Kindle Cloud Readerを使い、ブラウザですぐに読むことができます。
携帯電話のカメラを使用する - 以下のコードをスキャンし、Kindleアプリをダウンロードしてください。
切り裂きジャック最終結論 単行本 – 2001/10/1
But one thing seems certain; Stephen Knight and Joseph Sickert themselves certainly believed it, this was no con-man job.
What Stephen Knight certainly DID achieve was a classic of modern horror tale, ranking with 'Frankenstein'; 'Dracula'; 'Dr Jekyll & Mister Hyde'; 'The Invisible Man'; etc.. The thought of 3 fiends, like those in his book, roaming the streets of gas-lit Victorian London, nonchalantly stalking and murdering their five intended victims one at a time until they got to the ultimate target, and dissecting the corpses in such a ghastly manner- as if such a bloody, defiled, hideously butchered 'Jezebel' had some profound symbolic significance for them..... it unsettles my stomach, and it even angers me. The absolute arrogance they had, the lack of feeling they must have had for these women (and for the people who they knew would end up discovering the mutilated bodies), is disturbing itself. What is equally frightening is the thought of police & high-level participation, even guidance. I mean, would William Gull be the mastermind, or was he only a unhinged weapon in the hands of a conspiracy of power that had absolutely no respect for the lives or feelings of the people they were supposed to protect? I know one thing though, if they actually HAD been so callous, this wouldn't have been the ONLY time they had done something so horrible, it would have taken practice.
I first became aware of this book in 1988, when the late Stephen Knight appeared in an Australian TV special on the book which was then being shown in America on Public TV, and it blew me away. I then read the book. It has since been the inspiration for a television mini-series starring Michael Cain, and a popular graphic novel and film; "FROM HELL" starring Johnny Depp. ( an awful movie. It is sad that this is what is to be expected from modern Hollywood, in the wake of MTV I guess. Embarrassing, especially compared to the really good films that were being made just 30 years earlier. 'Senselessly Gratuitous', those are the words that sum up 'modern' film making.) A couple years after Knights book had first come out, in 1979, it had inspired one of the very best Sherlock Holmes movies; 'Murder By Decree', with James Mason as Watson. ... I always wondered what Stephen Knight thought of that film. But its good for him he did not survive to see 'FROM HELL'! That movie was as bad as all the 'ripperologists' words combined.
After Stephen Knights early death, (in July 1985, at 33) his book, "Jack The Ripper, The Final Solution" became massively popular, which caused England's "ripperologist" community (who Knight had little respect for) to view it as a threat, ( I think they were just jealous of it) and to attempt to discredit him at every opportunity (something they never did while Knight was still living, by the way). They did this by getting his major source, Joseph Sickert, to publicly disclaim Knight ( they did this by provoking Sickert, reminding him how Knight had pointed the finger of guilt at Josephs father, Walter, which was, I think, the only instance where Knight had deviated from Sickerts account) It was extremely petty. They then rewarded Joseph Sickert for helping them in their attempt to discredit Knight by refusing to call him Sickert anymore, and then by telling the world that not only had his Father, Walter lied to him, but that it was doubtful that he was even related to his own Dad at all. (It makes calling his Father a part of the conspiracy seem small by comparison, right?) But that is how petty these 'ripperologists' are it seems, people like Phillip Sugden and Paul Begg, Donald Rumblow, etc etc. They like to tell us how Knights book is riddled with inaccuracies, but then they never offer any corroborating proof that it is in fact wrong on almost anything at all, instead they ridicule it by making things up:..... Gull was not even a Mason they claim; Joseph Sickert is not Walters son; John Netley never existed....these are some of the lies that these 'ripperologists' have been compelled to make-up, due to their resentment of Stephen Knights book. ( If Joseph weren't Walters son, then why did Joseph become so upset when Knight claimed Walter was the 'third man'?? He never forgave him for that either, Joseph felt betrayed by Knight, and seemed to get even more upset about it as time went on.) If Walter Sickert WASN'T Josephs biological father, he sure must have TREATED him like his son, and made Joseph either believe he was, or wish that he was. Most people will agree that this is just as important as BEING his actual biological father. But regardless, it has no bearing on what he told Joseph about the ripper!
I mean, I would not be surprised to hear from these 'ripperologists' next that there has never, in England's entire history, been any anti Catholic feeling from the Royal family or British establishment whatsoever, and how dare Steven Knight ever imply such a thing! Or maybe they will claim that Freemasonry has always prided itself on its absolute transparency, and all this talk about secret rituals and hazings is nothing but rumor and innuendo, because Freemasonry and its members have never had any secrets from anybody in their entire history!
And isn't it kind of ironic that these 'ripperologists', (or whatever they like to call themselves), isn't it ironic that they end up resenting the person and the book that has been responsible for making 'Jack The Ripper' such a controversial, even popular subject since the 1970's? I mean, if it weren't for Stephen Knight and this book of his that has made the 'ripperologists' feel so threatened and jealous, their own books wouldn't be selling even a fraction of the copies that they now do I bet. Not only that, but if it hadn't been for Stephen Knight, some of these so-called 'Ripperologists' wouldn't even have ever become interested in 'Jack The Ripper' in the first place, along with so many of the rest of us who now find the Whitechaple murders so compelling. And the book has had an equal impact on the arts as well, inspiring untold writers, film-makers, the Theater, etc.. We should be thanking Stephen Knight, not trying to discredit and ridicule him, that's my feeling! Because more than anything else, it has been the films, both Television films and theatrical releases - based on this theory set down by Stephen Knight in his engrossing book - that has made the story of 'Jack The Ripper' far more popular now, from the mid 1970s until today, than it had ever been in the 90 years before it. The films that name Sir ( Dr. ) William Withey Gull as the chief ripper.
And by constantly wanting to ridicule Stephen Knight, these 'ripperologists' have told us a lot more truth about themselves than they ever have about either Knight, OR about 'Jack The Ripper'! But again, this is only my opinion about it
The 'ripperologists' are the same people who tell us that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.F.K. The same people who will prove to you that Sirhan Sirhan couldn't have killed Bobby Kennedy, and they will tell you you are a fool if you believe he did. The Ripper crimes will never be solved for one reason: the "Ripperologists"! They claim to be the people who are trying to solve the crime, when in fact they are the very people who will prevent the crimes from ever being solved, because they will attack and ridicule any theory that they themselves didn't come up with. The crime has almost surely already been solved long ago, only the ripperologist has scoffed at the answer, laughed at the 'foolishness' of the person who solved it. And now the ripperologist smugly sits on his throne, feeling safe in the knowledge that he will always appear smarter than the person who is smarter than he ( or she ) is. And in this instance, regarding 'Jack The Ripper', the person who is smarter than they are was Stephen Knight.