|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 6:26 pm: | 
|
Hi all,
Love the site. I think I've read hundreds of pages of posts by now. I wanted to start a thread that endeavors to eliminate all the reasonably impossible Ripper suspects in order to come up with a small batch of maybes. I would love it if personal attachments and gut feelings were held in check and we could get down to the business of tossing a few of these suspects into the drink.
Let me start with Neil Cream: Not possible that he was the ripper because he was in prison when the murders were taking place.
Anyone else? |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 283
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Not impossible if it was really Cream's double who was in prison. I don't regard him as likely however.
Stan |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2872
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 3:37 am: |
|
Prince Eddy.
Wasnt he at Balmoral?
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2873
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 3:39 am: |
|
Ostrog,
wasn't he somewhere else? France or prison or prison in France or something?
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my momma taught me better than that."
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 976
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Cream, Eddy, and Ostrog can be reasonably eliminated, being almost certainly elsewhere when some or all of the crimes were committed. Although he immediately absented himself from London after some of the murders, Druitt, on the other hand, can be shown to have been within a short rail journey of the East End at the time of most of the murders.
Andy S.
(Message edited by aspallek on August 26, 2005) |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 236
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 5:56 pm: |
|
Druitt may have even walked through the East End as , according to Howells and Skinner , his mother was hospitalised at the nearby Brookes Asylum during the summer of 1888.
Eddy may not have been the Ripper but he may have been involved in the murders in some way eg as in the Royal Conspiracy theory.
The British Royal Family certainly had the power to cover things up , maybe thats the reason why there is so little evidence today ( did the Royal Family have things removed from the Public Records Office folder ? ).
( tries not to let conspiracy theory paranoia creep in ! ) |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 286
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 6:55 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Proponents can always come up with an excuse not to eliminate their favorite; it wasn't really Cream in prison, the records were altered to give Eddy an alibi, the victim who was murdered when Ostrog was in custody wasn't killed by JTR.
As far as reasonable suspects go, I'd probably strike Gull off the list; too old, too infirm, too well known.
Goodies,
Stan |
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Andrew,
Yes, thank you. So, that's three down, many left to go. About Druitt: He does seem to be a reasonable suspect as far as ability to be there to commit the crimes. The suicide just after the canonical murders stopped seems to be a big tipoff. I am having a difficult time getting my thoughts around him having a psychological profile where I can sort of say, "Hey, that's it." Perhaps if we had some insight into his childhood, or some hard facts about why he was sacked from his teaching position. Still, I have to keep him on as a possibility.
Cheers,
Mike |
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Andrew,
Yes, thank you. So, that's three down, many left to go. About Druitt: He does seem to be a reasonable suspect as far as ability to be there to commit the crimes. The suicide just after the canonical murders stopped seems to be a big tipoff. I am having a difficult time getting my thoughts around him having a psychological profile where I can sort of say, "Hey, that's it." Perhaps if we had some insight into his childhood, or some hard facts about why he was sacked from his teaching position. Still, I have to keep him on as a possibility.
Cheers,
Mike |
Bob Jane
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 11:44 pm: |
|
Can we please strike off Maybrick. He is 20 years too old at the time of the murders. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
Andy,
The idea of someone travelling by train to committ murders just doesn't sit well with me. Was there a place that would have been closer to Druitt's school than the East End but still would have had prostitutes on the streets?
c.d. |
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Andrew,
Yes, thank you. So, that's three down, many left to go. About Druitt: He does seem to be a reasonable suspect as far as ability to be there to commit the crimes. The suicide just after the canonical murders stopped seems to be a big tipoff. I am having a difficult time getting my thoughts around him having a psychological profile where I can sort of say, "Hey, that's it." Perhaps if we had some insight into his childhood, or some hard facts about why he was sacked from his teaching position. Still, I have to keep him on as a possibility.
Cheers,
Mike |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 1:48 am: |
|
And I think we can pretty much disregard any suspect who wasn't George Hutchinson, because let's be fair, he was Jack the Ripper. This would of course mean it was impossible for any else to be Jack the Ripper, well I suppose that clears it all up now, anyone for tea and cakes? |
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 8:58 pm: |
|
Stan,
You are so right. I should have said, "Highly improbable." Of course, there are those who would disagree with the term 'improbable' as well. Thanks for the reality check. Still, I will toss him from my list. Did you have anyone else?
Cheers,
Mike |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 2:12 pm: |
|
I would eliminate anyone who does not have direct ties to the East End. The fact that Jack continued to kill in the area even as the police presence grew indicates that he had a comfort level with the area that he was reluctant to give up.
c.d. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 746
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Simon - once for all Prince Albert Victor had nothing to do with the murders.
there is not a shred of evidence for the remotest connection, either as the killer, or as having done something that led to the murders.
Please can we drop this stupid conspiracy nonsense. Don't rely on films or TV movies or discredited books (ie Knight and Fairclough).
Phil |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 983
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
c.d.,
My wording wasn't clear. I didn't mean that Druitt would have to take a long train ride to commit the murders. I was alluding to the claim that Druitt was known to be outside of London shortly after some of the murders and this is proposed as an alibi for his innocence by many.
Druitt was playing cricket in Blackheath later the same morning as Chapman was murdered. This is only a short train ride.
Druitt was said to be in court the West Country the day after the double event. But the day after this event was Monday (the girls being killed shortly after midnight on Sunday morning). He had a whole day to travel to the West Country.
Druitt played cricket in Dorsett the day after Nicholls was murdered. But again, this would be more than 24 hours later, giving him plenty of time to get there.
Instead of providing an alibi for Druitt, the facts at least show that he was nearby at the general time of each event, as opposed to being abroad.
Andy S. |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 237
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Phil - you can't totally write Prince Eddy off , simply because of Dr Stowell's theory of ' S '. I would say he was an unlikely suspect however. |
Ben Holme
Police Constable
Username: Benh
Post Number: 6
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
"And I think we can pretty much disregard any suspect who wasn't George Hutchinson, because let's be fair, he was Jack the Ripper."}
I'm with you 100%.  |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 871
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Hmm...
Eliminate the impossible,huh?
..Dr.John Hewitt[ proposed by Stewart Hicks ]...King Leopold II [ brought up by J.C.Lodwidge,while he did work with Farson..]...Frank Miles [ the award winning artist, brought to light by Toughill]....and a female [ c'mon ! lets be real..] |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 287
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Hi Mike et al.
Really, we can pretty much hit delete on anyone over 40 years of age. No other sexual serial killer waited until middle age to start his spree. Even Gein, as accounts indicate, started killing far before his more publicized victims.
Goodies
Stan |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 874
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 8:03 pm: |
|
Stan:
Uh oh..you mean we can eliminate Maybrick,Gull,Tumbelty,Conder[ 40 in 1888]...and..gulp..
...Oswald Puckridge ?
Those Puckridgians will be all over your back now,Stan... |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 984
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 10:18 pm: |
|
How old was Gacy when he started?
Anyway, we don't know for certain that the WC murders were JtR's first.
Andy S. |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 289
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 11:53 pm: |
|
Hi Andrew: Gacy was 29.
Yes How, I'm braced for an onslaught of death threats.
Stan |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 747
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 3:50 am: |
|
Simon - I think we can totally eliminate Prince Albert Victor.
He has firm alibis for most of the murders - either with the Queen at Balmoral or his father. That is firmly attested.
He thus could NOT have himself been Jack.
As for a conspiracy to hide some indiscretion of his - what was it? The spurious marriage with Crook and the problem over her being a Catholic was disproved long ago - Crook was Anglican. Given the Royal Marriages Act there could, in any case, have been no threat to the throne.
There is thus no basis for a cover-up, blackmail, or masonic conspiracy (at least related to the Prince).
None of this depends on Stowell.
Harrison's "Clarence" was a deliberate and fanciful riposte to Stowell which admittedly concocted a theory around JK Stephen out of this air. His involvement is thus also spurious.
WhaT else have you to offer.
In my opinion the "Eddy" horse won't run.
Happy to continue to debate.
Phil
|
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 9:17 pm: |
|
Stan,
I've been looking at Holmes, Gacy, Speck, and the like. I think the ages of 25-30 seem like about the ages these guys start their sprees. That of course doesn't include the less hideous things they did when younger. Does that sound about right to you? Exceptions might be Chikatilo and Fish, but I don't believe they really discussed their younger days.
I'm really beginning to opt for the Arbie la Bruckman or Szemeredy ideas, but I lean toward a younger man that was never identified as a suspect.
Gosh who knows?
Thanks,
Mike
|
Ian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 9:02 pm: |
|
Phil Hill. There is no concrete evidence that any suspect was Jack The Ripper. You can't right off Prince Albert Victor because of a lack of evidence. If the Prince was JTR (Personally I don't think he was) then there most certainly would be absolutely no evidence pointing to him as it would've almost certainly been destroyed. Infact the fact that there is such a big mystery could add to the theory that Jack was someone very important.
|
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 11:28 pm: |
|
Andy,
Gacy was 26, give or take a year.
Mike |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 753
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Ian - we should write off any suspect not supported by at least some rewasonable suspicion. By your argument the entire adult male population of London under 50 in 1888, would be under discussion here.
It is not just a case that the Prince has no evidence against him - he has ALIBIS (that means he was definitely elsewhere). the company he was in, the contemporaneous nature of the reports (diaries, Court Circular etc) make it extremely unlikely this was altered after the event.
I don't know why you want to cling to this conspiracy nonsense, but for heaven's sake show some discrimination in argument.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but this royal conspiracy drivel is kept alive by unsupported reasoning such as you put forth. If it is not firmly challenged and refuted (and it was blown up long ago) then it will just continue. Nothing personal, please believe that.
Phil |
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 114
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Stan
I agree with you on a few of your suspects to eliminate:
My list - Prince Eddy, Dr. Gull, J. Netley, James Maybrick and F Tumblety, and Sickert just to start.
regards
Julie
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 291
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Julie: You'll get no arguments from me on that lot.
Mike: Regarding Fish and Chikatilo, Fish was 39 by his account when he started but he's been mentioned as a suspect in some child murders 5 years before that. Chikatilo, according to him, was 42 when he committed his first slaying, so if he can be believed that could push my range out a couple. I did say "pretty much" eliminate anyone over 40 but if Chikatilo really was 42 then I was wrong by 2 on that 40 number.
Stan |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 986
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 9:33 am: |
|
Phil,
I think the intent of this thread was to avoid interpretations of "reasonable" and merely eliminate those who have an airtight alibi such as being out of the country when at least some of the murders took place. It is a different question to ask, "Then, who should be under discussion?"
Andy S. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 446
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
Really,people, if we can't eliminate Prince Eddy then there's no point to this thread.
Mags
|
Ian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 28, 2005 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Phil Hill. If a member of the royal family had been Jack The Ripper the royal family would have made certain they had alibi's. You don't think they would've been likely to admit the fact that the ripper was one of them do you? It would almost certainly have brought down the whole monarchy.
I realise that conspiracy theories are entertaining but it doesn't mean it's not possible.
How many ripper theories are there? The police of the day threw a number of suspects at us and barely any two agreed. Anyone would think they were deliberately trying to muddy the waters and confuse. ;-)
As I pointed out in my origional post, I don't think Eddy was Jack The Ripper but I've got an open enough mind not to be as naive as to completely dismiss the possibility. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 759
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Ian - what absolute nonsense.
Look at the events shortly afterwards re Cleveland St, where PAV's identity could not be kept out of the record.
I would ask:
a) if it was known that he was "Jack" earlier, how he was allowed to be involved at Cleveland St. One assumes the royal family would have been at least concerned.
b) if they had "covered up" an earlier more serious crime so completely they were unable to do repeat that job so soon afterwards.
Sorry your logic just doesn't stack up to me.
Besides there is abosolutely NO indication that JtR was a member of the royal family.
Actually, when you analyse it, the police on balance had two main suspacts - the "drowned doctor" (for which also read Druitt); and the insane Polish jew (read Kosminski).
Swanson, Macnaghten and Anderson all agree on the latter.
I would say it was totally naive to believe that "Eddy" could have been the Ripper. For one thing, if you know anything about his character, he was so lacking in energy, commonsense or practical ability as to be of concern to his family. I don't see it as consistent that he runs off to the East End and carves up whores. neither does his later career suggest that there were any concerns he had!!
Phil |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 239
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Phil , I don't think that anybody is saying that Eddy WAS the Ripper , just that he cannot be written off as a suspect. I'm saying that Eddy cannot be written off totally because of Dr Stowell's theory about ' S '. Mary Kelly was also seen with a character resembling Eddy a few days before her murder.
As for the Royal Conspiracy theory , have you not read Jean Overton Fuller's book ' Sickert and the Ripper Crimes ' ? There is also Andy and Sue Parlour's theory and John Wilding's theory , both of which involve a variant of the Royal Conspiracy.
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 861
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
I think you are collapsing the list of police suspects there way too severely. We don't know that Anderson's Polish Jew was really Kosminski, and there were certainly enough other Polish Jews (read foreigners) running around that were under suspicion. There were also other police suspects.
But of course Price Eddy is a completely ridiculous suspect and even trying to argue with someone about it gives the idea more attention then it deserves.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 760
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Where is the basis of Stowell's story?? No supporting evidence has been found in Gull's papers, and the background to the story (see some of the background provided by Colin Wilson tends to discredit Stowell's claims too.
Which suspect was Mary seen with who "resembled" Eddy? What are we talking about here - appearance or manner? In 1888 the difference between a gentleman and a middle class (let alone working class) man would have been as though an alien had landed in one or the other world. Their manner, dress, patterns of speech, accent, and force of personality/command would have been totally undisguisable. "Eddy" was certainly not up to carrying off an impersonation of a person from a lower class. Let's get beyond the superficial shall we?
I will not reveal my opinions of either Jean Fuller's, Wilding's or the Parlour's work. Let's say that neither enter my top twenty Ripper books, nor deserve too. Fuller retails second hand gossip for which no foundation has been found, the others do not impress with their scholarship. They have axes to grind, and that undermines their work for me.
Further - the alleged motives for any conspiracy (of the royal/masonic type) have been effectively destroyed many times. What, Simon, in your opinion would have been the basis for such a conspiracy.
If no one says that Eddy was JtR then surely he is automatically dismissed as a suspect until or unless new evidence emerges to link him to them. No link has yet been shown even distantly.
NOTE: I do not dismiss conspiract theories full-stop!! I am open to a cover up linked to Fenian activity for instance, but that's something quite different to the theories you mention.
Dan - what Anderson hints at fits almost exactly with the Kosminski/Cohen mess that Martin Fido researched. That he, Macnaghten and swanson were thinking of different suspects is remote - not least because Swanson gives the name of Anderson's suspect which matches Macnaghten's list. That there may have been a muddle about who they each meant by Kosminski is not relevant to my point.
Sorry to be terse, but this royal conspiracy rubbish HAS to be buried once for all, or we will all be laughingstocks for any respectable historian or hald way informed reader.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2373
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 6:29 pm: |
|
Phil,
To quote from "The Facts"-Paul Begg:
page 394
"There is nothing improbable about Prince Albert Victor suffering from syphilis:he was regularly attended by a young doctor named Alfred Fripp,who later became a famous surgeon,and papers discovered after his death included a prescription for the Prince that Fripp"s biographer suggested indicates the prince had also suffered from gonorrhoeal infection.Paul Begg adds "What we dont know and Stowell didnt explain was why the syphilitic Prince Albert Victor was Jack the Ripper."
Best
Natalie |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 240
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 8:39 pm: |
|
Phil - for the man who resembled Eddy being seen with Mary Kelly , see the statements by McCarthy and Bowyer on p.325 and 326 of Sugden.
Any Royal Conspiracy must relate to either Annie Crook , or Mary Kelly , or both of them.
If Eddy had syphillis , how did he catch it ? This suggests he had mingled with prostitutes at some time. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 761
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 1:59 am: |
|
And exactly HOW does Annie crook relate to anything conspiratorial or royal? All Knight's claims - her place of residence, her religion, were found to be untrue??
Where is a SHRED of evidence that MJK was ever associated with "Eddy" or the royal family or any conspiracy? we cannot yet prove a single word of her biography (as retailed by Barnett) to be true?
IF (big IF) the prince had a venereal infaction, we know that "Eddy" frequented places such as that in Cleveland St - he could have caught it at such a place. Syphilis could not only be caught in the East End.
The Fripp evidence is tenuous at best. he doesn't say the treatment WAS for a venereal infaction, that is a later inference.
Anyway why does Eddy's health problem (assuming he had one) make him a suspect as JtR? You are working in the wrong direction, making an assumption and then seeking to validate it.
The pathetic adherence to this busted idea of a royal conspiracy (and the bancruptcy of the claims put forward to sustain it) suggest to me either an odd "romantic" attachment to the idea itself (come what may) or a need to support some pre-ordained theory/suspect that requires it. Both should be dropped IMHO.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2375
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 3:07 am: |
|
Hi Simon,
As you may recall,Dr Thomas Stowell,CBE,FRCS,also a lecturer at the London School of Economics,chief medical officer to ICI etc etc [and he WAS very distinguished too],was a pupil and friend of Theodore Dyke Acland the son-in -law of Sir William Gull and husband of Caroline Gull.Dr Stowell was also chief executor
of Acland"s will and a close friend of the Aclands.
Maybe he had been told something in confidence?.......hmmm like Macnaghten?...andlike him let it "be known later" that he knew who the Whitechapel murderer was!He was a man every bit as "distinguished" as Macnaghten...
He may even have had tea with the Queen!
Natalie
|
Mike the Mauler
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Okay,
The prince is officially eliminated on this thread. Sorry conspiracy fans, but thanks for playing.
Mike |
Ian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 6:27 pm: |
|
Phil.
Why has any royal conspiracy theory got to be written off?
Is it totally impossible that there could have been a link between the royal family and the killings?
I can't understand how anybody can say that.
I can see how a royal theory is all exciting and I can see how it sells books and retains interest but I can't understand how it can be completely dismissed.
I understand that you don't think there was any royal link, thats fine you're entitled to that view but you can't expect everyone else to share that view when there's no concrete evidence that there was or wasn't a royal link.
There are theories I really don't believe, ie Sickert, Barnett, Tumblety, Maybrick and yes even Eddy but I certainly wouldn't tell anyone their beliefs are ridiculous if their view supported a theory I don't believe in because I have access to no more or less information on the subject than anyone else. |
Ian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 29, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Phil.
I agree with you in so much as I don't believe Eddy was Jack The Ripper. I just wouldn't discount anything unless it was proven to be impossible and I don't think it is impossible that Eddy was the Ripper, unlikely yes, impossible no.
In fact there is hardly anyone who I'd categorically rule out. Its interesting that Peter Sutcliffe had an "alibi" for a couple of murders he committed. Had the Yorkshire Ripper not been caught Sutcliffe could easily have been dismissed as a genuine suspect infact the police at the time all but did that.
People tend to have beliefs then ridicule anyone that challenges their belief.
It pays to keep an open mind. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 764
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 1:22 pm: |
|
Why has any royal conspiracy theory got to be written off?
Because there is not a scintilla of evidence to support the view. It is a crackpot and totally discredited fiction largely spread by an author who knowingly concealed vital information that undermined his book.
Is it totally impossible that there could have been a link between the royal family and the killings?
In my view yes. Why? Because when the later cleveland St scandal blew up - and PAV's name was certainly linked to that - there was no such cover-up. Various people sought to be discrete, but no one went around slaughtering post boys. And that scandal could have been far more menacing to the throne than any of the motives ascribed to the Ripper royal conspiracy. So I rule it out on the basis of consistency.
I can't understand how anybody can say that.
I just explained. There is a theory that men never landed on the moon, and it was all a US Government deception. I am sure some people believe it sincerely. But it doesn't mean i believe that one moment of sensible peoples' energy should be spent investigating it, or thinking it MIGHT be true. Like all mistakes (I wrote "lies" first), when uncovered, one replaces it with the truth and moves on. we should with this Royal conspiracy nonsense which simply discredits the serious JtR work being done and tars us all with the "crank" label.
I can see how a royal theory is all exciting and I can see how it sells books and retains interest but I can't understand how it can be completely dismissed.
That's the only reason a few try to peddle the discredited rubbish - because it supports their own ego-maniac theories; because it's exciting and romantic; or because they have only ever seen films and TV movies and never read a serious book on the subject.
I don't believe that any of the serious researchers in this field, Rumbelow; Fido, Begg, AP; Begg, Skinner, Sugden; Evans etc; considers this as having any substance at all.
I understand that you don't think there was any royal link, thats fine you're entitled to that view but you can't expect everyone else to share that view when there's no concrete evidence that there was or wasn't a royal link.
If there is no evidence, and the previous basis has been demonstrably shown to be false, I would consider it foolish to suggest to anyone that there is any mileage left in this story. Why would anyone want to believe it, when the evidential basis is non-existant?
There are theories I really don't believe, ie Sickert, Barnett, Tumblety, Maybrick and yes even Eddy but I certainly wouldn't tell anyone their beliefs are ridiculous if their view supported a theory I don't believe in because I have access to no more or less information on the subject than anyone else.
That's your choice. For my part I think one should tell children not to put their fingers in the fire; and that at some point one has to reveal to them that Santa Claus is a figment of the imagination.
But more seriously, I'd like to see Ripper-studies taken as seriously as (say) the work of the Richard III Society. While cranky theories like the one we are discussing are not challenged and challenged hard, we'll be regarded by the world as no better than UFOlogists (and some of them deserve recognition but get buried by the weirdos) or flat-earthists.
Sorry, I'd just like to see some solid standards employed here.
I guess we'll have to differ.
Phil |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 241
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Why has any Royal Conspiracy theory got to be written off ?
Because there is not a scintilla of evidence to support the view.
Phil , calm down , you'll burst a blood vessel ! Remember , Ripperology is for all sorts and not everybody treats it as a branch of criminology etc.
Yes , the theories of Knight and Fairclough are discredited. But as I said before , there are other theories which involve the British Royal Family such as Jean Overton Fuller's theory or the Parlour's theory or John Wilding's theory - whereas you may choose to dismiss them , others do not. I think Ms Fuller's theory involves Annie Crook , but the alternative conspiracy theories generally focus on Mary Kelly being the main victim of the Conspiracy rather than Annie.
Now there IS evidence that Mary Kelly was someone special because her murder is different to the others in the Canon. She was much younger than the other victims , prettier , Irish , she suffered more at the hands of the Ripper than the other victims , she was killed indoors. Why did the Ripper change his MO from killing older women to killing a young woman ?
Theres also Abberline's statement to Nigel Moreland that the Ripper was ' one of the highest in the land ' and all the anecdotal evidence to suggest Prince Eddy was involved in some way ( do I have to go through this again ?!! )
Which suspects do we actually have any really good evidence against then Phil ? Who is a really solid suspect right in the frame for the murders ?
Impossible - I'd say Cream , Tumblety , Maybrick , Lewis Carroll , Chapman , Condor , Pedachenko , Ostrog , Jill the Ripper , Kosminski or David Cohen or whoever , Fogelma and Donston ( who didn't even know where the graffiti was written ! ). |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 769
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Now there IS evidence that Mary Kelly was someone special because her murder is different to the others in the Canon. She was much younger than the other victims , prettier , Irish , she suffered more at the hands of the Ripper than the other victims , she was killed indoors. Why did the Ripper change his MO from killing older women to killing a young woman ?
Not one word of which relates in any way to a royal conspiracy!! Leonard Matters in 1929 made MJK central to the mystery, but his theory did not involve the royal family in any way.
What about the Barnett theory in which MJK is either a "domestic" or central.
In short: you don't need the royal conspiracy to make MJK important.
Abberline's statement was late, and as was observed by someone in another thread recently, "Eddy" wasn't just "one of" - he was practically THE highest in the land.
The solid suspects are those suspected at the time, the Macnaghten list and/or Anderson's Polish Jew (the two are linked by Swanson); Tumblety; and others linked at the time. I'll wear Barnett as an outside chasnce for MJK (not as JtR). Cutbush is worth looking into for all the reasons AP gives.
For the rest, I dismiss utterly, Maybrick, Kelly, J K Stephen, Gull, Sickert (though for long I was intrigued, but Cornwell finally convinced me otherwise!!), Stephenson et al. There is no evidence for any of them. And I have nothing but contempt for the Barnardo, Dodgson brigade. The one's you dismiss are mainly fantasies (Cream, Chapman, any woman) but you add Tumblety to the list too quickly. Littlechild was no fool, the police of the day were definitely interested, and he was a curious fellow.
By the way I have no need to "calm down", but I do have a serious aspiration that the more madcap ideas be consigned to wastebin, where they belong.
Phil
|
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 242
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Surely Eddy was one of ' the highest ' in that the Queen , Bertie , Alex , Salisbury etc were higher or more important than him ?
Apologies to AP , but Cutbush is one of the worst suspects - what serial killer has gone from causing death and massive mutilation to stabbing girls in the bottom ?
Tumblety is another poor suspect - what was his motive for the mutilations inflicted on Eddowes or Kelly ? As a homosexual , why did he murder and mutilate women rather than men? And as a tall , flamboyant American , he would have stood out like a sore thumb in the East End too.
I think Barnett is a pretty good suspect , but where is the evidence to convict him : indeed , without MacNaughton why would we think of accusing Druitt ? Kosminski with his ' solitary vices ' also falls down.
What I'm trying to say is there is NO solid suspect for the Ripper and every suspect has points both for and against. I think it is virtually impossible for Eddy to have been the Ripper but I believe we should retain a little bit of an open mind as to whether he could have been involved.
I think the three best suspects are Druitt , Sickert and Barnett but there are serious problems with anyone of the three being the Ripper and we should recognise that. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2378
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Dr Stowell"s claims about Prince Eddy being Jack the Ripper were NOT simply "dismissed"by Paul Begg in The Facts.He calls him the "distinguished "Dr Stowell which ,without doubt he was ,and Begg cites verbatim some extracts from The Criminologist magazine in which Dr Stowell made his claims.[ quote:
re Dr Gull-physician to Queen Victoria-]
"He was physician to Guy"s Hospital,Physician in ordinary to Her Majesty, Queen Victoria,toHRH The Prince Of Wales,and to a large number of the Aristocracy and the wealthy including ,if I am right in my deductions,the family of Jack the Ripper........
[here its worth pointing out that what Paul Begg found extraordinary is the remark by Dr Stowell that Gull was seen in Whitechapel "on more than one occasion...on the night of a murder-" which Begg says adds corroboration to the Lees story-Lees being the psychic employed from time to time by Queen Visctoria and who is said to have led Police To Gull"s house in Brook Street when they were told JtR was seen going in there on the night of one of the murders].
Dr Stowell [continued]when talking of Gull having been seen in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel] ;-it would not surprise me if he was there for the purpose of certifying the murderer to be insane so that he might be put under restraint as were other lunatics apprehended in connection with the murders.
Begg"s writing on this is worth a read Folks!
Natalie |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
