Originally Posted by
AntiPathos
Jericho,
IMO, murders are not solved or unsolved through the use of generalisations
I think what I'm getting at is that if next week someone rooted around in an attic, found an old trunk and lo and behold, espied an antique knife, a piece of apron, an old diary detailing a long, lost relative's whereabouts in the Autumn/Winter of 1888
which could be verified and some badly decomposed human body parts in jars which corresponded to the DNA of living descendants of any of the victims then it just might be possible to prove whodunnit. Whether or not you'd class that as a slip-up on JTr's part I don't know. But whether it's even in the interests of Ripper writers to solve these crimes is a moot point in itself. Would you choose temporary glory over a regular income ?
div>
AP.
I'm more interested in how the Ripper factions defend their choice of suspect and what draws them to Jack in the first place than anything else. I'm choosing Maybrick because his candidacy appeals to me for the reasons already stated. I don't for a moment believe that the identity of Jack is known. Even people in love with the constant sound of ker-ching couldn't resist the lure of being identified as the one who finally named the Ripper. Now that would be a money spinner.
Bookmarks