Reply #14: but lookit Jack the Ripper?

[pretzel4gore]

let's summarise the known facts. In 1888 Whitechapel London a strangely vicious killer does in 5 prostitutes in a few months beginning in the early fall. Then he stops killing after the last, most horrific death of pretty Mary Kelly in her room at Millers court, in November. In 1959 the memoirs of the top cop in the Ripper case revealed that he believed the Ripper to be Montague John Druitt, who committed suicide in December 1888, a month after the Kelly murder. The entire J the R legend has grown up because of various factors, the main being that it was the first serial killer case covered by the press, which was quite garish in its coverage, shades of OJ or jon Benet Ramsey... Druitt was an upper class twit, one of the elite, a 'public' schoolboy. The victims were down and out lost souls, desperate women who remain voiceless to this day. If you google J the R, you'll read for a week and never get anywhere- the ripper was never id'd, and that's that. But also remember that the Whitechapel murders were a great shock to the Victorian era, the poverty and suffering of desperate poor which underlined the good life of the upper class twittery made Jack the Ripper possibly the one case we today can look back at and see the same sort of thing at work as ...well as in the JFK murder, or the Downing Street Minutes, or even 911, in terms of hoodwinking the great unwashed ie US! Why bother with truth when nudgewink chuka chuka heehaw does just as well? (Druitt, after all was dead, the killings stopped) Why convict an aristocratic loser when the poor are already too damn upset because they are suffering terribly, and when the agitator commies are plotting overthrow of the good life and ...etc? Why not just close the books (as was done in 1892) and leave sleeping dogs lie? And let lotsa upper class twits like Patricia Cornwell make loadsadough off the silly case meanwhile!
And that's what they did....