|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Do You Think There Is Anything Ghoulish About the Case?
Casebook Message Boards: Pub Talk: Do You Think There Is Anything Ghoulish About the Case?
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 08:08 pm |        | Hi all,
With Patricia Cornwell's criticisms of elements of the community of "ripperology" and some of the accompanying articles which support some of her views, it might be interesting to consider if any of her remarks have any merit.
Cornwell criticizes those who treat the case as a parlour game and attacks things like the Ripper Walks. Judging by her attitudes, I imagine she would find the Ripper PC game appalling.
Leaving Cornwell aside and her criticisms, I recall Donald Rumbelow writing in his book "The Complete Jack the Ripper" that he found some people interested in the case with unhealthy fascinations. Specifically, he said he met a man who claimed to have artifacts of the case and found the character extremely strange.
I wonder if anyone has any opinions about whether there is any line someone could cross with regard to their interest in the case that you might consider ghoulish or unhealthy.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Howard Brown
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 08:50 pm | | | Rich: I don't know about other folks,but my personal interest in the case is pretty healthy. I can look at my own thumb hanging off,but not at any of the autopsy photos....I enjoy reading about the case for all of its atmosphere. Next: |
Author: judith stock
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 12:41 am | | Rich,
I'm not sure how HEALTHY this fascination is, but I must admit I am under its' spell. I picked up my first Ripper book when I was 12...Stewart.. then I went to Matters and had to wait ages until Don came along with HIS Casebook; just look at how long we had to wait for THIS casebook! ARRRGGGHHH! I'm now a crabby grandmother with far too much time on her hands, so Stephen, Ally, my husband and I are coordinating the next US Ripper Conference in 2004.
HEALTHY? Probably not, but ask Stephen or Ally how many books I have on the Ripper! I DO, however, have MORE books on the periphery of the case: sexual homicide, medical texts, social history, history of the City and the east End, Victorian crime,Victorian sociology, archaeology, forensics, PLUS all the Ripper fiction that's out there. The list goes on and on. The actual crimes themselves lie in a context of time and place; that's what keeps me coming back for more. Frankly, I don't give a tinker's damn if the Ripper is EVER named. WHO he was really doesn't matter anymore; he cannot be brought to justice post mortem. WHAT he did and WHY are much more interesting to me, anyway.
UNHEALTHY?? Maybe, but NOT as unhealthy as hanging out on the Manson site, and writing fan letters to that sick bastard.
Besides, look at all the nice people you meet here!
Cheers,
J |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 01:20 am | | Hi Judith,
Thank you for your interesting and enjoyable post.
You may not be aware but there is a website that has sound effects of music and a pulsating heart and it is automated so that you can ask "Jack the Ripper" text messages - to which he replies.
Rich |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 04:57 am | | I have a couple of good graphic software programmes,and have converted the black and white photo of Kelly to colour.Is that ghoulish.Ive also superimposed a couple of faces of people I do'nt like where her face was.
Help,someone,help.I think I need treatment.
Where are you Ivor,I think a couple of the faces are of Caz and Ally.The blood is even starting to drip.
I'm a ghoul,I'm a ghoul,but thank God ,I
was beginning to feel I was something else. |
Author: judith stock
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 12:29 pm | | Thank you, Rich....I appreciate the compliment. I DO think it's necessary to examine obsessions now and then. AND, it can't hurt to put things in perspective, either!
Hope everyone has a great weekend,
J |
Author: chris scott
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 05:06 pm | | Hi all
I think the fact of looking at the ghoulish and possibly "unhealthy" interest in the case is a valid one to look at. And of course everyone comes to an inetrest in this case by different routes.
My own opbservations would be:
1) It is certainly not only the Whitechapel case that can be criticised on this level. There is undoubtedly a widespread interest in homicide both factually and in fiction. From Agatha Christie to Sherlock Holmes, their appeal includes the act of murder.
2) the degree and nature of the Whitechapel killings are not the only case where extrememes of mutilation or human degradation are components. In the field of fiction, the murders depicted in Silence of the Lambs of Seven are every bit as "distasteful" as the Ripper case.
3) personally the more graphic elements of the case - autopsy reports etc - are by no means the main interest in the case but are only part of the evidence but, as such, cannot beignored.
4) I can only say on a personal level that the main interest in the case is not the parlour game, "Hunt the Ripper" aspect either. What has interested me is the way it has led me into many areas of study that I would not otherwise have encoutered. At school I hated the study of Victorian history but this case has led me back to aspects of it that I have found enthralling, usually aspects with only tenuous link to the case.
I am convinced that one can take an interest in the case without either belittling or showing disrespect to the victims or becoming inevitable over interested in the physical details of the mnurders.
I hope this is of interest
Chris Scott |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 06:00 pm | | Patricia Cromwell criticizes interest in Ripper walks as 'ghoulish'. Someone please tell me, what is the difference between reading Cornwell's Case Closed book (or writing it) and taking a Ripper walk?
Who here is making a comfortable living off writing about murder? Nothing wrong with that, except when you start judging other people's interest as something lesser than your own.
There's no merit at all in her criticism of Ripper interest--zero.
Regards,
Dave |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 06:07 pm | | Chris,
I have to agree on this point. There are some things about this case that I think can be considered ghoulish if they aren't handled with some sort of dignity and respect for the dead. This is less a parlour game for me, and more of a genuine intellectual pursuit. I've learned a lot - about research, interviewing, writing, as well as the criminological and psychological aspects of crime because of my interest in the case.
What really bothers me is some of the crass commercialism there is...some of the trinkets and things I see on E-bay when I'm trying to find old books is sickening. T-shirt's, watches, pub signs, all that kind of stuff really devalues the case in my mind.
And I'll admit - it can be hard for me to explain this hobby to outside people. I mean, I don't want to say "Oh, Jack the Ripper is my hobby," or "I'm a Jack the Ripper fan," or anything like that because I think it DOES sound ghoulish. And it's not respectful - five women (or more) had to die and I'm using that as a means to occupy my spare time. I like to think that I'm contributing to figuring out who did it and why.
I try and view all of the really gory parts of the case in as clincal a way as possible. The autopsy photos, crime scene photos, etc. are more tools to me than anything else.
I think of it this way - I'd like to get a nice big map of Whitechapel and hang it on my wall, both as a reference and a conversation piece. I sure as hell wouldn't put a nice framed photo of Mary Kelly up there.
B |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 09:03 pm | | There is a ghoulish side to the Ripper Case, which
is inevitable as the case is "written" in blood and gore. But what was said earlier about Cornwall's own hypocrisy is still there. She
writes detective stories, and detective stories
deal with crime and frequently with murder. She
has been successful at it, so that she can now
indulge her fantasy with solving a famous crime.
Of course, it is more impressive if when solving
a famous crime, the killer is a well-known (if not
world-famous) individual like Sickert.
I try to concentrate on the details without dwelling on the dreadful in this case, as well as
others that I have studied. The worst part are
the photos of the victims that have survived,
especially of poor Mary Kelly. To this day, I
consider those two photos of her remains the
worst atrocity photographs ever taken.
I also feel that (due to the unconscious lure of
"hunt the Ripper") we have accidently twisted
the case into a memorial for a hideous human
being. The Casebook format is wonderful, but
wouldn't it be better to call it Casebook: The
Whitechapel Murders? By singling out the Ripper,
it is like a pat on his/her head. "Good job Rip,
you got away with it!"
I have always envisioned changing the basic
concept of Ripperology into emphasizing the case
for historical research into British Society in
the 1880s. This is probably the history major and
fan within me, but if we did, we would be aiming
the whole of our endeavours as a type of monument
for those five or more victims, and the decenty
denied them by that creep in 1888. But I suspect
that most people will find that this is too much
of a turn from the fun of searching all the clues
to find the one that will solve the identity
problem once and for all.
Best wishes,
Jeff Bloomfield |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 01:09 am | | Hi Jeff,
Everything about the case is labeled "Jack the Ripper" - and I have shared your misgivings about the title being used for so many different venues.
The name itself is quite ghastly, was not used at the time of most of the murders, and probably was the invention of a journalist.
Nonetheless, I think it has been imbedded in the consciousness of the curious - much like the "Loch Ness Monster" remains a popular title for the mythical (at least most believe) creature.
I suppose it is now common phrase of reference. For a long time I never referred to the murderer as "Jack the Ripper" - I always designated him the Whitechapel murderer. A few told me that it was arrogant to not go with the accepted name.
So now I even refer to him as "Jack the Ripper."
Regards,
Rich |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 02:06 am | | Points well made, guys, and there is truth in what you say. Consider this: how many other VICTIMS of serial murderers are all well known? We all know the names of the canonocal five, as well as those of the "possibles". While the killer still wanders in limbo, unknown and certainly unmourned, we remember the women, their lives and their deaths. I would bet no one can name all the victims of Sutcliffe without looking it up somewhere, and the same could be said of Bundy's, Gacy's, Dahmer's, Wests' (note the apostrophe is in a different place....I'm including Fred AND Rose), Nilsen's, Christie's...you get the idea. The Ripper's victims are known and remembered; we feel sympathy, and perhaps a bit of empathy, for them. That, in itself, is an unusual circumstance, and a plus for the side of those who call themselves Ripperologists.
I also believe that we read about murder, watch true crime documentaries, and the news, because we want to understand what could possibly make one person do such things to others. We have all said "I could KILL you for that!!", but could we really? Could YOU do to another person what the Ripper did to Kelly? I would hope not. I can't even imagine the rage it took to be able to plunder her like that. Maybe we read about the Ripper because we really CANNOT believe the truth of the crimes. They are astonishing in their ruthlessness and disregard for even the smallest bit of humanity. Maybe we read about the Ripper because we are fascinated with horror....I know little kids are! OR, we might still be very close to the leopard skins and the clubs, never mind all the computers, the cells, and the satellites.
For whatever reason, we are a bit ghoulish...and, I think, we always will be. We will always read mystery stories, true crime accounts and will slow down as we pass accidents. So why NOT the Ripper? At least he's dead. I STILL say it's better than writing fan letters to Manson!
GAD!!! Could I have been MORE gloomy on a Saturday night???
J |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 02:40 am | | Hi Judith,
That's a very honest post - I think many would be squeamish about expressing such truth.
I don't think most people, though, could name 1 Ripper victim. Probably somewhere there are people fascinated by the Hillside Strangler case - and its likely that such afficianados could name his victims.
A friend of mine refers to the History Channel as the "Hitler Channel" because there are so many documentaries aired there about Hitler.
Jack the Ripper has become an icon of evil - and many people for various reasons are drawn to him.
Rich |
Author: David Jetson
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 06:56 am | | Ghoulish schmoulish. Death is a part of life, and ignoring it in the hope of it going away has never worked for anyone.
Some people have problems dealing with the concept of death, and particularly the concept of murder. Others, like the people on this site, find it interesting. I don't think that's ghoulish.
And, as I understand it, Cornwell's novels feature big autopsy segments in every one. Murders galore, too. So her calling other people ghoulish while raking in millions of dollars by appealing to that very "ghoulishness" shows about the level of hypocrisy that I'd expect from her.
Let's not pretend to be doing it out of sympathy for the murdered women, either, like PC does. I'm sure we're all sympathetic, but people are murdered every day. The case itself is fascinating. There's always more to learn. I don't consider it a parlour game, but even if some people do, is that any more "immoral" than earning millions by describing autopsies?
As Judith stated, I'm pretty sure the people here are not the sort of idiots that write fan letters to serial killers. If this site were like that, I'd never have started to contribute, I'd never even have read any more than it took me to figure out that it was that kind of site. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 09:15 am | | Hi David Jetson:
Let me commend you on your well written post on the interest people here have in the case. Posters here are not ghoulish in having an interest in the case, the fascination for which speaks for itself. If anything is ghoulish though, it was I believe, the killer himself and those who wish to emulate his crimes.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 10:48 am | | Dear Rich,
It never hurts to do a bit of examination every now and then, and these thoughts have been running around in my head for years. After all, I have been reading about this stuff for 45 years.. you get to do the math....and as I read, I stop every now and then and ask myself "what the hell am I doing here?" David is absolutely right; death IS a huge part of life. We begin to die right after we are born; the ancients recognised death, and dealt with it in a manner designed to comfort them. We create euphemisms and say "passed away" and "departed". A lot of that, I think, is to make us deny the reality of death; "he's not dead, he's only sleeping" type stuff. At some level, we would like to think of ourselves as more special than the other animals; we all, however, DO DIE. Maybe studying the Ripper makes us feel more alive....the victims are dead, we ARE NOT. Or, it could be that we don't know what lies beyond, and the fascination with the unknown is compelling.
Who knows why we do this? Each person comes to the case from a different place. We all have arrived at these boards, though, and can indulge ourselves with others who suffer the same obsession. Maybe we draw comfort, and a validation of the interest, by hangin' out with a lot of the folks who share it.
OR MAYBE WE ARE ALL CRAZY!!! I do like this thread....good idea. Maybe we should examine ourselves a bit more often. It couldn't hurt!
J |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 10:54 am | | OOOPS, I forgot to say one thing and then I will shut up...I PROMISE. Those who say we are ghoulish in studying the Ripper, and you KNOW who I mean, might be better served by examining themselves. One who makes a substantial living by writing about murder is not in a position to condemn those who read about murder; RATHER, I think that writer should embrace those who pay her bills for her. She would not have had the bucks to buy that Connecticut walled estate without little ole us.....is that what they mean when they talk about "biting the hand that feeds you"????? Who's the ghoul now?
J |
Author: David Jetson
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 11:03 am | | Thanks for the nice comments. I do agree that self-examination is important, and I know that there are people who genuinely get off on murder and mayhem. I don't think everyone who has an interest in that area is some kind of sicko. I do have a fascination with the criminal mind, I suppose, and I'm glad to say that at least part of it comes from the fact that I'm completely stumped as to how somebody can just do the things that they do.
I had to kill a rat once, a dying rat that a cat had dragged in. I had to put it out of its misery. I was surprised (and possibly a little relieved, too) that I found it so hard to do. I don't like rats, I don't mind if cats kill them, but I really had to force myself to kill a mammal, and pathetic city dweller that I am, I found it really emotionally traumatic.
So part of the fascination that I have for extreme crimes like murder is a kind if research into how somebody could possibly enjoy something like that. Hurting people for fun is just about the opposite of who I am, I'm happy to say. |
Author: Ally
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 11:15 am | | Well I guess this is telling about me. I have always maintained that I would have a harder time killing an animal than I would a person. By killing a person I mean someone who was attacking me; trying to rape or kill me (or maybe just someone who really really ticked me off  )
I guess it's because a human is a thinking animal and understand the consequence of choice where an animal doesn't. For example, even if a dog was getting ready to bite me or trying to attack me, I would have a more difficult time killing it than a person in the same position. The dog is just an animal acting on instinct, the person ought to know better.
I dread the day if it ever comes when I will have to euthanize one of my dogs. I believe in it and hope that by the time I am old and infirm it will be legal for humans, but I would have a harder time doing it to my dog than to myself. I can't explain to my dog that I don't want her to be miserable and suffer in pain so it feels like a betrayal.
Or maybe I just like dogs better than people. That's probably it.
Ghoully,
Ally |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 11:25 am | | Of course the Jack the Ripper case has its ghoulish side. But studying the case does not mean one is necessarily ghoulish, any more than (say) studying war crimes.
There is a fascination there, obviously.
Speaking for myself, I think Judith has a good point - one is trying to understand why such things happen, instead of just treating them as nameless inexplicable horror. Our modern world is built on understanding and explaining things - something inexplicable is both disturbing and demanding of attempts at rational explanation.
Regards
Pete |
Author: David Jetson
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 11:28 am | | Well, dogs in many ways are nicer than people. Depends on the dog, of course. And the people. I can say that I have on a few occasions had to defend myself, or other people who needed it, and I came through. I'm not a total wimp.
I've been around enough to know that letting yourself get bullied or beaten up is much worse than fighting back, and that if you do fight back, it's a good idea to win.
But I can honestly say that I have NEVER started a fight in my life.
Nowadays, having learned a fair bit about display and dominance in animal behavior, particularly primates, I have learned that if you LOOK like you're prepared to fight to defend yourself, generally you won't have to. It's all bluff. Bullies really are cowards. |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 11:32 am | | To add to that.
For example, I'd be relieved to find out that the whole thing was a deluded black magic ritual - religious aberration causing disastrous behavior is, if you like, a 'normal' human aberration that would be positively reassuring compared to the idea that one might bang one's head or have a little too much gin and suddenly start committing the most horrible murders and mutilations. |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 01:06 pm | | Or maybe we are trying to understand the evil within ourselves..we all have it, we all have felt it: that deep down desire to cause REAL pain to someone. I admit I have it...when I hear of child abuse or pedophilia, I want these guys (in the generic sense) to spend thousands of years in prison, partying with Billy Joe Bob Bubba Fred and his gang of Merry Men....make 'em suffer DAILY, make 'em feel agony, just as their victims felt it. No gentle person ME! If that's not mean and nasty, I don't know what is.
Did you ever think you would be posting on message boards that discuss murder, mayhem, the death penalty, music, an arrogant author who calls all of us names, AND a hand puppet???
You just gotta love this site!
J |
Author: Howard Brown
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 03:54 pm | | | Dear Judith: There's nothing "evil" about wanting to see sub-humans like pedophiles get 24 hour conjugal visits from Big Leroy. Nothing at all. Our brains are wired to protect the next generation of humans.As far as being ghoulish,Dave Jetson has made a remarkable post at 6:56 1/12....Death IS a part of life. Me,personally,I would have a hard time killing someone,but there have been people I came real close to killing.I mean real close. Had I done so,I would have suffered less than I would have had I stubbed my toe. I know I could kill pedophiles and rapists and frankly would make a career switch in a New York minute to do so,even though I love my current field. They are responsible for a lot of pain in the world that children,the MOST important cause in the world,endure. Whacking ALL of them to me would be rather satisfying. I'm a nice guy with a real h--- on for people who hurt children. Dave Jetson; once again,great post above,buddy !! Howard |
Author: Paula Wolff
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 06:00 pm | | NO.
Ta,
Paula |
Author: C. Junkie
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 06:38 pm | | I don't think there is anything ghoulish about studying the case. People can be ghoulish and take a ghoulish interest in it, but that is not the case's fault that is the person's fault.
CJ |
Author: Timsta
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 07:12 pm | | Rich:
"A friend of mine refers to the History Channel as the "Hitler Channel" because there are so many documentaries aired there about Hitler."
But of course. The 'H' in their logo *stands for* Hitler. "All Hitler, all the time".
As they say, "Dog Bites Man - Not News; Man Bites Dog - News". I guess most people are attracted to notoriety (hmmm somewhat of a tautology there, but never mind).
Regards
Timsta |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 07:16 pm | | Dear Howard, Paula and CJ....
GREAT POST, Paula!!
And you and I are DEFINITELY on the same page, Howard......so color us mean, evil, wicked and nasty, but I COULD plan some pretty horrible goodies for pedophiles and rapists, one of which would involve an amputation without benefit of anaesthesia!
CJ, you are spot on....it's NOT the case, it's the observers.
With that, dear readers, I will steal away into the night to harass some other poor schnooks...
Cheers to all, and to all a good night!
J |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 08:31 pm | | Hi Judith,
Just a slight note that you might find of interest. You are absolutely right that the
victims of murder are usually forgotten, unless
the circumstances are fantastically gruesome
(Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Stride, Kelly, and
possible others; or Elizabeth Short) or the victim
is somehow famous (Julius Caesar, Abraham Lincoln,
Stanford White, John F. Kennedy). Of course it
doesn't always work this way. Garfield and
McKinley were also assassinated Presidents, but
they are not discussed too much. For everyone
who recalls that Mayor Cermak was shot and killed,
probably in an attempt on Franklin Roosevelt in
1933 (there is another theory it was a Chicago
mob hit), few recall that a disappointed office
seeker named Patrick Prendergast murdered an
earlier Mayor of Chicago named Carter Harrison I
in 1893.
Of the serial murderers, only the Ripper left a
set of victims whose names are recalled - probably
because his identity is unknown, and the Victorian
Age patina adds a curious glow to the dreadful
tableaux. Compare the lack of memory to the
victims of the Axman of New Orleans, or the
Texarcana killer, or the more recent Zodiac
killer. But it is a combination of the two
elements. Try to recall the poisoning victims
of Neill Cream (Daniel Stott, Mathilda Clover,
Alice Marsh, Ellen Donworth, Emma Shrivell).
I had to look up the last three names.
Looking at the list of serial killers you gave,
I recalled only Mrs. Timothy Evans and Mrs.
Christie in the Rillington Place Murder. I read
up on the case, but I couldn't rattle off the names of the other women. I recalled Mrs. Evans
because her husband was hanged for the murder
(Christie testified against him), and was subsequently pardoned. As for Mrs. Christie, I
remember she was one of the last victims. I do
not recall the names of Gacy's victims, nor
Bundy's, nor Berkowitz's, nor the Wests', nor
Dahmers.
Another problem in this area of history (and it
is an area of history) is that center stage is
held by scum. And here, as I end this long note,
I quote for an earlier criminal historian, Ernest
Lustgarten, in his book THE BUSINESS OF MURDER
(New York: Scribners', 1968). In one of his
chapters he is talking of the Scottish serial
killer, Peter Manuel, who did a highly credible
job defending himself in his murder trial back in
the 1950s. On page 181, Manuel had managed to
make a witness, William Watt, to near apoplexy
by suggesting in his cross examination that Watt
faked his own injuries and murdered his family
not Manuel. The Justice in the case stepped in
at one point. Here is Lustgarten's comment:
"Manuel looked the judge in the eye. They were
now equal occupants of the stage. Perhaps not evan equal: Manuel held the center. Whatever
the result, he would be remembere---that is life's
irony---when Lord Cameron was forgotten. Name
Crippen's judge. Slater's. Rouse's. Madeleine
Smith's.
Manuel not only relished the present but grasped out at the future. Win or lose, this is
me, Manuel; I'm going down in history. He was,
too; never mind under what banner. Peter Manuel
had made his mark. So help us all."
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Author: judith stock
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 01:34 am | | Great post, Jeff; you've re-inforced my point. And, I too, remember only a couple of the Christie victims..don't forget baby Geraldine. I do think that Jack would REALLY be pissed, though, that we only know him as a nutter, but that we DO remember those he killed....now there's real justice for you. He thought he could erase them, and he failed!
G'night all..it's way too late for a silly old grandmother to be up. Besides, I'm just getting into the latest Michael Slade book and have a tough time stopping....
J |
Author: Timsta
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 10:21 am | | Jeff:
Was Ernest Lustgarten any relation to Edgar Lustgarten?
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 01:55 pm | | | He meant Edgar Lustgarten. |
Author: Michael Raney
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 02:56 pm | | Hmmmmmmmmmmmm..........I have always been fascinated in murder mysteries, not the murder, but the trying to solve it. If that is ghoulish, so be it. I actually think it's healthy to solve puzzles. Very stimulating to the brain. Oh well, just my humble opinion.
Mikey |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Monday, 13 January 2003 - 08:25 pm | | My apologies. Stewart is right - I meant Edgar
Lustgarten.
Jeff |
Author: Paula Wolff
Tuesday, 14 January 2003 - 10:03 pm | | Hey, Judith,
Your posts always give me lift. I'll let you do the talking for me also. You hit it right everytime. I can't see why some things can't be short and sweet, like answers. There's enough hot air on these pages to send a hot air ballon to Neptune. I read them and weep.
Thanks, J.
Paula |
Author: Philip Rayner
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 03:23 pm | | I don't mean to cheapen the crimes. They were tragic and meaningless events and the victims deserve every respect.
I would say that what we study now is the intellectual puzzle that is 'Jack the Ripper'.
That the evidence is grisly and ghoulish is not in doubt. The greatest puzzle is not who necessarily. It's the entire cloth we all seek, not just bits of it. We can't do anything for the victims except keep their memory alive by understanding how and why they died. |
Author: judith stock
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 03:24 pm | | Thanks Paula, but I think you will be very angry with me when you read my post about the Alamo... please don't be....it's NOT an attack on you!
Thanks for the kind words; sometimes I just cut to the chase faster than others. DON'T dismiss the long posts, though; they are made, usually, with great thought and care. Of course, some are crap, too.....but then so are some of mine!
J |
Author: judith stock
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 03:31 pm | | I agree totally, Phil. Consider this....we are condemned for studying this case. Yet there are those who study the Holocaust, surely the worst series of atrocities visited on people by other people (supposedly human..I DO have doubts). There are those who study the history of the Inquisition (another triumph for Man); there are those who study World War I (a true high point in history) and World War II (yet ANOTHER special moment). None of these historians are condemned; yet we are....ever wonder why? I do...
J |
Author: Philip Rayner
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 03:38 pm | | | And surely understanding something is the first step to making sure it doesn't happen again? |
Author: judith stock
Wednesday, 15 January 2003 - 05:41 pm | | WOULDN'T WE ALL HOPE SO??? I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE POINT OF READING HISTORY.
Sorry for shouting.
Thanks, Phil.....
J |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 10:40 am | | Now on ebay, don't miss out! Get your
1942 TIMES Newspaper Death of Jack the Ripper
I wonder if Ms. Cornwell gets a percentage? |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 01:45 pm | | I saw that too, Chris. Made me puke.
B |
Author: Ky
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 01:29 am | | Brian,
Puking seems a bit much for something that deserves a sigh and a shake of the head. We wouldn't our boy wonder getting sick now would we?
Anything for a buck huh?
Ky
p.s. maybe if we look hard enough we could find a listing for Lizzies' hatchet and lead sinkers! |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 01:06 pm | | Ky,
Maybe not puke. Just gag a little.
Okay, maybe not gag.
More like "oh lordy, what the hell is wrong here". ;)
B |
Author: Ky
Saturday, 18 January 2003 - 01:30 am | | Brian,
O.K., thats better, ya had me worried there for a minute!
Ky |
|
|
|
|
