Edit: I see it is still on Youtube!
Listzomania marvellously bonkers, I think I may have my viewing sorted for today.It'll certainly be as weird as you remember.
Ah, the 1970s, when British cinema was turning to stuff like The Ruling Class, O Lucky Man!, The Final Programme and Lisztomania. And everyone in the country went to see Confessions of a Window Cleaner instead.
It'll certainly be as weird as you remember.
Ah, the 1970s, when British cinema was turning to stuff like The Ruling Class, O Lucky Man!, The Final Programme and Lisztomania. And everyone in the country went to see Confessions of a Window Cleaner instead..
...facial matter and seaman...
Oh and I thought I’d get this one in as a sort of coincidence. I happened upon this and never had any clue it was included in the exhibition. It’s a 1900 painting of the Boundary street estate (Britain’s first ever social housing project ) and formerly the Old Nichol slum and in which I was born and raised 71 years prior to this painting being inked.
View attachment 22595
Knew somebody was going to point that out - my money was on Max though
Obviously I should have stuck to the one pint
A friend recently told me that she went either on a Ripper tour or a Historical East London type tour which of course included a bit of JTR. The guide said that in terms of suspects, if you simply look at the amount of convicted murderers in and around Whitechapel at the time then there were dozens. I was under the impression that most murderers were hanged, transported or banged up for good in those days, so surely there wouldn't me many? I asked her if she'd put that to the guide but she hadn't.
Were convicted murderers let out in those days and early enough that they weren't decrepit? Perhaps she was mistaken and he was referring to people who were suspects for other murders.
that in my opinion you might as well seek the philosopher's stone or El Dorado.
A friend recently told me that she went either on a Ripper tour or a Historical East London type tour which of course included a bit of JTR. The guide said that in terms of suspects, if you simply look at the amount of convicted murderers in and around Whitechapel at the time then there were dozens. I was under the impression that most murderers were hanged, transported or banged up for good in those days, so surely there wouldn't me many? I asked her if she'd put that to the guide but she hadn't.
Were convicted murderers let out in those days and early enough that they weren't decrepit? Perhaps she was mistaken and he was referring to people who were suspects for other murders.
Although the days of the Bloody Code were over, the death sentence was mandatory for cases of murder, unless commuted by the monarch or their representatives; there were post-sentence reprieves, but they were rare and only applied to cases with very obvious extenuating circumstances. The M'Naghten Rules came to play mid century-ish, and the later Trial of Lunatics Act was passed in the early 1880's, which gave a jury the option to find a defendant guilty but insane, and subject to a custodial rather than capital punishment.
To be honest, I would have assumed that the the guide was using the number of convictions for murder that had been carried out as an illustration of the endemic social problems associated with the area, rather than suggesting that there were hundreds of live convicted murderers running unfettered around Whitechapel. If indeed the latter, then I suspect that they were talking absolute bobbins.
On a slight aside: One of the earlier arguments against capital punishment was that in the absence of irrefutable smoking gun evidence, the inevitability of the mandatory death penalty and the lack of any other sentencing options available to a judge put many jury members off finding a defendant guilty when they might have found them so had a custodial sentence been available. Unlike some other arguments against the death penalty, this one wasn't based on concern for the innocent getting punished, but for the guilty going unpunished. (This was I believe quite common in poisoning cases - which reached epidemic proportions during the Victorian era - where it was often felt that the science involved was too much of a foreign language for many jury members, who were unwilling to convict on evidence that they simply did not understand.)
One thing reading around the subject has convinced me is that our ancestors were nowhere near as unthinkingly bloodthirsty and vengeful as they are often portrayed, nor were the authorities quite as monolithically ruthless and oppressive; it's worth bearing in mind that we are discussing who Jack the Ripper might have been - not whether the man caught, tried and executed for the murders was the real culprit.
... To be honest, I would have assumed that the the guide was using the number of convictions for murder that had been carried out as an illustration of the endemic social problems associated with the area, rather than suggesting that there were hundreds of live convicted murderers running unfettered around Whitechapel. If indeed the latter, then I suspect that they were talking absolute bobbins. ...
It's entirely possible that I'm misremembering what she said or that she's mistakenly recalling what the guide said. I think the guy had done a fair bit of research, I don't know how much of it original. Your suggestion sounds more likely.
There are certainly some candidates that are better than others -William Bury, David Cohen/Kosminsky, Thomas Cutbush, James Kelly. The only 'famous' candidate I include is Francis Thompson. I don't give Druitt or Maybrick or Sickert any credence at all. But I fear JTR is not known to us - his luck stayed with him, alas and we will never be able to prove who he was. We have no DNA, no reliable witness statements, no evidence at all other than dead women.For Christmas, the Sister-in-Law gave me They All Love Jack by Bruce Robinson.
A weighty tome, with illustrations, examples and index.
Frankly, it is not only his proposal for a candidate but it examines the whole Ripperology industry, in-depth detail of actual conditions of the time and examines each 'popular' suspect.
I found it convincing.
He backs up his assertions with fact, written and published record. He does have some supposition and extrapolation but it's not unreasonable.