http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:12:43 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/22/015246.php#comment-37226 Just finished the book and am now scratching my head. Where was the evidence? Case still open. 37226@blogcritics.org Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:12:43 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/22/015246.php#comment-31864 I have read the book and found it very nonconvincing as to whom she thinks the actual killer is, but I also found her book confussing and hard to follow. By the time I had read to chapter 10 she had meandered of the topic completely with almost every page a different subject entirely. For example the chapter was about Medicine of the Courts yet almost the entire chapter was dedicated to everything else. She began with the Mary Ann Nichols inquest which was a great start but then she proceeded to ramble and jump from one thing to another with no warning and I am going to list the following examples from this very chapter. 1)Mary Ann Nichols inquest (100-102) 2)Ennui painting (102-103) 3)Royal conspiracy (103-105) 4)Death of Mr. Maybrick due to an overdose of arsenic and the wrongful conviction of his wife (105-107) Now this one I would like to make a note of because it was a very good idea to acknowledge that there had been a falsefied diary but this had no reason to be in the chapter involving Medicine of the Courts and even if she believes it does just because Mrs. Maybrick was wrongfully convicted in a court it still gives no reason for her to have put it in the chapter. 5)Waltel and the killing of Mary Ann Nichols (107) 6)Dr. Llewellyn, Mann and Hatifield at the inquest (107-110) This did have something to do with the chapter yet she gave it less then three pages of her time. 7)"Behind" the killing and what the dead say (110-112) It went well with the chapter using forensics and the dead to explain a murder and the murderer but she should not have used modern references instead it would have been more appropriate to have used Jack the Rippers victims as her references since this book is of the 19th century and not the 21st. 8)The origin of the name "ripper" (112-113) Again this should not have been here. Using this and why Sickert may have choosen it was good but not in this chapter. It would have been better suited if the chapter was on the psychological aspects of Sickert and the developement of the name and not Medicine of the Courts. And listing Shakespearean plays as a reference to how he may have come up with it was idiotic for what should have been the subject to this chapter. One more little negative comment about this book other then her rambling and utter chaos is that in chapter 3 pg 15 she wrote and I quote "...a weekly allowance of twelve shillings..." but then in chapter 8 pg 81 and again I quote "His support of five shillings each week..." Both of these were about Mary Ann Nichols and her husband yet the information she gave is conflicting. She tried too hard to convince me of Sickert's guilt yet gave no fool proof evidence of that fact. She even admits in the first chapters that she barely knew of Jack the Ripper or that he killed prostitutes which is amazing for someone who works with forensics and murderers or even someone who has ever studied history. So how convincing can she be with all of these mistakes and utter ignorance surrounding her. Thank you for reading this. Desi Farhat 31864@blogcritics.org Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:20:42 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/22/015246.php#comment-30903 I need a short 10 question interview about jck the ripper, can you help? 30903@blogcritics.org Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:45:58 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/22/015246.php#comment-15680 Thanks for the comment, Joe. I'll probably have another blog on the topic tomorrow! 15680@blogcritics.org Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:15:21 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/22/015246.php#comment-15658 Good critical review. I'm interested in hearing more about it. I enjoyed her non-fiction work although I like the earlier novels better than the more recent ones. 15658@blogcritics.org Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:08:56 EDT