If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Jeff, I think that Kelly was a Ripper victim - but I'm not an authority! Stewart Evans is an authority, and he's by no means convinced.
Dr. George Bagster Phillips was an expert, and he was convinced Kelly was a Ripper victim.
Originally posted by Robert
Re the copycat theory on Kelly, again I think the Ripper killed Kelly. However Glenn Anderson is adamant that there have been similar, and even worse, copycat or domestic killings. I don't know any examples because I'm only interested in JTR.
Yes, Glenn says this, but thus far has failed to provide a single convincing example.
Okey dokes. I'm going to create a thread on pub talk about how the Ripper, his victims and suchlike are marketed.
I've long been fascinated by this subject as it informs public opinion on the case in mysterious ways, regardless of what we (who consider ourselves to be a bit knowledgable) believe.
I just thought I'd do it as this could compromise the current thread about the issues surrounding Andrew Cook's book, which I believe isn't even out yet, despite the relevant arguments about the cover.
This would be a good forum for AP (for example) to expand on his ideas about the reproducing of the victim photographs (if he is so inclined), as well as other posters with other fish to fry.
"I predict a riot" as the Kaiser Chiefs would say, so I'm going straight to pub thread.
In case anyone thinks that only men seem to find the Cook cover offensive, I feel I should state that I am female, and I find it very offensive. In fact, bad taste & sensationalism on this scale might backfire... I believe many of the major Booksellers will find this cover quite problematic, and in a weak economy the LAST thing they need is offended, upset , irate customers! (Picture the hub-bub if any local bookstore has to deal with the irate mother of just one traumatized 6-year-old who happens to see the cover! Yikes! Besides, who in their right mind is going to want talk into the bookstores attached cafe & purchase an over-priced latte and a gloppy pizza-bagel after seeing THAT?) Think about it: we are USED to seeing this image, and yet many of US are deeply offended... image how Jane & John Q. Public might react! It is bound to be a big headache for all booksellers, and we can reasonably expect that one large book-selling chain has more clout than all of us Casebook posters put together. I therefore expect the book-selling chains to exert their own commercial might and force some alternative cover to be used.
I am fairly annoyed about another farcical channel 5-champain claiming that they have a program that finally solves the Jack the Ripper murder mystery.
Has "Five" really been running an advertising campaign for this programme? I have just been searching for some information about it, and can find nothing at all on the channel's website, and very little elsewhere.
I understood it was due for broadcast in May. However there is no listing in the next 14 days.
The book is tied to the documentary so perhaps they intend to wait until its in the shops before they broadcast.
My guess is that this is just a start of a publicity campaign, todays reviews being stage one. They will probably have features set of the weekend papers over the next couple of weeks. perhaps even national radio.
My guess is that this is just a start of a publicity campaign, todays reviews being stage one. They will probably have features set of the weekend papers over the next couple of weeks. perhaps even national radio.
It may be the start of a publicity campaign for the book but, as far as I can see, none of those articles even mentions the TV documentary, so I can't believe the TV channel is involved. I certainly can't imagine the TV channel had any involvement in selecting the cover illustration.
The book does contain the strap line....Now a major TV show.
It's fairly common knowledge in the industry that the book and the program are linked. However, as you say its unlikely that the book jacket was Channel Five, in house...
There is a publicity machine at work already. It is usual for Channel Five to publicize programs and maximize audience, i would imagine some of this is out sourced. Lets see what transpires over the weekend.
Well, obviously we all know that the book and the TV programme are associated with each other.
But what I'm saying is that whatever publicity there has been in the press evidently doesn't emanate from "Five", as the articles don't even mention the TV documentary. So I think the "farcical channel 5-champain" that you're complaining about is a figment of your imagination, unless you've seen some other advertising that you're not telling us about.
Wouldn't it be better to wait until we've seen the documentary, and read the book, before passing judgment?
I’m sorry Chris, I don’t ever remember having said I’d either read the book or seen the finished program. In fact I clearly stated that I was speculating on what was known and what I had gleaned (Obviously based on passed experience and how these things usually work). And you claimed you were NOT interested in speculation, which is your choice. Although you seem as hungry for information s the rest of us.
Clearly passing final judgment happens after broadcast. Again I’ve never said otherwise.
However from what is currently known and has been placed in public domain, it does not seem over encouraging. And we have the right to speculate on that.
The use of the term ‘Caseclosed’ is at best in poor taste. But we will have to wait and see if Channel five are also adopting this claim? Which should be soon.
I refer you back to their previous program to why I’m skeptical about their commitment to Ripper FACT rather than viewing figures.
Jeff
Wouldn't it be better to wait until we've seen the documentary, and read the book, before passing judgment?
There.
Is this another one of your pointless and futile arguments about Pirate Jack writing as he speaks rather than using the queens english?...Because if it is would you kindly take it to another Latin for school boys thread where it belongs.
I have no intension of engaging in futile conversation about samantic's, grammar or spelling.
Comment