Tweet
I became interested in JtR in the early 1970’s. At that time a general statement on the subject would be that he killed between 5 and 11 victims, and it was accepted that the authors had access to information that the general public didn’t have, and therefore it must be correct. It was also generally accepted that the killer was probably poor old Montague Druitt, because he killed himself shortly after Millers Court.
Since that time we have seen a growth in forensic medicine and investigation, a growth in the information available on the case, on the victims and an exponential growth in the number of suspects. Added to that, ‘lost’ files have been found, known files have been ‘lost’, but information in general has become easier to access. At the same time there has been a phenomenal growth in ‘Ripperology’.
Now, instead of three or four suspects, we are presented with 150 plus. Now instead of Jack having killed up to 11 victims, in some people’s eyes, he barely qualifies as a serial killer!
But it now seems to me that the more information we have, the less we seem to know. Has it become a case of we can’t see the woods for the trees? Have we become lost in the ephemera?
For any newcomer to the case, it must be a complete nightmare at times. I know how this feels, as a few years ago I decided to have a complete break from Jack and his ‘little games’. Coming back to it after about 5 years I am finding myself rapidly becoming bewildered, by the many well researched and erudite theories that are and have been floated on these boards, each with its own merits, and the amount of new info that has accumulated since I took my sabbatical.
I was wondering therefore if it would be possible for members to start a summation thread for us newbies, returnee’s etc? I presume that most people know the basic facts, but some could be unaware of e.g., Michael Kidney being proposed as Liz Stride’s killer, making it a ‘domestic’, what information that was once held as ‘gospel’ but now through research has been proved to be false etc.
I know that there is a wealth of info on this site, but at times it is hard to find, and I, at least, also find it easy to be distracted by another interesting thread that links to some half forgotten area that I know about.
If this is a stupid idea, please say so or if anyone has ideas how this could be achieved, again please say so.
I look forward to all comments.
All the best,
Dave
Since that time we have seen a growth in forensic medicine and investigation, a growth in the information available on the case, on the victims and an exponential growth in the number of suspects. Added to that, ‘lost’ files have been found, known files have been ‘lost’, but information in general has become easier to access. At the same time there has been a phenomenal growth in ‘Ripperology’.
Now, instead of three or four suspects, we are presented with 150 plus. Now instead of Jack having killed up to 11 victims, in some people’s eyes, he barely qualifies as a serial killer!
But it now seems to me that the more information we have, the less we seem to know. Has it become a case of we can’t see the woods for the trees? Have we become lost in the ephemera?
For any newcomer to the case, it must be a complete nightmare at times. I know how this feels, as a few years ago I decided to have a complete break from Jack and his ‘little games’. Coming back to it after about 5 years I am finding myself rapidly becoming bewildered, by the many well researched and erudite theories that are and have been floated on these boards, each with its own merits, and the amount of new info that has accumulated since I took my sabbatical.
I was wondering therefore if it would be possible for members to start a summation thread for us newbies, returnee’s etc? I presume that most people know the basic facts, but some could be unaware of e.g., Michael Kidney being proposed as Liz Stride’s killer, making it a ‘domestic’, what information that was once held as ‘gospel’ but now through research has been proved to be false etc.
I know that there is a wealth of info on this site, but at times it is hard to find, and I, at least, also find it easy to be distracted by another interesting thread that links to some half forgotten area that I know about.
If this is a stupid idea, please say so or if anyone has ideas how this could be achieved, again please say so.
I look forward to all comments.
All the best,
Dave
Comment