Common Criticism for Ripper Media

[Madam Red]

Whoa! I haven't been on here for awhile, personal business, and then suddenly I'm seeing all these replies on this thread. Thank you all for commenting!

"From Hell" was wonderfully accurate in terms of the clothes,

My bad, I had just remembered that it was "Murder By Decree" that was seemingly historically accurate with the clothes.

Sometimes, I get the sense that what really happened doesn't pass muster in the excitement department so that the story has to be dramatized to make it more exciting. I doubt many people realize how much drama was actually involved in the real events, because they're fed conspiracies or other fantastic plot lines and don't know the real story, or what we know of it.

It seems to happen a lot in media. *Bangs head against the desk in frustration.* It's all for the thrill.

And if it isn't a conspiracy theory about the royal family and Jack the Ripper, it's a conspiracy about the Freemasons and the birth of the American nation, or it's about the grassy knoll and the assassination of President Kennedy, or it's about aliens.... I get a headache from listening to some of them for too long.

Oh no, not the bloody Royal conspiracy...

Oh no, indeed. Are you telling me that that ridiculous plot device is in that movie as well? I didn't get to finish it, so I don't know how it ends.


I heard about Whitechapel awhile ago and really wanted to see it. Unforunately, I didn't get the chance to see it on television. Hopefully I'll be able to buy it online.

[kensei]

Here's a "criticism of Ripper media"- I just checked on Amazon.com for "Whitechapel" and the only one available said it would not play on most DVD players in America. So much for that, I guess. I'd love to see it some time if possible. I happened to catch both halves of a 2-part "Wire in the Blood" that dealt with a serial killer while I was on vacation in England in 2008. Great stuff. The Brits are really turning out some killer t.v. (Bad pun.)

[Christine1932]

Making real life person as Ripper in the end. And again I say: that crap belongs in Whitechapel sewers.

[Defective Detective]

I hope against hope for a really accurate Ripper movie some day, one which would ignore the Royal Conspiracy entirely and include suspects like George Chapman, James Kelly and William Bury. What great characters they would make!

This would be wonderful. In fact, you could use exactly these three characters. Have the film open with Kelly's dramatic escape from Broadmoor, then intersperse scenes of Klosowski running his barbering business while trying to procure poison and William Bury abusing his wife and her finances. Included in the mix would be scenes of the Ripper murders themselves with the implication that any of the three could have committed it. But you'd want to refrain from suggesting that one of them actually did.

[John Wheat]

Jack the Ripper Films

As reguards fictional films and T.V. programmes I think they always seem to wimp out as reguards showing anything remotly graphic and so fail to capture even an essence of the terrible murders that Jack commited. Also they always go for some crap conspiracy or some ridiculous suspect.

[tinysteelorchestra]

I'm a bit fed up of the Royal Conspiracy angle too. I suppose everyone loves a good conspiracy; I mean, I can't imagine a film ever being made about JFK that features Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone. No one's interested in that.

Perhaps in the scheme of things it wouldn't really matter, except that there do seem to be an awful lot of ignorant people out there who actually believe that films tell the truth about history.

And yet, I'm convinced you could make an excellent JTR movie without being wildly inaccurate; you could tell the story of the murders and perhaps as another poster mentioned include some of the major suspects as characters. You could have them intersecting the plot, and leave the audience guessing, or at worst pick one of less implausible suspects. I don't see the need to portray Abberline as a drunk/opium addict, or George Lusk as some crazed rabble-rouser.

I mean, if the known history isn't interesting enough, how come we're still talking about 126 years later?

[gnote]

I'm a bit fed up of the Royal Conspiracy angle too. I suppose everyone loves a good conspiracy; I mean, I can't imagine a film ever being made about JFK that features Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone. No one's interested in that.

Perhaps in the scheme of things it wouldn't really matter, except that there do seem to be an awful lot of ignorant people out there who actually believe that films tell the truth about history.

And yet, I'm convinced you could make an excellent JTR movie without being wildly inaccurate; you could tell the story of the murders and perhaps as another poster mentioned include some of the major suspects as characters. You could have them intersecting the plot, and leave the audience guessing, or at worst pick one of less implausible suspects. I don't see the need to portray Abberline as a drunk/opium addict, or George Lusk as some crazed rabble-rouser.

I mean, if the known history isn't interesting enough, how come we're still talking about 126 years later?

Above all usually the main reason films based on unsolved cases are created is to provide a "solution". A good mystery needs a good ending. If that solution is considered too boring for a mass audience then it probably won't get made. Even when it comes to books on the case look at how many claim to have solved it. They don't even hedge their bets. It's simply "truth revealed". I've never written a book on the topic but i suspect getting one published that claims to crack the case is an easier sell. (and actual sell to the public)

(I don't think we have go into any further detail on the book subject given the amount of rubbish everybody here is well aware of)

Movies have to take it to another level yet as there is so much more money on the line. Could a more accurate movie on Jack be made and still be a quality film? Of course. That doesn't mean it gets made though. The people funding it would rather hear the plot being a sinister Queen Victoria as behind the entire plot using a young brainwashed Adolf Hitler as her proxy. (facts are irrelevant why should the timeline be)

While there is no proof the Queen was behind the plot or had a time machine to bring in Hitler, there's no proof she didn't.

Case closed.

[jmenges]

I mean, I can't imagine a film ever being made about JFK that features Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone. No one's interested in that.

Parkland, based on Vincent Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History.

JM

[Tom_Wescott]

Parkland, based on Vincent Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History.

JM

That's an excellent book. I haven't seen Parkland. Not sure I've heard about it?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[twnorman]

Guys, I'm sorry, I respect you very much in your research on the Ripper Murders but when it comes to the murder of JFK, that book Reclaiming History is bogus. It has no new information to offer. If you want to read a good book on the subject I can suggest many others. Try, Reclaiming Parkland by Jim DiEugenio, or JFK and the Unspeakable by Jim Douglas, or a great book from a forensic specialist in blood splatter read Sherri Fiester's book Enemy of the Truth. One of my favorites is Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald by Barry Krusch. That last book is available in 3 volumes. Listen to Len Osanic's podcast Black Op Radio. The research into JFK is far more researched than that of the Ripper murders because there is much more evidence available. Even in the JFK research against there being a lone shooter there are disagreements but they all agree on one thing. Oswald could not have possibly done it. That is not to say he had nothing to do with it, but he could not have fired a single shot. That is certain. The evidence found against him was so mishandled that had it gone to court in a proper manner, there would not have been any evidence that could be used against him. It would have been all thrown out simply because the chain of custody of this evidence was not maintained properly. I've been in that building and it has wooden floors, wood is a great conductor of sound. If a person is firing a gun through a window a large amount of sound is produced and it would have rung throughout the building. There were people in the windows on the floor below and yet there is no one that said they heard gunshots reverberating through the building. But there is one person that claims they heard the shell casings hit the floor above them. Really? Guys, this site is for examining the Ripper murders, if you want to study the JFK research with the same fervor you have on the Ripper murders then be my guest but until you have commenting on the JFK case as if it is a closed case proven beyond a doubt, that would be like some newbie to the Ripper case making claims that Lewis Carroll did it. Even among Ripperologist's there are disagreements. Please don't denigrate those JFK researchers that disagree with the Warren Commission position. I would bet that anyone putting the same degree of honest research into JFK as they have into Whitechapel will likely end up being called a "conspiracy nut." I believe if you examine the JFK case honestly, you will find that to believe Oswald did it alone is far harder to believe than the idea of a conspiracy. I have read books on both sides of the arguments regarding JFK, have you? Now before someone starts trying to tear my words a part, let me say, I have no animosity toward anyone. This is no different than a lot of things in life, until one has researched something they can make wrong conclusions. It's called ignorance, but please don't take that as a insult, it isn't. Ignorance just means we haven't done enough research, nothing more. I have read several Ripper books but after listening to all the podcasts I realize there is much about the Whitechapel murders I just don't know enough about to comment. I'm ignorant in this matter and my comments on this site have been minimal. I respect all the researchers on this site and do not wish to insult anyone. I'm even replying to Tom Westcott! Sorry, Tom, I don't mean any harm. I think your Bank Holiday Murders was one of the most interesting reads on the subject I have ever read and highly recommend it to everyone. I apologize but this really hit a hot button for me. I just have to defend the research of these guys that have spent their whole lives investigating; the death of a president in search of the truth. Again, I apologize if I have offended anyone here. That was not my intention. I love this website and can't wait for the next episode of the podcast. Keep up the research guys, you are doing work I believe to be valuable. Truth is valuable.

[Tom_Wescott]

I respect all the researchers on this site and do not wish to insult anyone. I'm even replying to Tom Westcott! Sorry, Tom, I don't mean any harm. I think your Bank Holiday Murders was one of the most interesting reads on the subject I have ever read and highly recommend it to everyone. I apologize but this really hit a hot button for me. I just have to defend the research of these guys that have spent their whole lives investigating; the death of a president in search of the truth.

Hi Norman, thanks for those kind words. I can't speak for anyone else, but you haven't offended me. However, I have a decent (though by no means complete) library on the JFK assassination and actually only live four hours from Dealey Plaza (not that that in itself means anything, I just thought I'd mention it). This is of course a Ripper board but we also talk a bit about other cases. I don't get into lengthy discussions about JFK nor do I post on the assassination boards. I was just telling Jonathan I like a book he mentioned. For the record, I met Vincent Bugliosi and didn't find him particularly humble. However, he's one of those people who refer to who've spent their life investigating JFK.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[twnorman]

The problem with Bugliosi, is that he wants us all to believe he spent many years researching the JFK case, but there are many in the research community that don't believe it. He really offers nothing new on the topic, he just regurgitates what the Warren Commission has already said. There is some evidence that indicates he used a ghost writer. The book by Jim DiEugenio is basically a review of Bugliosi's book and showing the mistakes and flaws of the book. It's funny but doesn't anybody remember the ARRB (Assassination Records Review Board)? They met for 4 years from October 1, 1994 to September 30th, 1998 and no one wants to talk about it but that board did determine that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy though none of the conspirators were named. They said that their goal was not to find out why or who committed the murders but just to collect and preserve the evidence for public scrutiny. Isn't it interesting that even the media act like the ARRB never existed, they tend to overlook it completely. The book "Reclaiming Parkland" is a response to the movie "Parkland" which in turn is based on a portion of Bugliosi's book. Jim's site www.ctka.net has a lot of information on it, including his review on Bugliosi's book. DiEugenio is one of the most knowledgeable researchers on the subject I have ever heard. You can often hear him on Black Op Radio's podcast. Jim Douglas's book is really good and it's full title is "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters." Highly recommend it.

[Tom_Wescott]

When I met Bugliosi 20 years ago, he was discussing the Kennedy case, and he mentioned at that time he'd been looking into it for decades. The backlash against Bugliosi from the conspiracy side was to be expected, but it needs to be noted that Bugliosi's book exposed a great many series mistakes made in the pro-conspiracy literature. Also, many of the 'mistakes' Bugliosi is said to have made were not mistakes at all, the conspiracists simply choose to perceive them differently. Conspiracists should be less concerned about the non-conspiracists and instead should hold themselves to a higher literary regard, because so many of the pro-conspiracy books are riddled with factual errors and very serious ones at that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Roy Corduroy]

Good afternoon T W,

The problem with Bugliosi, ...He really offers nothing new on the topic ...

What about the Dr. Pepper? That's huge Lee was drinking a coke when the policeman saw him in the lunchroom. He never drank a coke. He always went down to the basement machine for a DP. Not that day.

Roy

[twnorman]

I have never heard that about Dr. Pepper vs. Coke controversy, but there are many in Texas, (and I was born in Dallas and lived most of my life in Texas) who would use coke as a generic form of any soda. There was a recent episode about "How the States Got There Shape" (or something like that) and they talked about the demographics of what people call carbonated soft drinks. Even they say that in Texas as well as other nearby states often refer to all soft drinks as "coke". I know I have been guilty of that. The question you might hear is, "What kind of coke do you want? I have Coke, Dr. Pepper or Sprite. That is just off the top of my head, but a common phenomenon in Texas even to this day.