Mr. Andre Price responds.

Opinion, TV/Documentaries Add comments

After making enquiries on Andre Price’s website, I was sent the following email from Mr. Price, who kindly accepted my requests to post it here.  I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Price for getting back to me on some of the issues raised on my earlier blog post.

Dear Mike Covell,

Thank you for the query regarding the placement of Kelly’s intestines via email. It would have been nice if you had emailed me about ALL of these different issues before unfairly criticising and maligning me on your blog. I will now address the different criticisms that you raised.

a) The question of the Ripper’s identity.

Unlike many other documentaries, I deliberately chose not to spend most of the program discussing endless theories as to who Jack the Ripper may have been. The Whitechapel Killer was never caught and so a large part of Ripperology when it comes to theories and suspects is simply conjecture. I wanted to focus on the victims instead. Hence why the documentary ended at the Fifth victim’s grave. However it would have been remiss of Karen Fransden not to have at least asked me the question and I responded only briefly by highlighting some of the more comon theories. However, this is a very small part of the actual programme. Needless to say criticism would probably have been levelled at myself and Karen at Eerie Investigations if the question had not been asked at some point during the programme!

b) Murder Locations at odds with the victims.

In the documentary we visit three of the five murder sites, Hanbury Street (Second victim), Mitre Square (Forth victim) and what was formerly Dorset Street (Fifth victim). For logistical reasons as well as time constraints during filming we were unable to visit the site of the First murder at Durward Street (formerly Buck’s Row) or the Third murder at Berner Street (now renamed Henriques Street). For completeness sake I needed to describe these murders in the program, which I did at convenient locations. AT NO POINT during the documentary when speaking of the First and Third murders did I claim that we were standing on the ACTUAL murder sites of Mary Nichols and Elizabeth Stride. Durward Street (the site of the First murder) has changed tremendously since the days of Jack the Ripper and the site of the Third murder is now a Primary School and so unaccessible. Little value would have been gained from filming the brick school wall!

c) ‘Silly’ claim that insides were hanging from picture frames

Let me make it absolutely clear that I did not personally create the claim that the intestines were “hanging from picture frames like Christmas Decorations!”. The claim is mentioned in a number of different places. I simply quoted what’s often been regarded as a fact by many Ripperologists.

It is mentioned in the book “Jack the Ripper 100 Years of Investigation” by Terence Sharkey.  P63 “Draped around the room from every picture rail the bloody entrails hung suspended like some awful yuletide decoration…He retched violently”.

Also in “Jack the Ripper, In Fact and Fiction” by Robin Odell. P85 “The whole room was described as looking like a slaughterhouse, and there were actually pieces of flesh hanging from the picture-nails in the walls.” 

It is also mentioned online: &
“Her entrails were draped over a picture frame.” “Besides his obvious butchery of this woman, he draped her intestines over a picture frame” “Her entrails were hanging over a picture frame.”

You should also be cautious about taking Dr Thomas Bond’s word as gospel. In his report he claims “The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed” If you look closely at the photo taken of Mary Kelly lying on the bed at Miller’s Court it is clear that she is wearing some form of chemise.

d)  Dispute over whether Thomas Bowyer was sick

I have no way of ultimately proving that Thomas Bowyer was sick, although a number of different authors including Terrence Starkey quoted above claims that he was, and confronted with such unexpected brutality on peering through the window, I do not feel it implausible that he did vomit.

e) Over enthusiasm, untruths and conjecture

I am a dedicated, qualified graduate historian, lecturer and guide. I have spent over twenty years researching the Jack the Ripper Murders. Yes I am very enthusiastic about my subject, but as far as I am aware that is not a crime! I especially resent the claim that I let the program “down by filling in the blanks with untruths and conjecture”. Such a statement is in my opinion unfair and unwarranted. Perhaps in future you should consider much more carefully what you write on your blog.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Andre Price.

2 Responses to “Mr. Andre Price responds.”

  1. Phil Carter Says:

    Hello Mike,

    Please be so kind as to pass a copy of this on to Mr. Price for me, should he not read it on this site. Thank you.

    First of all I wish to make it clear that I have not seen the documentary. However, I allow myself the honour of commenting on the previous comments from Mr. Price.

    Recently, there have been 3 such documentaries about the Whitechapel murders. It is extremely easy for anyone not in the decision making process of what stays in and what is left out of a documentary to question things that in their view should have been present. However, I find the comment about Durward Street (formerly Buck’s Row) “having changed tremendously” as the excuse for not showing the murder spot as poor. Unless someone has actually changed the road in the last 9 months when I last saw it, then the murder site is very visble and clearly “still there”.. as opposed to Miller’s Court in Dorset Street! Time constraints are, I accept, one thing, but that the Buck’s Row murder site having changed, well, I would opine, that it was easily, (with Mitre Square), the most unchanged of the murder sites in comparison with the others.

    Having worked for many years in various branches of the presentation media, I do very well appreciate time constraints. However I must say that the “Buck’s Row” site, complete with it’s long, adjacent wall, is very easily recognisable and very easily accessible.
    The one thing that WOULD have been very clear, had the street been visited, is the length and the width of the street. It is longer than one thinks, and perhaps narrower than one thinks too. This may have an important bearing on the scenario around the murder. Especially the time taken between the discovery of the victim and the arrival of a policeman.

    If Mr. Price permits it, I would dearly like to see this documentary for myself to allow me to get a fuller impression. I can only comment upon this one thing that Mr. Price has posted. Would you please be so kind as to pass this on to him, complete with my email addie, as I would like to try to arrange a copy of this programme to be sent to me here in Norway? Many thanks.

    Kind regards

    Phil Carter

  2. admin Says:

    Passed this on Phil.

Leave a Reply

WP Theme & Icons by N.Design Studio
Entries RSS Comments RSS Login