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.
Originally posted by WastelandOfTheRipperView Post
I certainly don't expect to uncover the true identity of the Ripper in my novel, I'm considering making someone up for the sake of it, really. But I do agree with you, Herlock.
You're not doing a 'Gyles Brandreth' then?
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
However, it does seem to gather quick attention and fame doesn't it?
My mum reccommended Patricia's novel to me, which I couldn't get past the first few pages. And Brandeth seems to have somewhat of a clue (while things do match up to what he says it's not entirely accurate) yet all it looks like is that they're picking names out of a hat and making it up as they go.
1. Yes. To date, there are over 200 suspects. Surely a monument to the collective obsessions of Ripperology.
2. No.
3. No.
4. Page 640— "Anyone who does not subscribe to this pick-and-mix assortment [of theories and suspects] or who questions the integrity of the authorities during the Whitechapel murders is branded by the hardcore Ripper community as a conspiracy theorist.
"This is mildly amusing, for the irony is that the real conspirators, whether unwittingly or not, are those who, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, unquestioningly defend the status quo."
Regards,
Simon
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.
1. Yes. To date, there are over 200 suspects. Surely a monument to the collective obsessions of Ripperology.
Obviously there are some ludicrous suspects. What I can't understand is why the need to deride the efforts of other researchers who are basically trying to find out who committed the murders. I would call it a monument to the desire to solve a 130 year old mystery. What's wrong with that? And if you have no time for 'ripperology' why write a book on the subject and why debate on forums?
2. No.
It certainly appears so as you appear to believe that you are the only one to see the 'obvious' fact that Jack the Ripper didn't exist. Everyone else appears to be a mindless sheep in your eyes instead of people who also study the evidence and have come to the childishly obvious conclusion that the ripper existed.
3. No.
I can see why.
4. Page 640— "Anyone who does not subscribe to this pick-and-mix assortment [of theories and suspects] or who questions the integrity of the authorities during the Whitechapel murders is branded by the hardcore Ripper community as a conspiracy theorist.
[B]The authorities are always questioned. Criticisms of Warren, Anderson, MacNaughten and lower level officers abound in Ripperology.
But you are a conspiracy theorist Simon!
"This is mildly amusing, for the irony is that the real conspirators, whether unwittingly or not, are those who, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, unquestioningly defend the status quo."
There are no conspirators unless they can be named and evidence is shown.
Regards,
Simon
No one has a monopoly on the truth Simon.
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”
Originally posted by WastelandOfTheRipperView Post
I certainly don't expect to uncover the true identity of the Ripper in my novel, I'm considering making someone up for the sake of it, really. But I do agree with you, Herlock.
One of the "200" is named Westcott.
Just sounds shifty.
You could do worse
Comment