Ripperologist 114

[lynn cates]

family

Hello Monty. I recall seeing the Pratt family mentioned once in connection with the case, but the exact correspondence eludes me.

If I recall, many of the Pratts were in diplomatic service and young William was being groomed for the same. Seems, however, he was introduced to the stage whilst a young man and the rest, as they say, is history.

His was "the voice"--it has never exactly been duplicated since. I just watched his "Black Cat" this week. There was an actor who sounded appropriately menacing!

Delighted that he got mentioned in the Ripperologist.

The best.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Are you aware of the real life link between Boris Karloff and Jack the Ripper?

Via the Diary?

Left you little choice? Hmm, I reckon you did have plenty of choices like....jeez, I dunno....not writing the letter? Or, perhaps more precisely, posting it on the forums so an active discussion could take place rather than everybody now having to wait a month at a time to see what the response is? That seems rather ridiculous really. Can't quite fathom why you would use that method. But, each to their own I guess!

Having said that, I'm sure you would agree that there are ways and means which are much better and more efficient for discussing it than writing letters in to the magazine once a month.

Apparently, you're not aware of how petty and childish you're appearing to the rest of the board. But I'll spell it out for you, since I can't win for losing. When Roger Baynton's anti-Casebook letter appeared in Rip a few months ago, I posted here about it and e-mailed Roger. Roger was bewildered why I didn't write to Rip about it, and the editor's responded asking readers to reply within their pages. I told you WEEKS before your article appeared I'd be writing a letter to the editor about it. You seemed happy about that and said you'd do the same for mine. Now I'm being raked over the coals for sticking to my word and replying to your article in the same venue you chose for publication (to paraphrase the eloquent Ally).

Once I read your article I realized we had already discussed virtually ALL of these topics at the forums, and you chose not to use one iota of the information I shared with you. This had my head spinning and irked me quite a bit. It also showed me how futile discussing the case is with you, since you seem to only want to be a 'solo act', as evidenced by your total lack of acknowledgements. That's pure, 100% ego working against you. Anyway, now that the readers of Ripperologist read your essay, including your errors, I felt obliged to share with those same readers some additional information to supplement your article. Remarkably, you're in no way grateful for this and opt instead to repeatedly make a public fool of yourself over it. If I have misrepresented you, the evidence, or your conclusions, then by all means write a letter to Rip. I would be grateful for it. However, you should do all you can to make sure I actually am in error before accusing me of being so. That would only be paying me the same respect I've shown you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Lynn,

Are you aware of the real life link between Boris Karloff and Jack the Ripper?

Monty

[lynn cates]

Pratt

Hello John. I'll say. And it was a bonus to see it evolve into a blurb about my favourite actor, William Henry Pratt and one of his finest films "The Body Snatcher."

Well done.

Cheers.
LC

[Johnr]

Another Absolute Bottler! Ripperologist 114 That Is.

Warm Greetings From Freezing Cold Sydney Aust-raylya!

Thanks to All Concerned in producing the latest Ripperologist.

It looks magnificent; reads well; is interesting; fresh...and most of all Cultural.

To get mentions of Edgar Allen Poe, Robert Louis Stevenson and Gaugin
and not just mentions, articles about, in the same issue is all pretty classy in my book.

Well Done!

I particularly liked the treatment of R.L.S.'s The Body Snatcher.

Made me realise what a clear, economic and gifted writer he was...

Detracters will say: "What has all that got to do with 'the Ripper'?

And my reply would be : "Read it and See".

Marvellously laid out, (like one of Burke & Hares corpses), for my money, Ripperologist is going from strength to strength.

Please keep up the good standard. And thank you for doing it.

As a recently moribunded member of the workforce, I look forward to having time to contribute an article or two myself.( If I can approach their lofty standards).

One article I should like to pen is: " Being An Australian 'Ripperologist' in the 1970's"

But talk's cheap: I am sure the Editorial team will be more impressed when I produce the article.

More strength to your Arm, Rip-Persons!

JOHN RUFFELS.

[Ally]

I am sorry, I don't quite get it. If you wanted to discuss your points in the most efficient method possible, and get your points across as quickly as possible, then why did *you* write them in a magazine? You are slamming Tom for refuting your points in the same venue you chose to put them out in? I don't quite see the reasoning. And there is nothing to prevent you from responding on the boards, if that is where you choose to respond, so once again, you are choosing to wait the month so that you may respond in the Rip, but think Tom should have NOT waited a month to respond in the Rip. Logic like that makes my head hurt, especially before coffee.

[Adam Went]

Hey GM,

Thanks for the words of encouragement, I'm glad you enjoyed it, and what you say is quite right - it's the nature of the subject that if you choose to write an article on a somewhat controversial topic, you're more or less throwing yourself to the wolves. Having said that, I'm sure you would agree that there are ways and means which are much better and more efficient for discussing it than writing letters in to the magazine once a month.

Anyway, that's Rip #113 and I don't want to take anything away from #114 and the discussions on that, so it's best to leave the Stride topic at that for now.

Cheers,
Adam.

[The Grave Maurice]

I thoroughly enjoyed your article, Adam, although, like Tom, I found a couple of points in it to which I took exception. But that's the nature of this subject, isn't it. Don't take it personally. As Tom said in his letter, just keep up the good work. I was hoping that Dave Yost might offer his opinion, since he used to hang around this website. He is the author of Elizabeth Stride and JtR: the Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. I disagreed with some of his conclusions, too, but his analysis of the timing prior to the murder is first-rate. Anyway, every advancement helps, and all of us non-authors appreciate the effort you guys put in to trying to reveal the truth.

[Adam Went]

Tom:

Left you little choice? Hmm, I reckon you did have plenty of choices like....jeez, I dunno....not writing the letter? Or, perhaps more precisely, posting it on the forums so an active discussion could take place rather than everybody now having to wait a month at a time to see what the response is? That seems rather ridiculous really. Can't quite fathom why you would use that method. But, each to their own I guess!

Cheers,
Adam.

[tnb]

I have it now - thanks to Chris George's efficiency and generosity of spirit. Only had a chance for a quic virtual 'flick' yet, but it looks like another good'un. Looking forward to having a proper read.

[Tom_Wescott]

Well I'm not quite sure what to make of that letter. Certainly wasn't what I was expecting.

From your earlier posts you seemed to be expecting a nasty mean letter, which I never intended. So I hope this means you were pleasantly surprised.

Suffice to say that most of it is incorrect, or a mis-representation of what I originally said though

Oh that's so cute!

and I shall enjoy writing a response to it.

That's good, because hobbies are supposed to be fun. I did not have a great deal of fun writing my letter, but your article left me little choice.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[tnb]

So has everyone got it now then? Sorry to sound thick but if so, I seem to still be having issues. Or not having issues, to be more precise.

[Adam Went]

Well I'm not quite sure what to make of that letter. Certainly wasn't what I was expecting. Suffice to say that most of it is incorrect, or a mis-representation of what I originally said though, and I shall enjoy writing a response to it.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tom_Wescott]

with the time and date to send the ackers for the Sept 'do'

and

Guess you must have used joined up writing this time then

I honestly don't know what British people are saying half the time. We Americans are far too literal in our speech.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, I received it. I've never heard of Gauguin, but I'll check that out. The star feature of this issue is undoubtedly my letter to the editor, which I just re-read and found it to be even more amazing than when I wrote it. From what I hear, it's the best letter anyone has ever written to an editor...Ever.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I was disappointed not to see a review of Casebook Examiner.

Guess you must have used joined up writing this time then