Jack the Ripper is...

[Cerys]

I said he gets the names of the protagonists and the victims right, but little else. He might of read Begg but he ignored him on virtually every single important factual aspect of the case there is.

And yet he cites him rather a lot, including the mention that Liz Stride was suffering from veneral ulcers at the time of her death; that Mary Kelly lived in Wales before moving to London; that a forty-five-year old whore named Emma Elizabeth Smith was killed by a group of men on the third of April 1888; that Polly Nicholls was killed after leaving the Frying Pan pub on Brick Lane at 12.30am ... I could go on.  Or else you could go and actually read the damn book and afford Alan Moore the credibility he deserves, rather than flailing about trying to prove a point you lost the minute you admitted to not having read the whole thing.

[biggytitbo]

You'd have a point if he didn't get all the important facts wrong. [nb]Ohh I admit I got that wrong, but at least I'm saying so here like Alan Moore did eh?[/nb]

[Cerys]

Which known facts did he get wrong?

[rudi]

[nb]Ohh I admit I got that wrong, but at least I'm saying so here like Alan Moore did eh?[/nb]

And we've taken the time to read it. You see?

[Cerys]

It's a horrible thing to say, but the longer this goes on, the more I'm starting to suspect that biggy's only ever seen the film.  I'm ninety-nine percent sure I'm wrong ... but the thought is there, y'know?

[rudi]

You're expecting a magnanimous retreat? Bear with, I'm just snowballing Satan. :-)

[Cerys]

No, I'm expecting biggy to tell us which known facts Alan Moore got wrong.  I think Moore mentions times or dates he may have changed with artistic licence to weave the less vital plot parts a bit more smoothly - but I'd love to be told what he actually got wrong.

[rudi]

He'll just start on his beard or something else he wrote, like the previous never happened.

"And don't get me started on those cunts in V for Vendetta masks..."

[biggytitbo]

Which known facts did he get wrong?

It wasn't Gull, it wasn't masons, there is no esoteric element to it, its not about sacred architecture, Jack wasn't a medical man, there were no grapes, no hansome cabs, there werent 2 men, no Netley, none of the victims knew each other or were lesbians, Kelly and Abberline never knew each other, the bodies weren't layed out in a ritual way, no gladstone bags or top hats.  I appreciate the fact that Moore makes an effort to separate the facts from his own personal fiction but it doesn't really help when he's essentially perpetuating Knights highly popular but utterly false version of events. Its a great book, Murder By Decree is a great film as are the Caine and Depp films, but they all share the same complete mangling of the facts which by their repetition only have the effect of clouding the real truth.

[Cerys]

Yes, Moore perpetuates a myth.  Most books on the subject of the Ripper do the same.  Nowhere does Alan Moore claim to have solved the mystery, unlike umpteen other writers who have tackled the subject.  This is because Moore is a novelist.  They deal in taking stories and running with them.  While running with this particular story, Alan Moore researched the known facts, as well as those theories tossed about by Ripperologists.  Being a writer of fiction doesn't mean everything one writes is made up.

So I'll say it yet again.  Moore acknowledges, right on the first page of the first appendix, that the Gull story is just a theory expounded by Knight, which Moore uses as a basis for the story.  You claim that

apart from the names of some of the protagonists and victims there is not a single fact in From Hell that bears any resemblance to what actually happened.

and you are wrong.  I have presented you with evidence of how wrong you are.  You call up Paul Begg as your first reason for a Channel 5 documentary being right about everything that Moore 'got wrong'.  I point out that Begg was one of Moore's sources.  You snidely suggest that Moore only took the names of the victims and protagonists from Begg.  I detail a mere fraction of the book's contents that prove you wrong.  You admit to having failed to read the book properly, and yet you still presume to talk down to those of us who have.

Time to give up, biggy.  Your statement 'apart from the names of some of the protagonists and victims there is not a single fact in From Hell that bears any resemblance to what actually happened' is wrong.  It has been proved wrong - partly by you yourself.  Do you really want to dig deeper?

[rudi]

It wasn't Gull, it wasn't masons, there is no esoteric element to it, its not about sacred architecture, Jack wasn't a medical man..

How can these be "known facts" without knowing who did it?

[biggytitbo]

Sorry but I'm completely right that the story Moore tells is total bollocks. You even admit this! The only thing he gets right in the *story* is the characters names and the order in which they die (apart from Tabram who isnt considered a ripper victim). He uses Begg and Phillips to embellish some of the details of the murders but all of the important facts he uses Knight, and Knight is wrong about virtually everything. I fully accept that Moore acknowledges the fiction of his narrative, but that doesn't make his narrative any quite obviously untrue. I'm not sure what you're argument is...Moore says his narrative is fiction so that makes all of its vast list of inaccuracies somehow not untrue? What are you saying?

[biggytitbo]

How can these be "known facts" without knowing who did it?

Try reading some books about it and you'll see why it wasnt Gull, why it wasnt Netley, why it wasnt the Masons etc. They're all cast iron facts and you don't need to know who did do it to know who didn't.

[rudi]

Try reading some books about it and you'll see why it wasnt Gull, why it wasnt Netley, why it wasnt the Masons etc. They're all cast iron facts and you don't need to know who did do it to know who didn't.

Hmm, this is why you're not a detective, I feel...

[Cerys]

Sorry but I'm completely right that the story Moore tells is total bollocks.

Inasmuch as any historical fiction is.

The only thing he gets right in the *story* is the characters names and the order in which they die (apart from Tabram who isnt considered a ripper victim).

No, she isn't - and in From Hell she isn't treated as one.

He uses Begg and Phillips to embellish some of the details of the murders

So you're now suggesting that the facts presented by Begg are only good enough to be classed as 'embellishment'?  Have you mentioned this to Channel Five?

but all of the important facts he uses Knight, and Knight is wrong about virtually everything.

He only uses Knight for the Gull and Freemasonry story, apart from where Knight's evidence agrees with other Ripperologists'

What are you saying?

I'm saying that your claim that 'apart from the names of some of the protagonists and victims there is not a single fact in From Hell that bears any resemblance to what actually happened' is false.  That's what I've been saying from the start.  I'm also now saying that it's clear that if you've read From Hell at all, you weren't paying it much attention.  Did you really pay enough attention to the other books you've read on the subject?

[rudi]

I think he only listens to audiobooks when Guido Fawkes does them. I think his version is called "From Hell in a Handcart".

[Mister Six]

Don't want to distract too much from Cerys being absolutely right, but would like to add a second point: there's a difference between getting your facts wrong (which would be the case if Moore was writing a factual book) and knowingly using untruths because they make for a better story.

[mycroft]

To me, this image proves that the crimes were committed by the popular actor Derek Jacobi.

My theory, based on this image alone, is way more credible than that insulting shite Patricia Cornwall came out with.

[Saucer51]

The frustrating thing is that in the roll call of suspects, all amateur and professional detectives can find convincing elements to back up their claims. What someone else has suggested is probably true - it was in reality previously unnamed person or persons. The Ripper industry is fuelled by the mystique and I'm sure many more books on the subject will emerge.

The Cornwell documentary a few years back indicated to me that apart from being a very cold fish, she focused on what fit but couldn't explain why Walter Sickert was able to just stop his killing spree in a way that serial killers apparently don't.

[biggytitbo]

Don't want to distract too much from Cerys being absolutely right, but would like to add a second point: there's a difference between getting your facts wrong (which would be the case if Moore was writing a factual book) and knowingly using untruths because they make for a better story.

Yeah and my point was that the story told in From Hell does not bear any resemblance to the facts, which is true.

[biggytitbo]

The frustrating thing is that in the roll call of suspects, all amateur and professional detectives can find convincing elements to back up their claims. What someone else has suggested is probably true - it was in reality previously unnamed person or persons. The Ripper industry is fuelled by the mystique and I'm sure many more books on the subject will emerge.

The Cornwell documentary a few years back indicated to me that apart from being a very cold fish, she focused on what fit but couldn't explain why Walter Sickert was able to just stop his killing spree in a way that serial killers apparently don't.

Yeah she pursued her silly theory at great expense for ages, but when some real experts pointed out that Sickert wasn't even in the country for at least one murder she came up with an even dafter theory that Sickert 'commuted' from France by boat to commit the murders then pop back to France. Silly sausage.

One interesting thing she did come up with though is the possibility that Sickert *might* have written one of the hoax letters. He was apperently fascinated by the case and it was in character from him to do something like that so its a possibility.

[Doomy Dwyer]

There he is. On the left.

[biggytitbo]

I'm not a fan of what Peter was doing with his hair at that time. It looks frizzy and lifeless.

[Doomy Dwyer]

Biggy, you may be digging your own deep, dark grave in this thread, but I think you're one of the funniest people on the internet. And I mean that in a nice way. I'd do a little smiley face thing, but I don't approve of them.

Awww...Just for you then ;)

[BlodwynPig]

All the letters were early attempts by the News of the World to boost sales.  The murders themselves were committed by a prostitute who didn't like competition.  Ironically, she was called Jacqueline Rippe.

no way
http://nl-nl.facebook.com/rippej

[Cerys]

She's older than she looks.

[jimmy jazz]

biggytitbo is the Sugar Ray Robinson of the internet.

The main reason I cite Robinson as probably the greatest boxer (and perhaps the greatest sportsperson) of the 20th Century is for what he lacks. When you hear fellow professionals and fans speak of the other candidate for The Greatest - Muhammad Ali - you often hear the same thing again and again. Ali's genius, we're told, is that he seems to intrinsically know what his opponent will do before even he does. Ali doesn't react as such, he instead plots his next move already with full knowledge of what his opponent is planning. I agree with these professionals that this is Ali's true genius, the fact that although he was phenomenally quick (at his prime his jab was allegedly faster than a camera shutter) he didn't need to be. He just knew what you were going to do.

Robinson, however, echoes biggytitbo in that he doesn't possess Ali's telepathy to the same degree. He had it in abundance, way more than 99% of those that ever pulled on the gloves, but when fighting fellow greats it is not what set him apart. What set Robinson apart was the supreme confidence he had in his ability to react. He was willing to let the opposition expose the weakness in his last action because he knew he could nullify that next attack before they could make it count. And the way he moved was so graceful, so devoid of any exertion, that it looked like he knew what he was doing all along. It's a matter of opinion, whether an innate knowledge of a sport is better than possessing the reflexes and the guile to cover your own weaknesses, but I'm pretty sure what impresses me more.

biggytitbo, then, has proved in the years I've been reading him on CaB that he can manoeuvre just as gracefully as one of my sporting heroes. Just look at Cerys' La Motta-esque, proficient one-two. It should've been a perfectly adequate piece of work showing biggy Moore-bashing as clearly flawed, she's found a weakness in his argument (much like how you see Geraint point out how label-less graphs show nothing of worth in a thread about economics) and is aiming for the face. But biggy can, as quickly and gracefully as a swan, duck out of the way of a completely salient point as if he had no previous error to recover from. Although he was quite clearly mistaken in his original statement, and Cerys has shown almost superhuman patience in exposing it as untrue, you'd be forgiven for thinking that he has nothing to back out of at all. It's majestic in it's own way and I truly have to applaud him. Bravo biggy, bravo.

[biggytitbo]

Hehe..but... someone said (it wasn't Cerys though) From Hell was the definite book on the subject, which albeit fictional incorporates all the facts of the case. I merely pointed out that the story it tells gets all of the important facts wrong, which is true. It perpetuates many myths on the subjects, which is true. Pretty much the entire Knight version of the story is wrong (not just wrong but spectularly factually innacurate) apart from the names of the protagonists and victims. That Moore acknowledged it as fiction doesn't make it any less wrong. Hitler dying at the end of Inglorious Basterds is fiction, it doesn't make it any less historically inaccurate. The Knight theory is probably the best story to be made out of the events but its also an historical skidmark that has blighted the real study of the subject, spreading a near endless list of misinformation about what happened for nearly 40 years.

[Cerys]

This is where I recommend the ultimate book on the subject:

Ultimate does not equal definitive.

Furthermore:

Like the (excellent films Murder by Decree and From Hell) its based directly on the Steven Knight nonsense from the 70s

You do realise that the film was adapted from the novel, right?  Also that it took more liberties with the truth than Moore did, and acknowledges himself to have done?

And:

Well my understanding is based on reading the story. Which isn't true to a spectacular degree which might be partially acknowledged in the disclaimers

Disclaimers?  Is that what you think a forty-two page document detailing the evidence and sources behind every page in the story amounts to?

[Cerys]

(Those second two quotes by biggy, incidentally, which I can't modify the post to show right now because there's a fucking great eagle screwing things up.)