Jack The Ripper Forums  - Ripperology For The 21st Century  

Go Back   Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century > Book Of The Month

Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old October 16th, 2014, 06:39 PM   #1
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 196
Default october 2014

Finally got round to reading my first ripper book in my new home.

Robert A Snows In Pursuit of Jack the Ripper.

Done as a form of cold case appraisal, this is a pretty succinct book. Just over 200 pages. Very little in the name of speculation here. A pretty good read, if a little dry in places.

Serves as an excellent introduction to the case. Found it to be a good read to re-engage with the case after 3 months off myself. Particularly enjoyed his methodological style of reviewing events, crime scenes, injuries, victims. I felt the suspects chapter added very little to the book - almost as if a publisher had insisted on such a chapter. I did however particularly enjoy the discussion he had relating to the injuries inflicted, & their relation to MO & ritual.

In some places, I felt it was screaming out for more detail. In example, the section on the Stride murder, and the very brief mention of Packer & his "evidence", which isn't really queried as deeply as it should be.

One thing that really stood out for me, was the twice repeated claim that the Dr conducting the inquest into Nichols murder was of the opinion that the mutilations were carried out before the neck was cut, contrary to the popular assertion that throat was cut first. Snow does refer to this twice in the book, yet at one stage appears to contradict it by suggesting that in each case the throat was cut first, then mutilation. I am aware Bond in his overview report for Anderson states in his opinion mutilation happened in each case after death, & after the throat cutting.

But the issue of Nichols being mutilated prior to the throat cut really stood out for me. It may be because I've had 3 months+ off, with loads of busy things going on, but I cannot recall seeing this before. I'm sure I'm probably mistaken, but was this originally the view? Is it generally discredited? I certainly found it to be a fascinating anomoly.
Lemonjelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16th, 2014, 07:22 PM   #2
Researcher and Award Winning Author
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Tulsa, Ok. USA
Posts: 5,182

Hi Lemon,

Llewellyn didn't get much right in his first appraisal of Nichols. He thought there was too little bleeding from the neck at first and surmised that her abdomen had been cut first, but the blood was accounted for later. Wynne Baxter even comments on this in his summation. I think Llewellyn changed his mind about this, but even if he didn't, everyone else figured her neck was indeed cut first. And there was a visible puddle of blood under her neck, though most flowed down under her dress.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
Tom_Wescott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17th, 2014, 05:55 AM   #3
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 196

I kinda suspected that Llewellyn had it wrong Tom. Thanks for clearing that up for me!
Lemonjelly is offline   Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10 Beta 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright @ Howard & Nina Brown 2015-2022