Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Describe how you 1st heard about Jack the Ripper

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Describe how you 1st heard about Jack the Ripper

    When I was in middle school in 6th grade, I had to take a general reading class where small texts covering a wide variety of topics were selected by a book, and the class was to over the course of the school year, go through the book while reading and analyzing each of the texts in the book.

    1 of the texts in that book was about the theory of Walter Sickert being Jack the Ripper (which the author agreed with). I do not remember very many details about it, not even the authors name.

  • #2
    It was a children's book called something like "99 greatest mysteries" - Jack the Ripper was #30 or so. Other entries included Lord Lucan, Jimmy Hoffa, the rust-free pillar in Delhi, etc. I was maybe 10-12 years old.

    I did not know the meaning of prostitute. I assumed it just meant "poor woman". I then used prostitute in a sentence and my parents were horrified.

    Comment


    • #3
      I probably saw references earlier (since I was an avid Star Trek fan as a child), but my first real exposure to the case was when I was 8 or 9 from the documentary series, "In Search of," which presented the royal conspiracy.

      Comment


      • #4
        I can't remember when I first heard about the case, as it was always "just there" in the background. My first encounter proper with the subject was at age 11 or so, when I read Stephen Knight's book - not that I was into True Crime (if Knight's book can really be classed as "true" crime), but because I was generally interested in mysteries. So I was heavily into Von Däniken, UFOs, the paranormal and the Bermuda Triangle at the time, as were many others in the 1970s. Masonic/Royal conspiracies somehow seemed to resonate with the Zeitgeist.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • #5
          I first came across JTR from a book my mum was reading about unsolved Victorian Crimes. I asked her about the Ripper and she said he was quite a frightening character. Later I found a book in the local library about the Ripper and freaked when I saw the mortuary and MJK photographs. I was about 12 at the time. I still live in hope that one day the case will be solved even though it's now coming up 131 years.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
            I still live in hope that one day the case will be solved even though it's now coming up 131 years.
            We are almost certainly closer in time to the point in the future when the case is solved than we are to the point in the past when the crimes occurred. More likely than not, the case will be solved in just the next decade or 2.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hello Stacker, all,

              I first read about the case in the late 1970s when I was 8 or 9 years old. It was a short article in a bound/hardback Reader's Digest volume that caught my attention because of the grim illustrations in the typical watercolour style of the era. It was only a couple of pages long but exciting enough to imprint the nom de plume Jack the Ripper on my mind forever. I don't remember much of the text, it was a mishmash of facts and fiction and ended with the Ripper getting chased by the mob and drowning himself in the Thames. No suspect names were mentioned.

              Well, and there we are now, 41 years later.

              Cheers,

              Boris
              ~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by bolo View Post
                I first read about the case in the late 1970s when I was 8 or 9 years old. It was a short article in a bound/hardback Reader's Digest volume that caught my attention because of the grim illustrations in the typical watercolour style of the era. It was only a couple of pages long but exciting enough to imprint the nom de plume Jack the Ripper on my mind forever. I don't remember much of the text, it was a mishmash of facts and fiction and ended with the Ripper getting chased by the mob and drowning himself in the Thames. No suspect names were mentioned.
                Sounds eerily like they were referring to the Montague Druitt suspect. Quite an embarrassment by whoever wrote that article considering that the case against him is one of the most, if not the absolute most ridiculously incoherent theories on the entire topic of the Rippers identity.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I went to a London-based horror thing as a child on a family outing. As far as I remember it was a mix of cheesy sound effects and narration and extremely graphic.

                  Quite frightening, really.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Stacker View Post

                    Sounds eerily like they were referring to the Montague Druitt suspect. Quite an embarrassment by whoever wrote that article considering that the case against him is one of the most, if not the absolute most ridiculously incoherent theories on the entire topic of the Rippers identity.
                    In retrospect, the article had the tone of a Penny Dreadful and certainly wasn't meant to be a factual account of the case but it still managed to fascinate me. The name Jack the Ripper alone resonated in my mind for days after I had read it.

                    I don't believe in suspect-based Ripperology so Druitt is as good or bad a candidate for me as most of the other well researched suspects. If we take the whole spectrum into consideration, including the outlandish ones like Toulouse-Lautrec, Lewis Carroll, Van Gogh or Prince Eddy, he ranks with the less zany suggestions in my opinion.
                    ~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Stacker View Post

                      Sounds eerily like they were referring to the Montague Druitt suspect. Quite an embarrassment by whoever wrote that article considering that the case against him is one of the most, if not the absolute most ridiculously incoherent theories on the entire topic of the Rippers identity.
                      I can't agree more.


                      The Baron

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                        I can't agree more.


                        The Baron
                        Is your sole aim in life to agree with Stacker in making unfounded criticisms of Druitt as a suspect? Please point out the fact or facts which eliminate him. Or please point out why he’s less likely than any other suspect? And could you tell me if you’ve taken the time and effort to read John Hainsworth’s book on Druitt before making a judgment or do you rely on a crystal ball and gut feelings?
                        Regards

                        Herlock






                        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Stacker View Post

                          Sounds eerily like they were referring to the Montague Druitt suspect. Quite an embarrassment by whoever wrote that article considering that the case against him is one of the most, if not the absolute most ridiculously incoherent theories on the entire topic of the Rippers identity.
                          Really? Lewis Carroll, Prince Eddy and the Royal conspiracy pale against Druitt? Wow that is a rather interesting assessment.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by KRS View Post

                            Really? Lewis Carroll, Prince Eddy and the Royal conspiracy pale against Druitt? Wow that is a rather interesting assessment.
                            Couldn’t agree more. We can add Vincent Van Gogh, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sir Melville Macnaghten himself, Frederick Abberline, Sir William Gull and Mary Pearcey to the list. All apparently more reasonable suspects than one named by an Assistant Commissioner Of The Metroplitan Police whose very good friend was related by marriage to the suspects family.

                            Id love to hear what some would describe as a reasonable suspect. Queen Victoria perhaps?

                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              My first proper acquaintance with the case was in 1972 when Dan Farson's book was serialised in a newspaper. I then over the years read books by Farson, Knight, Begg, Skinner and Howells, Fido, Evans and Gainey, Paley, Rumbelow, Sugden, Hinton, but the real turning point was joining the Casebook and the Forums. One can see the arguments and research actually going on, with a chance to participate.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X