Any "Ripperologists" Here?
Posted: 2004-06-11 12:51am
I just started reading Patricia Cornwell's book, "Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper-- Case Closed", in whicch she names Walter Sickert as the Ripper. She used 21st century DNA tersting and other modern day forensic techniques on several things, along with a ton of circumstantial evidence to paint a character profile of Sickert that points to him.
I just started reading the book, (barely on page 50) but I decided to look online and see what the reaction to the book was. Well, "ripperologists" seem to think this book is the biggest piece of trash to ever come out about the Ripper!
Since I can relate to these guys due to the current crap on sw.com, I read their "dissertations" against the book. And although I haven't finished it yet, their nitpicks seem extremely thin. It looks like most of the criticism comes from the fact that A: she's a woman, and B: she's American.
They piss and moan that the Ripper letters that were sent to police by "Jack The Ripper" were all fakes. (It seems writing Ripper letters was a London pastttime in 1888, that lasted until the 1960's) However, they do concede that Cornwell at least proved that Sickert MAY HAVE "hoaxed" one of the letters. (Never been proven before) .
They also point out that Sickert was in France during the killings. But they do point out, as Cornwell does, that regular ferry service to and from France was available back then. That would make an excellent alibi, wouldn't it? Coupled with the fact that Sickert, a trained actor, loved to "dress up" in disguise and prowl the streets so transformed that friends and family didn't recognize him.
There's WAY too much to go into, but I'm not about to go toe to toe with "Ripperologists". Trekkies were enough! Has anyone read the book, or have an interest in Ripper-mania?
I just started reading the book, (barely on page 50) but I decided to look online and see what the reaction to the book was. Well, "ripperologists" seem to think this book is the biggest piece of trash to ever come out about the Ripper!
Since I can relate to these guys due to the current crap on sw.com, I read their "dissertations" against the book. And although I haven't finished it yet, their nitpicks seem extremely thin. It looks like most of the criticism comes from the fact that A: she's a woman, and B: she's American.
They piss and moan that the Ripper letters that were sent to police by "Jack The Ripper" were all fakes. (It seems writing Ripper letters was a London pastttime in 1888, that lasted until the 1960's) However, they do concede that Cornwell at least proved that Sickert MAY HAVE "hoaxed" one of the letters. (Never been proven before) .
They also point out that Sickert was in France during the killings. But they do point out, as Cornwell does, that regular ferry service to and from France was available back then. That would make an excellent alibi, wouldn't it? Coupled with the fact that Sickert, a trained actor, loved to "dress up" in disguise and prowl the streets so transformed that friends and family didn't recognize him.
There's WAY too much to go into, but I'm not about to go toe to toe with "Ripperologists". Trekkies were enough! Has anyone read the book, or have an interest in Ripper-mania?
We all know that Jack the Ripper is in cryo-stasis on the Vorlon homeworld.