Talk:Jack the Ripper/Archive 5

message: QUOTING the article:
"Six other Whitechapel murders were investigated by the Metropolitan Police at the time, two of which occurred before the 'canonical' five and four after. Some of these have been ascribed, by certain figures involved in the investigation or by later authors, to have been victims of Jack the Ripper."
This is badly worded, IMO.  Murders cannot be "victims". I changed it to:
"Six other Whitechapel murders were investigated by the Metropolitan Police at the time, two of which occurred before the 'canonical' five and four after. Some of these have been attributed, by certain figures involved in the investigation or by later authors, to Jack the Ripper."
The phrase "certain figures" is very vague. Would it be accurate to say: "Some of these have been attributed, by investigators or by later authors, to Jack the Ripper."
Wanderer57 (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward Wording 

message: The paragraph about Frances Coles ends with this sentence:
"After this eleventh and last "Whitechapel Murder" the case was closed."
I find this unconvincing.  First of all, after the eleventh murder occurred, no-one (with the possible exception of the murderer) KNEW that it was the last murder.
Secondly, "the case was closed" suggests the police stopped trying to solve the eleven murders. Surely they continued for some time trying to solve them.  ???
Wanderer57 (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is true in that Frances Coles was the last name entered into the Whitechapel Murder file and that no other murder victim names were entered into the file afterwards. I am not aware of any further police investigations after the collapse of the Sadleir case, though I may be wrong. I get the impression that the police really thought that Sadleir was the Ripper and did not change their minds afterwards, even when he was found not guilty of the murder of Coles. Colin4C (talk) 13:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

text: The Whitechapel murder file was eventually closed with no other known additions that survived to modern times (a great deal of the file was thrown out and pilfered by police for souvenirs over the years, what we have is just an accident of being saved before it was about to be discarded as well), but the case most certainly was not closed. William Grant Grainger, for example, was investigated for stabbing a woman in the stomach many years later and they brought in Joseph Lawende (main witness in the Eddowes murder) to try to identify him as the person he saw with Eddowes outside Mitre Square minutes before her murder. All that can really be said is that no other entires in this file survive, not that the case was closed. DreamGuy (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The case was closed?? 

message: People might be interested in reading the latest deus ex-machina about date linking ... :WP:MOSDATE. Executive summary, full dates will now appear unlinked - be prepared to (a) standardise pages, and (b) defend your local date preference. 
I would suggest, that date links be removed any time you edit a section. There is however, a script that will eventually get here. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dates per [[WP:MOSDATE]] 

message: I have restored correct information about what was the last Jack the Ripper film. Please no not restore factually incorrect information. Colin4C (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Last Jack the Ripper film 

message: When I read the "Modern Perspective" section, I was expecting to read about what modern criminal profiles etc thought of Jack, instead the section simply states that modern forensic techniques etc. did not exist at the time. This is similar to going to an article about a dinosaur and saying "they didn't live in houses, because houses hadn't been invented". Isn't the information in this section somewhat obvious? I say it should either be removed, or rewrittin with actual analysis of Jack. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As per lack of objections, removed. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 23:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Modern Perspective" 

message: A couple of things are getting forgotten here. The big one being - The is no Jack the Ripper. Not in the context of reality we are trying to use. The closest that we can come is saying that "most people believe between 3 and 6 of the murders were committed by one man". That's the best we've got. We can't even say how many murders were committed by this guy, how can we argue for his existence? That being said there are articles on Frankenstein's monster and Count Dracula (separate from Vlad Tepes) so to make a character article about Jack the Ripper is well within our means. I even think making one based on the Vlad Tepes article (or Count Dracula) would be a good starting point. They both address the fictionalization of a real figure, which is, I believe, what we have here - the fictionalization of a real figure. We just don't know who the real figure is. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there was a Jack the Ripper, per the conclusions of a great number of expert reliable sources. We can't name this Otherwise unidentified killer of prostitutes in London's East End between August and November of 1888 and possibly other times as well. The article with the title of Jack the Ripper must be about the real historical figure and not the fictional version. We already have a separate article for fictional refs, and that should not take over the main article. DreamGuy (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'real historical figure' is mostly a construct of Ripperologist mythologising and hype. Some of the Whitechapel murders were presumably committed by a single unknown serial killer, though there seems to have been another serial killer, the so-called Torso Killer, in on the act in Whitechapel and beyond and we still can't rule out the possibility that some of the murders were committed by a gang. If Ripperologists have the great detective skills they credit themselves with why don't they apply themselves to current unsolved serial crimes? I was reading about some city in Mexico where a wave of serial killings of women has gone on unchecked for years without anybody having the slightest clue as to who is doing it or if there is more than one killer or gangs of killers.  If Ripperologists could solve such murders happening here and now rather than in 1888, I would give them credit for being great detectives, but they can't and aren't. They are idle dilettantes who are full of pretence but no real knowledge or insight. Lets stick to the facts please, such as the factual Whitechapel murder victims, who are not products of speculation but real people who really were murdered at specified times and particular locations and the records of whom are preserved in the historical archives.  This may be boring, but this is an encyclopedia - not Fantasy Island. Colin4C (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

text: "The article with the title of Jack the Ripper must be about the real historical figure and not the fictional version." Do you realize that's like saying the article on Count Dracula must be about the historic figure, not the fictional one? Jack the Ripper is only the name because of two letters that are now believed to be sent by some journalist. How can there possibly be a "historic" reference to a person that's never been confirmed to exist? There are people that have studied these cases for years that cannot confirm the existence of a single entity having committed a specific number of killings. With that much being that vague how can you speak of an "Historical figure"? padillaH (review me)(help me) 19:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Break 

message: Just wanted to leave a note to inform anyone who wasn't aware. This article is one of the 30,000+ chosen to be part of the Wikipedia 0.7 release, as one related to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force. In looking over the articles chosen, it was noted that this page has what seems to be a core group of editors who work on it. The Editorial Team for version 0.7 has set an October 20 deadline for any clean-up, polish, etc. If there is an earlier version of the article besides the present one that you would rather they use, please make note of that at the project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7 or at the serial killer task force talk page. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is Wikipedia 0.7? --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 release 

message: Editors here may be interested in commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories, a discussion about whether Jack the Ripper conspiracy theories should be promoted to featured status. DrKiernan (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theories 

message: So, I was looking on the image thumb|right|300px from the article, and it has 7 murder locations marked. Yet, the table at the top of the article says Jack the Rippers victim count is "5+ ?".
Is it just me, or should the victim count start at 7?-CamT|C 11:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, first of all "7" is  (logically) comprehended in "5+?" and, secondly, as a matter of fact, the map marks the murder sites of notional "canonical five" victims of JTR as revealed (without proof) to the (unholy) Church of Ripperology, plus Emma Smith (Osborne Street) and Martha Tabram (George Yard) who were excommunicated from the list of acceptible victims by the Ripperologist fraternity. As nobody (even Ripperologists in their unwisdom) knows how many murders JTR commited "5+?" is (notionally) "the best we can do"...Colin4C (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok (now) it makes sense. :P -CamT|C 12:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder count contradicting? 

message: One of the most common theories is that a resident, James Maybrick was in fact the Ripper. Although not proved, there is convincing evidence in a book called Jack the Ripper by Paul Begg.BlondeDoctor (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybrick 

message: And why has this name been inserted in the place of Mary Ann Nichols?
David (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is that name? :) I think it was removed and Nichols name replaced several minutes before you wrote this...see this diff. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Samson Kobral? 

message: maybe there should be more info on the possibility "jack" was a "jackie"? Borkumer (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article on Jack the Ripper suspects. Maybe the info would be more appropriate there. Adding it here, as the theory doesn't have much in the way of supporting evidence by citable sources, would constitute a problem of providing undue weight. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some commonsense should apply here. Lust killers, as jack the ripper undoubtedly was, are  (at least approximately) universally male.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

text: The theory of Jill the Ripper actually has a fair bit of supporting evidence, or at least puts up a very convincing argument.  Check out Casebook.org's writings on the subject.  Just because the vast majority of lust killers are male, does not mean that it's completely impossible for Jack the Ripper to be female. -- Nachturnal (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  jill the riper? 

message: These have just been released online - replacing access to the physical papers at Colingdale. Unfortunately, many are chargeable to recoup the cost of the project. However, some topics have been covered - including  this one. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I sure hope you copied the session, since the link points to it as having expired. As it is a pay source, it could be included as an external link, so that folk wanting to explore further can do so on their own dime. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies, check the time line at the bottom of the page to retrieve yer'own session. 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Newspapers 1800-1900 

message: We're probably going to have to work Andrew Cook's theory in somehow . Thought I'd better mention it here first. DrKiernan (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The theory probably deserves a brief mention (I specify brief because the idea is considered WP:FRINGE at best), but it's also very important if we do mention it to not credit the wrong person. Andrew Cook did not originate that theory. The book The Killer Who Never Was: A Re-appraisal of the Whitechapel Murders of 1888 by Peter Turnbull (1996)  preceded him by more than a decade and was well known in the field (with mention in multiple other Ripper books). Other writers in the field have already tackled the topic to argue against it before Cook came along. Regular news coverage written buy non-expert journalists working off of press releases wouldn't know that, of course, but the reliable sources in the field more than adequately document it. I'd recommend something simple like "Some authors have argued that the killings were completely unrelated incidents, with later killings being copycats of earlier press reports, and that the news media and police were mistaken to conclude a serial killer was at work [ref Turnbull] [ref Cook]" Not sure if that'd go under victims or media or suspects. Basically every other source on the article and the text of the other parts of the article would serve as an adequate counterpoint (all the cites saying police and criminologists and authors call him a serial killer and link the various victims), but a search for "Ripper copycat evidence" or "Ripper Never Was" etc. on Google/Casebook/Google Books can find specific instances of authors arguing against the concept if a more direct rebuttal is sought. DreamGuy (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you've suggested is ideal. Maybe we could put it in the criminal profile section, immediately after the royal conspiracy bit? DrKiernan (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that works. I think it might also be appropriate in the "Other theories" section of List of Jack the Ripper suspects. DreamGuy (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a serial killer? 

message: Given the lastest batch of naugtyness I susgest a protection for this page.Slatersteven (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal society for the protection of this page 

message: Most sources say the Goulston Street graffito was found on the wall, not the door jamb. This was recently changed in the article to only mention the door jamb. When I tried to fix this it was reverted with the claim that that's all the source supported and that another source would be required to give any other option. I just looked up the book actually cited, and it clearly says "the exact location of the writing has been the subject of some contention", which in itself supports the fact that alternate locations have been given. The writer (I'd say writers, but Keith is mostly just a researcher who doesn't do the writing end of things, so the bulk of the content is Stewart's) concludes that it was on the door jamb, but that's not an established fact but his educated opinion. Considering most other sources say otherwise we should remain neutral on that controversy. And the fact that I personally lean toward believing Stewart is right doesn't mean that I think Wikipedia should pick a side.  DreamGuy (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then use what the source says and put "The location of the Grafiti remains a controversy".Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't think we can factually say a particular location is favored by Ripperologists as a whole. There are conflicting reports from police, not just the position but also the height off the ground and so forth. different books say different things and nobody really knows. It is not for us to interpret what the facts were based upon our reading. DreamGuy (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of the graffito 

message: The final paragraph of the "Canonical five" section claims that each murder was different in some way, but then goes on to explain that the difference with Eddowes, that it was in the City rather than the metropolis, isn't really a difference, since it was only one street away from the metropolis. It then says that the difference for Chapman was that it was getting light, but in fact it was dark. So, the reader is told that the five are all different in some way but then the evidence presented in support of this contention is contradicted. For Nichols, it says that unlike the others she was killed in the open street, but they were all killed in the open except for Kelly.
If the objection to its removal is that the wording "in a secluded but public site" does not apply to Nichols or Kelly, then I suggest we revert back to my version, but with "generally" and "in a secluded but public site" removed. So, the final two paragraphs would become something like:
The "canonical five" murders were perpetrated at night, on or close to a weekend, and either at the end of a month or a week or so after. Except Stride, whose attack may have been interrupted, the mutilations became increasingly severe as the series of murders proceeded. Nichols was not missing any organs; Chapman's uterus was taken; Eddowes had her uterus and a kidney removed and her face mutilated; Kelly's body was eviscerated and her face hacked away, though only her heart was missing from the crime scene. DrKiernan (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your objections to the wording were not entirely accurate... open street is different from alley or backyard with no foot traffic, etc. "The "canonical five" murders were perpetrated at night, on or close to a weekend, and either at the end of a month or a week or so after." is accurate but, really, one you have all that hedge room in there with "close" to a weekend and so forth it's entirely meaningless.  DreamGuy (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final paragraph of "Canonical five" 

message: Couldn't we add a question mark and put 5+? rather than eliminating the figure entirely as I see has just been done. The question mark would indicate the uncertainty there is in between the different estimates of those who have studied the subject. We are not dealing with questions of absolute truth here, but probabilities. Colin4C (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to that. DrKiernan (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Have inserted "5+?" as victim figure. Colin4C (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Victims 

message: A suspected victim of Jack the Ripper, the only claim to fame of the article is the connection to this one. Classic case of a merge. Shadowjams (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly oppose merging of material found only on internet forums. DrKiernan (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested the merge only because I didn't think the original was notable on its own. If you're saying that the original doesn't share a real connection to the main, then would you support a delete? If so, I would invite you to AfD the article, or if enough people express the same idea I might do that. Shadowjams (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see. I've nominated it for a speedy delete. DrKiernan (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Emily Horsnail]] 

message: Is this really correct? I understand the concerns over "late" and "autumn", but the killer was also, presumably, active in November when he killed Kelly, and Smith was attacked (admittedly by someone else) in April. In the second paragraph of the lead, the timespan of the terror is narrowed to "September and October 1888", so is it necessary to repeat the timespan in the first paragraph? Can we just use "1888" on its own in the first sentence? DrKiernan (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you picked up on this DrKiernan, I had the same feeling when I looked at it - also, "third quarter" has a modern business-speak feeling to it which seems a little out of place here. I think we should just say 1888 (linked as well!) as also there is at least some doubt about the canonical/non-canonical Ripper deaths in terms of how they spread beyond the Autumn of that year. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third quarter 

message: An excellent article. I only have one suggestion. It's mentioned that Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, heard voices telling him to kill prostitutes. We only have Sutcliffe's word for this, being part of plea that he was not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury found him guilty of murder so should this not be amended from an apparent fact (he heard voices) to a claim (he later claimed he had heard voices)? 83.244.221.116 (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that it should say, "he later claimed to hear voices".  Would you like to make the change yourself?  If so, have at it! --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison with the Yorkshire Ripper 

message: Really? OK. I think most people know the Ripper Diary is a hoax, but to say that it is outright is violation of WP:NPOV. Like it or not, there are still reliable sources who say otherwise, and unfortunately one of its supporters is Dr. David Canter. Of course there's the publication of the diary itself and the book about the book, The Ripper Diary and a smattering of others. At best we can say it is "widely considered a hoax", which at least even the people who think it is real would have to admit is true. DreamGuy (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You were the one that wrote "hoax": . If you wish to alter the wording then you will need to provide a source and balance it against the others. I suggest discussing any alteration on talk before any changes. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added "hoaxed" as a more accurate term than the term "forged", but both terms violate NPOV. And please don't play this game where you think you are allowed to make changes all you want but that any one else has to get approval first game that seems so popular here. I do not need to provide a source to reword a POV-pushing claim when the hoax wording is the one trying to make a statement of fact for which you do not provide adequate sources proving any such thing. For crying out loud, do you not understand even the basics behind WP:NPOV, WP:OWN and so forth? DreamGuy (talk) 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax diary 

message: This section seems to be suffering bloat, with lots of new thoughts tossed in, many of which repeat earlier thoughts. For example, we already discussed his appearance in fiction, so why then later say again that he's in a lot of fiction? And, wow, the sources here are really missing the boat. Some guy in an essay in a book is claiming that it wasn't until the 1960s that the Ripper was depicted as wearing a top hat? Seriously? That was already happening here and there in 1888, and there are journals and books aplenty documenting it. It's also odd that the guy was comparing him to Dracula and Dr. Frankenstein when the much more pertinent figures of Mr. Hyde and werewolves/vampires were already being compared also in 1888. A theatrical production of Dr. Jekyll and Hyde was even playing in London at the time.
But, really, there has to be rhyme and reason to what's discussed there, and when they are mentioned it should be the best of the best, not just whichever ones get picked at random. DreamGuy (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy section 

message: I came here for some well-sourced, encyclopedic material on Jack the Ripper from one of the so-called "best articles on Wikipedia" and found a morass of blatant POV assertions, all of which appear to be sourced to works by Cook and Mariott. The slant leant to the article from these bafflingly over-represented works edges on the spurious; an example of just one of dozens of such contributions:
The "Dear Boss" letter, dated 25 September, was postmarked 27 September 1888. It was received that day by the Central News Agency, and was forwarded to Scotland Yard on 29 September.[90] Initially it was considered a hoax, but when Eddowes was found three days after the letter's postmark with one ear partially cut off, the letter's promise to "clip the ladys (sic) ears off" gained attention.[91] However, Eddowes' ear appears to have been nicked by the killer incidentally during his attack, and the letter writer's threat to send the ears to the police was never carried out.[92] The name "Jack the Ripper" was first used in this letter by the signatory and gained worldwide notoriety after its publication.[93] Most of the letters that followed copied this letter's tone.[94] Some sources list another letter, dated 17 September 1888, as the first to use the name of Jack the Ripper, but most experts believe this was a modern fake inserted into police records in the 20th century, long after the killings took place.[95]
Look at this! Where is the balance of sources from all the highly-respected scholars who maintain, with good evidence, that the "Dear Boss" letter is genuine? Where are the other sources backing this claim that nicking the ears was accidental, a weighty assertation in and of itself? Why is this weaseling and misleading claim that subsequent letters "copied" its tone allowed to remain? Why are the multitude of scholars who contend the 17 September 1888 letter is legitimate dismissed anonymously with a single hand wave and reference to a single author?
A high-school essay would provide better balance and scholarly merit, and certainly a broader bibliography. --87.254.77.236 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which sources?Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

text: If you know so much about the subject and the available sources why don't you do something about it. Or is it just easier to criticise? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Wow. There is no "multitude of scholars" who contend the 17 September 1888 is legitimate. There's only a couple of cranks and other people who are not respected at all in the field. Some sources consider the Dear Boss letter real, but, again, the claim that "all the highly-respected scholars who maintain, with good evidence" do so is just wishful thinking. If you claim otherwise, please provide sources to back it up. Of course you can't, because it's not true, and anyone who has read a good range of books on the topic would know that. DreamGuy (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is going on here? 

message: I have not actually understood this concept of Jack the ripper, because in the article which i have read it says that it was maybe a hoax given by the journalists. but that would mean Jack the ripper actually never existed. so let us take this concept as a reality. Does that mean the serial killer lives???
:The murders are real. The Dear Boss letter is a hoax. DrKiernan (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He would be at least 132 (he started young).Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a possibility that Jack The Ripper was real? 

message: his name is james kelly
71.231.8.248 (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is stated and sourced in the article that the perpetrator was unknown. Please provide a reliable source for this claim. Intelligentsium 00:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 71.231.8.248, 16 May 2010 

message: Did anyone else watch this, and notice that they said the physician who examined the victims (Thomas Bond) said the killer must have had extensive anatomical knowledge, while this article says exactly the opposite?  Somebody should tell them.  Also, the source this article cites on Bond's opinion should be checked.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darktangent (talk • contribs) 07:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  TLC Special 

message: In the media following films, books etc the huge popularity, especially of overseas visitors to London and guided tours of Whitechapel, has now lead to the creation of the first iPhone App guide to The Ripper locations. 
Scullionendean (talk) 10:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an independent source that says this—that the popularity of the tours lead  to the creation of the app? If not, then reject. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The world's first delicated Jack The Ripper East End Tour Guide for the iPhone was released in June 2010 

message: It seams to me that adding a section, on the inclusion of Jack the ripper in literature, cinema and television would be a valuable addition to this article.  RevDan (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already covered in the Legacy section. The main detail is in Jack the Ripper fiction. DrKiernan (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack the ripper in fiction 

message: Shouldn't there be a section about the conspiracy theories, surrounding Jack the Ripper, I mean obviously too many might create a wrong impression of the serial killer profiling of JTR. However a useful and usable theory might be used as a counterpoint of essentially how a media might hinder murder speculations. Could some historian possibly update the whole newspaper thing?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tofuman900 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in the suspects section, and it has its own article. It would be undue weight to focus on that particular theory when there are a hundred equally deserving ones. DrKiernan (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --Tofuman900 (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  On a Suggestion 

message: I added this only because it's the source work for Lulu, already included. I hope this isn't giving the work WP:UNDUE prominence;  "Jack", although having a key role at the end, isn't a central figure. Other views welcome. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer to see the parenthetical comment removed. I originally mentioned Lulu because it was the only opera to include Jack the Ripper, and "...and one opera." looked a little silly without saying what that opera was. However, I guess there has been at least one rock opera based on JtR, so maybe we can lose Lulu now. DrKiernan (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense: JTR's been in lots of plays, making Pandora less notable than Lulu.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: User:DrKiernan has removed Lulu because it isn't unique but, leaving aside WP:IDONTKNOWIT in reverse, would it be fair to say it's the only "mainstream" opera in which JTR features? If so, there might still be room for it here. Its deletion was an unintended consequence of my edit and as such I'd be happy to have the original version back, before my meddling. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind either way. DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pandora's Box (play)|Pandora's Box]] 

message: I just finished reading the Whitechapel murders article, and maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it mentions there that a SUSPECT for the murders was dubbed "Leather Apron", not Jack the Ripper himself?  I have to admit to not being terribly familiar with Ripper lore, but I've never heard him referred to as "Leather Apron".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachturnal (talk • contribs) 18:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your susgestion to improve the article is?IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

text: see the article, under Media, where this is mentioned. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah!  Thanks!  I admit I only quickly skimmed over the header, got confused, did a page search for more mentions of "Leather Apron"... but I either didn't find it there, or simply didn't read it.  Consider me a dolt.  :\ -- Nachturnal (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Leather Apron"? 

message: Has anyone else noticed that surgeon Thomas Bond said, "In the first four the throats appear to have been cut from left to right,..." and the "From Hell" letter appears to have been written by a left handed person. This would mean, if he were left handed, he would have had to push the knife across the victims' throats instead of pulling it, which is awkward and unnatural. 
71.173.135.197 (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ...or he was a right-hander cutting from behind. His modus operandi includes strangulation/asphyxiation to incapacitate the victim and then he likely killed from behind while they lay on the ground. There was only 18" between the wall and where Stride lay facing it making it unlikely that he was positioned in front of her. Same thing for Chapman where she was on the ground when cut and the fence was only 14" away...no room for him to have been in front of her.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominant Hand Issues 

message: I haven't gone through past discussions in the talk page archives, but I noticed that in the infobox, it claims the birth name to be unknown. However, on a Discovery Channel special, Jack the Ripper In America, a police officer investigates who exactly Jack the Ripper was. At the end, he was confident that he was a man by the name of James Kelley, Mary Kelley's husband. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 17:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And every one else who has come up with his identity claims it as being the 'final solution' as well. In addition he has in nfact been mentioned as a suspect for years.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? That was the first I've heard of it. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 19:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was lame. He made many mistakes on the actual case but like most of the sensationalist shows can sell it to those unfamiliar with the case. At the time I first saw it, I realized NYC doesn't have have much going for it in the detective department.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknown identity