Benutzerrezensionen

Just nonsense Ripperology at large. Uses 'official' documents to examine the case, like the appearance of Jack from the eye witness account of Israel Schwarz. Whereas if they bothered to look into it they would find these documents were heavily influenced or doctored. Israel Schwarz actually gave a totally different description from the one that went to press. Sadly these people don't have open minds, dismissing the Jack letters as hoaxes without delving into them or questioning that or anything. There's a million glaring errors like this but I can't be bothered typing. Read Bruce Robinsons book, They All Love Jack. This programme is old fashioned, basic and under researched.

If you know anything about the Ripper case you know to take some reviews with a grain of salt. Ripperologists can be among the most opinionated people on Earth. While I'm not a Ripperologist I have followed the case since I was teenager. I read 'The Final Solution' which along with the movies, 'Murder By Decree' and 'From Hell', push the Royal family conspiracy theory. While it's an exciting concept, it's been proven to be highly unlikely.

I've watched most of the Ripper docs and this is one of the best. The main premise is to demonstrate what modern investigative techniques can tell us about the case. Some of it is eye candy but the show on the whole is solid detective work, objectively presented.

Two main developments are the addition of potential victims and a naming of the suspect most likely to be the Ripper. The segment about computerized 'HOLMES' police case filing sharing system, was to contrast with the lack of corroboration between the investigations in the Ripper's time.

They feature two of the most reliable eyewitness accounts. The full scale recreations of the murder sites are very interesting. The Geo-profiling segment is particularly compelling.

The conclusions they come to on both the number of victims and the most likely suspect have been reinforced by other recent documentaries and studies. Again, these are very solid conclusions based on dispassionate investigative work.

If you want to keep up with the Ripper case without going down the 'rabbit hole', this is a good documentary to watch. Highly recommended.

JACK THE RIPPER: THE CASE REOPENED (TV doc 2019) 2.7 out of 10 stars These types of documentaries NEVER focus on the psychology of the suspect, but just tries to wow us with the latest gadgets. There's nothing new here, no exciting revelations, it's not even entertaining. They put a bunch of THEIR suppositions into a computer, and then are SURPRISED when it agrees with them. It also uses modern computers to recreate, in graphic detail, the wounds (why?) and then talk about them as being savage, for thirty minutes. Are you kidding me? We ALL know Jack the Ripper was savage! Then, they come up with the same suspect (tacked on like an afterthought in the last 2 mins of the show) everyone else has ALREADY come up with. WHAT IS THE POINT IN THIS PROGRAM?

What no one takes into account is this man (Jack the Ripper) was no raving lunatic (as their "prime suspect" was). He was able to con street wise women, who KNEW there was a vicious killer around, into taking them back to a dark alley, or to their bed set , where he could do God knows what to them. I don't know many street wise prostitutes, who would take a rambling, disgusting man, who was hearing voices telling him to eat out of the gutter, back to their home. THEY WOULD EXPECT SOMEONE LIKE THAT TO BE THE KILLER! We all want to think savage killers can be identified by outrageous or odd behavior. This gives us a false sense of security, that we would never be conned by the monster in the darkness. It was the same then as now, worse then, because they did not have as good a grasp of the criminal mind, as we do now.

This documentary is newer, and should know better. It's the worst kind of whoring (and I'm talking about the filmmakers, and participants now) who make a graphic, disgusting documentary off of the butchered backs of women, who have already been exploited enough.

PS I am not against violence, violent subject matter, or any other such nonsense. I am against wasting people's time, by rehashing old information, adding a bunch of violent imagery, and calling it "new". There are waaaaaaaay better Jack the Ripper docs out there, and I recommend you go watch one of those. Try The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper (1988) it's much better, even though it's from 1988. It has profiler John Douglas, as well as many other professionals, and even though I think they reach the wrong conclusion (because they're not using all murders from the area at the time -only the conical 5), it is still educational & entertaining.

Was looking forward to seeing modern forensics applied to this case. Very disappointed that all the money and experts they apparently had and did not explore anything new. All I learned is that the post mortems apparently are way more detailed than what we have generally seen. No mention of the lack of blood spatter around victims meaning they were probably already dead when mutilated-not then overkill.too many details left out that could have been addressed quickly and cheaply with the resources they had. Obviously this investigation was not designed by someone who routinely conducts them. Pass.

I thought the digital autopsy table and scene recreations were great storytelling devices, although the table could've been used more, and I liked the fact that they humanised some of the victims. The presenter held my attention, and I think the way in which information was presented was sensible. However, the conclusions drawn were unconvincing to me. I could not ignore inconsistencies in eye witness descriptions of the perpetrator like the criminologist did. The show ultimately unconvincingly proposed who could've been Jack the Ripper and then concluded very quickly. I don't really think anything was proven.

First they decide Martha Taborn is the the first victim, I agree. So we can be pretty sure her killer was a soldier so why when the discuss the killers identity, do they totaly ignore this?? Another more plausible documentary questions one of the so called witnesses who was found with the body of one of the victims, who then claimed to have jyst found her, said he'd go get police but didn't, and gave false name and address, however this person wasn't a soldier either as far as i know, But If we believe Martha is first victim, we should believe killer is a soldier. This needs examining more.....