|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 577
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 3:33 pm: |       |
Hi,
It should be by now, well documented, that Leanne, and myself are co writing a book, fingering Joseph Barnett, as the number one suspect as Jack the Ripper'.
Many people, read these boards, many of the registered members are well researched on this case, and also many people that zoom in on our site, will have strong opinions.
I have formed the opinion, that very few alternatives, are put forward, all we seem to do is suggest, reasons why posts are unlikely.
SO i suggest, that it is now time, for the educated, and novice audience to put forward their actual candidate for a possible Jack, instead of remaining silent, so come on viewers to this site, state who you consider'Jack' may have been, you may want to go into depth, or keep it short, the floor is yours..
It will be intresting to find out , not only reconized names opinions, but also unregistered opinions.
Regards Richard.
|
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 3:50 pm: | |
Whatho Richard,
I look forward to reading your book.
I think Barnet may have killed Mary Jane Kelly but I think he had nothing to do with the other murders. We shall see what you have to say.
My candidates: Thomas Hayne Cutbush or Francis Tumblety but Michael Kidney for Elizabeth Stride.
That being written; the Ripper was probably some one who was "invisible", that is some one who would not stand out; a normal looking person who just fitted in or some one who no one would question. A policeman?
Cheers, Mark |
Kris Law
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 65
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
Hello Richard,
That's an interesting idea. But, also a tough one for me. I don't know how many of the others on this board are like me, but my opinion changes quite often.
I have to say, though, that when I search my soul for what I believe is the answer, I come up with a somewhat pessimistic opinion: I don't believe any of the suspects we talk about on a regular basis was the Ripper.
Somebody on this message board, at some point, said that when we are all dead, and its the end of time and God is reading out all the crimes against humanity, he would come to the Ripper killings, read the name, and we would all look at each other and say "WHO?"
I believe this to be true. I doubt that his name is on any of these lists, and possibly was never brought up in connection with the killings. He was probably some poor schmuck who hated all people, but only felt comfertable taking it out on women, since they wouldn't be as formidable in a fight. Especially if drunk.
And, for the record, I do think he wrote the Lusk letter, and do think that was Eddowes kidney. I think he probably felt a bit shown up by all the press that the other letters got, and wanted to have his say too. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 4:14 pm: | |
I'm trying to work from the evidence to a suspect, not the other way around, so I tend to change my mind a lot! |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 254
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 4:17 pm: | |
P.S. If we ever did identify him I think he would cease to be fearsome and fascinating. I think we would find him disgusting and depressing. |
Kris Law
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 66
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Diana,
I totally agree with you.
Ricahrd,
Quick question, and I know this is a tad off topic here (or a LOT off topic), but I always wonder one thing when it comes to Barnett as a suspect: How do you account for him being up all hours of the night, sometimes until almost 6 in the morning, and then him having to work in the morning?
Please don't take that as some sort of attack, I assure you, it is not. I am merely curious, and I don't like to get tangled up in all the arguments on the Barnett board. |
Kris Law
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 67
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 4:26 pm: | |
Diana,
I totally agree with you. 100%.
Richard,
Quick question about Barnett that I've never had the balls to add to the arguments on the Barnett board: How do you account for his being up to all hours of the night and then going to work the next morning?
Please don't take that as an attack on your theory, it is not. Merely curiousity. |
Kris Law
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 68
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 4:28 pm: | |
Whoops.
Sorry everyone, I thought I canceled that post. I'm drunk, what can I say?
At any rate, I think I worded it much better in the second post. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1841
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 6:22 pm: | |
Hi all
Cutbush, Cohen/Kosminski, and Hutchinson are in my frame. Plus, of course, Mr Unknown.
There are a few other worthwhile suspects, including Barnett. I don't dismiss Barnett, but I do tend to react when people read things into the evidence that I don't really think are there.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 985
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 7:08 pm: | |
I have no favourite suspect, Richard.
Like Diana, I'm trying to work from the evidence to a suspect, not the other way around. I can surely recommend it... 
I do look forward to the book, though, and the best of luck with it.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 460
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 7:49 pm: | |
Hello All
I agree that it is best to let the evidence take us to a suspect rather than pick a potential candidate and seek to build a case against him.
Having said that, IMHO he was a sailor or worked aboard a ship; had a place of his own in the heart of the East End; knew some of his victims at least by sight; had a criminal record and was known to the police as a local miscreant who attacked women before his first actual killing and departed from London, at least temporarily after the Kelly murder.
Having solved the mystery I have been ordered by my wife to take out the garbage.
All The Best
Gary |
Donald Souden
Detective Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 114
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 9:33 pm: | |
Richard,
Once again you have started a provocative thread and for that I commend you.
Certainly, there are many interesting known candidates, but unfortunately they are too often like Druitt -- someone that we wish we knew why the police considered him a suspect -- or like Barnett -- someone that we wish we knew why the police didn't consider him a suspect.
I hate to be discouraging, but I am often drawn to Rumbelow's words: "I have always had the feeling that on the Day of Judgment, when all things shall be known, when I and the other generations of 'Ripperologists' ask for Jack the Ripper to step forward and call out his true name, we shall turn and look with blank astonishment at one another as he does so and say 'Who?'"
For now, I incline to that unknown Ripper. Someone young and from the area, but otherwise so quiet and ordinary that he blended so well into the sea of humanity in the East End that no one noticed. Except that he had a little tic in his brain and every so often it would twitch too much and. . . .
Don. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 235
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 10:29 pm: | |
Hi Richard (and everyone),
I have no real favorite among the known candidates. My least favorite are Lewis Carroll and Walter Sickert (although a slightly stronger case against Sickert is possible - but still a weak case). There is something of choosing a famous individual in some field, and suggesting that he or she is the perpetrator of a crime or hoax. It seems like an act of jealousy, but that's my own feelings.
Some of the candidates that interest me more than the others are the evil trio (Deeming, Cream, and
Chapman), the suicidal Druitt (a figure of great pathos, apparently), Clarence (another maligned figure - although he had long been forgotten by the public when he was suggested as the Ripper),
D'Onston Stevenson, Tumblety, and Stephen. The charge against James Maybrick seems really odd to me. The Kosminski/Cohen theory is rather
interesting - possibly the strongest theory but that does not say much.
Jeff |
Brad McGinnis
Detective Sergeant
Username: Brad
Post Number: 81
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 11:26 pm: | |
Hello Richard, There are only 4 serious candidates that we know of. That is suspects who were in WC at the time, have the knowledge to find and remove organs, are known odd balls and most importantly have a MOTIVE. They are John Anderson, D'Onston, LaBruckman, and Francis Thompson. All the others lack the credentials to be our man. Having said this, I dont mean to rule out an unknown. In fact" Mr. Unknown" may be the best suspect. Brad |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1064
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 12:45 am: | |
G'day,
KRIS: 'How do you account for him [Barnett] being up all hours of the night?'
The market Bell for the opening of trade at Billingsgate Market rang at 5:00 a.m. in the morning! By that time all the stalls and chairs had to be set up, the boats had to be unloaded and the best fish was sold early!
Costermongers had to hire their carts and be at the fruit markets early to load up, and anyone looking for the odd job too. I have researched into all of this for our book!
As for working from the evidence to the suspect: that's what all the great detectives at the time did, and no one found him! They wouldn't have heard of the name 'Joseph Barnett' until November 1888. We have the advantage today of being able to view things the other way around!
Joseph Sickert was just an excentric artist, who MAY have written a letter or two, to get into the mood of his times!
Wait until the book comes out!
LEANNE |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 343
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 4:57 am: | |
Richard
As you probably known I am also in the process of writing. I do not intend to name the Ripper because frankly I don't known who he is. I do intend to sort the suspects into the categories of "more likely", "less likely" and "frankly ludicrous". Among the "more likely" candidates will be James Kelly, George Hutchinson and Aaron Kosminski. I'm not sure who else yet. Your man Barnett will be in the "less likely" category. |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1065
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 6:34 am: | |
G'day Alan,
GEORGE HUTCHINSON?, GEORGE HUTCHINSON? The guy who crept out of his hiding spot, went to the police station to save the police the time and effort of searching for a short man with a wideawake hat????????????
LEANNE |
Kris Law
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 69
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 9:41 am: | |
Leanne,
I still don't see how the market opening at 5:00am proves anything. If anything, doesn't it prove the opposite? Granted, he would have to be awake around 2:30 or 3, but he would be up and working, not roaming the streets, stalking Polly, Annie, and such. Wouldn't someone wonder where he was? And if so, it wouldn't take long to put his strange absenses together with the killings, would it?
Donald: Thank you for retelling my story in the correct wording, and citing the correct source. Nice to see great minds think alike. |
Holger Haase
Sergeant
Username: Holger
Post Number: 24
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 1:23 pm: | |
Mr Unknown will do nicely for me, thank you very much. If someone put a gun to my head and forced me to pick from one of the suspects, I'd go for Tumblety. Though I don't think that the Ripper has been identified, I do actually believe that - ahem, dare I say it - profiling is doing a good job at describing the kind of person he may have been.
Holger |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 10:44 am: | |
Hi leanne Walter Sickert by all acounts was excentric and if there is one thing that Cornwell did well was convince me that walter did right a few jack letters the doodles on some ripper leters are just to much like sickerts doodles to be ignored also his painting of Jtr bedroom is strange it ia an actuall picture of his bed room. He also claimed to have painted the rippers portrait at about the same time he came out with a selve portrait so to say he was obssesed with the ripper case is a fair statement but I would not rule sickert out all together I think that Mary Kelly claimed to have done some modeling for an artist in Paris? I think she claimed to be meeting someone special? and I think Sickert would fit into that catagtory. I Have backed of Sickert as a prime suspect based on the chats that I have had in the chat rooms because Sickert had other biographers who claim he was in france at the time of the murders? also Cornwell claimed that sickert was unable to have kids so how do you explain Joe Sickert? cornwell left him out of her book. Sickert has to remain a suspect in my mind just keep him on the back burner for now because if you wrote ripper leters you have to remain a suspect. Hi Brad I was not aware that John Anderson was a prime suspect at the time of the murders I Thought his name surfaced later after he made a death bed confesion? I still feel you have to give Dr.T a look are at least admitt he was a suspect at the time of the murders. I know the arguments against but keep this in mind the detectives could see how tall he was and how old he was. They still picked him up anyway. Take care CB |
Eric Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 12:31 am: | |
My honest opinion is that none of the people suggested as JTR is the true killer. Most serial killers kill for long periods before anyone catches them or suspects them. I believe JTR is some average Joe (no pun intended) that slipped through the cracks in history.
As soon as I finish building my time machine, I'll verify this and get back to everyone.  |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 1:52 am: | |
Hi all I agree Richard alot people spend alot of energy shooting down other peoples theories and all the while never puting forth a theory of there own. I love reading differnt theories. Remember there are no wrong theories because there is no definite answer to who jack was. I am new to the case so I am probably the least educated on ther murders of anyone who post. However I have read numerous books on the subject and I look forward to reading your book in the near future. The jtr case has been romatisized the fog the coaches and the whole victorian area has caught the imagination of people the ripper has become a boggie man rateing up with the likes of Dracula the wolfman and Frankinstien when in fact he was a simple serial killer no different then the green river killer or ted bundy. okay I wont be a hypocrite and discuss joe but there is some problems with the theory that he was the ripper. Motive for one and I dont no much about joe but why did he just stop killing and the takeing of the organs what did joe do with the organs he removed. I dont know if the ripper would of had a girlfriend and I do believe that Mary would of noticed something in his behavior you dont just wake up and start killing I believe the ripper had a history of deviant behavior starting with small crimes such as peeping maybe some sort of pornography he would of had some sort of a criminal record. my resources limited so out of all the known suspects one man fits the bill DrT. He had a history of deviant behavior arrested numerous times from selling pornography to gross indeacency. He had a collection of organs in his house 12 of whitch were female wombs and in the ripper murders the womb was a target that is key because I believe the ripper took the organs for some purpose maybe as a trophy. He would not have just dicarded them after going through the trouble of takeing them. DrT also had a motive. I am not talking about his mariage to a prostitute to the best of my limited knowledge there is no prove that such a marriage ever took place but I suppose if you are going to believe the colonel C.A. Dunham about tumblety's collection of organs then you might well believe that tumblety told him about a mariage. I refering to tumblety almost spending the rest of his life in jail for attempting to preform an abortion on a 17 year old prostitute if I am not mistaken she help the police arrest him. Tumblety hired some lawyers and was able to avoid the slammer I relize that tumblety did not actually preform a medical procedure on the women isnstead he gave her some herbs and claimed that would abort the pregnancey. However the fact that he posed as an abortionist is interesting. The timeline is right tumblety fled to america the end of december when the murders stop Tumblety was persued by scotland yard to newyork we have motive the timeline fits he had a collection of organs and we know he was a prime suspect at the time of the murders. Now I understand all the cons for tumblety being the ripper he was to tall to gay and to old. The age difference The Ripper was discribed as a man between the ages 27 and up to 40 that is big difference he was between 5'7inches tall and 6'feet tall again a big diference I dont believe that Abberline put to much stock in any of the discriptions given by any of the people so why should we. Dr.T was gay and gay serial killers usually kill men not women but again profileng is not perfect and there are reports in the sanfransico chronical that sugest that tumblety could be a charmer when he wanted to be I will point out that the ripper did not have sex with his victums There are just alot of tells that points to tumblety. If COL. Dunham is to be believed what are the odds that a man had a collection of organs [wombs] Running around WC at the same time as the ripper? I wuld love to know how tumblrty obtained his collrction. now haveing gone through the trouble of explaining my theory on tumblety I admitt that Don make sense If the case is ever solved it could be someone who we never heard of In my opinion tumblety is the best choice of the suspects we know off again I live in a two bedrrom apartment in west palm beach florida and I am limited to the casebook and the local library so I would be glad to take constructive critism. and feel free to point out any mistakes in my research I relise that people spend a good amount of time studing the case and I have only been at it for six months. I am looking forward to reading your book Richard take care your friend CB |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 194
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 2:31 pm: | |
hi richard
quite frankly i don't know if i had to pick someone (or die!) i would pick either tumblety or no one (ie more than one killer).
the reason i crit others theories ie royal conspiracy sickert etc is bcos they seem unlikly not bcos i think i know best or know or have the answer or have an axe to grind. if i though i was sure who it was id follow suit and write a book to prove it so good luck to you and leanne!
jennifer |
Suzi Hanney
Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 277
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 3:49 pm: | |
Kris,
Going back a bit sorry have just been reading this through..what about Joe spending the rest of 'that evening' playing whist at Bullers (?) and then going to work the next day...what work??
Cheers
Suzi |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 174
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | |
Like some others, I don't have a favorite suspect. I try to avoid thinking about suspects because it usually leads to suspect thinking! (Sorry, couldn't resist such a bad pun). I've been trying to focus on what happened at each individual crime scene, with the view of trying to see which cases are linked. If, for example, Stride's not a Ripper victim, then the descriptions of men seen in relation to Stride are meaningless in terms of who killed Eddowes (for example). If, however, we can determine who the victims are, then we can start looking for bigger and broader patterns.
After such issues are settled, certain proposed suspects may become less viable. For example, if Alice McKenzie were somehow determined to be a Ripper victim, then Barnett isn't very likely because his motive for murder no longer existed, Druitt is exhonerated because Druitt no longer existed, Tumblety is not in London, etc. Personally, I've not seen any real strong case against the inclusion some of the post-Kelly victims other than the authors chosen suspect couldn't have done it. That to me is far too circular. And this is why I don't like thinking about suspects first. We then tend to ignor things that don't fit that suspect, which means we pretty much guarentee we'll get it wrong because we've decided with no evidence who to suspect, and then only look at evidence that we can use to "build a case".
- Jeff |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
