Ripperologist February 2008 issue

[Ally]

Well, well. Another Rip, another review. First, let me start out by saying to all those who told me, in various forms since last month’s review, that while they didn’t disagree with what I said, they thought I could have used more tact, balls to you. Second verse, same as the first.

My Rip review, in pieces parts and commentary as I read it.

This issue begins with an editorial that I think was somehow trying to link the 88 review with 1888 and some sort of symbolism and posing of bodies. Uhm..okay, that's all I have to say about that.


Then comes a (holy crap) 29 page article in which the esteemed Ivor Edwards takes on the esteemed Stewart Evans, cough, ahem, I mean takes on the Tumblety case. Better written than half the dreck that gets published in Ripper publications, there were very few cringe worthy sentences based on grammar, punctuation snafus and other mechanical errors (PERIODS GO AT THE END OF SENTENCES, and not after colons!!!). But the content? Woo dog. Let’s get to some of the more egregious issues to take with the article. First, the author blasts Tumblety proponents for engaging in speculation, and non-fact based analysis (I’ll let everyone pause a minute to soak up the general irony, before moving on to the specific…..ready?) then ends a paragraph with this blatantly unsupported opinion “JtR was more of an introvert in many respects and would not have courted attention to himself in the same manner as that rank exhibitionist and extravert Tumblety.” The well-chewed Littlechild letter is examined briefly, with the author choosing in a rather nambyish way to not come down on either side but conclude the section with one of those statements -“I’m not saying it was a forgery, but…. But indeed. Not to mention he’s now trying to shift credit for “the find” to Barton, when in fact, as far as I know, there is no indication whatsoever that the gentleman in question ever even looked at the papers he sold to Stewart Evans. Ivor says Barton “was fully aware of its contents”. Really? And he did what with them? In any event, despite the lack of any truly new or fresh arguments, one of the better articles overall and at the very least sure to generate chatter.


And here I break for a while...the article was 30 freaking pages long after all. I'll be back soon with my witticisms on the rest.

[Supe]

Just to alert those who may not yet have looked in their mail boxes (or those who wish it were there) that another issue of Ripperologist is out there chock full of good things.

Ivor Edwards takes a hard look at Tumblety as a suspect--and finds the evidence suspect; Andy Spallek answers the question of who was the West country MP who impliucated Montague Druitt; John Bennett provides another East End photo essay; Glenn Anderson talks about his new book and the Ripper case in general and along with the other regular features Jennifer Pegg gives everyone another look at what else was happening in 1888 in her column.

Should be fun.

Don.