Macnaghten as a suspect. The Theory.

[DVV]

Hi Simon,
the publisher is Tallandier. It is "grand public", and not a reference in literature or history. They are well known, though.
Amitiés,
David

[Mike Covell]

Bonjour Fort, ou quels que soit votre nom est. J'ai une prise fondamentale de français après le fait de visiter boulogne il y a quelque temps. Je me demandais, sont là des plans de libérer une version anglaise, si ainsi quand arrivera-t-il ?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Thank you. Your "bad" English is much better than my half-forgotten schoolboy French. I am convinced, and you have saved me the expense of buying the book. Fair play is the English curse.

Do you know if the book was "published" or "self-published"?

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Hi Dan,

Badly-translated rumour is little to go on. Whilst you could well be right in your suspicions, I'm going to wait for the English version. So far it's not half as daft as some learned theories I've read, but I await her delivering the proof. The devil's in the detail. Let's wait and see if she can pull it off.

Hey, what a hoot if she's right.

Kind regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,
even if Macnaghten is the ripper, that has not been proven by herfort.
Look at her "arguments", as an example, in Chapman's murder:

p42:
"Premier indice: un tablier de cuir, comme en portaient à l'époque certains ouvriers, les savetiers par exemple, se trouvait aux côtés de la victime. Cela a suffi pour que l'on désignât comme coupable un bottier demeurant à peu de distance de Mulberry Street. Il se nommait Pizer..."

Then, to be fair play, herfort writes that the apron belonged to Richardson, which is true. So, is that a "clue" ("indice")?
You will, by the way, notice that she believes that the apron found in Hanbury Street is the origin of the suspicions thrown on Pizer!!!

p42: "deuxième indice: Le foulard rouge serré autour du cou entaillé d'Annie Chapman n'appartenait pas à la victime."
Shall I translate this for you (sincerely hoping that you will forgive my "bad" English)?
"Second clue: the red handkerchief around AC notched's throat did not belong to the victim."
This is not a rumour, Simon, that is exactly what is written.
And as you know, at the inquest, Donovan "identified the handkerchief produced, which deceased generally wore round her throat.She bought it off another lodger at the lodging house..." (The Times, 14 Sept)
By the way, herfort, p44, writes that Donovan the deputy of Dorset Street's lodging house has been tried for the murder of his wife in 1904 (she doesn't know that Donovan died in Nov 1888, and that "Donovan the murderer "is another person).

p42: (still about what herfort calls the "second clue"): "On releva aussi, dans la boue de la cour, des empreintes de semelles en caoutchouc de type indien."

Sigh...I'm ashamed to translate this...
So the police is supposed to have found, in the "mud of the yard", "footprints of rubber soles of Indian type."
Can you believe this, Simon? Am I spreading rumour? Is the author of this sentence "fairplay" with the reader?

As to the third "clue", that is the envelope (Sq!) of which I have already spoken in a previous post.
So we have "3 clues" according to herfort, and more than 3 mistakes/lies, within ONE page.
But you will discover many more when it will be translated into English...

Amitiés,
David

[STRONG]

Perfectly right !

Hi All,

Glaring errors are to be found in the books of Messrs. Evans, Sugden and Begg, but this has not led us to summarily dismiss them as worthless nonsense.

Let's reserve judgement on Sophie Herfort's book until it is published in English.

I can't wait to read it.

Fair play.

Regards,

Simon

Many thanks dear mediatory ! All these people don't speak french. Both of them are trying to make believe they do because they mumble few words. And to crown it all they boycott a book about what they understand nothing at all by pure bath faith !

According to me, she found "our "man but it's my opinion.

"Fair play" as you said ! They seem to ignore such a word !

Kind regards,


She Strong

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dan,

Badly-translated rumour is little to go on. Whilst you could well be right in your suspicions, I'm going to wait for the English version. So far it's not half as daft as some learned theories I've read, but I await her delivering the proof. The devil's in the detail. Let's wait and see if she can pull it off.

Hey, what a hoot if she's right.

Kind regards,

Simon

[STRONG]

Ridiculous !

You could say "Amenez-les dehors!", couldn't you?

Non ! Parfaitement impropre à la langue française ! Jamais vu cela dans aucun livre ! Sans intérêt pour la compréhension commune ! Des gens en colère qui partientent devant le box d'un condamné à mort (ou bien devant les portes d'une prison) ne disent pas "Sortez le !" mais "Lynchez-le !".
Faut vraiment être de mauvaise foi pour affirmer le contraire parce que ta phrase dans le contexte n'aurait aucun sens !

[STRONG]

You could say "Amenez-les dehors!", couldn't you?



Cela m'etonnerais. But I can check Bourgoin's book too.

Good luck, She!

Hook

YES DO IT ! And leave serious researchers in peace for the future !

[STRONG]

You're Wrong !

Hi Simon,

Not glaring errors of this sort, no.

And the people who can read French and who have read it and say it's horrible is all I need to go on. Just the choice of the suspect alone shows that it can't be taken seriously.

Perfectly untrue ! French people are very enthusiast. Go Surfing on Google and if you're able to decipher few words in french, you'll see !

Casebook is not the world ! FORTUNATELY FOR SERIOUS WORK !

[STRONG]

So maybe she should have written a book on Painting Ethics or something like that and not wasted her time pretending to know anything about the Ripper case.

She has studied criminal psychology during extensive experience in hospitals. Buy glasses for yourself !

[Dan Norder]

Hi Simon,

Not glaring errors of this sort, no.

And the people who can read French and who have read it and say it's horrible is all I need to go on. Just the choice of the suspect alone shows that it can't be taken seriously.

[Captain Hook]

"Fetch them out !"....It' not a litteral translation. You can't say in french : "Sortez-les !" That's a nonsense ! You'll say : "Lynchez les !"

You could say "Amenez-les dehors!", couldn't you?

This sentence is already translated like that, especially in "Le livre rouge de Jack l'Eventreur " by Stéphane Bourgoin (max points of the Casebook's reviews). You're going to attack this author too ?

Cela m'etonnerais. But I can check Bourgoin's book too.

Good luck, She!

Hook

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Glaring errors are to be found in the books of Messrs. Evans, Sugden and Begg, but this has not led us to summarily dismiss them as worthless nonsense.

Let's reserve judgement on Sophie Herfort's book until it is published in English.

I can't wait to read it.

Fair play.

Regards,

Simon

[Dan Norder]

First Act : we discover that

Not a discovery, a well known fact.

Second Act : [...] kept confidential until now

Also well known, but the "violent" part is nonsense.

Third Act : we realize thanks to frightening evidence that Melville and Jack are the same person.[/quote]

Sheer madness.

The letter “M”, written with the blood of the victims, is often found on the scene of the murders.

Not often, and not even once (unless you insist that two Vs equals an M, which is a pretty poor argument). But she's lifting arguments from Maybrick supporters, so she must be desperate.

A piece of the envelope enclosing the refusal to hire Macnaghten is also found in the surroundings of the second victim.

No, that envelope was identified as coming from some soldiers and being completely unrelated to the case.

Based on indisputable proof

Of the "not proof, not even close to being sensible, and everyone in the world disputes it" kind, I guess.

Sophie Herfort has a degree in philosophy and art history.

So maybe she should have written a book on Painting Ethics or something like that and not wasted her time pretending to know anything about the Ripper case.

[STRONG]

As a patient no doubt...

Sorry I couldn't resist.

How do you know that ? You were a patient too ?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah....jalousy....