Tweet
As James Carnac is not listed in the list of suspects it seems reasonable at first to put him here. You will see as you progress why he should not be in any case put in the formal list of suspects. I will assume everyone is aware of the new book "Autobiography of JTR " written in the 1930's and published in 2012. where James Carnac purports to have been JTR. I read the book with interest and my comments are below for those interested in the latest "spark".
I wish to add to Paul Begg’s excellent analysis (except only that he reached no firm conclusion himself...perhaps part of the marketing technique) with a few thoughts of my own for debate or otherwise. In doing so I do not intend to replicate his doubts but to add to them.
The book is I believe a pretty good version of JTR lore (better than many I’ve read) but indeed a 1930’s fabrication. What makes me think so?
It is marketed well- mystery surrounds it.
There’s nothing wrong with a “Larry the Lamb” bloke (Sydney George Hulme Beauman) writing a dark fiction.(one of the reasons given for it being genuine was that Beauman was too nice a guy to have written it) I write myself at both ends of the spectrum. It’s just another outpouring of creativity down a different route. But it does not mean that you yourself have “a dark side.”
James Carnac cannot be traced despite sophisticated modern methods/ census details etc.Some of the nicest guys (like Stephen King) write horror.
The lack of definitive addresses/locations (except of course for the well- known locations of the murders) is suspect. “Tottenham” and “Near Russell square” are cases in point.
How can you suddenly change your surname from Sanson to Carnac? I guess this could be done by deed poll if you wanted to cut the thread to “black sheep” French public executioners but it is not normal to change surnames and it is not explained in the book why this had happened.
In particular two important events should be historically documented in local newspapers. I can find nothing myself from records but perhaps my research methods are not sophisticated and I invite others to check them out.
1 The murder and suicide of Carnac’s mother and vetinary father in Tottenham
2 The house fire somewhere “near Russell square” which eventually killed Carnac.
The elimination by a third party of Carnac’s probable detailed accounts of the murders is also very suspect. Taking out this “bloody evidence” in effect takes out the kernel of the account whereby Carnac being the Ripper could be truly weighed.
Accounts of the murders and aftermath seem to rely on later newspaper accounts.
For someone who took particular delight in what the victims were saying or doing in the few moments before JTR/Carnac carried out his atrocities it is absolutely remarkable that he makes no mention of Mary Kelly singing.This is a very detailed account from a witness at the time.
And finally for the fun. What do I mean by “well marketed?” In the copy of the manuscript certain words are underlined. They seem different from ones in the photographed original (pages of which are also in the book. Some you might think are questioning the account (like a ? after the date 1888. Others seem totally out of place (like underlining the word “the”) A thought occurred. What is it’s a message? Here they are:
Bonne Bouche (9) Our (9) was(61) the(73) The exhibit (85) Might (103) Feel (114) Wanted (132) Motive (136) Nothing whatever( 137)might (140) remote possibility (141)this (145) she(146) in case(148) see(152) you(164) hot (167) was(168) Princess Alice (181)’Im (186) you(192) look(192) knew(222)I (229)
Think I got them all. …and when you put them together and rearrange you get…..absolute gobbledegook!
See what I mean by well marketed? I think this was to set us all going and getting more discussion on the web…. Well we’re not going to fall for it …unless of course…you know different?
Seriously though..a good read but nothing more than a 1930's clever fabrication. It has the style of a novel, not of a diary or first hand account.
Quite honestly it hasn't got a leg to stand on.
Cheers!
I wish to add to Paul Begg’s excellent analysis (except only that he reached no firm conclusion himself...perhaps part of the marketing technique) with a few thoughts of my own for debate or otherwise. In doing so I do not intend to replicate his doubts but to add to them.
The book is I believe a pretty good version of JTR lore (better than many I’ve read) but indeed a 1930’s fabrication. What makes me think so?
It is marketed well- mystery surrounds it.
There’s nothing wrong with a “Larry the Lamb” bloke (Sydney George Hulme Beauman) writing a dark fiction.(one of the reasons given for it being genuine was that Beauman was too nice a guy to have written it) I write myself at both ends of the spectrum. It’s just another outpouring of creativity down a different route. But it does not mean that you yourself have “a dark side.”
James Carnac cannot be traced despite sophisticated modern methods/ census details etc.Some of the nicest guys (like Stephen King) write horror.
The lack of definitive addresses/locations (except of course for the well- known locations of the murders) is suspect. “Tottenham” and “Near Russell square” are cases in point.
How can you suddenly change your surname from Sanson to Carnac? I guess this could be done by deed poll if you wanted to cut the thread to “black sheep” French public executioners but it is not normal to change surnames and it is not explained in the book why this had happened.
In particular two important events should be historically documented in local newspapers. I can find nothing myself from records but perhaps my research methods are not sophisticated and I invite others to check them out.
1 The murder and suicide of Carnac’s mother and vetinary father in Tottenham
2 The house fire somewhere “near Russell square” which eventually killed Carnac.
The elimination by a third party of Carnac’s probable detailed accounts of the murders is also very suspect. Taking out this “bloody evidence” in effect takes out the kernel of the account whereby Carnac being the Ripper could be truly weighed.
Accounts of the murders and aftermath seem to rely on later newspaper accounts.
For someone who took particular delight in what the victims were saying or doing in the few moments before JTR/Carnac carried out his atrocities it is absolutely remarkable that he makes no mention of Mary Kelly singing.This is a very detailed account from a witness at the time.
And finally for the fun. What do I mean by “well marketed?” In the copy of the manuscript certain words are underlined. They seem different from ones in the photographed original (pages of which are also in the book. Some you might think are questioning the account (like a ? after the date 1888. Others seem totally out of place (like underlining the word “the”) A thought occurred. What is it’s a message? Here they are:
Bonne Bouche (9) Our (9) was(61) the(73) The exhibit (85) Might (103) Feel (114) Wanted (132) Motive (136) Nothing whatever( 137)might (140) remote possibility (141)this (145) she(146) in case(148) see(152) you(164) hot (167) was(168) Princess Alice (181)’Im (186) you(192) look(192) knew(222)I (229)
Think I got them all. …and when you put them together and rearrange you get…..absolute gobbledegook!
See what I mean by well marketed? I think this was to set us all going and getting more discussion on the web…. Well we’re not going to fall for it …unless of course…you know different?
Seriously though..a good read but nothing more than a 1930's clever fabrication. It has the style of a novel, not of a diary or first hand account.
Quite honestly it hasn't got a leg to stand on.
Cheers!
Comment