JTR Museum

[richardh]

Another article about this subject from the Guardian:

LINK

[Rosella]

What would they be able to show though, that would be of huge interest to people who have more than a passing interest in the case? I mean, most of us here, without being big headed, know a little more about these unsolved killings than 'it was a guy in a top hat who went around ripping up prostitutes with a knife in the London fog 100 years ago,' which is perhaps the image people have who don't take an interest in Jack and his doings. If I'm going to be exploited I might as well pay some more and go to Madame Tussaud's and see the 'London Street stalked by Jack' that they have there. At least it's a bit atmospheric!

As for sport, Richmond lost and I don't even want to know about the cricket!

[Dane_F]

To answer your question: no. I would have no interest in going to a JTR museum like this. Anyone who is going to use deceptive practices to even get the approval to make a museum is going to use those same practices on items in the museum.

Combine this with the fact that there is so little physical evidence to look at (maybe some letters? A few pictures?) and I would much much prefer to research the case here and do a Ripper Walk to look at the locations and hear some of the interesting history instead of going to an exploitive museum by dishonest people.

[Steadmund Brand]

I want to ask, honestly... and not trying to stir up "poop" as it were....

how many here can honestly say, that if they were there, they wouldn't go into the museum??? I'll be the first to admit I would go in.. in fact I would love to see it, it looks interesting to me.... I have an interest in the case, as we all do or we wouldn't be here, and I would want to see whatever it is they have, even if it turned out to be rubbish ( like most films about the case, yet we all see them don't we???)

Sure it's exploitation....but as I said, almost everything related to the case is...no matter the intention.. just the nature of the beast...granted there is a big difference between a scholarly book and selling jelly beans.. but it's all making money off a 120 plus year old tabloid murder case..

I am not defending anyone here... I think claiming to open a museum relating to 19th century women of Whitechapel then making it a Ripper attraction is downright sleazy....but...it is what it is... and let's be honest... I'm not sure too many folks would go out of their way for a "Women of 19th century Whitechapel" museum....1st off... it's more downright depressing then interesting..... I know some will say that I'm being sexist or whatever for saying that.. but it's the truth... I myself, being someone interested in Victorian London would probably go in that museum.. but as far as the general public goes...really you think they would?? Be honest, Now.. a Jack The Ripper one.. hey.. everyone knows that name, I mean.. MULTIPLE company’s exist doing walking tours... so it's not just folks like us who study the case interested.....

Wow , I feel like I am on a soap box, I really don't mean to, just I feel some of us (and I include myself in this) get a bit overly "moralistic" when it comes to things like this....sorry if I have offended anyone ( except GUT....I am so depressed by the Brisbane Lions this year I want all Aussies offended )

Steadmund Brand

[Wyatt Earp]

A John Dillinger Museum recently opened in Indiana:

http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2015/...ing-new-museum

I thought this might be of interest, for comparison.

I haven't been there and don't know what they might be selling in their gift shop.

[GUT]

Aren't most Ripper theories crackpot?

Point taken.

[Bridewell]

And I stand by my suggestion that whoever is behind it has some crackpot theory to peddle.

Aren't most Ripper theories crackpot?

[GUT]

Yes, it's good to get the correct information. Whoever is contemplating running this museum though, whether Richards or Linda Riley or someone else, it all sounds very exploitative and tacky and downright awful.

And I stand by my suggestion that whoever is behind it has some crackpot theory to peddle.

[Rosella]

Yes, it's good to get the correct information. Whoever is contemplating running this museum though, whether Richards or Linda Riley or someone else, it all sounds very exploitative and tacky and downright awful.

[bigjon]

See Post #3 of this thread.

The information originally posted on JTR Forums was out of date. The domain was registered to Edwards until end of June, when ownership transferred to Linda Riley. Edwards also owns a company for a JTR museum that is currently inactive, nothing to link it to the current museum which is a separate company with separate directors and no links.

The papertrails indicate that is the full extent of Edwards involvement. No one seems to want to believe that though.

[GUT]

See Post #3 of this thread.

[richardh]

The website is registered to LINDA RILEY.

See details here:
LINK

One poster said the web site was registered to him.

But regardless my first though was "It sounds like what Edwards did, but he couldn't be brazen enough to do it over again".

Some people don't like it, but it is what I thought,.

[GUT]

That's odd, because Mr Edwards was featured in the one newspaper story I read denouncing the museum as unnecessary and exploitative (without mentioning the range of JtR candies and totchkes offered in his own establishment)

One poster said the web site was registered to him.

But regardless my first though was "It sounds like what Edwards did, but he couldn't be brazen enough to do it over again".

Some people don't like it, but it is what I thought,.

[Magpie]

I read an summary of events earlier today that puts this in a different light, that goes something like this:

The Jack The Ripper Museum was incorporated in 2012 or so
In 2013, they applied for the planning permission to build the museum.
Originally it was supposed to be a museum that was both about women in the east end and the ripper. There was some sort of falling out between the two factions and the "women of the east end" faction took a hike, leaving the ripper side to either continue with the original plan or do what they had hope for to begin with. There have been a couple of changes to the board of the museum, but it has always been registered at Company House as Jack the Ripper Museum.

So the "sudden" outrage seems a little fishy and seems to be largely traceable to 2 residents of the area, one of them a film-maker and the other a friend of his. I'd like to know where all these people were when the Docklands exhibit was taking place, or when the London Museum hosted the Black Museum exhibitions.

[Magpie]

mthe first name that sprang to mind.

He seems determined to make a buck out of Jack.

That's odd, because Mr Edwards was featured in the one newspaper story I read denouncing the museum as unnecessary and exploitative (without mentioning the range of JtR candies and totchkes offered in his own establishment)