| Author |
Message |
    
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 9:15 pm: |       |
Hi Paul,
One point on Tumblety being gay. If the stories ar to be believed then Dr.T had a collection of female organs. To me that would suggest an unaatural obsesion with the female body.
All the best CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 9:29 pm: | |
Hi Noo Noo,
I have read Cornwells book and she did convince me that Walter Sickert wrote Jack letters. On that fact along I can not rule him out. The problem with Sickert is you can not place him in WC at the time of the murders. Another problem with Sickert is he was 28 at the time of the murders since I believe that the ripper would not just stop killing he would of had 30 some years of murder left and he never got caught. I find that hard to believe. I think the ripper had some criminal record.
ALL THE BEST CB |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 342
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 7:07 am: | |
Awww..sounds like someone missed her nap. Two points:
1. There are several things wrong with what she wrote.
2. It is finally time to lay this "I don't see you bad mouthing other authors" BS to rest. If ever there is an author whose theory is being discussed, they often get the same treatment that PC is getting. The difference is that PC was widely famous before she ever wrote a JtR book and therefore, we have a lot more dingys coming on claiming her as the ultimate solution. She gets it more than others by virtue of the fact that a.) she has a wider reader base than those simply interested in JtR and therefore a much more ignorant support group and b.) most other authors don't have her arrogance or sheer gall and don't go on Dateline and say that they know more about the case than people who have studied it for years and call Ripperologists ghouls interested in solving the case to make money while she rakes in piles.
Therefore, darling, PC deserves what she gets.
Hugs and kisses,
Ally
 |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1256
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 9:27 am: | |
Hi all,
I don't want to play police here (no I wasn't watch guard in school...), but I'd hate to see this thread turn into another Cornwell/Sickert controversy.
That being said, CB and Ally are quite correct in their views upon Sickert and Cornwell. I have myself stated similar opinions a number of times, and I don't plan to repeat myself further on the matter (so please, Mark Starr -- don't bother!).
However, I wish I had the guts and the means to express things so right on the money and with great humour as Ally does. I agree with every word of it. And quite entertaining as usual. 
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 856
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
Getting back to subject.....and in no order,
Royal Conspiracy, there are easier, more subtle ways to dispose supposed blackmailers.
Joseph Merrick. Do I really have to explain ?
Joe Barnett. Kelly maybe. But a Series doesnt make sense to me.
Prince Albert Victor. Facts dictate he wasnt Jack.
Walter Sickert. See reasons for PAV.
Monty
PS As someone who has been on the receiving end of being 'Ally-ed' I can say, without the slightest hint of dishonesty, that I wouldnt change her for anything. Sooner hear from someone who cuts to the chase than the b****cks Ive been reading lately. No wonder I avoid the Sickert and diary boards. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 852
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 11:36 am: | |
My five worst would have to be (in no particular order):-
Prince Albert Victor - was in Scotland and not very likely.
Royal Conspiracy - I don't see why they would bother mutilating blackmailers.
Walter Sickert - was in France and so not very likely in went back and forth across the channel THAT often without being noticed.
Dr. T. Neill Cream - was in prison, I don't buy the double theory.
Joseph Merrick - well, just because.
Sarah |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 345
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 2:43 pm: | |
Oh stop, I blush.
My Top 5 for the no-way-no-how-you-silly-sow award:
1. The Royal Conspiracy and all it's variants--just because it is too stupid to be believable.
2. Sickert--ditto
3. Joe Barnett--ditto
4. Maybrick--ditto
5. Lewis Carroll
(Message edited by Ally on March 11, 2004)
|
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 9:14 pm: | |
I sure am glad that Im not the only person that thinks Barnett is bad suspect.
I agree that Maybrick is not a good one either, and why he is the #1 suspect in the polls....surely beats the hell out of me.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1260
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 9:57 pm: | |
Paul,
Those polls are strange indeed.
I think the top ranks therein is a result of that specific suspect's actuality for the time being. Maybrick possibly because of the Diary controversy and the rather new book on the subject. That is probably also why the ridiculous Royal Conspiracy theme still lies so high -- we can thank Hollywood for that (as well as the general public's unexplainable love for conspiracy stories and fairy-tales), among others.
I for my part can't understand why (apart from the Royal Conspiracy) George Chapman and Jill the Ripper is that high up in rank, and to me it's a complete mystery why Jill the Ripper is ranked above George Hutchinson, W.H. Bury and James Kelly. Unbelievable.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 11, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1232
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 11:22 pm: | |
G'day,
Why oh why do some people consider Joseph Barnett not a good suspect, yet fail to state a reason? If you feel that a man could not possible be driven to extremes by jealousy, read about the guy who tied his wife to the bedposts, mutilated her then poured acid over her body so she ceased to be attractive to other males. That is NOT fiction!
The poles here are accessable to the whole public, not just those who have studied the case. They usually favour the suspect in the latest top-selling novel. I just look at it every now and then to see how the general public feel at the time.
LEANNE |
Chris LeQuellec
Sergeant
Username: Chrislq
Post Number: 19
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 2:12 am: | |
It was his wife, i don't think it could do the same thing to other women, just because of jealousy.
chris |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 858
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 4:41 am: | |
Chris,
Yes but Mary was his girlfriend. Very close to being his wife as they lived together for quite a while.
I am not completely 100% for Barnett but I don't see how people can put him in their worst 5 suspect lists at all. There are plenty of bad ones and so Barnett is actually quite a good suspect compared to most of them.
Sarah |
Chris LeQuellec
Sergeant
Username: Chrislq
Post Number: 20
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 4:58 am: | |
Sarah,
I can imagine Barret could be the bloody murderer of Mary BUT i can't imagine a jealous man can mutilate and kill 4 others women only to fear (or feared? sorry for my poor english) his girlfriend-wife.
Chris |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1261
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 5:41 am: | |
I agree.
Crime history is full of examples where a man has murdered and them terribly mutilated his girlfriend or wife beyond recognition, much in the same fashion as with Mary Kelly. Based on just that, that is the reason why I think it may be possible that Barnett could be Mary kelly's murderer (but then I haven't taken other circumstances into account).
But I can't see him as Jack the Ripper; if he was, I'll eat up my old suede shoes -- with no salt!
Leanne wrote:
>The poles here are accessable to the whole public, not just those who have studied the case. They usually favour the suspect in the latest top-selling novel. I just look at it every now and then to see how the general public feel at the time.
Exactly. That was my point as well.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 12, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 859
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 6:38 am: | |
Chris,
That is interesting. Many people have said that they can't imagine Barnett mutilating his girlfriend like that and yet as Glenn says there are examples throughout history of this happening.
Jealously can make people do terrible things, things that we probably couldn't comprehend so for us to say, "Oh, Joe wouldn't have done that because of jealousy" is a bit presumptious. We don't know what he was capable of. I've known some people who seem perfectly sane and normal go insane with jealousy and do some pretty outragous things which I wouldn't have believed of these people unless I had witnessed it.
Sarah |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1233
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 6:52 am: | |
G'day,
I think it's safe to say that Mary was Joe's 'common-law wife'. Why do we need to see another example of a serial killer exactly like Jack the Ripper, anyway?
I strongly believe that who ever killed Mary Jane Kelly, killed the other women too. Is it so hard to believe that a mad-man can kill four other women that he considered trash and worthless to society, (like his mother), in a desperate attempt to persuade his woman from going down the same path?
LEANNE |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 347
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 7:15 am: | |
Yes, it is.
Cheers,
Ally
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 860
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 7:20 am: | |
Leanne,
What do you mean by like his mother? If there any evidence that she was a prostitute? Have I missed something?
At least Joe had a motive. I'd like to hear some of the other suspect's motives.
Sarah
(Message edited by sarah on March 12, 2004) |
Chris LeQuellec
Sergeant
Username: Chrislq
Post Number: 22
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 7:57 am: | |
Sarah,
If i was Barrett and i wanted to persuade my "wife" i would act differently.
I would kill prostitutes close to her and perhaps i would pay someone to afraid her.
But i would never kill "anonymous" prostitutes, ie not close to her.
At this time (1888) i read there was 30 000 prostitutes in London, i'm not sure even after the murders they could choose to stay at home because they feared.
They needed to be in the streets every night because they couldn't do anything else.
Chris |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1262
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 8:09 am: | |
"G'day,"
To answer Leanne's question: yes!
But those of us who wants to put Barnett, or any other suspect, on a "worst suspect" list (although I don't count him among the Top Five myself), should be allowed to do so (in spite of objections from his "biographers) -- that is why this thread was created in the first place.
It is the same with Caz and the Maybrick diary, or Mark Starr and Walter Sickert!
What is it with people obsessed with a certain suspect or working on a book on the subject? Why this instant need to distort and change every thread in their direction, as soon as the suspect's name happens to be mentioned? I don't get it. Like there aren't enough Barnett threads around already...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 12, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Chris LeQuellec
Sergeant
Username: Chrislq
Post Number: 23
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 8:22 am: | |
Glenn,
Do we need to choose between all suspects we can find here or between "serious" suspects?
For example we can find "Lewis Carroll" in the top 22 (http://www.casebook.org/suspects/).
chris |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 4:07 pm: | |
Hi all,
My top 5 worst suspects are:
1.Joe Barnett, There is really no proof against him except the fact he was Kelly's ex.
2.James Maybrick, I think the diary was a fraud and if the diary is a fake then there is no case against Maybrick.
3.George Hutchinson, Other then the fact he gave the police a discription of a man he said was with Kelly the night she was murderd there is no evidence against him.
4.Gull,the man was 71years old and he sufferd a stroke. I dont think he was rideing in a cab hunting prostitutes in WC.
5. The lodger, He is an interesting suspect but did he exist or was the whole story made up?
I have left out the obvious ones such as Lewis Caroll, Jill the ripper and Neill Cream. I have left Sickert of my list because of Glenn's wishes not too turn this into a Cornwell/Sickert thread.
All the best CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 10:25 pm: | |
Hi Mark,
I dont dismiss Walter but you have to place him in WC at the time of the murders. It seems easy to me if he was not in WC at the time of the murders then he can not be Jack.
Take care CB |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 1:01 am: | |
Hi leanne,
I put Joe down as one of my worst 5 suspects. I think that Joe has been proposed as a suspect because some people want to center the ripper murders around Kelly. I see know evidence to suggest that Joe was the ripper other than the fact he was Kelly's boyfriend. Here are a few reasons that I dont consider Joe a great suspect:
1. The murders stop why did joe just stop killing? I know the theory that he stoped killing because once he killed Kelly he no longer had the rage or maybe Abberline shook him up and the police were getting to close so he stoped. If Joe was the obsesive jealouse type he would have been unable to controll himself. I think just like a stalker he would of found another woman to go crazy over after Kelly's death.
2. The motive put forth by some doese not make sense. I dont think he was killing the women because he wanted to scare Kelly off the streets. He could have just killed them he did not have to mutilate them. I think if Joe was the killer He killed the women because he was crazy. This goes back to point no.1 I dont think that a killer that was as out of controll as the ripper just stops. In my opinion I think there is only 3 ways the ripper stops. He dies, He gets locked up for some reason or He leaves WC and his new murders are never connected to the WC murders.
3. I dont think that the ripper had a girlfriend I think he disliked women with a passion and had a real distain for prostitutes. The murders to me were real personal. If Joe was the ripper I dont think he could have kept it from Mary. I think she would have known that there was something wrong with Joe.
4. I think the ripper probably sufferd from some sexual disfunction and I dont feel that he could of had a normal sex life with Kelly. He probably was a thug who liked it violent. Probably to make up for some sexual short feelings. I think the ripper lived alone or with a family member.
I think that points one and two are the important reasons why I dont think Joe was the ripper points three and four are just speculation.
The nature of this thread can lead to arguments and I wish to point out that I have read a lot of your post and I agree with alot of your logic. I would not rule Joe out altogether. He is not one of my favorites but he is not one of the absurd ones like Lewis Caroll
Take care, CB |
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 4:26 am: | |
CB wrote:
>Another problem with Sickert is he was 28 at the time of the murders since I believe that the ripper would not just stop killing he would of had 30 some years of murder left and he never got caught.
And maybe Sickert did kill others after the WC Murders. There were plenty of murders in England and France between 1889 and 1942. If he did kill others, he might have changed his MO. The idea that serial killers never change their MOs is a myth. Sickert may have been deranged, but he was not stupid.
Cornwell tries to pin several other murders on Sickert, with varying degrees of success. I am waiting to hear details of her recent claims that she can link Sickert to the Whitehall murder. She charges him with the Camden Town Murders -- but the jury is still out on that one. She also claims Sickert killed Martha Tabran -- that she was in fact the first Whitechapel Victim.
My own position is that Sickert was undoubtedly a murderer -- as shown by his actions from 1888 through 1942. But I cannot specify exactly who were and who were not his victims. Once can only guess at the identities of all his victims. However, I speculate that if and when a definite link does ever turn up between Sickert and a specific victim, the victim will not be one of the cannonical five. I am sure that every detail that will ever be known about these five deaths is already known and in the public domain. It is the other victims that hold real promise. A definite link between Walter Sickert and any other murder would be absolutely overwhelming, considering what is already known about Sickert, that he was Jack The Ripper in the Whitechapel Murders.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
