What surprises me is how, if (and of course it hasn't been confirmed) this collection has been "professionally curated" by someone with high-level experience in a major museum, some of the howlers that have been pointed out here could have got through.
I'm thinking of the non-photograph of Mary Kelly, for example. Any Ripperologist, if asked, would have advised these people that in only one case is there a known photograph of one of the victims in life. Yet they've ended up ludicrously mis-labelling a photograph of a joke Ripper suspect as Mary Kelly.
Or there's PC Watkins's alleged possessions. Maybe they did belong to him. But surely the same thought went through everyone's mind when they came up for auction - are these the real thing? And again, most Ripperologists would have known that there was a problem with the whistle. How is it that a high-level professional museum curator would be so much more gullible than we are? And how is it that she wouldn't have asked for expert advice, if she couldn't judge for herself?
I'm thinking of the non-photograph of Mary Kelly, for example. Any Ripperologist, if asked, would have advised these people that in only one case is there a known photograph of one of the victims in life. Yet they've ended up ludicrously mis-labelling a photograph of a joke Ripper suspect as Mary Kelly.
Or there's PC Watkins's alleged possessions. Maybe they did belong to him. But surely the same thought went through everyone's mind when they came up for auction - are these the real thing? And again, most Ripperologists would have known that there was a problem with the whistle. How is it that a high-level professional museum curator would be so much more gullible than we are? And how is it that she wouldn't have asked for expert advice, if she couldn't judge for herself?
Comment