|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Killer Who Never Was, The (Turnbull)
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Non-Fiction:
Killer Who Never Was, The (Turnbull)
Author: R.M. Gordon
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 12:58 am |        | | Anyone who believes that these were all copy cat murders is just being silly. These fit the serial killer profile and were the work of one man. However, one other individual may have taken advantage of the situation to kill one. |
Author: John Garner
Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 12:59 am | | Peter Turnbull wrote 'The Killer Who Never Was' which was published as a limited edition by Clark, Lawrence Publishers in 1996.
It is a detailed, yet readable, thesis which advances the theory that 'Jack The Ripper' was and still is a concept rather than was a serial killer. The murders, it is argued, were far too localised in time and space and too dissimilar to be the work of one man. Rather, it is proposed that the murders were a series of 'copycat' crimes perpertrated by different men, each unknown to the others. |
Author: Alexandria Calet
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 09:33 am | | I was seriously disappointed with this book, which is nonetheless based on an idea worth following up. In a case as complicated and as well-trod as JTR, being made to think the unthinkable is always valuable, even if the end result is to confirm you in your earlier view. The idea that there never was a Jack the Ripper, that the murders were copycats and coincidence was one I had played with for some years, but been too idle to do the actual research into whether the idea would stand up. This is Peter Turnbull's basic premise, and he produces some interesting evidence, especially about Ripper-like killings in the same period outside London. However, he lets his readers down by sloppy research and downright inaccuracies. For example, he gets the names of several important witnesses wrong, or confuses them. Thus he does his theory a great disservice.
I still think the murders bear all the hallmarks of a serial killer as we now know them, and that this is the most likely explanation. But a more thoroughly researched presentation of the "No JTR" theory would be a valuable addition to the literature of the subject. |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 05:23 pm | | You weren't alone in being seriously disappointed, Alexandria.
Martin Fido |
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 09:04 pm | | Alexandria,
I'm sorry to hear you didn't like that book. Unfortunately, I've never been able to find a copy. Since you hate it so much I'd be glad to buy it from you for $10.00. What do you say?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
|
|
|
|
