| | Something Eric said, jogged my recent memory, concerning the mystery of "Jack the Ripper".
Ever since the late Victorian Era, theories as to who the Ripper really was, have abounded. Many of us have heard the theory that it was Queen Victoria's personal physician, or her nephew (I believe), named Albert.
Not too long ago, the famed comic book writer Alan Moore wrote a comic book series about the Ripper murders which he titled From Hell, which was adapted into a horror movie starring Johnny Depp.
In the series and the movie, Moore "reveals" that the Ripper is not just the Queen's physician, but that the physician is a Freemason. In the movie, the Ripper is revealed to be an errant Freemason which the organization must ultimately deal with, in-house.
My point is, Moore subscribed to Freemason conspiracy theories in crafting his story.
However, a few years ago, the forensic scientist and author Patricia Cornwell wrote a nonfiction book that she titled Portrait of a Killer, based on her own personally-financed, first-time-ever forensic science investigation of the 100-plus year-old remaining Ripper evidence, and concluded, far more objectively than anyone else ever has, that the Ripper was surprisingly not the Queen's personal physician or her nephew? Albert. She concludes that the Ripper was somebody far more likely to have done the crimes, and gotten away with them.
I won't reveal who she concludes was the Ripper; you'll have to get it from someone other than me, or, better yet, read the book. Man, it's great.
What is interesting about all of this, is that in the DVD version of Alan Moore's From Hell, the film commentary -- possibly his own personal commentary -- rejects her conclusions based on actual scientific and forensic analysis, in favor of his strictly hypothetical and fanciful fictional portrayals.
This, to me, reveals a lot about the conspiracist mindset, and its regard for true attempts at real objectivity.
(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 6/09, 1:33am)
|
|
