|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 174
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 11:24 am: |       |
Sarah,
Barnett did NOT have a motive -- unless you are willing to buy into the conjecture that he was killing prostitutes to scare Kelly off the game. He is on record as saying he tried to dissuade her from that activity, but that is all. It is not an unusual position to take and it becomes a great leap of blind faith to construe that as a motive for brutally killing several women.
Don. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 428
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 11:45 am: | |
I have tried to keep as open a mind as pssible
over the Victorian writers and artists but wish to delete Motague Druitt from the above post of mine and insert
Charles Dickens
He told lies to his wife about his whereabouts
He wrote about a London Murder with a degree of relish
He seemed over interested to depict the dark and cruel side of life
His description of Bill Sykes bears an uncanny resemblence to himself when young
Natalie |
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 37
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 10:45 pm: | |
Charles Dickens????
Are you serious? OK....anyway, Folks lets please not turn this into a Barnett, Sickert
Thread. Thank you.
Paul |
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 38
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 10:53 pm: | |
Glenn,
Yes.. I agree with what you said about Kosminsky's condition during 1888. We dont know that he wasnt "more normal" during the murders.
Kosminsky just doesnt strike me as very intelligent...I think the ripper was a little more crafty.
I like your choices of Bury and Kelly...I dont know too much about them other than they killed their wives in similar manners as the ripper.
How do you feel about Cutbush? Best Regards
Paul
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1273
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 4:46 am: | |
Hi Paul,
Yes, unfortunately we don't know that much about James Kelly, and Bury is mostly known for the killing and mutilation of his wife. Especially Kelly seems like an elusive guy in this context.
Regarding Kosminski and lunatics, the Ripper murders have always struck me as being performed by someone with some sort of mental illness or delusions, rather than an intelligent, shrewd psychopath like Ted Bundy. If we only had one known victim (as in Bury's case), I could rest with the thought of someone more intelligent than average, doing it for a certain motive. But here we have several frenzied lust murders, showing a systematic drive to mutilate -- like he can't keep himself from doing it.
That is why a paranoid schizofrenic always have been my closest call here. That doesen't mean he can't be intelligent enough to fool the police and sneak away unseen. That was one reason why I mentioned that Hadden Clark case. Let's not forget that the police at the time was completely inexperienced in dealing with these types of killers and that he without doubt was a local man and therefore knew the area's back streets and alleys inside out.
Even if you're a paranoid schizofrenic, you can be crafty and smart enough to avoid getting caught, at least under such conditions as were displayed in 1888.
Well, Cutbush... I must admit, I am not that well read up on him. He could fit the character in may ways, but the police obviouly discounted him in the end after careful evaluation, didn't they? There are some question marks regarding him, I think. Why would he stop mutilating after 1888 and then be satisfied with begin to stabbing women from behind two years later? And his knife obviously wasn't of that type the Ripper used.
However, I don't want to exclude him, since I don't know all details (and I haven't yet read AP Wolf's book). Indeed, I think he is interesting, and as I said, he fits the character and his whereabouts during the murders can't be verified.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 513
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 4:58 am: | |
Regarding Kelly, his suspect page on this site is remarkably bare, but I am currently trying to put together as complete as possible details of his candidacy which I will send on to Stephen when completed to use if he so wishes. I'm hoping to be finished before I go away (only a week and a half now), but my new laptop still hasn't been delivered so it might be touch and go! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1274
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 5:03 am: | |
Interesting, Alan.
Kelly's suspect page could indeed be in need of some additions.
I wonder when Cutbush is getting a suspect page as well?
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 243
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 10:28 am: | |
HI
IF I HAD TO NAME A BEST SUSPECT I WOULD NOT ACTUALLY AGREE WITH MYSELF,
sorry for the caps mistake) I would put bury in the top three because I find this rather convincing, but still have concerns for saying he did it!
the same is true of tumb.
therefore I put person(S)(EQUALLY!!!) at the top,
cheers
Jennifer D. Pegg
|
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 9:08 pm: | |
Hi Jennifer,
I agree with you on W.H.Bury being a good suspect. Glenn got me to thinkin about him and I did a little research. Im not a big Tumblety fan, but thats cool.
I just feel that the Ripper is someone that no
one has ever heard of....some quiet, introvert,
that was just average looking and stood out in no way whatsoever.
Paul
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 3:19 am: | |
Hi Sarah, THANKS for your responce.
Yep I meant no evidence. I tend to agree with Donald about the Barnett motive and I cant think of anything that would suggest Hutchinson was the ripper.
There are suspects that were suspected by the police at the time of the murders. Dr.T For example. He had a motive. He was arrested for an attempted abortion and almost spent the rest of his live in jail. The 17 year old Prostitute I believe helped the police catch him. He did not however get convicted. Chapman had a total disregard for human live and a very low oppinion of women. This was proven when he was hung for murdering his three wifes. Kozminski, he was insane. James Kelly, another man with a history of violence against women.
If you get my point there were alot of suspects that had a history of either deviant behavior such as Tumblety who was arested for everything from manslauter to abortion. Chapman and Kelly who were arested for murder and Kozminski/Cohen who were insane.
There are other things I consider such as timeline. Like I have posted in the past. there is only three ways the murders are going to stop. The ripper dies, He is incarserated or he moves away and his other murders are never connected to WC There are a few suspects that meet this criteria. Tumblety again. He arrived in WC at the right time for the murders to start and he fled around the right time for the murders to stop. Kozminski/Cohen were locked up. Chapman was hung.
I am not saying that any of the suspects that I have brought up were the ripper but at least there is some reason to suspect them. They are were suspected at one time by the police of being the ripper and they all showed deviant behavior plus something happend to them witch would explain why the killings stoped. With Hutchinson and Barnett there is no reason to believe that they were suspectd by the police or that they had a history of deviant behavior against women plus you have to explain why they would have stopped killing.
You are right there is no direct evidence that points to anybody with the exception of Sickert who I believe cornwell proved he wrote letters. I feel that most people who suspect George and Joe are people who want to center the case around Kelly and if it was not for the fact that those men claimed to have known Kelly they never would have been suspects. I have posted more about Joe on the 5 worst suspects.
I dont believe a beach bum from Florida is going to solve the case. It would be nice if I could come up with a suspect that no one has heard of but I dont think that is possible. I will leave that up to the big guns such as Evans,Fido or Begg
Hi Glenn,
Did the lodger exist or was the story made up? I have read that some people think that Tumblety could have been the Lodger and some have suggested Druit. Do you have any thoughts on who the lodger was?
Your Friend, CB |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 431
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 5:32 am: | |
No just joking Paul.But the stuff concocted about Sickert causes me to go off on a tangent of silliness sometimes.It"s just so unlikely. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1276
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 7:07 am: | |
HI CB,
I don't know enough facts about the Lodger yet to be able to elaborate on him. I plan to read Evans' and Gainey's book in the near future, so until then I'll have to keep it on a low basis. As far as I know the verification of the Lodger story is a problem (as with all oral evidence); we have it from several different independent sources, but it is still a story not backed up by any true evidence. But on the other hand, what is in this case?
I have no idea if the story is true or not, or if the sources can be trusted, but let me put it like this:
If it is, then I don't doubt for a minute that the person described could have been Jack the Ripper. Whether he was Tumblety is another question. The lodger was apparently supposed to be an American doctor, and I find it hard to believe why Tumblety should be the only American doctor in London at the time. Furthermore, I don't see any reason for Tumblety to lodge in the East End in the first place, unless he found himself a second hide-away, of course. But I prefer to keep my doubts about Tumblety, although I'd rather see him than Druitt as credible in that role. Druitt wasn't a doctor to begin with.
As you may know, neither Tumblety or Chapman/Klosowski belong to my favourite suspects anyway. Regarding Tumblety, the only death we have recorded as connected with him is a detah due to malpractice -- that is tremendously far away from murder and ripping people to pieces. Furthermore, the story about him keeping uteruses and female body parts in glass jars is totally unverified and comes from a second hand source. My bet is that that story is a hoax.
Regarding Klosowsli/Chapman, he was indeed a murderous character, but -- as I've stated many times before -- performing serial lust murders with extensive mutilations and then turn to poisoning three wives (and having rational motives for it), is not a credible scenario. A murderer can indeed change his modus operandi due to circumstances and a need to elaborate his "style", but here we are talking about crimes that differ too much psychologically and that doesen't fit one and the same person. No serious police officer today would consider Chapman as a serious suspect in this context.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 14, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 10:26 am: | |
Hi Glen,
Thanks for takeing the time to respond. I guess the debate on tumblety rages on but there is one thing that we know for sure. He was a suspect at the time of the ripper murders and in my oppinion the police believed him to be a strong canidate for the ripper.
Evans and Gaineys book is great. I would be interested to know what you think after you read the book. I doubt that you would fall into the same trap I do but every time I read a new ripper book I think that is it they caught him. I stay away from all books supporting Lewis Caroll as the ripper. I dont want to go there.
One point on Chapman, I think that the argument that Chapman could not of been the ripper because poisoning your wifes is not the same thing as gutting women is false. I think you have to look at the situation. Chapman wanted to get out of his marriage. He could nt very well gut his wifes the polic would hang him for sure. The poison that chapman used did kill in a very painful way. I think the argument against Chapman is he was married 3 times and motive for murder was he wanted to be with another woman. I think that the riiper probably had a low regard for women. I dont think he would have been married 3 times. He probably was antisocial.
The reason Chapman was on my list as well as the others is that we know they were in WC athe time of the murders. We know that they were suspected by the detectives working the case and we know thy really existed. For example The lodger,John Anderson,The mad russian Doctor Dr.P,and Jill the ripper may not have existed. Cream and Ostrog were in jail. LaBruckman and Sickert we cant place in WC at the time of the murders. The Maybrick diary probably was a hoax. Lewis Carroll is absurd.
The odds on Tumblety,Chapman or Kozminski/Cohen being the ripper are slim but they meet all the criteria that I need to pick a suspect.
Take Care,CB |
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 7:55 pm: | |
Hey everyone,
CB...you make several good points. I just cant get over one fact about Tumblety. He was too tall. I think he was like 5'10 5'11...
He would have stuck out like a sore thumb since most men were 5'6 5'7. None of the witnesses that are "credible" mention a tall suspect and I have no doubt that the man described by Schwartz and Lawende are the same. The description is just too similiar. Beest regards
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1277
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 9:40 pm: | |
Hi, CB.
Well, I agree with most of what you say, really, and you make some good points.
"I doubt that you would fall into the same trap I do but every time I read a new ripper book I think that is it they caught him."
Don't be so sure... 
No seriously, I try to be critical, but it is up to the author's ability to persuade me and to produce credible assumptions or evidence. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.
Tumblety is an interesting character in his own right, and -- as I said -- I am not prepared to go into a large debate about him until I have read Evan's and Gainey's book (I am a bit short of money at the moment, but hopefully I can order some book soon). What speaks against Tumblety, as far as I see it at this moment, is that we (as Paul points out) don't have one single witness description that fits Tumblety. Now, I am not someone who regards witness descriptions that highly (during my own investigations in connection with my own cases, they have hardly been of any use), but we should at least have one person that pointed out a person similar to Tumblety's description. Furthermore, many of the facts regarding Tumblety are not really facts, but (as with many of the other suspects) assumptions that are unproven. It is true he was interesting in the eyes of the police, but so were a lot of characters, so that proves nothing. However, as far as Tumblety is concerned, I still prefer to keep an open mind; I need to read up on him a bit more before I can have a stronger opinion about him.
Regarding Chapman, I don't think the situation is important here. The point is that poisoning and mutilating are two completely different crimes psychologically. And I didn't get that from criminal profiling (in case anyone should ask...). Mutilation is a very dirty and violent form of crime, where you come in close contact with blood and the victim, while poisoning is a cowardly method, where you can watch from afar while your victim slowly dies in pains. A poisoner is someone with a very cold heart, but as a character he don't have anything to do with the needs and the driving forces a mutilator has.
All signs strongly points to the fact that the Ripper murders and Chapman's killings on his wives were performed by two completely different individuals. The Ripper was a lust murderer, Chapman was not. I am not certain of much as far as the murders in Whitechapel is concerned, but on this point I have to remain firm in my beliefs. It just doesen't add up. He was indeed antisocial, but he was not Jack the Ripper. Abberline apparently thought, that if you were wicked enough to poison your wives, then you just as well could be the Ripper. I am not a bit surprised over the fact that he received some criticism because of this notion, but it just shows how inexperienced the police were at the time regarding serial lust murderers of the Ripper's kind.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 14, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 9:56 pm: | |
Hey Glenn,
I agree about Chapman and the two completely
different MOs. If the Ripper was gonna kill his wife, but torture her first...I think he would have tied her up, and played some sort of "my knife is so sharp" game... and played with her
a bit...then disembowelled her....while she was
watching, of course. Then slowly killed her.
I promise, Im not a sicko.
I think chapman was not a "hands on" killer, as the ripper was. Jack wouldnt have poisoned anyone, because the "hands on" was what made the kill so fun for him. Best regards.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1278
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 11:42 pm: | |
Hi Paul,
I completely agree. In my personal view, the Ripper was someone who had an urgent driving force to attack and mutilate, possibly for no other motive than the satisfaction or need itself, and maybe hatred as well. He didn't care about getting his hands dirty, and he wanted to come in close physichal contact with his victims.
Chapman/Klosowski was a cool, calculating crook who got rid of his wives for certain rational reasons. And he was coward enough to use poison, probably because that was what he felt most comfortable with, and also as an attempt to hide his crimes. (Note also that poison usually throughout history has been favoured by female murderers.) The Ripper either wanted the bodies to be discovered, or he just simply didn't have any concerns about someone stumbling over them.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 14, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 573
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 8:42 am: | |
Hi Glenn and All
I agree that the type of serial murderer who would use a knife to attack and mutilate is a different type altogether from the killers who use poison. Chapman can't even be called a serial sexual or 'lust' murderer. Killers like Jack don't mind getting their hands dirty and a good deal of their satisfaction appears to come from the actual ripping and mutilating.
Poisoners are a different breed altogether. They often kill for profit or for a logical reason such as removing a party who is an impediment to their future plans. The M.O.'s are just too diverse and they speak of a very different psychological profile.
As for Tumblety, it is generally agreed that sexual serial killers kill the objects of their sexual fantasies. Aside from this, there is no evidence that Tunblety was a lust murderer. The other problem with Tumblety involves his appearance. No witness, and I am confident that Lawende saw JTR moments before a murder, describes a man of Tumblety's height. Press reports put his height anywhere form 5'11" to 6'4". I believe he was good 6' tall. Further, Tunblety was too conspicuous a character to wander the back alleys of London at the height of the ripper scare to have gone unnoticed.
As for Kosminski, there is no evidence he was ever a danger to anyone but himself. The only untoward thing he ever did in the asylum was to threaten to hit a custodian with a chair. This
may strike some as an odd aside, but I have had trouble finding examples of Jewish sexual serial murderers. David Berkowitz, was a serial killer, but he killed at a distance from his victims and used an impersonal method of executing his victims in the form of a gun.
As far as Jack the overt lunatic is concerned, I believe he may have been a monomaniac of some sort and that he may have suffered from delusions. But, the important point is that he was able to mask his inner demons when he approached a potential victim and travelled the streets of East London. He was therefore not likely to have shown his disordered mindset in his everyday behavior.
I have rambled on long enough.
All The Best
Gary |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 574
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 8:44 am: | |
Hi Glenn and All
I agree that the type of serial murderer who would use a knife to attack and mutilate is a different type altogether from the killers who use poison. Chapman can't even be called a serial sexual or 'lust' murderer. Killers like Jack don't mind getting their hands dirty and a good deal of their satisfaction appears to come from the actual ripping and mutilating.
Poisoners are a different breed altogether. They often kill for profit or for a logical reason such as removing a party who is an impediment to their future plans. The M.O.'s are just too diverse and they speak of a very different psychological profile.
As for Tumblety, it is generally agreed that sexual serial killers kill the objects of their sexual fantasies. Aside from this, there is no evidence that Tunblety was a lust murderer. The other problem with Tumblety involves his appearance. No witness, and I am confident that Lawende saw JTR moments before a murder, describes a man of Tumblety's height. Press reports put his height anywhere form 5'11" to 6'4". I believe he was good 6' tall. Further, Tunblety was too conspicuous a character to wander the back alleys of London at the height of the ripper scare to have gone unnoticed.
As for Kosminski, there is no evidence he was ever a danger to anyone but himself. The only untoward thing he ever did in the asylum was to threaten to hit a custodian with a chair. This may strike some as an odd aside, but I have had trouble finding examples of Jewish sexual serial murderers. David Berkowitz, was a serial killer, but he killed at a distance from his victims and used an impersonal method of executing his victims in the form of a gun.
As far as Jack the overt lunatic is concerned, I believe he may have been a monomaniac of some sort and that he may have suffered from delusions. But, the important point is that he was able to mask his inner demons when he approached a potential victim and travelled the streets of East London. He was therefore not likely to have shown his disordered mindset in his everyday behavior.
I have rambled on long enough.
All The Best
Gary |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 575
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 8:47 am: | |
Sorry, Double Post-my apologies for the wasted space |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1282
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 9:37 am: | |
Hi Gary.
All good points, there, and I can't argue against any of it.
It was not rambling at all, as far as I am concerned.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 445
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 12:46 pm: | |
Gary,
The Kosminski of 1890 may have born no resemblance to the Kosminski of 1880 or 1888.By 1888 he could have reached his most dangerous stage having "graduated "there with intermitent attacks of maniacal paranoia.By 1890 he could have become the burnt out shell of a man we hear about.
He seems to have been a paranoid schizophrenic
and this is the most commonly found illness for people who make frenzied knife attacks for reasons known only to themselves.Often a "grand designer" has "ordered" them to do it.You read about these murders in the press quite often-there was one in the Daily Mail on Saturday last.If his family did in fact "shield"him from justice as Anderson said then by the time he reached Colney Hatch the violent stuff could have ceased---it really sounds like it if he had begun eating out of gutters! |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 580
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 2:29 pm: | |
Hi Natalie
I am not so sure that the vast majority of knife wielding sex killers are paranoid schizophrenics'. Some certainly are, but others might best be classed as borderline personalities. They display some of the traits we associate with schizophrenia and yet still find a way to get along in life without degenerating to the point of a full blown schizophrenic. Ted Bundy might be a good example. Still other of these killers seem to be delusional psychopaths' or monomaniacs or both.
I believe JTR falls into the last category and I would put The Yorkshire Ripper into this category as well.
I don't discount the fact that that Kosminski could have been a schizophrenic who degenerated totally by 1890. However, most of these killers have a background of violence and dangerous behavior which are all too often ignored until a string of bodies begin to pile up. This propensity for violence dosen't seem to go away on its own and it is a problem for me to view Kosminski, in an era long before anti-psychotic drugs were around, to have showed no real violent tendencies after he was 'caged in an asylum' to use the words of the lamentably incompetent Sir Robert Anderson.
All The Best
Gary |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 449
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Very helpful Gary thanks.
Are you sure that a person whose illness reached "burn out" would have continued to be violent?Is there anyway of checking this out for the period when anti psychotic drugs hadnt been developed?
With regards to you pointing to those other factors that produce serial killers I can only take your word for it.Myself I still cant see JtR as a full blown sexual serial killer.
He seems a bit coy about it almost.I can understand why they were baffled.He seems to be fascinated by cutting up and pasting kind of stuff.
Like he is saying now I am going to fish out this ones womb[and nick it]and this ones kidney[and nick that-maybe even taste it as well and now I"ve got this one I"ll pocket the heart.
Its not surprising either that various of the doctors thought he might indeed have had surgical skill to have cut up and located all this stuff from the innards in such break neck time in the dark.
Anyway Gary many thanks for all that information.
Natalie |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 7:34 pm: | |
Hi aLL, thanks for responding to my post.
regarding Tumblety, Glen I respect your oppinion not to debate Tumblety untill you have read more on the subject and Paul his height has always been a problem with me too. Like Gary I have heard him described as 6'4 and broad shoulderd. On the other Hand I have heard him described as 5'11 and dumpy. So what Description do you believe? There is many different factors that go into decideing how tall someone is.
1. How far away you are from the person.
2. Who the person is standing next to.
3. How the person holds himself. He could be slumped over when talking.
4. lighting is important. street lights could have shadowing evect or it may be to dark to see plus fog.
5. The witnesses sight. there is not much difference between 5'7,5'8 and 5'11,6'.
The different descriptions of the ripper and the different descriptions of Tumblety lead me to believe you canot rule Dr.T out because of his height. I might be wrong on this a please point it out if I am. because I am stii learning but was there not a report of a tall irish man looking for lusk address? That may be the one person who points out a person similar to Dr.T height that you are looking for Glenn. The person standing across the street from Stride I believe was described as tall.
I dont think that debating Tumblety or anyother suspect was the point of this thread. I would like to share my criteria for choosing a suspect.
1.He must have been in London at the time of the murders.
2.He must have existed. In order for a suspect to be on my top 3 list they have to have a name.
3.They must have a criminal record befor or after the ripper murders I see the ripper as a social deviant that would not go unnoticed by the police
4.Something must have happene to him in order for the murders to stop. I believe he either died or he was locked up or he left London.
5.The police at one point suspected him of being the ripper. This point is not as important as the others but it helps.
Glenn,Paul,Gary,Natalie, My thinking may be flawed and I would like to here how you go about picking a likely suspect. Perhapes I can learn a different way of examining suspects from you.
Your Friend CB
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
