert' feedback on this particular chapter of Weed-on's peculiar tome, so I don't feel the beans are strictly mine to spill yet.
I do like a shared experience though, so I would not have said no to being old Olly Reed's Caz-taway in the film ;-)
Sounds like you all think this is a load of Caz-tor and Pollux.
To Mr Anon from way back when:
"Think again sonny".
Love,
Caz |
Author: D. Radka
Tuesday, 22 June 1999 - 10:04 pm | | C-M,
Why do you say you must second "somebody" when you know you are seconding me? What have I done to offend you?
David |
Author: Sara
Wednesday, 23 June 1999 - 12:10 am | | Jon:
Seems she's turning a real Caz-sandra on us - forever prophesying and never being believed.
Caz:
Couldn't resist, and am waiting with the rest, for you to give it up! (your info, that is)
All the best -
Sara |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 23 June 1999 - 01:56 pm | | David -
Sorry, that was a slip of the finger and eye. Of course, I meant to say I second you; you have never offended me yet, but I promise you'll know if you do.
Caz - good to know you've done what you've done. The advice offered you is not done lightly; you're aware of the nonsense concerning the Diary, so you ought to know that a document such as you have needs to be thoroughly investigated before being presented to the world; and perhaps - though I say it - a bit of discretion might be in order in case your document (for whatever reason) turns out not to be what you think it is.
I wish you the best.
CMD |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 23 June 1999 - 06:35 pm | | Thanks Sara, for the good wishes, and Christopher-Michael, for the good advice.
But I was under the impression that it was my very 'discretion' (ie reluctance to spill beans prematurely) that was winding everyone up here :-)
I'm not completely dumb CM. So I wish you had given me the credit for a wee bit of common sense for the way I'm approaching all this. Of course I don't really know what I've got here until I get the experts in on it. But, come what may, I KNOW I have the bones of a very interesting story about a comparitive 'nobody' contemporary to 1888 Whitechapel.
I'm sure the autobiog can easily be confirmed to be the genuine article, ie Weedon Grossmith's memoirs, as published in 1913. My copy had been sitting untouched in a Kent library since 1989 when I found it. There is at least one correction in the margin, at the point where a 59 year-old Weedon says something about it being perfectly natural that, like most children, he used to 'damage over [sic] people's property'. The correction is the word 'other' to replace 'over'. Was it the author's own correction maybe?
Jules says he was only able to locate three copies of the autobiog in Oz, all of which are in universities and inaccessible to the public. And Andy Aliffe is trying to obtain his own copy from the States. But rest assured I have been slavishly copying some of the juicier titbits to the ripper scholars of my choice :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Karoline
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 07:15 am | | HI all
Do you all remember a little while ago, Caz said that her suspect Weedon Grossmith had said, in his autbiography, that one of the JTR victims was a notorious blackmailer?
Her announcement caused some consternation at the time.
Well, I have some additional information that might sort the situation out.
Someone has kindly sent me the relevant extract from Weedon's memoirs (pp.144-50) that deals with this supposed accusation. I hope he doesn't mind me passing on what I have learned.
The lady that Weedon says he briefly encountered (a golden-haired beauty in satin), is not a jtr victim at all, but one 'Tottie Fay', a notorious society blackmailer and con artist of the 1890s. Weedon himself makes no connection between this lady and Jack the Ripper, and it is difficult to see why anyone else should either.
The only slight and tenuous link is that Tottie's name is rather like the mythical 'Fairy Fay', who was reputedly murdered in 1887.
But since Fairy has been shown almost conclusively to have never existed, and since Tottie was alive and well in the 1890s, and not murdered by anyone,( apparently she eventually ended up in a lunatic asylum), this is really a complete non-starter.
So, the solution to the mystery is that there is no mystery at all, just a little too much wishful thinking, maybe.
I hope this helps.
Karoline |
Author: Christopher George
Sunday, 04 July 1999 - 11:28 am | | Hi, all:
I don't know why Weedon Grossmith and Tottie Fay/Fairy Fay are being discussed on the Gull board, but be that as it may. Having said that, I do not know whether Gull himself was a victim, but physicians in London's exclusive Harley Street were apparently victims of Tottie Fay, a well known blackmailer and disreputable woman of the day who is mentioned in Weedon Grossmith's autobiography.
In an earlier post of Sunday, March 21, 1999 - 03:22 pm, Stewart Evans stated that the alleged Boxing Day, 1887, Jack the Ripper victim Fairy Fay did NOT exist but that there is a woman who was attacked during Christmas week 1887--a friend of Emma Smith's of the name of Margaret Mames. Stewart said that the name "Fairy Fay" was apparently derived from the name "Tottie Fay" by Terence Robertson writing in the Reynolds News of October 29, 1950. This derivation of the name "Fairy Fay" was also discussed by Dave Yost in a post of Sunday, November 15, 1998 - 04:26 am. Mr. Yost also made the point that in 1894, the "Sun" referred to a "Tottie Fay" who was in Broadmoor, suffering from maniacal fits. Presumably, this is the same woman who is mentioned in Weedon Grossmith's autobiography, so she was most assuredly not a victim of Jack the Ripper.
The Weedon piece starts with Weedon seeing "a lady apparently in great distress, who had just alighted from a four-wheeled cab, and [whom he] heard. . . say excitedly, 'Dreadful cabmen' etc., etc." (p. 144)
She is described as "dressed in white satin, and was pulling a cloak around her shoulders as if she were cold. She was of medium height, had golden hair, and was exceedingly pretty. Being an artist, I confess I was attracted by her appearance."
Weedon decides to play "a modern Lancelot" and get her a cab, but soon realizes she is a con artist. Sure enough when Weedon twigs her game, he escapes to his Harley Street residence, she is hauled off by a constable who cautions her to leave the Harley Street doctors alone and calls her "Miss Tottie Fay" and "Maud" (p. 149).
Weedon says (pp. 149-50), "It turned out to be none other than the famous 'Tottie Fay, alias Maud Rothschild,' the most notorious impostor in London in those days, whose blackmailing tactics in the West End made a most remarkable record.
"About that period scarcely a week passed in which her name was not in the papers, generally headed 'Tottie Fay again.'"
So was Weedon Grossmith the blackmail victim of one of Jack the Ripper's victims? In a word, "No."
Chris George |
Author: Dekker
Friday, 17 September 1999 - 07:09 pm | | Hey, all, been a while...just aquired this piece of paper which was supposedly ripped from a letter of Gull's...I was wondering if anyone might know if it looks genuine or might have suggestions as to how I might find out if it is....
http://members.xoom.com/dreamDekker/wg.jpg |
Author: S P Evans
Friday, 17 September 1999 - 10:35 pm | | I happen to have a letter written by Gull in my ephemera collection. You may like to compare it.
 |
Author: susan
Saturday, 18 September 1999 - 04:55 pm | | | It is too hard to see. Do you have a larger image? Would you fax it to me? |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Saturday, 18 September 1999 - 05:24 pm | | Hi Stewart, Susan, and Dekker:
The signature looks remarkably similar to me, with the middle initial, ostensibly an "N" but possibly a "W" for Gull's middle name "Withey," connecting with the "G" of "Gull" and the opening "W" of "William" styled similarly in both examples. Looks like you have not been gulled there Dekker. Ha ha.
Chris George |
Author: Ashling
Saturday, 18 September 1999 - 06:09 pm | | Hi y'all. Stewart -- Take pity on us folks with waning eyesight. ;-) Dekker -- The only thing I see on your link is the XOOM logo. Does my ISP need glasses too?
Thanks,
Janice |
Author: Dekker
Tuesday, 21 September 1999 - 01:05 am | | | sorry...Xoom doesn't allow outside links so you have to actually copy and paste the url I put up there...sorry about that :) |
Author: S P Evans
Tuesday, 21 September 1999 - 09:50 am | | To aid Janice's waning eyesight, and to compare like with like -
Stewart |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 21 September 1999 - 07:21 pm | | DEKKER: Thanks. Now I'll know what to do next time I go on one of XOOM's sites.
STEWART: Merci, gracias, danke, thank you!
I've no training in this area ... For what it's worth - the signature on Stewart's document looks like a natural scrawl --- The letters on Dekker's page look a little too carefully formed by a writing instrument that makes much broader strokes, resulting in a "pretty" copy.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: R.M. Gull
Sunday, 24 October 1999 - 03:29 pm | | Wondering if anyone can help me out with any decendants of Dr. Gull??? Am wondering whom he married, and if there were children? Wondering about the likelihood of being a distent relative.
RM Gull |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 24 October 1999 - 06:45 pm | | Sir William married Susan Anne Dacre Lacy, Colonel Lacy of Carlisle's daughter, in 1848. He had a daughter, Caroline, who married Dr Theodore Dyke Acland, who later wrote "William Withey Gull, a Biographical Sketch."
He was buried in the village of Thorpe-le-Soken, and you may wish to contact the village registrar there for further information on descendants and such.
I am not familiar with any later details of Sir William's private life, though I do believe the Aclands had a daughter of their own. In any event, the book and contact above should help you in your quest.
Regards,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Sunday, 24 October 1999 - 06:49 pm | | Sir William married Susan Anne Dacre Lacy, Colonel Lacy of Carlisle's daughter, in 1848. He had a daughter, Caroline, who married Dr Theodore Dyke Acland, who later wrote "William Withey Gull, a Biographical Sketch."
He was buried in the village of Thorpe-le-Soken, and you may wish to contact the village registrar there for further information on descendants and such.
I am not familiar with any later details of Sir William's private life, though I do believe the Aclands had a daughter of their own. In any event, the book and contact above should help you in your quest.
Regards,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: DINGUS
Friday, 10 December 1999 - 02:59 pm | | I THINK THAT TRYING TO FIND OUT WHO THE RIPPER WAS AFTER ALL THESE YEARS IS A USELESS SEARCH,NO BODY CAN POSSIBLY FIND OUT WHO HE WAS OVER 100 YRS LATER,IT WILL REMAIN A MYSTERY FOR EVER ,PERHAPS THAT IS THE FASCINATION OF THE CASE ,,
good luck to anybody looking though |
Author: Boris
Saturday, 11 December 1999 - 01:59 am | | BUT DINGUS,
I'VE FOUND THE ANSWER. IT'S HIDDEN IN THE MUSINGS OF LEANNE PERRY AND BOB C. LOOK AND SEE FOR YOURSELF!
BORIS!!!!! |
Author: DD
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 02:23 pm | | | Considering Knight's theory that Gull was perhaps 'buried twice' in line with Masonic custom and that his public first burial was in fact a coffin weighted with stones, has anyone ever considered investigating the possibility through some form of electronic survey? Or are all electro wizards too busy to care about JTR? |
Author: gull fan
Thursday, 06 January 2000 - 02:52 am | | | DD, you sound like good people! I haven't looked at this page for several months because just about everyone had put both Knight and his book in the shredder. and even though every theory has holes in it, the conspiracy may very well have more than the rest. but i believe in it. not because it's romantic or may make for fun reading, but because it fits. not neatly. and a few pieces are missing-but it fits. anyway, i love your idea! then i want to take it a step further- i'd like to get a sample of blood from somebody in the royal family, then get a sample from joseph sickert if he's still alive. IMAGINE IF GULL'S COFFIN IS FILLED WITH STONES? AND IMAGINE IF WE FOUND THAT BOTH BLOOD TYPES ARE GENETICALLY IDENTICAL? WHAT A RIOT YOU AND I WOULD CAUSE! |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 06 January 2000 - 06:34 pm | | Yes, they have ground penetrating radar, it was originally developed by a company near me in Mississauga, Ontario, Can.
They use it for scanning archaological sites, looking for ruins. They used it on Ararat, trying to find the buried remains of the Ark.
But who's got the $$$$$ to hire this equipment?.
Incidently, the ground has to be reasonably flat, this would be no good if a monument is built over the grave.
Also there is a core sampling technique, similar to what geologists use. A drilling rod 1/2" dia. could be bored down into a grave and will take a core sample of the remains. No need for expensive exhumation, you will also get the coffin wood, bone & tissue samples, for DNA testing.
But again...who's got the $$$$ ?
Not I
:-)
Regards, Jon |
Author: clarkW
Thursday, 06 January 2000 - 07:38 pm | | OK I HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THE BOARDS!! I CONFESS THAT I AM THE 'ORIGINAL' 'DD'. I was the one that first wrote about MJK's vomit. I have no idea who this imposture is above who talked about the lame masonic conpiracy theory, using my alias. I guess I will have to go back to using my own name in the future. But if the boards are that lax in their security I guess I won't bother!
regards,
Clark Wereley |
Author: becky
Saturday, 08 January 2000 - 04:45 pm | | | forgive me, clark, but its been a while since i read this board. what about MJK's vomit? |
Author: clarkW
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 12:48 pm | | look under 'Mrs. Maxwell and MJK's vomit' becky it's all in there under 'witnesses'
Regards, Clark |
Author: becky
Sunday, 16 January 2000 - 01:50 am | | | now it's the vomit. what she vomited, how early in the day one might be able to get fish and chips, the medical reports... if mary kelly was seen throwing up the morning after she was supposed to be dead, does any of the above really matter? yes, i know, the time of the vomiting plays into it--she died later in the day than thought, she died earlier in the night than thought. well, if sweet old Mrs. Maxwell saw mary later in the morning than anybody on this board is willing to allow, then it's back to square one. |
Author: becky
Saturday, 15 January 2000 - 09:50 am | | | now it's the vomit. what she vomited, how early in the day one might be able to get fish and chips, the medical reports... if mary kelly was seen throwing up the morning after she was supposed to be dead, does any of the above really matter? yes, i know, the time of the vomiting plays into it--she died later in the day than thought, she died earlier in the night than thought. well, if sweet old Mrs. Maxwell saw mary later in the morning than anybody on this board is willing to allow, then it's back to square one. |
Author: lee donovan
Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 01:19 am | | Hi everyone
I've been following the "Jack the Ripper" case for sometime now but i am new to the casebook and the message boards.
Although there are many suspects ( or possible suspects ) I have always thought that Sir William Gull was the most likely suspect.
I have a couple of questions if someone could answer them for me:
1) Was SWG ever put in a mental institute as has been suggested?
2) Could he have had a split personality as was suggested in the I.T.V. drama with Michael Caine?
Keep me posted on any further evidence
Cheers
Lee |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 30 March 2000 - 05:03 am | | Lee : The story that Gull was tried by his fellow doctors and put in a mental home under the pseudonym ' Thomas Mason ' was almost certainly made up by the Chicago Whitechapel club and there is no truth in it. However Andy and Sue Parlour refer to a local tradition that Gull did not die in 1890 and that his coffin was buried full of stones ; he was incarcerated somewhere and did not die until several years later when his grave was dug up and he was properly buried. There is no evidence that Gull had become mad or had a split personality as suggested by David Wicke's film , he had merely had a mild seizure or stroke in 1887 and a further stroke killed him in 1890. However Thomas Stowell believed Gull had treated Jack the Ripper who he assumed ( erroneously ) to be the Duke of Clarence. If Gull was the Ripper he would have been acting under orders , and he probably would not have had the physical strength to perform the mutilations alone. |
Author: anne soward
Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 07:31 am | | I have been interested in the ripper murders for
over 10 years but never had much of an opinion on
who the ripper really was. until i read from hell
that is. does anyone have any conclusive evidence
that sir william gull could not have been
responsible for the whitechapel mur |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 17 May 2001 - 09:55 am | | Astonished to discover that there were still people believing the Gull story as recently as last year! It was all the rage with the general reader when I started taking walking tours in 1989. But I thought the continuing and elaborating lies of Joe Sickert as spun out to Melvyn Fairclough had really put paid to it.
Perhaps all new readers need to be warned to beware of books which tell a convoluted story in narrative form, using the conclusion that they know who the Ripper was to postulate/explain various known or postulated actions of their suspect. Oddly enough, from completely different ends of all sorts of spectra, two writers who do just this, producing very readable and enjoyable narratives, are Melvin Harris in 'The True Face of Jack the Ripper' and Shirley Harrison in 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper'. Both books are very valuable for material they include about the actual histories of their subjects (just as Knight's book contained a lot of new, interesting and important information). Neither, on the other hand, makes anything approaching a persuasive historical case for their subject's being the Ripper. The reason to be wary is that the consecutive narrative carries one forward and seems so persuasive that you may not always pause at every point and ask carefully whether what is being stated as something that happened is really something that happened, or only the author's conjecture or deduction.
Now I'll be persona non grata with everyone!
With all good wishes
Martin Fido |
|
|
|
|
