|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Maria Giordano
Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 16
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 12:48 pm: |       |
Hey, Paul---
While Arby is a recent find, I think of him as one of the "classic" types of suspects as opposed to Sickert, Maybrick and the Henpecked Blackmailer.
Mags |
Skellie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 2:22 pm: | |
I may not know much about all of this but in my opinion, Sickert is a very strong suspect, as Patricia Cornwell has explained in "Portrait of a Killer". |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 196
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 3:37 pm: | |
Hey Skellie,
you need two more suspects.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1710
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 4:34 pm: | |
Hey Skillie,
I advice you to read some other Ripper stuff before you swallow Cornwell altogether.
And when you've done that, you'll probably - like many others - reach the conclusion that her theories are unproven and nothing but garbage and fiction.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
John Porter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 3:27 am: | |
My main suspect would be an unknown local man or men, depending on how you interpret the 'double murder'. However, of the 22 suspects rated in the Casebook, I think that only 3 can be taken seriously as most of them are red herrings and impossibilities. I omit Maybrick as his guilt is entirely dependent on the authenticity of the diary, and highly unlikely. If it is dated to the 1920s then he was long dead. At number 3 I put Kosminski, who seems to fit and was suspected by the police and subsequently identified, but comes in at number 3 because there is too much confusion - Kosminski/Cohen/Kaminsky etc. At number 2 comes Tumblety because there are just too many 'coincidences' to be able to eliminate him, and my winner is Barnett, reasons being that a) he spent his whole life in the area, never being more than a few blocks away from any of the crime scenes. None of the suspects knew the area anywhere near as well as him. It would have been very easy for him to slip away back to his nearby home, and he knew at least 3 of the victims, probably all. b) his profile fits almost exactly the FBI profile of JTR, much more so than any of the others, the physical description being perfect. c) he is the only person who could have had a key to Mary Kelly's room other than McCarthy (alibi and no motive) or a previous tenant (?, assuming the locks weren't changed) and known her and her routine so well that he could do what he did without fear of detection. It was a very bold act indeed, and even after she cried 'murder' at 4am he was not heard to leave until 5-45am! The footsteps must have been the killers as noone else was around (which only Barnett could have known would be the case) otherwise he surely would have been caught because people start to stir at this time and it would have been starting to get light. d) the pipe! He must have left it there when he killed MK. As Dr. Frederick Walker states, smoking is an addiction and he would have gone back to get it before, especially being so local and not wanting to incriminate himself. He put it on the shelf/table in order to carry out his 'work' on MK as he could not smoke with bloodied hands and under the frenzied circumstances he forgot it. Now it was too late to get it back, but the police did not find this strange because of his close association with MK. After all, she had a mans coat covering the windows. So he 'innocently' admitted that it was his. e) he would have washed his hands in Miller's Court after double event and easily disappeared. This can only be true of Barnett. f) no investigator can possibly ignore the letters and number on the torn envelope, they have to be significant and are consistent only with his address. There are many other reasons but I find the above absolutely damning! Opponents of Barnett's guilt largely rest their case on the fact that the police questioned him for 4 hours and seemed to be satisfied but lets face it - the police made so many blunders in dealing with this case, whose to say that wasn't just another of many? A man so deliberate and cold and calculating could surely hold himself together during a police interview, and surely would not embark on his mission with MK without having prior arranged a solid alibi, knowing full well he would be the no. 1 suspect due to his personal ties with MK and the violent quarrel only a week before her death. If he was Eddowe's suspect, the answer to the question of why she didn't go to the police with her suspicions is quite simply because he killed her while she was contemplating it. He had to kill her if that was the case and that is why he was so quick and took his biggest risk of all in such an open, well lit and public place. She had to be killed at all costs. Stride was killed as Eddowes may have voiced her suspicions to her and he had the opportunity to do so, but Eddowes was the one he wanted and had to silence, hence the difference in MO as he moved swiftly on to her. Because she could have identified him and put an end to his undertakings she was mutilated whereas he only needed Stride dead just in case she knew. Once dead, all his anger was unleashed on Eddowes. Barnett was not a 'psycho'. Because he knew his victims he had rational motives. In any murder of a woman, the police always look first to the husband/boyfriend/lover/jealous ex, and 9 times out of 10 they are right. Barnett had the only plausible means/motive/opportunity and has to be the strongest suspect because of his personal ties with MK who seems to be the most 'special' of all the victims. I believe the solution is a very simple one and nowhere near as complex as most of the theories would have us believe. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 845
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 1:48 pm: | |
Hi John,
Bias as I obviously am, I agree Barnett is the number one suspect, i do not accept all of your thoughts, for eg, although the envelope was found in the yard at 29 hanbury street, it was actually from the lodgings of chapman, although as kelly visited Crossinghams lodging house[ chapmans abode] it is quite possible that she left a torn part of an envelope there, which happened to used by chapman to place her pills in.
I dont agree that the solution is a very simple one, however, I feel that many people on these boards, are dismising Barnett, without a lot of thought, and I feel that is going against a lot of plausible foundations.
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 701
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 02, 2004 - 3:05 pm: | |
Hi Richard...
Ok for what its worth. 1) Barnett
2) Hutch
3) the man who were all going to meet at the pearly gates and say.....'Who??'
Best Suzi
|
John Porter
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 3:57 am: | |
'Ello 'ello 'ello CI's Richard and Suzi! Excellent, I seem to have woken up the Barnett fan club! At this point in my investigation, all my attention is focussed on him. Suzi - you gave no reasons for your selections so I assume you accept my case against Barnett, and your third one obviously doesn't need one but I would be interested to hear why you rate Hutch so highly. Richard, thanks for that. I must admit that of all my 'damning' reasons to suspect Barnett, the torn envelope clue, if indeed it really is a clue to JTR's identity, is the weakest and perhaps a red herring but I find it difficult to ignore. It must mean something - M, Sp, 2 ?????
and can't be tied to anyone other than JB as we know. How do we know that it originated at Chapman's lodgings? What are your thoughts on it? Do you think it is relevant to Barnett's guilt? Regards to you both, JP |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 852
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 1:13 pm: | |
Hi John,
According to Mrs Maxwell, kelly often frequented crossinghams lodging house, where the torn envelope was found on the kitchen mantlepeice, Chapman who resided there on a regular basis, dropped some pills, and after retriving them from the floor, put them inside the envelope, placed the item into her pocket, before walking out onto the streets.
It is intriqing that M SP 2, could ne interpreted as Mary 26 spitalfields, with Dorset street being missing, although I believe the envelope , had the seal of the sussex regiment on the back.
So red herring I would persume, the only connection to a soldier , would be that pearly poll , friend of martha Tabram, who was with her the night she died, stayed at crossinghams, and both she and Tabram were notorious for their choice in soldiers company.
Richard. |
Jeff Rients
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 1:49 pm: | |
Howdy all!
I'm just getting started into Ripper research, so please let me if I make an obvious mistake!
1) Tumblety in tandem with another man, smaller and younger. Possibly the second man did all the gruesome work and he was goaded into by Tumblety. Perhaps they were lovers. (I just made this theory up. I only rate it as number one out of sheer egotism, even though it seems like an obvious idea.)
2) I somewhat like Barnett for the killing of Mary Kelly, as a copycat killing.
3) an immigrant from Eastern Europe, male, in his late twenties to eary thirties, residing locally, perhaps Jewish, probably as-yet unidentified (Not exactly a suspect, I know.) |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 200
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 7:55 pm: | |
Jeff,
Welcome to the boards. I like your two man theory regarding Tumblety and his gay lover. It gave me real fits...haha. I dont buy it, but
you get an A for creative thinking and originally. Best regards.
Paul |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 343
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 6:53 pm: | |
Paul,
If Tumblety was the murderer, is it not conceivable that his lover may have helped him. He was Gay.
Mikey
P.S. That's the main reason that I don't believe he did it, because he was gay. Gay men don't usually kill women, they usually kill other men. |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 205
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 7:25 pm: | |
Hi Mikey,
Your PS sums up my thoughts on Tumblety. I just don't see two gay men hacking up women. Best regards.
Paul |
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 313
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 8:31 am: | |
Mikey,
That is true in most cases, but is this the rule? Do we know that gay men don't kill women ever?
I'm not arguing, I'm just curious. I hear people saying that all the time, I'm just wondering if any cases come to people's minds?
-K |
Jeff Rients
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 04, 2004 - 10:26 am: | |
haha. I dont buy it
Well, neither do I really. Pure speculation and pop psychology do not a case make. (Although I have heard they can get you a book deal.)
Is Barnett-as-copycat considered a viable theory by any serious researchers? That one was off the top of my head as well , based only on the difference in location (indoors) and the fact that the Kelly mutilations seemed even more beastly than earlier Ripper-attributed slayings. Neither of those facts rule out JtR, but they do seem to me like a different approach to the crime. Of course, that doesn't mean Barnett did it.
Sorry to be so off-the-cuff. Until this thread came up, I had not given much thought to developing my own opinion as to 'whodunit'. Some suspects seem clear non-starters to me (Cream, Dodgson, and Crowley, for examples), but I have usually approached the case as a piece of history, not as a crime to be solved. If any of my guesses are correct, it would probably have to be my vague and uninteresting third choice. |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 6:07 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
First off, pardon my ignorance, but who is Dodgson?
Anyway, Im gonna get "ripped apart" by all the Barnettites on this one, but I started this thread, so let 'em rip. haha If you want to discuss the theory of Barnett as a copycat, you will find some interesting things on the "To suggest Barnett is guilty" thread.
Personally, I dont think Barnett did it. The reasons, (to me) are simple:
Why was she killed indoors? Because she had a room. Why would a hooker have sex with a john on the street if she had a room to take him to?
Why were the mutilations so much worse? Because he could take his time and not worry about
Johnnie the constable or whoever catching him or disturbing him. My point is simple....What would Eddowes have looked like if Jacky had spent about 5 or 10 extra minutes on her?
He gave her a nice facial. I think people try to read too much into the Mary Kelly thing and make it more complicated than it should be. Best Regards.
Paul
P.S. - Please folks lets not turn this thread into another Barnett thread. Please, Please. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1764
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 6:20 pm: | |
Paul,
I promise I won't contribute to make this into another Barnett thread - God forbid - I just want to answer Jeff's question short and quickly.
"Is Barnett-as-copycat considered a viable theory by any serious researchers?"
It has been put forward as a possible alternative suggestion by Alex Chisholm and by Stewart Evans & Paul Gainey.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1765
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 05, 2004 - 6:27 pm: | |
Regarding Tumblety's alleged homo- or bisexuality: it may not belong to the most common things, but we have cases in history where homosexual repeat killers have systematically focused on victims belonging to the opposite sex (I can't recall any specific names at the moment), so - contrary to what people believes - a male homosexual serial killer can't automatically be ruled out as a slayer of women. I admit that it goes against all logic, but it happens anyway.
That being said, I don't mean to imply that I see Tumblety as a credible suspect.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 860
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 06, 2004 - 3:30 am: | |
Hi,
Sharpen your knives folks.
My three suspects in order of preference.
1] Joseph Barnett... for two reasons I believe Daniel Farsons imformant, likewise did Associated Redifussion the television company, who intended to do a special on it. also My much debated 39 theory fits Barnett like a glove.
2] Walter Sickert... His picture 'A passing funeral' could have depicted the scene at leyton cemetary, if he became aware of two women nearby.
Also some credible evidence of letter writing.
3] Druitt... His appearence is uncanningly similar to Detective Whites account of a sighting.
I cannot make out any case for any other suspect to date.
Richard. |
Jerry Maynard
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 8:38 pm: | |
I have a question are there any other credible suspects that are not presented in the casebook?
Are there any other individuals not talked about
here that have been thought of as JTR?
By the way the suspects that are likely to me are
1. O'Donston Stevenson
2. Frances Tumblety
3. Kosminski
Sickert, James Maybrick, James K. Steven, and Druitt I put on a "Maybe" list |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 29
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 2:45 pm: | |
1. The "Polish Jew" (Cohen/Kosminski/Kaminsky, etc): I think the reasons for suspecting one of these individuals have been pretty well laid-out;
2. John Anderson: The confession and his status as a sailor (at least one witness described the Ripper as having an appearance like a sailor);
3. W.G. Grainger: Primarily because of his behavior towards women and Lawende's possible identification.
Of course, I don't want to eliminate "Mr. Nobody," a local man (possibly a sailor) yet to be identified, who's probably a better suspect than any of those named thus far. 
(Message edited by Rapunzel676 on May 27, 2004) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1071
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 6:14 am: | |
If the Maybrick scratches were in the watch by July 14 1992:
1.) Maybrick
2.) Maybrick
3.) Maybrick
If the scratches were hoaxed later than July 14 1992:
1.) Mr Nobody
2.) A N Other-Nobody
3.) Yet A N Other-Nobody
Love,
Caz
X
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1192
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 6:39 am: | |
John,
I just have some points about your post of 2nd May. First of all, I just want to point out that Barnett is my fav suspect too, so I'm not trying to change your mind in any way and this isn't just about him.
None of the suspects knew the area anywhere near as well as him
What about Hutchinson? I'm sure he knew the area like the back of his hand. There were also hundreds of people living in that area at the time and so anyone of them could have done it based on this.
It was a very bold act indeed, and even after she cried 'murder' at 4am he was not heard to leave until 5-45am
There is no solid proof that the cry of murder came from Mary Jane. I do admit, that the footsteps heard were quite likely to have been the killer as everyone who worked in the morning would have been up by now but it could also have been a policeman checking the area as they did.
he knew at least 3 of the victims
Who were they? I know he knew Mary Jane and very possibly Kate (depending on if the shed story was true), but who was number 3? I know that Annie lived at the doss house over the road but that's no proof that he knew her. I also doubt that he knew the others.
With regards to the Maybrick diary:-
If it is dated to the 1920s then he was long dead
The documents weren't released to the public at this time and so no-one would have known enough correct details about the case in the 1920's to have written such a diary. If it was written in that period of time then maybe the Ripper wrote it (not Maybrick) or it was dated wrong. I do tend to think the diary is a fake but not based on this.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 770
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
Sarah!!
Smile's still mine tho!!!
Right I agree Hutch is the obvious Invisible
Man and |I'd go with that all the way......Like to think it was GH but maybe just maybe there were others who could lurk 'unseen ' around the streets.....still cant get rid of Tim Donovan tho!!!its one of those everyone knew him and yet nobody did things.... I think....IMHO!!!!!
eeeeeeeeek cant help but think the Invisible man dunnit!!!
cheers
Suzi x |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 244
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 9:02 pm: | |
Hey Everybody,
Erin...Who is John Anderson?
Paul |
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 247
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 9:52 pm: | |
Erin,
Nevermind...I remembered who John Anderson was.
He was the sailor that supposedly confessed on his death bed that he was Jack the Ripper.
Paul |
Marc A Hall
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 9:55 pm: | |
Hi all,
I've been reading this forum for a few years now, but never posted anything as I didn't have anything to truly contribute. This is a nice easy thread to get into so I'll start here 
The only suspect who jumps out at me is Tumblety, for no other reason than it's the most logical theory I've heard so far.
I've not fully read up on the Barnett theory yet so I'll go and do my homework before commenting.
|
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 90
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 11:00 am: | |
OK,
I have been thinking this over and I have changed my mind on my top suspects. They are now:
1. Aaron Kosminski. (Yes I said Aaron)
2. La Bruckman
3. unknown
I am planning to write a little bit on why I am leaning now towards Aaron. I will post it soon hopefully.
Rob H |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 775
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 11:13 am: | |
Hmmmmmmmmm ok
Have managed to remember what threads i've been on by writing them down!!!
ok ....
1)To be honest probably an unknown....
2) George H
3)A blotchy,carroty,song loving guy wearing a top hat and carrying a Gladstones bag possibly with royal and masonic connections who worked from time to time in the fish/orange market......you'd know him anywhere cos he looked a bit like a foreigner!and by God that was a great pair of spats!!These were of course donned when he got off of the cattle boats!!
4).Cant ignore Joe Flemming tho......
IMHO
Suzi |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 89
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 12:09 pm: | |
Hello all,
Mine would be:
1) D'Onston
2) D'Onston and an accomplice
3) O.J. Simpson
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 778
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 3:22 pm: | |
Hi Tom et al..
Right ok we've all just read THAT book!!!1
Mine will still be :at time of typing I guess!
1)Timothy Donovan
2).GH
3) John Mc Carthy
And of course if all else fails RD'OS cunningly disguised as a policewoman......slumming it maybe!! praps he did the odd bit of painting during the day too!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Busy Beaver
Sergeant
Username: Busy
Post Number: 17
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 4:33 pm: | |
Has Timothy Donovan seriously been considered as a suspect? It makes sense to include him because he knew 1 or 2 of the victims and living in Whitechapel, would have known the area quite well.
Busy Beaver |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 780
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
Hi
Timothy Donovan was a witness at Annie's inquest and the Deputy Manager at Crossinghams, at 35 Dorset St,...it was to Timothy, that Annie said "Keep my bed for me" saying she'd be back soon.....sad 'eh
There are at least Three T.Donovans in the case unfortunately.. the problem is.....which one ?? and all that.... I like to think IMHO that the Deputy of Crossinghams Donovan may,just may have well almost CERTAINLY knew Annie and probably the rest of the girls! |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 781
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 5:46 pm: | |
Hi B
The thing that can't be got over here at the end of the day ,is that Dorset St and Crossinghams were probably central to most ,if not all of the girls..... and what passed for their sad lives ... Hate to use the phrase but all roads do tend to lead to Dorset St!!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 9:22 pm: | |
Hi Jeff Rients,
I mentioned on another thread the possibility that Tumblety could of had an accomplise. The theory is not as far fetched as has been suggested. Dr.T was often implicated with an accomplise for various crimes. The police did offer a pardon for anyone with information about the Kelly murder. This may suggest that they thought that someone may have known who the ripper was and may have been helping him. Glenn pointed out just because it is not common for gay men to kill women that doese not make it imposible. The fact that there was no sexual contact with the women and no one is sure of the motive means you can not rule out a gay man. There have been other possible gay men put forth. Montague John Druitt and Prince Albert Victors sexuallity also has been questioned.
Homosexuallity was considerd a form of insanity. It was not accepted in the 1800s like it his to day. Comming out of the closet was not an option for a man or a woman. If Tumblety was gay he would of had to keep to himself. He may have not understood his homosexuality or been able to come to terms with it. This could lead to sexual frustration witch in turn led to a hattred of woman. The taking of the wombs may have been taking away the part of the woman that made her a woman. I guess what I am tring to say is that the enviroment was different in the 1800s and we can not judge how a homesexual man would have felt or how he would have acted.
There is another theory regarding Tumblety. He may have been married to a prostitute who broke his hart and he may of had a collection of wombs in glass jars which would suggest a unatural obssesion with the female body but as Glenn has pointed out and rightly so the stories are all based on second hand information and they have not not been comfirmed. We do know that Tumblety was arrested for attempting to give an 17 year old prostitute an abortion. If I remember right he never attempted surgery on the girl. He gave her some herbs but the fact that she set him up with the police to take a fall and he could have spent the rest of his life in prison if convicted may have turned him against prostitutes.The fact that he posed as an abortionist is interesting.
The next thing that gets brought up is that Tumblety was to tall to be the ripper. I have read Tumblety was 5'11 to 6'4 so who knows how tall he was. The detectives who worked the case still picked him up. I feel they had some reason. There is an intereting article that is new to the casebook that reports a tall American was questioned shortly after the double event. His name was not given to the press per some agreement. It is speculation but it is possible that Tumblety could have been questioned as early as October.
People have pointed out Tumblety was to flamboiant to be the ripper. I feel Tumblety would have taken steps to blend in and not stick out However if I am not mistaken the man who Hutchinson saw with Kelly was well dressed. Similar to the way the tall American was dressed in the article I mentioned above. I have given the discription that Hutchinson gave some thought and maybe the police picked up Tunblety based on that description. We know that Hutchinsons man was to short but maybe the way he described the mans atire was similiar to the atire Tumblety was was wareing when he was arrested on the 7th or just maybe Tumblety was the tall american questioned in October. His atire was similar to Hutchinsons description. Remember the police picked Tumblety up for some reason and the ripper murders stoped for some reason.
I just got done reading John Douglases book The Crimes That Haunt Us. In that book he discusses the ripper murders. He mentions Tumblety. He claims Tumblety was to orginised to be the ripper. He felt the ripper was an unorginized killer. I feel the ripper was very orginized. The way he spaced the murders out and he never got caught proves to me he was organised. He picked prostitutes because they were easy prey. They took him to the place were they knew interuption was least likely. They probably knew the habbits of the police walking the beat. Remember they made a living partly because of there ability to avoid the police and this worked right into the rippers hands.
All the best,CB |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 785
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 10:07 am: | |
CB
Very good but maybe another thread may be a good idea here.... Tim Donovan was, it appeared to me the suspect here,Mr Tumblety belongs somewhere else.....sorry didnt mean that to sound stroppy!
Suzi |
carl burrows
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 3:38 pm: | |
Hello everyone.
Like most people who read these boards ,I must admit I've changed horses a few times over the last year or so, depending on which book I've just read,
My top 3 are
1)W H Bury - Can't believe he does'nt get more time and support on here! -Similar M.O,-and I think there is something strange he killed his wife , in a similar fashion to our Jack ,not long after the Whitechapel murders,and the chalk writing in the cellar in Scotland is suspicious, perhaps his wife found out !
2) Francis Thompson - loads and loads of linkages,-around the area at the time of the murders,had the surgical background,high as kite on opium,fit some descriptions, said to be searching for a prostitute,-also bit of a religious nutter which ties in with some religious refrences heard by a witness.
3) Hutchinson(British) This was a close tie with Arbie LaBruckman,-- I have an friend who I teach guitar to ,who is a Detective in the CID,and has been for many years,he also has an interest in the case and studied it when he was a rookie cop,and according to him,Hutchinson would be the first starting point of his enquiry ,if he could go back in time and try and solve the case. |
Andrew Gable
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 7:04 pm: | |
John Langan
Francis Tumblety
John McCarthy*
* Not convinced he was the Ripper, but I think he might have known what was going on. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 6:02 pm: | |
Hi Suzi,
Thanks for taking the time too answer my post. I do not know what the word stroppy means is that a British word I was just responding to some comments made regarding Tumblety on this thread. I did get a little carried away tho. Tumblety is one of my top 3 suspects. I have posted them already. So there is no need to post them again.
ALL THE BEST,CB |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 792
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 10:07 am: | |
Hi CB
Stroppy!!??hard one that!!!....probably the closest is sort of irritable,grumpy......bit nasty.....comes from 'stropping' a razor I think!
Still think G.Hutch has/had a lot of explaining to do tho!
Best
Suzi not stroppy......honist! |
Matt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 23, 2004 - 9:24 am: | |
In my careful and considered opinion….
1) An unknown male – I think that it is mos likely that the Rippers name has never been mentioned in connection with the case - and never will be. An unremarkable unnoticed local resident, who knew the area well enough to move about quickly and quietly. Someone who was mostly unknown to any of his victims. He may have known Catherine Eddowes by sight, a shaky theory based on Eddowes facial mutilations (though I think the facial mutilation suffered by Mary Kelly could simply be due to the availability of time). But beyond that unremarkable, unnoticed and unrecorded
2) George Hutchinson – An extension of the above really, if Hutchinson were the Ripper and he had not been careless and spotted loitering in Dorset Street, he would never have come forward and his name would never have been connected with the case. The guy acted highly suspiciously he was spotted at one of the murder sites at the right time (a fact UNIQUE to Hutchinson amongst all of the suspects). Furthermore, Hutchinson has no alibi, he claims he was locked out of his lodgings and spent the whole night wondering the streets. His place of residence is in exactly the epicentre of the attacks and it is exactly in the line of escape indicated by the piece of dropped apron. He knew (or claimed to know) Mary Jane (back to the dodgy facial mutilation theory again) he seems to have been the right age. And he seems to have disappeared by the time of the next census (possibly because George Hutchinson was not his real name, which takes us back to suspect No 1 again “Unknown Male who once used the name Hutchinson”)
3) Someone LIKE but not actually Kosminski. The slightly convoluted twisty turny theory of Martin Fido, is a bit hard to follow but it may have some substance. The overwhelming belief at the time was the killer was a Jew may have had its grounding in racism but it also may not, there could have been some substance to the rumour. I would say the harmless wandering imbecile Kosminski doesn’t present much of a suspect, by the sound of him he wasn’t capable of luring even the most desperate of Whitechapel whore to a lonely spot. However, the possibility of some confusion over his name and identification may have lead police misidentify him as the killer.
|
shelley wiltshire
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 29, 2004 - 11:14 pm: | |
Hi ,
My suspects are.....wait for it,
1. Mr Nobody
2.Mr Nobody 2
3. The return of Mr Nobody again.
I just don't know, but i'm in the process of just eliminating or strengthing supects that are already listed. But my strong suspicion however is, the man with no name (as of yet).
I want to write a book, but i want it to be serious and nearest the truth as possible, perhaps naming a likely suspect (cos i think it's virtually impossible to get any evidence) i would refuse however, to write any garbage, because there's too much of that in circulation already. Cheers, Shelley. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 28, 2004 - 8:31 pm: | |
Hi all,
When deciding on the top three suspects we should not ignore who the contemperary police at the time of the murders suspected.
I am convinced that Anderson and Swanson believed the ripper was Kosminski. In the Lighter Side of my official life Anderson states that he knew who Jack the ripper was. However since the case was never officialy solved nameing the suspect would serve no particular service. He goes on to say that the family of this man was protecting him and that he was a polish jew. A pardon was offerd to anyone with information concerning the death of Mary Kelly this pardon could of been aimed at the family of Kosminski. Anderson never names Kosminski by name but in margines of his own copy of the Lighter side of my official life Swanson wrote the suspects name was Kosminski. This suggest that Anderson and Swanson believed they knew who jack the ripper was and that his name was Kosminski. Anderson wrote the only person to get a good look at the killer identified him but he refused to bare witness against him because he was a fellow jew. This does suggest that the man that Anderson is refering to identified Kosminski as the man he saw with one of the victims. This has been debated on the boards as to who was the witness. Some claim it was Lewende and the victim of course was Eddowes. I favour shwartz[sp] and the victim of course would be stride. I am not sure that Stride was a ripper victim but I believe Anderson and Swanson believed she was and they put all there eggs in one basket. Aid to the eastend stood down rather quickly after the Kelly murder. This could suggest that the police thought they knew who the ripper was. Since Anderson and Swanson were the lead detectives on the case this would lead me to believe that they stood aid down because they thought it was Kosminski.
Normally I would say slam dunk case solved. However, there is a proplem and his name is Inspector Abberline. The inspector stated in 1903 that he never believed that the ripper was insane or had commited suicide.[He suggested that the ripper could have went to America.] Now clearly this means he never thought that Kosminski [Or Druitt.] were the ripper. He would of been aware of Anderson and Swanson suspicions. I think the only evidence that Anderson and Swanson had was the eyewitness tesimony of Shwartz and nothing else but they believed that Stride was a ripper victim and Shwartz saw Kosminski attack her shortly before the body was found. Another Abberline statement was that no one ever got a good look at the killer. Not only was Abberline denouncing Kosminski as a suspect he was dismissing Shwartz as a witness. This could mean a few different things.
1. Abberline did not believe that Shwartz saw the ripper and Kosminski attacted stride before she was actually murderd.
2. Abberline thought that Shwartz made a misidentification of the man he saw attack Stride.
3. Abberline thought that Swhartz was mistaken and he saw another woman being attacked by Kosminski and not Stride being attacked by the ripper.
4. Abberline did not believe that Sride was a ripper victim and he belived that Shwartz killed her.
So who knows if Kosminski was the ripper but the fact that he was suspected by lead investigators at the time and the fact that aid to the east end stood down so quickly after the Kelly murder and the men who believed Kosminski was the ripper could have been responsible for this. Means Kosminski belongs on my top 3 list.
I have posted on Tumblety who also is on my list. and then there is Druitt who would round the list out.
All the best,CB |
Katherine Winston
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 3:17 am: | |
Hello - I have had a casual interest in the case for many years now and have read several books, seen the specials on the cable channels, but that's about it. I did steer clear of the "From Hell" movie. Anyway, with those sterling credentials firmly in hand, I propose the following candidates and ask a few questions afterwards:
1)Jacob Levy (not Joseph Levy or Aaron Kosminski/Someone Cohen/Someone Kasminski)
2)Aaron Kosminski/etc.
3)Druitt
I think I first read of Jacob Levy some years back, and then came across the excellent description written of him on the Suspects page. Why is not more available on Jacob Levy? It seems like folks get started on him, and then slide over to the Aaron Kosminski et al group and Jacob Levy gets lost. He sounds very plausible, at least to my admittedly unexpert mind. Some suggest he was seen by Joseph Levy with Eddowes right before her murder (this site suggests that), it is also said that he was seen on Mary Kelly's street shortly after her murder. (Am I remembering that correctly?) Additionally, he died very shortly after being committed to the insane asylum, not many years afterwards as Kosminski did. Also, he was only three inches taller than Eddowes, (5'3"); (Joseph Levy stating Eddowes' companion was about three inches taller than her and she was five feet tall) which works FOR his being her killer, but AGAINST his being the killer seen other times - that man was supposed to be about 4-5 inches taller. But, Joseph Levy was Jacob Levy's neighbor - he would have known what a "crazy" man Jacob Levy was and that would account perhaps for Joseph's remark about being uneasy with such people about (this is, of course, mere speculation - but Joseph and Jacob were neighbors). It just seems that this guy (Jacob) was the one Joseph Levy recognized and I am not able to find anywhere that this has been followed up on. I googled him and went to page 10 with nothing (I realize this is not the epitome of scholarly research!). But Jacob Levy doesn't even have a thread on the suspect message boards - yet he seems to have been very possibly recognized by Joseph Levy! Or am I completely headed in the wrong direction with this? A final thought: Didn't Anderson's wife comment that JTR was in "Stone?" This is where Jacob Levy was committed, I believe.
As for the Aaron Kosminski "composite" suspect (I label him thusly because he seems to be possibly, I say just possibly, a blending of a couple if not three different men and maybe even a few of the detectives working the case got them a bit jumbled! I like this suspect - whichever of the three possibles he actually was - simply because of the notations made in documentation not written for public consumption by the people working the case! This, to me, seems like really good, grade-A, top-drawer evidence - I only do not place this suspect as No. 1 because Joseph seems to have recognized Jacob as the one talking with Eddowes and Kosminski died so much later following his commitment, while the real Ripper was said by the police to have died very shortly after being committed, which Jacob Levy did.
3. Druitt, again, seems to have been alluded to by the actual people working the crime at the time. This, coupled with his suicide and the slayings ceasing at the same time, make him a prime candidate, as well.
Has anyone matched Jacob Levy's handwriting (first, I suppose, has anyone found a sample of Jacob Levy's handwriting!) to the Lusk letter?
Here's hoping I haven't made a complete fool of myself.
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1374
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
Katherine,
Nope You have not made a complete fool of yourself at all.
Your choices are very sane and sensible. Any contemperary suspect should be considered as serious. The police, at the time, may have been party to information since lost. They wouldnt have just gone for any old suspect (I know McKenzie is a little fancied victim of JtR but see Brodie).
Out of the suspects you mention ALL three are worth investigating.
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Katherine Winston
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 2:29 am: | |
Monty,
Thanks for the kind words!
Well, it's on to the chase for me - this site can keep you up all night! But I really do feel Jacob Levy needs some more looking into -
Onward through the Victorian fog! |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 6:10 pm: | |
Katherine,
Have you had a look at A?R?
My best choices:
1. (Tie) Morris Lubnowski and Woolf Abrahams.
3. Isaacs Kosminski
4. Any Kosminski familiar turned up by a certain California freeway engineer.
David
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2310
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 19, 2004 - 9:38 am: | |
OK!
Here we go again. Yours truly is revised and updated.
Although I don't really have any favourite suspects (and don't want to use the suspect hunt approach as a basis for research), I am for the time being inclined to state these following suspects best worth looking into:
1) Jacob Levy
2) Unknown paranoid schizofrenic (Jewish/Polish Jew à la Kosminski?)
3) W.H. Bury
There you have it!
Eat it and weep.
And I certainly agree with Katherine that Jacob Levy is one of the most interesting to date well worth investigating further.
All the best
G, Sweden
(P.S. David Radka; when are you ever going to register...?)
(Message edited by Glenna on November 19, 2004)
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Legion
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 345
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 1:51 pm: | |
Hello Katherine -
I don't really have any suspects that I can name off hand. I'm a little to early into my research to name anyone. However, I do find the two frenchies interesting.
Legion
P.S. Glen - David can't register. When he posts something off color, he could then be banned. Something that I'm sure he doesn't want
"Our name is legion, for we are many" |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 8:45 pm: | |
PS I'm covered on Jacob Levy as a "Kosminski familiar," see my #4 above.
DR |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
