JTR Knife is...ummm....FOUND!

[Brenda]

Did you guys see this one?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8866083/Jack-the-Ripper-Is-this-six-inch-knife-used-by-Victorian-serial-killer.html

Now we know who Astrakan Man is!! LOL

We have his watch, we know what coat he wore, and now we even have the knife! Pretty soon we'll have a whole outfit for him.

[Steven Russell]

Tony Williams makes me sick.

Steve.

[Brenda]

.

Who is he? I was so surprised to see this story.

I see that he is related to Sir John Williams, but why is he selling out his ancestor without better proof?

Oh wait....money.

[Brenda]

.

Ohhhhhh....this is the "Uncle Jack" guy!! I thought he had been thoroughly debunked!

[Steven Russell]

I think you're right "on the money" there, Brenda.

The book being flogged is, I believe, the third edition of "Uncle Jack". I bought the first edition in 2005 and it is comfortably the worst Ripper book I've ever read.

The case against Sir John Williams is tissue paper thin, and the authenticity of the best piece of "evidence" has been shown to be questionable to say the least.

On top of all that, it's a very boring read and I got the impression that TW was not being truthful with his readers when describing the process whereby he reached his remarkable conclusions.

Don't touch it with a bargepole is my advice, Brenda. For a much better informed critique, have a look at the film of Jenni Shelden's talk on vidcastJTR.

Best wishes,
Steve.

PS He must have balls the size of small planets to still be peddling this trash.

[The Grave Maurice]

Geez. Are there no real reporters left in the world? And, if so, can any of them write a paragraph that is longer than one sentence?

[Brenda]

.

I promise not to touch it!

I'm very surprised his publisher would have anything to do with it after all the controversy.

[Steven Russell]

Geez. Are there no real reporters left in the world? And, if so, can any of them write a paragraph that is longer than one sentence?

Interesting plural of uterus as well, Maurice.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Supe]

Grave One,

can any of them write a paragraph that is longer than one sentence?

I quite sympathize and agree about lowered standards, but in many cases it not the reporter's fault. Marketing "geniuses" have decided that the public reads at an eight-year-old's level (or that most readers don't want to be challenged above that level) and adjust news articles to conform. Alas, they may well be right and the rest of us suffer.

This sort of dumbing-down is sadly pervasive. About ten years ago I read an article in the New York Times that referred to Macbeth and then added in parentheses "a play by William Shakespeare" (and no, that wasn't done to differentiate the play from Verdi's opera). I figured if Times' readers now needed such explanations there was no hope.

Don.

[lynn cates]

dumbed down

Hello Don. Hmmm, we need to talk. (heh-heh)

Imagine trying to teach college classes with these lowered standards.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Don, did you hear about the version of the Scottish play that was prepared for people with a short attention span?

"Full of sound and fury,
Signifying"

However, the readers rebelled and bombarded the publisher with demands to know what life signified. The publisher wrote back "Nothing" whereupon they sued him.

I do but jest.

[The Grave Maurice]

Interesting plural of uterus as well....

Quite right, Steve: "uterus's". Yikes.

[kensei]

Williams was interviewed on the radio show "Coast to Coast AM" with George Noory two nights ago, a show with international distribution that deals mainly with paranormal topics and conspiracy theories. They've touched on Jack the Ripper a few times. I must admit I've been addicted to the show for years, but maybe that's one reason why this theory has legs right now. I'd never heard of it before, but checked back a bit here on Casebook and found that it had been thoroughly covered already quite some time ago.

[Bridewell]

"Mr Williams said: ''Why would he leave this behind? I am convinced that this is the knife used by Sir John Williams to murder those women.
'It is widely known that the person who carried out the killings would have had significant medical knowledge."

"Why would he leave this behind?" Is he seriously suggesting that a surgeon could have taken his knife with him when he shuffled off this mortal coil?

"Widely known" being presumably a euphemism for "hotly disputed", "pretty much discounted", "subject of debate between police surgeons at the time".