|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Babylon 5: Comes the Inquisitor
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Television (Fiction):
Babylon 5: Comes the Inquisitor
Author: Lori Summers
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 08:36 pm |        | In the second season episode "Comes the Inquisitor," the character of the Ripper appears in an unusual role. The Vorlons, an ancient and near-omnipotent race, decide to send an Inquisitor to Babylon 5 to conduct an investigation into the characters of Ambassador Delenn of the Minbari and Captain John Sheridan of Earthforce. When the Inquisitor arrives, he tells Captain Sheridan that his name is Sebastian, and that the Vorlons took him from London in 1888. Sheridan, after a little research, learns that Sebastian did indeed disappear right after the Ripper murders. His suspicion about Sebastian is confirmed at the episode's conclusion.
The fact that Sebastian was the Ripper isn't terribly integral to the plot. The role of the Inquisitor is largely one of torturing those under inquisition and applying extreme duress in order to get information about the hapless subject's innermost souls. Presumably the Vorlons thought that Sebastian's character, having committed such horrible murders, were somehow suited to this task. |
Author: Schnapps
Tuesday, 04 January 2000 - 11:54 pm | | Joe Michael Straczinsky (writer of B5) is a Ripperologist himself. He gave some information about his theory on who the Ripper is here: http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/guide/043.html
I'm a novice in this subject, and after a bit of research I'm still not sure who he has in mind . . . I was particularly interested in the letter he mentions, written by a woman explaining/defending the Ripper's actions . . . anyone know anything about this?
The relevant section begins "Okay, here's one clue for any would-be Ripperologists out there."
Danke in advance,
Schnapps |
Author: D. Radka
Wednesday, 05 January 2000 - 12:17 am | | I took the bait and went to the above web site. It's a bloody pile of poo-poo, if you ask me. Basically, what he says is that one of Joe Barnett's blood relatives dunnit. This bloke was known to be the last person to see at least one of the victims alive. He had a profession which was directly connected to something someone overheard the Ripper say to one of the victims just before killing her. He was interviewed by church officials and the police, veddy hush-hush, and the records were of course sealed upon the request of his family. He had suffered a nervous breakdown just before the beginning of the murder series.
Sounds too good to be true? It is. I can't for the life of me figure out how any sane person could believe that all these juicy bits could be just sitting there for a century, with nobody--until the writer himself does, of course--thinking to say anything about them. Believe me, if all this were true, this suspect would be no less popular than would be a fifteen year-old virgin in estrus on Walpurgis night at the front gate of Castle Dracula.
Shees!
David |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 05 January 2000 - 05:50 am | | Hi David,
I read the stuff too,
my reaction;
........ ?
best regards,
Bob |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 05 January 2000 - 11:08 am | | Well, I followed you gentlemen to the site. Considering that "Babylon 5" - besides being a boring, pretentious space opera - is a piece of fiction, it is possible that Mr Straczinsky is having us on. What he is saying makes absolutely no sense to me, and - though I say it - I have many years' experience researching the Ripper case.
Let's look at what he tells people:
There is a letter in the "London Times" defending the Ripper's actions. Where is it? If he has seen such a letter, why not provide the date? One assumes from the wording of the paragraph that the letter was written during the Ripper murders, but the phrasing is so vague that one could search almost any issue fruitlessly. Garbage.
The Ripper suspect is supposed to have been twice interviewed by the police, interviewed by Church officials, one of the last people to see Mary Jane Kelly alive, related by blood (apt phrase, that) to Joe Barnett and whose profession relates directly to the only words ever heard from the Ripper's lips. As "will you?" is somewhat cryptic, even for this rag-bag of a theory, one can only imagine Mr Straczinsky means the "You'd say anything but your prayers" spoken to Elizabeth Stride.
It appears, then, that he is naming a religious man (for why would a layman be interviewed by the Church?). I know of no religious person interviewed twice by the police who is a relative of Joe Barnett and was one of the last people to see MJK alive. Where is this testimony? In the "sealed" Church records? Then how did Mr Straczinsky get to see it? Did he promise not to reveal what it contains? If so, why drop the maddening hints?
I think it's all a joke. Mr Straczinsky says that in talking to Ripperologists, this person's name comes up "again and again." Really? Perhaps one of you could enlighten me, for I assure you I have no idea who is meant to be Jack the Ripper after wading through this muck. It's finger-to-the-nose, half-whispered lunacy like that which gives our field a bad name.
CMD |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 05 January 2000 - 11:20 am | | CMD,
A reference to the Rev. Samuel Barnett perhaps? |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 05 January 2000 - 08:04 pm | | I thought of the Reverend Barnett, Viper, but again - where's the evidence? I've never seen him interviewed by the police, nor testifying to seeing MJK alive, nor does his name pop us "again and again" as a supsect. I can only think of one religious man offered as a suspect, and that is from the worthless "An Illustrated Guide to JTR" by Peter Fisher, in which the Ripper is supposed to be John Moses Eppstein, a priest who supposedly became unhinged by coming back from his missionary work in Turkey (where women wore the chador) to London, where the prostitutes paraded their flesh.
If anyone else knows of any other "Reverend Ripper" theories that might fit Mr Straczinsky's nonsense, please tell me. |
Author: alex chisholm
Wednesday, 05 January 2000 - 09:51 pm | | As one whose fleeting interest in Sci-fi ended with Lost in Space - the TV series - much of the above link passed me by in a haze. However, on the hinted-at culprit, I think we are being told that, although never mentioned as a suspect, the alleged assassin’s name appears frequently in some other capacity in the record. Taking the record in question to be the Home Office and Scotland Yard files, I think there is little doubt that Viper is correct.
Even without recourse to the actual files, or the Times, the good old A-Z indicates that the Rev. Samuel Barnett’s name appears in several Home Office and Police files. His wife, Henrietta Barnett, is mentioned in relation to the Petition of East End Women in Scotland Yard file MEPO 3/141. The same file has details of Superintendent Arnold’s interview with the Rev. Barnett.
I’m not sure of the other ‘damning’ evidence referred to yet, but the rev. gentleman’s "sudden, hasty transfer," after which the murders stopped, seems somewhat dubious. According to the Oxford Concise DNB, Samuel Augustus Barnett was rector of St. Jude’s, Whitechapel from 1873 - 1894. Warden of Toynbee Hall 1884-96 Canon of Bristol 1894-1906, then sub-dean of Westminster till his death in 1913.
Happy hunting
alex |
Author: D. Radka
Wednesday, 05 January 2000 - 11:42 pm | | If Rev. Barnett is a blood relative of Joe's, I've got me a paradigm shift. This is the main issue at this point--is it correct, anybody?
Thanks!
David |
Author: alex chisholm
Thursday, 06 January 2000 - 09:50 pm | | Hi David,
I can’t recall ever coming across any other reference to Joe Barnett being a "direct blood relative" of the Rev. S.A. Indeed, Bruce Paley - who conducted considerable research into Joe’s background - specifically states on page 163 of his ‘Simple Truth’ that Samuel Barnett was "no relation to Joseph."
Yet I do find it difficult to imagine anyone being foolish enough to postulate a direct blood relationship between Samuel and Joseph Barnett solely on the grounds that these gentlemen shared the same name. But then perhaps my enduring faith in the impeccable standards of Ripperology has simply laid bare my natural naiveté.
Best wishes
alex |
Author: D. Radka
Thursday, 06 January 2000 - 10:36 pm | | Alex,
The central epistemologist feels exactly the same as does the worthy deconstructionist on this issue, my friend.
Do you suppose anyone else here realizes what they have in the two of us? Two logical opposites, working together and comparing notes in an affirmative manner, each declaring his values--a test bed for Ripperology, for any who wish to take note. Similar to Diana Comer, the Christain, and Caz, the pagan--perhaps the purpose of these boards is to refine all arguments into mutual cancellations. Could this be what we are all really doing here?
Go well.
David |
Author: alex chisholm
Thursday, 06 January 2000 - 10:59 pm | | Now, David, you’ve got me there. What we are all really doing here is a mystery I’ve not yet fathomed.
Mutual cancellation seems to have its attractions though.
Cheery-bye
alex |
Author: Caz
Friday, 07 January 2000 - 03:46 am | | Hi David,
'pagan: one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim; more recently, one who has no religion; one who sets a high value on sensual pleasures.'
Yep, sounds okay to me :-)
Hi Alex,
I wonder if anyone would be left here if those of us who cancel each other out were to depart?
If I left quietly with Diana, Alex, would you and David feel obliged to follow suit? I think I'd better hang around :-)
Wonder who Boris would saunter off with, arm-in-arm?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Friday, 07 January 2000 - 12:32 pm | | Alex:
How dare you! Don't you realise that many noted researchers have proved that because Anne Graham has the same last name as one that Florence Maybrick could possibly have used for anything up to several weeks, that she is therefore Florries' living descendent! Are you casting doubt on the provenance of the Diary of Jack the Ripper?
Peter. |
Author: alex chisholm
Friday, 07 January 2000 - 08:56 pm | | Hi Caz
I’m sure notions of ‘mutual cancellation,’ whether of approaches or theories, will never make any inroads into Ripperland. So I trust every one of our motley crew will be around for a long time to come. I certainly have no immediate plans to depart quietly, arm in arm with anyone.
Sorry to disappoint
Peter, I’m shocked! You can’t really believe that I - even though a member of Obsessive Haranguers Inc. - would imply anything untoward in relation to the dearly-loved diary. Surely proponents of the diary would never have stooped so low as to indulge in the foolishness in question.
Best wishes
alex |
Author: Caz
Saturday, 08 January 2000 - 09:43 am | | Hi Alex,
Far from disappointing me, I'm very glad you are going nowhere. That was exactly the point I was trying to make. I too hope the entire motley crew will stay around, attracting even more motley newcomers over the next year.
Very best wishes,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
