|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1263
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 8:36 am: |       |
Well,Chris, my new list below may answer your question, although people don't have to follow my approach at all. I am still thinking about that myself. However, where shall we draw the line between serious and not serious "bad" suspects?
So therefore (for the time being) I have done like this:
In my first worst suspect list, I discounted the more obvious ridiculous ones, but since people here -- with good reasons, I think -- anyway have included those in their lists, I have to revise mine a bit and therefore expand it to a Top Ten.
And still it is number one on the top that is the worst one, and then it's a gliding scale (although I don't want people to misinterpret number ten as "credible" either, of course).
Note that for those who still wants to stick to a Top Five and want to exclude people like Lewis Carroll and Jill the Ripper, is all up to their own choice. I am just doing what suits me best at the moment.
1. Lewis Carroll
2. Jill the Ripper
3. The Royal Conspiracy/Dr Gull
4. Prince Albert Victor
5. Michael Ostrog
6. Walter Sickert
7. Severin Klosowski/George Chapman
8. Joseph Barnett
9. R. D'Onston Stephenson
10. James Maybrick
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 12, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 852
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 9:07 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Why bring me into this?
I haven't tried to 'distort' this thread in any direction, let alone try and dissuade anyone from including Maybrick on their worst suspect lists.
I did put a short post on the best suspects thread (as one would expect anyone with a particular 'obsession' to do), but it was only to draw people's attention to a new fact to emerge about the 'Maybrick' watch, which may cast doubt on other people's obsessive beliefs that the diary is the result of a modern hoax conspiracy. You dislike daft conspiracy theories as much as me, so you should understand why I might be obsessed about arguing against this one.
I fully acknowledge that if the diary and watch are both recent hoaxes, then Maybrick is the victim of a modern set-up. If and when proof arrives about this modern conspiracy theory, Maybrick would not deserve to be on anyone's list, best or worst. He won't therefore figure on any list of mine unless or until this new watch 'fact' is sorted out, and allows me to reconsider his status as a possible suspect.
Have a good weekend all. As you were.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 864
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 9:12 am: | |
Chris,
How can we possibly know what Barnett would have done based on how we would act if in the same situation?
People all respond to things in different ways that is what makes human's fascinating creatures. Sometimes we act on instinct but most of the time we act because he have made our own choices and sometimes other people can't understand why some people do what they do.
One example for me personally is the time when a friend found out that her boyfriend was really a drug dealer. Now if that was me I'd have dumped him in a heartbeat unless he stopped but she decided to stay with him even though he didn't stop. Now, I can't for the life of me understand why she did that. Her argument would be love but I would say that he's not the man she fell in love with as he pretended he was something else.
Sorry to sidetrack here but just wanted to show that we can't possibly know what Barnett would have done because everyone is different.
Sarah |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 867
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 10:15 am: | |
Mark,
I know this isn't a Sickert thread and I'm not trying to make it one but I need to know the answer to one question. What do you mean by:-
My own position is that Sickert was undoubtedly a murderer -- as shown by his actions from 1888 through 1942
I don't understand. What actions do you mean?
Oh and I don't think you should be saying things like:-
considering what is already known about Sickert, that he was Jack The Ripper in the Whitechapel Murders.
There is still no hard evidence for this at all so if you must say things like that I think you should say "in my opinion". It is not a definite fact in reality.
Sarah |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 173
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 10:16 am: | |
Mark,
Whatever good arguments you may make in support of Sickert as the Ripper are always vitiated by hyperbole and your latest post is a case in point. You say that "[a] definite link between Walter Sickert and any other murder would be absolutely overwhelming . . . that he was Jack the Ripper in the Whitechapel murders."
Why? There are already suspects on the short list who were demonstrably murderers (even some who didn't need to commute from France to commit the Ripper murders) and yet there are good arguments against them actually being Jack.
Make your case against Sickert as best you can, but do eschew the hyperbole.
Don. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 426
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
Toulouse Lautrec-even though he was utterly and totally obsessed with prostitutes and thought they didnt like him because he had a disability
and he painted practically nobody else but prostitutes I still personally think he was the ripper.
Paul Gauguin;even though some say he was responsible for corrupting Van gogh and causing him to cut his ear off
for deserting his wife and family
for taking venereal disease to Tahiti
I still dont think he was the ripper
VanGogh;basically because even though he did cut off his ear a month after the murder in Millers Ct
He was far to much in love with Rachel who received the packet with the ear in it to have been to and froing between France and England
N.B.Rachel worked in a French brothel and VanGoch was a client
Degas;Even though there was something fishy about him watching all the young dancers changing back stage all the time and then asking some of them to remove their clothes.
Dante Gabriel Rossetti;Even though his wife died in suspicious circumstances and he spent most of his time with prostitutes[as did several other of his artist friends]I dont believe he was the ripper
Prince Albert,He was apparently otherwise engaged
Natalie
PS definitely not Sickert----he wouldnt have had the bottle anyway |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1265
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 10:51 am: | |
Yes, Mark Starr, please do! But do it on another thread -- not here.
Ah, what the heck, seems like I'm talking to deaf ears anyway...
More lists, please.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1268
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 11:08 am: | |
Thank you, Natalie.
A nice twist to the list (oh my, that rhymed...).
As an art historian, I can only agree with you on all counts.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 336
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 1:21 pm: | |
The idea here, I reckon, is to go after the 'weak of the flock', but I prefer to concentrate on the worst of the best. My least favorite suspects are:
1.The F.B.I. profile. To me, it is nothing more than a smug, vague, statistical, and self-defeating placebo for an actual criminal investigation. It should be shunned like the heretic that it is. The only rule is that there are no rules: cf. the crimes of Marcel Petiot or Henri Landru.
2. Anderson's suspect. Historically, he's probably the most important suspect ever suggested (see especially, Paul Begg's excellent chapter on Kosminski in Uncensored Facts). But I list him among the 'worst' because I think the claims against him were reckless and unethical. You don't claim that a murderer is part of a certain ethnicity, that that he was protected by "his people" and then refuse to lay your balls on the table and produce the evidence against him. I strongly believe Anderson overstated his case.
3. The two soldiers who allegedly attacked Tabram. The case against them is weak, and Inspector Reed, who knew more about this particular investigation than anyone else, felt it was a Ripper crime. I agree. |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 937
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 1:52 pm: | |
I don’t know why everyone keeps blaming the Poles for all this, they are decent god-fearing Catholic folk who deserve better.
My choices are:
Joe Barnett - because he sold old cod.
Maybrick - because he was a scouser and drugs weren’t involved.
Duke of Clarence - because he enjoyed shooting his grouse rather than chasing them around Whitechapel and slitting their throats.
Sickert - because he was too busy murdering art.
Gull - because the incisions made were beyond his technical skills.
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 307
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 10:54 pm: | |
Well, let's see, if the sky's the limit on bad Ripper suspects:
1) President Grover Cleveland - because he almost was not elected in 1884 because it was suspected he fathered an illegitimate son by a prostitute in Buffalo, New York named Maria Halpern (who was mysteriously cut to bits). Besides, in 1888 he was rather angry at the British government when it's ambassador to the U.S. (Sir Lionel Sackwell-West) wrote a pro-Cleveland letter that was used to turn off Irish-American voters to Cleveland's re-election (he lost in the electoral college totals to Benjamin Harrison that year, but was elected again in 1892).
2) Inspector Thomas Byrnes - too busy developing the Rogue's Gallery for police departments, and pocketing graft from wealthy New Yorkers whom he gave extra protection to.
3) Lizzie Borden - stuck in Fall River, Massachusetts by the parsimony of her father, banker Andrew Jackson Borden. She did not get her chance to travel abroad until after her acquittal of murder charges in 1893.
4) General Georges Boulanger - he did have a mistress (but he deeply loved the woman - in fact he eventually killed himself at her grave in 1891). Too busy for trips from France to England, as he was busy throughout 1888 in building up his political party in order to take over the Third Republic - a coup he muffed the following year.
5) Adolf Hitler - born in April 1889 - unfortunately a perfect alibi.
6) Peter Ilyich Tschaikowski - a perfect candidate from Russia, except he was a composer and not an agent of the Okhrana. His controvertial death in 1893 is almost as interesting as that of Druitt: did the composer of the Pathetique Symphony and The Nutcracker die of typhoid gotten when he drank unboiled water, or did he commit suicide rather than be disgraced
(a la Oscar Wilde) by a homosexual scandal?
W.S.Gilbert - had a background in the law (was a barrister); occasionally showed a violent streak in his poetry and plays ("The Yarn of the Nancy Bell" for THE BAB BALLADS, or the Mikado's song, "My Object all Sublime"). In 1888 he writes his only straight dramatic operetta, THE YEOMAN OF THE GUARD, and it ends with the death of the main character. But it was a success, not a failure. Had no reason to kill prostitutes - more likely wanted to kill his partners Sullivan and D'Oyly Carte.
Thomas Alva Edison - did not go to Europe until following year for Paris Exposition of 1889. But he spent 72 straight hours working on perfecting the wax cylinder version of his phonograph in 1888 (there is a famous photo of him with bloodshot eyes after completing the work). Sleep deprivation might have caused homicidal mania - but he still would have had to cross the Atlantic first.
Sarah Bernhardt - the great actress might have felt that the prostitute Mary Kelly was showing pretensions of a career in France on the stage by her use of the name Marie Jeannette Kelly. She may have felt obliged to sandbag such a career, and sandblast her face at the same time.
Give me awhile. I can think of some other bad choices.
Jeff |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 11:01 pm: | |
Oops, sorry one mistake (only one?) = I meant to say that Maria Halpern was mysteriously not cut to bits. Excuse that.
How about adding Mohandas Gandhi to the growing list - he was studying law in London at the time, and it explains his subsequent career. After showing the secret violent rage inside him, fully vented on Dorset Street, he read the letter by George Bernard Shaw extolling him as a genius who was creating an atmosphere for social reform. It changes him, and he decides to concentrate his energies henceforth on politics. Also, what a great disguise against future profilers by using his philosophy of passive aggression as a mask of the real Gandhi!
Jeff |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 20
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 12:08 am: | |
Glenn, I think my list is nearly identical to yours, so I won't bother posting it! 
P.S. See, Paul, there are lots of us who aren't afraid to dismiss Barnett as a suspect!
(Message edited by Rapunzel676 on March 22, 2004) |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 200
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 6:06 pm: | |
This thread is pretty entertaining mostly because Glenn has asked us all to bear our emotional as well as forensic judgements.
I love the way trigger words bring out the anger
and accusations; followed strangely - and - swiftly - by a rash of postings by "unregistered guests"..
But back to the subject.
I have always found as supremely laughable the idea that Prince Albert Victor, or Sir William Gull, or even Walter Sickert could make their way ANONYMOUSLY about the Whitechapel area without large groups of oglers following them.
Let's face it about half way through Jack's "campaign", you could not move in Whitechapel without stumbling over a bearded cross-dressing police detective. And women were employed as detectives possibly for the first time.
The idea of a prominent member of the Royal family murdering and mutilating prostitutes in the East End stews in 1888 is as ludicrous as
Tom Cruise or Nicole Kidman sneeking about covered in blood and doing the same today.
Lewis Carroll, I would nominate as the most likely author of several of the JTR theory books I have read. Particularly lately.
I look forward to the discovery of JTR's bloodstained football boots in an obscure shed in
Chipping Ongar, in the not too distant future. Probably after we have run out of books on the current "Top Five".
Rather than list my top five WORST JTR suspects, I would refer readers to Donald Rumbelow's "The
Complete 'Jack The Ripper' ". Where can be found
many, many loopy candidates.
In My Humble Opinion. |
M.Mc.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 8:10 pm: | |
The bottom of the list is, "Lewis Carroll" if he was Jack the Ripper then I'm the bloody Queen of England. No make that queen of the world, as a female I want everything. LOL! |
Busy Beaver
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 4:12 pm: | |
Everyone on the suspect list except for George Hutchison (British). (At this point in time of course!)
Busy Beaver |
Jerry Maynard
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 10:55 pm: | |
I read on one of these posts that a bad suspect was Van Gogh. I was wondering if anyone did seriously suggest him as a suspect or was that a joke? Im dont belive Van Gogh could be JTR just curious if he was suspected. My bad suspect list
are
1. Dr. Pedachenko (Russian conspiracy is even way more far fetched than the royal family ones)
2. Thomas Neil Cream (He confessed simply to gain fame after his execution)
3. Jill the Ripper
4. Prince Albert Victor
5. Lewis Carroll ( but I am postive he was a child molester)) |
A. Bunker
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 3:16 am: | |
Fantastic thread so I have to join in. On Cromwell, my question is did she really believe her "theory" or did she know it was complete tripe but wanted tp get rich? Same thing with Stephen Knight's book. I have to imagine that both Cromwell and Knight knew that their suspects were innocent but chose to carry on with the facade for fame/attention/money/ego gratification, etc.
This might be the wrong thread but Cromwell's book contains no significant research of any kind. At best she demonstrates that Sickert 1) was interested in crime and dark themes, 2) was fascinated with the Ripper (much like us), and 3) may have written some of the Ripper letters. Nothing more. Cromwell ignores all facts that point away from Sickert. Hey Patricia, the letters were hoaxes.
My top 5 rejects:
1) Royals and Masons
Complete tripe, every single theory
2) Druitt
No evidence whatsoever. Besides, had he been a serial killer he would have murdered a higher class of prostitutes
3) Maybrick
Diary was a hoax
4) Chapman
Different victimology, different MO, different signature
5) Kosminsky
Was probably retarded. A Ripper who was so dysfunctional in society that he ended up in an institution would have been caught.
Other poor candidates include Sickert (see above), Cream (does anyone believe that double BS?), Tumblety (was in custody when Kelly was murdered, too tall, too old, too homosexual), and Ostrog (a simple thief). There are others.
I truly don't think there's credible evidence against any one man. Could it be possible that the police never identified this guy? Maybe he was never suspected. Maybe he stopped killing because it was getting too hot. Maybe he reached his apex with Kelly and felt it could never be better. Maybe he got sick, hit by a carriage, moved out of London, or simply repressed his urge to kill. The fact is, our chances of ever knowing are slim to none.
Hope I haven't offended anyone. Love the Ripperologists of the world. |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 249
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
A. Bunker,
Not to sound too nit-picky, but its Cornwell not Cromwell. Just a friendly constructive criticism. The rest of your post is dead on. Best Regards
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1836
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 1:01 pm: | |
Hello Bunker,
Ah, my old thread has come alive again.
I agree with Paul; your post is really dead on in many aspects. There are probably others to consider as well, but those you have pointed out falls very much in line with my own, and for the very same reasons.
As far as Kosminski is concerned, we must remember that the murders occurred in 1888, and we have no account whatsoever describing his emotional and psychological state at the time; he wasn't found and incarcerated until a couple of years later.
Apart from that, a valid and enjoyable post.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 36
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 2:46 pm: | |
Re: Kosminski
Retarded? Where are you getting that? Mental illness is more multi-dimensional than many people realize. Not every schizophrenic talks to himself and foams at the mouth. Some appear quite normal and manage to function well in society. The thing to remember about paranoid schizophrenics (and from what I've read, Kosminski more or less fits into this category) is that their IQs are typically above average and they become quite adept over the years at hiding their delusional system from others. Why? Because they're paranoid. They already think the world is out to get them. Why share their "insights" with anyone?
Yes, Kosminski was transferred to Leavesden. I've uncovered evidence (see the "Leavesden Asylum" thread under Kosminski in Suspects) that not everyone who was admitted to Leavesden was non-violent. Furthermore, schizophrenics can degenerate very, very quickly, and as my good friend, a former clinical social worker who was actually employed by a mental institution at one time, says, there's nothing like murder to trigger a psychotic episode. No, the doctors didn't record a history of violence, but as I said before, mental illness is multi-dimensional and can evolve rapidly within a single individual over a very short period of time. In other words, just because he wasn't violent when the doctors interviewed him doesn't mean he had never been violent or that the didn't have the capacity to become violent. It's just not that black-and-white.
I didn't mean to make this a Kosminski thread, but I felt that there are certain misconceptions about mental illness-particular paranoid schizophrenia--that needed to be cleared up before we can dismiss him so easily as a suspect. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 872
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
Just to add a quick reminder that we know Kosminski was able to read and write from hospital records too and given that he had only been in England for about seven years and English was not his first language this seems pretty good going in 1888.
Natalie |
A. Bunker
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 4:39 am: | |
I've worked with mentally ill people for many years, and I do believe that the Ripper did not suffer from a mental illness. This of course is not based on fact but only my opinion.
The symptoms described by doctors could well be schizophrenia. These "lunitics" also could be suffering from mild mental retardation. My point is that had the murderer been mentally ill, someone would have noticed him and he would have been caught. A paranoid would have been suspicious. Remember, evidence suggests that the Ripper held a regular job. He also gained enough trust in Mary Kelly for her to take him to her room. Of course he was not foaming at the mouth. But you cannot talk to an individual with a mental illness without noticing something. It's only my opinion that someone ill enough to end up in a mad house would not have been functional enough to work, gain the trust of these women, and go so long without being noticed.
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 9:11 am: | |
Hi Bunker,
I dont believe Tumblety was in the custody of the police at the time of the Kelly murder. It just doese not make sense that they would have arrested him if they knew he could not have commited the Kelly murder. If Tumblety was in Jail and for some reason he was picked up anyway all he would of had to say is hey I was in jail and I could not have commited the Kelly murder. The perfect alibi The police surely would not of had as much interest in him if he could not have commited the Kelly murder. I feel Tumblety bailed himself out soon after his arrest on the 7th. For some reason he always carried large sums of money with him.
I have heard that argument against Tumblety before tho and if you have any prove he was in jail at the time of the Kelly murder please share. That would convince me that Tumblety could not have commited the crimes and I would stop beating my head against the wall over him.
All the best,CB |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1837
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
Bunker,
I am sorry, but you are completely wrong. It is a vast misconception (if not a prejudice), that the likes of paranoid schizofrenics are so sick that they can't interact normally or hold on to a job for a period of time. Because they can. They are not that sick all the time, and for someone who doesen't know them, their conduct normally doesen't raises any immediate or serious suspicions.
That being said, we know nothing of Kosminski's mental state or conduct in 1888, so there is no reason to picture ourselves a Ripper eating bread from the gutter, regardless if we believe in Kosminski as a possible suspect or not.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 39
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 1:27 pm: | |
Glenn is right. As I said before, paranoid schizophrenics are highly intelligent and as such, quite adept at hiding their delusions from others who they fear are "out to get them." I don't know in what context it was you worked with the mentally ill, Bunker, but my best friend actually spent time as a social worker in the locked (violent) ward at the local state mental hospital (oh, and she has a master's degree in the subject, incidentally) and her opinion coincides with mine. Furthermore, it frustrates me to no end that so many people seem to think there was some great trick to gaining the confidence of these women. They were desperate. They were starving. All a guy had to do was grunt and "show them the money." I don't care how crazy he acted (and he needn't have, schizophrenic or otherwise), if it meant the difference between having some place to sleep that night and walking the streets (or paying the rent and maybe having a meal, in Kelly's case), they would have gone with him. These are not high-class call girls.
Again, I'm sorry to have hijacked this thread. I just couldn't let these false assumptions and misconceptions about the mentally ill stand unchallenged. Whether or not Kosminski was the Ripper, it is NOT out of the question that Jack could have had some degree of mental illness. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1073
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 5:06 am: | |
Hi Bunker,
I think you'll find that Cornwell already had far more money, attention and fame than most of us are ever likely to experience when she suddenly got ripperitis and thought she knew who Jack was.
She isn't the first to believe Jack has been handed to them on a plate, and won't be the last. What remains to be seen is whether she, like others before her, can show enough strength of character to finally admit she didn't know Jack after all.
Love,
Caz
X |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 794
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 10:34 am: | |
Caz!!
Nice one!!! Have esmiled you
x suzi (not a typo there!) |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 6:00 pm: | |
Hi all,
Kosminski/Cohen/ theory is interesting and one of the more viable solutions. Some ripperologist feel that the police did know who the ripper was. I saw a documentary on the discovery channel were a few of them sugested because special police aid stood down after the Kelly murder so quickly that they must have been sure that the ripper would not kill again and assuming the police were sure that there would be no more murders they must have known who the ripper was. I have forgotten the names of the ripperologist that sugested this possibility. I have the book by John Douglas in front of me and I can quote him. The title of the book is The Cases That Haunt Us. "The fact is, The major effort, the tremendous expenditure of resources and manpower, stands down rather quickly after the murder of Mary Jane Kelly more quickly than after the previous murders. We have already noted that the police were really under the gun, being subjected to massive puplic and press criticism and condemnation. would they have risked another murder by easing up on their presence in Whitechaple? Knowing the way bureaucrates and puplic servants respond to outside presure, it is difficult to conceive that they would. So alternatively, we may speculate they had reason to believe that although the killer had not been captured and brought to justice the reign of terror was over. So who at Scotland Yard might have known or at least thought they knew." I brought this possibility up for two reasons. 1. I would like to know if any of you believe that the police knew or at least thoght they knew who the ripper was and that is why aid to the east end stood down. 2. I feel that Kosminski/Cohen/ and even Druitt supporters tend to believe the above theory.
One version of the Kosminski theory I have read and heard from various shows was that the police knew he was the ripper and they had him followed through out the eastend. During this time no more murders happend and then finally Kosminski was commited.
I believe David Cohen was put forth because Kosminski showed know violent tendencies while he was locked up. So people who believe the insane local Jew theory started searching the asylums and one of the unfortunates who was put forth was David Cohen who was a very violent man and he was locked up around the middle of December. I believe it has been sugested that the police somehow got the men confused.
Druitt commited suicide and due to some private correspndence the police were satisfied that Druit was the ripper.
If you believe the Kosminski/Cohen and Druitt theory then you may believe that the police thought they knew who the ripper was but the problem with this is you would also have to believe that for some reason Inspector Aberline was kept out of the loop or that he was covering up for either Kosminski/Cohen or Druitt. He stated in the Pall Mall Gazett that he never believed that the ripper had been locked in an asylum or that he had commited suicide. He seemed to go out of his way to shed doubt on the Druitt theory. So I guess the question is if Kosminski/Cohen had been Identified as the ripper and the police locked him in an asylum with the strong believe that he was the ripper or if they had recieved correspondence and information from the family that Druitt was the ripper and if they believed strongly that the ripper had commited suicide then why was Abberline not informed? If you believe that the police wanted to keep what they knew about any of the above suspects quiet then why were there names mentioned by other police officials in the first place. I feel if Abberline had any knowledge that the ripper committed suicide or that he was locked up he would not have made those comments to the press. I believe Abberline was the kind of man who would rather have given no Information then misleading information.
Hi Erin,
Great point about the unfortunate women, they were starving and they would have gone with anyone who showed them coin. It is a simple point but one that I have debated with people on the Mary Kelly board.
best wishes,CB
|
A. Bunker
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 01, 2004 - 4:00 am: | |
Hi everyone. Wow this has gotten interesting. Let me just say that Kosminski seems to wacked out to have walked around without notice. He is a very interesting suspect but close examination of him makes the case fall apart. All we really know about poor Aaron is that he refused food from others, ate bread from the gutter, and heard voices. Now, the Ripper may have heard voices. But I can't accpept that the Ripper was so ill that he ended up in a mad house. Granted, I have no clue as to what type of individuals would have been institutionalized in England back in 1888. But a person of this sort would have ended up in the California Medical Facility at Vacaville over here, which is reserved for the likes of serial killers like Edmond Kemper. (Manson has done several stints there, too.)
I have indeed worked with schizophrenics and it is possible that one could get away with crimes such as this. But I find the chances slim. Paranoids usually give themselves up and are recognozed by the community as being extremely odd. And, yes, I do have a Masters in Psychology as well. So there.
All the best to my fellow Ripperologists.
PS: Let me say for the record that Kosminski is a better suspect than most others. But in the light of everything we know, I am not convinced. I think looking at people with sexual and religious deviations would bring us closer to finding this awful man. |
Maria Giordano
Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 41
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 04, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
Re the police stand down after the Kelly murder, I remember reading that someone from the Whitechapel Vigilance Committe asked the police, about a month after the murder, about their seeming slowdown and was told something to the effect that the Ripper was dead and they could all breathe easy and go home now-- or is that an old wives' tale?
This leads to my problem with Kosminski- he lived too long. If the above is true it makes me think that Cohen or even Druitt ( whom I always think of as Johnnie) is a better choice.
BTW, my ex-husband is a paranoid schizophrenic so I have some intimate knowledge of the subject. One time when his mother called the police because he was being violent towards her, he had convinced them that everything was all right and that SHE was the dangerous one. They were ready to arrest her by the time I got there and straightened things out. They do get much worse over time-or nowadays when they refuse to take their meds- and if this were 1888 I'm sure he'd be eating out of gutters by now.
Mags |
Jerry Maynard
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 05, 2004 - 9:30 pm: | |
Even though I dont belive Van Gogh as being JTR I
am very curious if anyone tried to suggest, write
or accuse Him. I figure if Lewis Carroll and Joesph Merrick has been suspected there might be a finger pointed at Van Gogh (ex using the cutting ear as a bizzare confession) |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 06, 2004 - 10:16 am: | |
Hi Maria,
Thanks for takeing the time too respond to my post. My problem with Kozminski/Cohen or Druitt theory is I think Abberline would of had some Knowledge if anyone had been locked up in an asylum. Cohen was locked up if I remember right only a week after the Kelly murder. Abberline would of had extream interest in tne case at that time and I feel it would have been hard to keep any identification of any man from him. It is a simple question with a simple answer I am sure but i never claimed to be a rocket scientist but why would have Abberline not known of any of this. He seemed to think that the ripper may have fled the country. Three could suspects in my oppinion are. 1. Tumblety,Chapman and Labruckman. Labruckman becomes even more interesting if you believe that Tabrum was a ripper victim.
I relise that Abberline may of heard stories about Kozminski and I know he had heard the story about Druitt but I feel by his comments he never put much stock in either stories.
All the best,CB |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 838
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
Hey Jerry!!
Wasnt Mary recognised by her hair and her ears!!!????? Case solved!!!
MJK was VVG!!!!
Cheers
suzi |
Archie Bunker
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2004 - 10:22 pm: | |
The fame Cornwall or any writer may have would be nothing to what would come to anyone who solved the Ripper case, in my opinion. I have a hard time believing that this writer actually believed her own findings. She must have known to some extent that her theory and research was full of crap. ALthough who knows? Didn't Knight go to his grave believing Gull was the Ripper? It never ceases to amaze me how people can fool themselves. Maybe Cornwall does believe she found the Ripper, but she's only fooling herself. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1850
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 7:59 pm: | |
Hi Bunker,
"Let me just say that Kosminski seems to wacked out to have walked around without notice. He is a very interesting suspect but close examination of him makes the case fall apart. All we really know about poor Aaron is that he refused food from others, ate bread from the gutter, and heard voices. Now, the Ripper may have heard voices. But I can't accpept that the Ripper was so ill that he ended up in a mad house."
>>Once again, we have no clue whatsoever about Kosminski's mental state in 1888. That description of him eating bread from the gutters and wandering around dirty, drinking from the sours, is from 1891, when he was brought in. Prior to that, we have no idea about the degree of his illness or his behaviour in 1888 (I've said this several times and I won't repeat it again!)
"Granted, I have no clue as to what type of individuals would have been institutionalized in England back in 1888."
>>This is not what I said. I said that we have no idea how ill Kosminski was in 1888. See above.
Furthermore, it pleases me that you have a degree in psychology and it's interesting to hear that you have worked with schizofrenics. "Ordinary" schizofrenics usually wouldn't pull off these types of crimes, and that is what mostly speaks against Kosminski, as I see it. However, paranoid schizofrenics may, and so they have a number of times (although I would probably not diagnose Kosminski as a paranoid schizofrenic).
"Paranoids usually give themselves up and are recognozed by the community as being extremely odd."
>>I am sorry, but that is a strange statement. You are still wrong when you totally exclude schizofrenics -- paranoid or not -- from keeping up a relatively normal appearance.
I can give you a number of cases where rather sophisticated murders (even serial ones) have been perpetrated by paranoid schizofrenics -- we have a vast number of such cases in Sweden -- and testimonies show that they didn't seem especially odd to the people in the community at all. Asocial and quiet -- yes. But hardly acting like a nutcase. I know people who work with people suffering from various schizofrenic disorders as well and I also know a couple myself. Many of them are certainly no raving lunatics (not even when they scrap their medication). Some can act very disturbed and maybe even aggressive, but others may not; for those who doesen't know them personally they pass off as rather unnoticable. And no, they don't necessarily give themselves up.
I respect your degree and your experience, but your statement regarding paranoid schizofrenics in this criminal context contradicts the view of several experts on the field and also seriously contradicts several cases in crime history. Several shrewd and calculated murders (serial and not serial) has been perpetrated by such individuals and you only have to go through the crime annals to discover that. No offense or disrespect intended.
It's not like the Ripper needed to indulge in lengthy conversations with his victims. His victims were used to shady characters that may not always have smelled like a bunch of roses; they were low class prostitutes sleeping in the gutters themselves when they couldn't find a shelter for the night, and they needed the money.
That being said, I have no idea if the Ripper was a paranoid schizofrenic, just that I wouldn't rule it out. To me personally the acts of the Ripper points at someone who is rather disturbed on the inside and who is at least periodically delusional, and possibly hearing voices. Still, this may be a misinterpretation of the facts and the crime scene evidence, but that is what the murders still suggest to me -- paranoid schizofrenic or not.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Ken Morris
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 11:29 pm: | |
Everyone-
In hopes of keeping this most entertaining thread alive(although at the risk of being pointed out as just another "unregistered guest")my five would probably have to be
The whole blue blood poppycock - I would have to agree that the thought of members of the royal party happily prancing around whitechapel is just hard to swallow.
Poor Mr. Caroll - no need for explanation
Maybrick - At this time Maybrick may be the only one of my 5 who can come off the list, but as a firm believer in the diary being fake, it is inherently hard for me to believe in him as JtR, mostly because there isnt even any decent circumstantial evidence against him, which atleast some of our other suspects have. If the diary is one day proved real, I will happily eat these words and any others I have said against him, I just can't see this happening.
Sickert - i believe this has been covered enough, im just throwing in my lot against him because it seems pretty straight forward.
"Jack the Ripper" - I'm sure this will get me tossed out of here, but since I am new to the website its about time i get blasted by the heavy weights. Anywho, the only theory I can rationalize in my head is that there wasn't any single JtR and that is was most likely a pair. On one of my other threads I threw out a Barnett/Kelly theory that im waiting to have ripped apart. Anyways, I am currently of the opinion that this was not the work of one man, most likely two, and I am so vehemently against it at this time, that I would have to rate the thought of only one JtR as a terrible suspect choice.
Obviously as with all of us these ramblings of mine are subject to change with new evidence that may come to light, or evidence others may have that I have not. The Barnett/Kelly theory is well, really just a thought, I don't think I even believe it, even though I do believe in Jack the RipperS. I hope we all take this inside and spit it out into something good and thoughtful. Be kind.
Here's lookin at you kids-
Ken
|
Archie Bunker
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 1:32 pm: | |
Hi everyone,
Let me say that my opinions on this case are only my opinions and I'm speculating a great deal. But I don't think my views are as wacked out as those of Cornwall's or Knight's.
I have always wondered why people thought the Ripper to be schizophrenic. He may well have been but we don't know this. One area where I don't agree with most is that the escalation of violence showed a degenerating mental state. It could be argued that the escalation of violence was from and increase in confidence, in addition to the Ripper simply having more time to "work."
Perhaps this individual became more confident as he perfected his MO. And as a result he spent more time on the victim. And of course the Kelly mutilations, I would argue, stemmed not from a growing mental illness but from the fact the the Ripper knew he would not be bothered.
I would also argue that the violence in these five cases was very calculated. Far from working himself into a violent, uncontrolled frenzy, the Ripper attacked and used the knife only when his victims were under his physical control. It was no fluke that he made five successful escapes and, for the most part, his victims let out no screams.
Do I know who the Ripper is? Of course not. But neither does Patricia Cornwall or Stephen Knight. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1853
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 9:53 am: | |
Bunker,
No one claims that you think you know who the Ripper is. No one does, by the way. We're all speculating here from our own different preferences.
"I would also argue that the violence in these five cases was very calculated. Far from working himself into a violent, uncontrolled frenzy, the Ripper attacked and used the knife only when his victims were under his physical control."
I disagree. The crimes suggest quite some degree of frenzy to me, especially regarding Eddowes. The fact that he only used his knife when his victims were under control could just as well imply a perpetrator that is rather unsure of himself and his capacity, and therefore wants to silence them quickly, with as less struggle as possible.
But that is my personal interpretation.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 887
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 21, 2004 - 4:00 pm: | |
Ken M!!!
Dont get' blasted by the heavyweights' Register and have your say!!! We all have our ideas about whodunnit but at the end of the day lets be honest... we'll never know!!... failing some great revelation as yet unknown!!!! (check the Joe Boards for a lighter look at this!)
Dont give up!!! We dont!!! thats why we're all still here tapping away into the night!
Glenn!! Hi Have emailed you
Cheers
Suzi |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 103
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 4:53 am: | |
Hi all, Ken,
No blasting here either, your suspects and reasons are as valid as those of anyone else.
I'm interested in your "two ripper" theory. Obviously who is not the important question but rather why. What are you basing this belief on?
Sorry Glenn, not worst suspects stuff but it was just too tantalizing. I'll give you my five soon, promise. Just need to think about it a bit.
Scotty. |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 110
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 10:30 am: | |
"we may speculate (the police) had reason to believe that although the killer had not been captured and brought to justice the reign of terror was over."
"I remember reading that someone from the Whitechapel Vigilance Committe asked the police, about a month after the murder, about their seeming slowdown and was told something to the effect that the Ripper was dead and they could all breathe easy and go home now.."
If the Ripper had in fact been locked away in an asylum, and thus (or for whatever reason) could not be prosecuted, the Police may have put a "spin" on this story, and said that the Ripper had died, even if he was in fact, still locked away in an asylum. In other words, the police may have concocted the story that the suspect had died, and agreed that this would be the official version if the story was ever released to the press/public.
If it had become known that the Ripper was still alive in an asylum, there would have been a public outrage and demands for him to be tried (sort of like a lynch mob). This may explain Swanson's statement that Kosminsky died soon after he was sent to Colney Hatch.
The story of the Ripper's death provides a sense of closure, even if the public was still kept in the dark as to the Ripper's identity.... meaning, of course, that the claims of the Ripper's death could not be verified by the press etc.
Swanson may have still been holding on to this story when he said the Ripper had died.
Just a thought.
Rob H
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1860
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 10:55 am: | |
Hi Scotty,
No sweat. I don't own this thread and everybody is entitled to write what they like.
Looking forward to your five suggestions. 
Rob,
"If the Ripper had in fact been locked away in an asylum, and thus (or for whatever reason) could not be prosecuted, the Police may have put a "spin" on this story, and said that the Ripper had died, even if he was in fact, still locked away in an asylum. In other words, the police may have concocted the story that the suspect had died, and agreed that this would be the official version if the story was ever released to the press/public."
A very interesting point. Sounds reasonable.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1219
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
Rob, Glenn,
I see Robs point but cannot help think why the Police would do this.
Yes, yes, public outrage but if I had been investigating this case, caught the perp, was told this man wouldnt be tried then Id be one pi$$ed off Rosser......ready to blow his whistle !
You're the PM...would you run the risk ???
Monty...who reckons they'd keep it clean.
Prince Charming, Prince Charming,
Ridicule is nothing to be scared of |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 411
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 11:27 am: | |
Monty, Glenn, Robert, anyone I missed off,
I think you are probably right Monty and would like to add. If the person was insane enough to be locked away surly they could be tried and found not guilty by insanity, though saying that..
Jenni
Ps is that adam ant?
Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times.....
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1220
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 11:40 am: | |
Jenni,
Being insane I doubt he would have had a trial.
The usual Police procedure I believe is to release a statement that "they are no longer looking for anyone else with relation to these crimes". Im not sure they would have named names but at least that would have ended the speculation that the killer was still out there. For me it would have been the most responsible route.
Though different circumstances, they did a similar release concerning Colin Stagg and the Rachel Nickel murder.
Anyway, all this belongs on a different thread....sorry folks.
Monty
PS Yes, tis Adam Ant.
PPS Got your mail.
PPPS already read the Holmes book.
PPPPS thats the end of the PS's.
Prince Charming, Prince Charming,
Ridicule is nothing to be scared of |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1861
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 1:51 pm: | |
Monty,
You're probably right, but on the other hand, I am not sure things work that way. They would still have to follow police procedure, and this still includes protect the criminal, even in 1888 and even if it was Jack the Ripper. I can't see why any police would want to blow the whistle; anyone who did that would surely be held responsible if something happened -- and lose his job, or worse.
What's this, Monty... a new signature... again!!???
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Maria Giordano
Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 45
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 5:58 pm: | |
I would think that the police especially those high up in the organization, would want credit for having solved the case one way or another.
If they had someone in an asylum who couldn't be tried for some reason they might prefer to put the word out that he was dead. But then why no release of the details of the case? So now a century later the case is still the Great Unsloved One. Looks bad for them and gives us no closure.
I can't stand the frustration!!
Mags |
coxy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 6:41 am: | |
hey i have reason to believe sir william gull has most evidence pointed in his direction if you want to hear why then post back |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 12:37 pm: | |
Hi All,
The insane Jew theory is a good and it really ties all the odd facts about the case together. I do have one problem with this theory however, Abberline's statements to the Pall Mall Gazett in 1903 that he never believed that the ripper was insane. Abberline was the lead detective on the case and I would assume if someone had been locked up in an asylum and there was conclusive evidence that this man was the ripper Abberline would have known. I do not feel that Abberline would have come out and made the statements to the press if he knew the ripper was locked up in an asylum. I believe he would have rather said nothing and he certainly would not have supported the theory that Chapman was the ripper. This could mean one of two things.
1. There never was an insane Jew was locked up.
2. There was someone locked up in an asylum who was believed by some to be the ripper but the evidence against him was not conclusive enough to convince Abberline.
The statement Abberline made to the press begins with the word we, "We never believed" this may indicate an us against them mentality. The detectives working the field and the higher up officials. There may have been word given that the ripper had been locked up or that he commited suicide and this information was handed down from the higher ups but the detectives working the field never believed this to be true. Either the evidence against such an insane Jew was not conclusive or Abberline and his men were not informed of all the facts. [The latter I find hard to believe] I do not believe the police had any real conclusive evidence against any insane Jew they may have put in an asylum. Abberlines doubt is enough to put doubt in my mind. [kosminski/Cohen and Druit are high on my suspect list] I feel that Abberline has gotten a bad rap because he supported Chapman for the ripper but It is not the suspect that Abberline supports that is important. I feel the important information is the suspects he sheds doubt on.
All the best,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.
|
|
|
|
