In response to:
Magsmen, Macers, Gonophs, Footpads and Pimps from the December 17, 1970 issue
To the Editors:
In his analysis of Jack the Ripper’s identity, Noel Annan [NYR, December 17] rather glibly dismisses Prince Edward as a candidate for this dubious honor. Mr. Annan eliminates Edward by reason of his “vacuous” and unimaginative character. Premorbid character of a benign nature does not insure against the development of distorted, pathological processes. A syphilitic infection of the central nervous system, even in a member of the royal family, may lead to excited episodes of a homicidal nature. Jack and Eddie may not have been one and the same, but even Dr. Jekyll was a nice guy.
Alfred D. Kornfeld
Psychology Department
Eastern Connecticut State College
Willimatic, Connecticut
Noel Annan replies:
I didn’t “glibly” dismiss Prince Eddie as the Ripper solely on psychological grounds. I hardly thought it worth underlining the other reasons, namely historical evidence and common sense. Are we to leave it as an open question that Queen Victoria wrote In Memoriam?
