Denial, Desperation and Dishonesty - Defending Stephen Knight’s Nonsense

[APerno]

I can’t even recall listening to this but I did at some point. It first opened at London’s Players’ Theatre on June 24th 1974. It was recorded in 1975 though but not released at the time. 1975 was the last time it played in the West End though but over the years it played at various theatre’s including ones in The States and Sweden.

The Daily Express called it.....A lively musical exhilarating, melodious, delightfully comic. Directed with zest the occasion is a musical treat.

The Daily Mirror......Lively melodic - Very amusing bawdy knees up - verve and wit and above all a good musical score.

The Sun...Super Jack is a roaring hit. This fast fun musical is the best to hit town in many a season. Rip, Rip hooray for Jack The Ripper.
Hard to see these reviews happening today.

Songs include - What A Life/ Ripper’s Going To Get You/ Half A Dozen Pints/ Suspects/ Policeman’s Chorus.

None Of The actors are familiar names to me but the roles certainly are - Tabram to Coles but no Mackenzie. Queen Victoria played by the same actress that played Stride. The bare knuckle boxer Daniel Mendoza makes an appearance alongside colourful sounding names like - Dinky Nine-Eights, Bluenose Stack, Slop Wallace, Lord Overcoat and someone called Montague Druitt.

I might give it a listen later on.

I found one song from it here. Not the original cast though.

https://youtu.be/jE1nsqd93VI

Interesting! I would like to say great, but I really couldn't appreciate it, because my American ear couldn't understand the lyrics. Good costumes, and the girls looked great, but weak (absent) scenery, looked low budget.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Yes true! I was recently watching some old Python and realized that much of their humor would be considered unacceptable today.

But then again we are talking about a group of men who after the success of their film Holy Grail could have had any producer in the western world back them, so what do they do, they go ahead and write a parody of Jesus Christ, and then couldn't understand why everyone of their producers ran away.

In short, challenging norms is what Python did, (even when it went against their own best interest,) and I am a fan of that. Sorry if I offend, I will ease up.

No apology required APerno, it's all too easy on these boards to take an idea for a walk, I'm fond of doing that myself.

The Python illustration is a valid one, the Python's themselves were quick to point out that there was in fact a minor character in The Life Of Brian who received very little attention, certainly far less than the main character Brian.

The minor character, who only had a walk on part, was Jesus.

[APerno]

I don't mean to be a party pooper, but surely this is a bridge too far.

What next, a musical about the Moors Murderers?

Bearing in mind the criticisms of misogyny recently made by Hallie Rubenhold, maybe we should be a wee bit more circumspect.

Yes true! I was recently watching some old Python and realized that much of their humor would be considered unacceptable today.

But then again we are talking about a group of men who after the success of their film Holy Grail could have had any producer in the western world back them, so what do they do, they go ahead and write a parody of Jesus Christ, and then couldn't understand why everyone of their producers ran away.

In short, challenging norms is what Python did, (even when it went against their own best interest,) and I am a fan of that. Sorry if I offend, I will ease up.

[barnflatwyngarde]

God! Someone earlier suggested a Ripper musical, but that's been done with Sweeney Todd, what would be really great is a Monty Python Ripper. The boys would love playing the victims, Idle as Polly and Annie, Cleese as Long Liz and Mary Kelly, Jones as Kate and Martha, and Palin as Abberline.

Just think of the jokes they could hang on a removed uterus.

And with Terry Gilliam visually recreating Whitechapel, it would be a visual master piece.

I don't mean to be a party pooper, but surely this is a bridge too far.

What next, a musical about the Moors Murderers?

Bearing in mind the criticisms of misogyny recently made by Hallie Rubenhold, maybe we should be a wee bit more circumspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Scenes of fun, terror, song & dance" You gotta love it, a must see! (Has anyone on this board actually seen this?)

The director's name even sounds like a Python character: Reginald Wooley -- but I suspect the Pythons would have named him Sir Reginald.

I can’t even recall listening to this but I did at some point. It first opened at London’s Players’ Theatre on June 24th 1974. It was recorded in 1975 though but not released at the time. 1975 was the last time it played in the West End though but over the years it played at various theatre’s including ones in The States and Sweden.

The Daily Express called it.....A lively musical exhilarating, melodious, delightfully comic. Directed with zest the occasion is a musical treat.

The Daily Mirror......Lively melodic - Very amusing bawdy knees up - verve and wit and above all a good musical score.

The Sun...Super Jack is a roaring hit. This fast fun musical is the best to hit town in many a season. Rip, Rip hooray for Jack The Ripper.
Hard to see these reviews happening today.

Songs include - What A Life/ Ripper’s Going To Get You/ Half A Dozen Pints/ Suspects/ Policeman’s Chorus.

None Of The actors are familiar names to me but the roles certainly are - Tabram to Coles but no Mackenzie. Queen Victoria played by the same actress that played Stride. The bare knuckle boxer Daniel Mendoza makes an appearance alongside colourful sounding names like - Dinky Nine-Eights, Bluenose Stack, Slop Wallace, Lord Overcoat and someone called Montague Druitt.

I might give it a listen later on.

I found one song from it here. Not the original cast though.

https://youtu.be/jE1nsqd93VI

[APerno]

How about this one?


https://ibb.co/XjJ5cq9

"Scenes of fun, terror, song & dance" You gotta love it, a must see! (Has anyone on this board actually seen this?)

The director's name even sounds like a Python character: Reginald Wooley -- but I suspect the Pythons would have named him Sir Reginald.

[Herlock Sholmes]

God! Someone earlier suggested a Ripper musical, but that's been done with Sweeney Todd, what would be really great is a Monty Python Ripper. The boys would love playing the victims, Idle as Polly and Annie, Cleese as Long Liz and Mary Kelly, Jones as Kate and Martha, and Palin as Abberline.

Just think of the jokes they could hang on a removed uterus.

And with Terry Gilliam visually recreating Whitechapel, it would be a visual master piece.

How about this one?

https://ibb.co/XjJ5cq9

[APerno]

Best parts of that mini series were Lewis Collins imitations of Michael Palin staring into space soapie style.

God! Someone earlier suggested a Ripper musical, but that's been done with Sweeney Todd, what would be really great is a Monty Python Ripper. The boys would love playing the victims, Idle as Polly and Annie, Cleese as Long Liz and Mary Kelly, Jones as Kate and Martha, and Palin as Abberline.

Just think of the jokes they could hang on a removed uterus.

And with Terry Gilliam visually recreating Whitechapel, it would be a visual master piece.

[Busy Beaver]

There is so much Fiction in the Ripper case and I feel that is what this site is for- to weed it out and stick to the facts as much as possible. Yes there will be hundreds of theories, but I suppose like, "who was Jack the Ripper?", those theories can stand, until absolutely proven that they don't stand up. I for one do not mind putting things forward for discussion and if I am wrong, then so be it, I cross it off. Perhaps there should be a new section that lists books and people who are no longer valid, or should be considered part of the Ripper Story. Busy Beaver

[DJA]

Best parts of that mini series were Lewis Collins imitations of Michael Palin staring into space soapie style.

[Herlock Sholmes]

...... and 36.22 mark.

So it was true after all

Cheers Dave

[DJA]

...... and 36.22 mark.

[DJA]

Question Three > You claimed it asa fact that Gull was interviewed by Abberline over The Whitechapel Murders. I asked where you got that information from. You repeatedly ignored the question. Feel free to answer it now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPYxcJLSiFg

2.37.35 mark

ROFL.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your opinion was never asked whether or not t.o.d could be correct ,it was when explained to you that 3 doctors were right in their medical opinions when asked to give a t.o.d . your reply was that ''they could be wildly inaccurate , guesswork at best'' . Thats what you said .

Again you have confused yourself . But your good at lately

This cannot be put down to error on your part Fishy. This is simple dishonesty....again.

I never once, ever stated that the 3 doctors were wrong. I’ve even said that they were correct.

If you disagree with the above then I Again invite you to provide evidence. Show me the post where I said this....good luck with that. You can add this challenge to the one that you’ve ignored from #294

What I’ve repeatedly said....because it’s true.......is that TOD estimations at that time could be wildly inaccurate. This is a fact that only you appear to disagree with. Just because doctors got it right 3 times it’s not correct to say that they got it right all of the time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Inspector Joseph Chandler was the first policeman on the scene when he was informed of the murder at 6:10 a.m. He interviewed John Richardson at about 6:45 that morning and was told "he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.

The Coroner: Did he say anything about cutting his boot?

Chandler "No." ¹⁸

The Foreman of the jury then made the point that it was possible that the back door, which opened outwards into the yard and towards where the body was lying, obscured the body from view to one just standing at the top of the stairs. If, however, Richardson had gone down into the yard he was bound to see it. Chandler could only reiterate his earlier testimony and answer that Richardson had told him that"he did not go down the steps, and did not mention the fact that he sat down on the steps and cut his boot." ¹⁹

What Chandler was led to believe was that Richardson's visit was quick and cursory, that he merely opened the backdoor and took a brief glance down to his right as he stood at the top of the steps and saw that the lock was still on the cellar door and then went off to work. If this first story was true then it is doubtful that Richardson would have noticed the body of Annie Chapman lying in the yard to his left. By the 10th of September, however, Richardson seems to have changed his story and it was reported that "Richardson sat down on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot." ²⁰ This second story was repeated to the coroner when the market porter testified at the inquest two days later on the 12th.

"I went to 29, Hanbury street, between 4.45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in....

The Coroner: Did you go into the yard?

Richardson: No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door." ²¹

Which of the two versions was correct? Which version is to be trusted
Read the above line out load just so your mind can hear it . like i said you take only what you want from Richardsons testimony. the above line means that any side of Richardsons statements could be argued one way or the other .

I suggest that its you than needs to read properly properly and not to see sinister things where none exist.

Even when he was at the Inquest saying that he’d sat on the steps this was still said:

The Coroner: Did you go into the yard?

Richardson: [I]No, the yard door was shut.

So we have Richardson saying that he didn’t go into the yard even though he was also saying that he’d sat on the steps. He didn’t equate sitting on the step with actually going into the yard. And so what appears to have happened was the he simply told Chandler that he didn’t actually go into the yard which gave Chandler an impression:

What Chandler was led to believe was that Richardson's visit was quick and cursory.

So, can we think of any reason why Richardson didn’t initially mention sitting on the step? I’d say that it would have been unlikely for Richardson to have wanted to place himself at a crime scene with a knife so he probably just initially neglected to mention the fact that he’d sat on the step. And then when it was pointed out that he might have missed the body if he’d just stood on the top step to check the cellar doors he was compelled to elaborate that he’d actually sat on the steps.

Which of the two versions was correct? Which version is to be trusted.

A little ironic that you should ask this question and put so much significance to it Fishy. When Joseph Sickert admitted that his story was a lie and then later on retracted you had no such qualms about which version to believe. For you it was the second version simply because you felt that Joe’s explanation was sufficient to constitute proof. Why not the same here? Richards second, fuller version is obviously the likeliest to have been correct and the full story

Richardson had no doubt at all that he could have seen the whole of the yard. No doubt whatsoever. The suggestion that he was so stupid that he didn’t realise that the door blocked a space where the corpse could have been is laughable.