|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
What do you accept/reject/put in the "maybe" pile?
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
What do you accept/reject/put in the "maybe" pile?
Author: David Jetson
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 11:01 am |        | I've been thinking about this for a few days, since I started contributing to the forums rather than being an occasional lurker.
A systematic approach seems to me to be best, so I went to the library to borrow a copy of D Rumbelow's book, to re-read (it's been many years) and review the evidence in light of what I've read at this site.
I'm thinking of writing a three column list of aspects of the case, and seeing what I come up with.
At the moment I'd put the 5 canonicals + Martha Tabram in the "Accept" column, as I believe all 6 were killed by the same person.
I'd put the Goulston St graf into the "Reject" column as I think it's a co-incidental red herring.
I'd put the letters into the "Maybe" column, because I don't think you can accept any of them as genuine.
So, Accept means I believe it.
Reject means I don't believe it.
Maybe means I don't know for sure, so I have to leave it out of my theory (if I had one) because I don't consider it proven.
I have a feeling that most stuff will end up in the Maybe or Reject columns. I'm pretty skeptical. I'm interested in what others would definatively accept or reject, so let's hear a few. |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 11:42 am | | David,
I believe in 6 killings at least. (A Maybe to the notion that the New York killing was Ripper related)
I accept the Goulston St graf as legitimate, and in fact the only actual communication from the killer. Which, of course, leads to...
....Rejecting letters as authentic, except for the Lusk letter, which I'd give a Maybe to.
Just remember, however, that I "only thought I knew"......
Sir Robert |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 11:57 am | | Dear David:
I'm no expert, but there are only three murders that I believe were committed by the same hand for sure, with the possibility of a total of six.
Why? No legitimate reason other than a gut feeling.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Diana
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 12:51 pm | | | Toss out princes, elderly doctors and writers of children's fiction. Toss out "Dear Boss" and all the other letters with the exception of Lusk which goes in the maybe column. Goulston street goes there too. Include Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes. I would add a "probably" section and put Stride and Kelly in it. Tabram would go in the maybes. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 02:15 pm | | David,
I've never really done it like this, but I guess I can give it a shot. 
Victims
Smith: Reject
Tabram: Maybe
Nichols: Accept
Chapman: Accept
Stride: Accept
Eddowes: Accept
Kelly: Accept
Coles: Reject
MacKenzie: Reject
Suspect ID info
Male: Accept
White: Accept
Lived in Whitechapel: Accept
Upper class: Reject
Middle class: Maybe
Working poor: Maybe
Homeless poor: Reject
Stalker: Reject
Homosexual: Reject
Insane: Reject
Disabled: Reject
Foreigner: Reject
Jewish: Maybe
Medical background: Maybe
Letters:
"Dear Boss": Reject
"Saucy Jacky": Reject
"From Hell" (Lusk): Accept
The rest: Reject
Witness testimony:
Elizabeth Long: Maybe
Matthew Packer: Reject
Schwartz: Maybe
Lawende: Maybe
Hutchinson: Maybe
Evidence:
Goulston Street Graffiti: Maybe
Bloody Apron: Accept
Farthings at Chapman scene: Reject
Suspects:
Druitt: Reject
D'Onston: Maybe
Tumblety: Maybe
Ostrog: Maybe
Sickert: Reject
Maybrick: Reject
Albert Victor: Reject
Gull: Reject
Kosminski: Maybe
Chapman: Reject
Barnett: Reject
Not a lot we can say is solid, unfortunately, and even the solid stuff (in my opinion) is still debatable.
B |
Author: Philip Rayner
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 02:33 pm | | | Only Homeless poor, Chapman and Barnett would be different from your list Brian. They would all get a maybe from me. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 02:57 pm | | Hi all,
I believe there were at least three victims (Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes) but possibly many more (I don't see how anyone can put a ceiling on the number since there are documented cases of serial killers changing their methodology and victimology).
I have no idea the profession or class of the killer - though I suspect the murderer was not in the upper class.
I have no idea who the killer was - though there are numerous plausible suspects. I think it's possible that Barnett murdered Kelly, but implausible that he murdered anyone else in the series. I also think that Kosminski may have attacked Stride.
I have no idea of the murderer's sexuality - I don't see how anyone can draw an inference.
I doubt any of the letters was genuine - and I am convinced that the killer did not write the Goulston Street message.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Kevin Braun
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 03:08 pm | | David,
I would only make a few changes to Brian's list.
Lived in Whitechapel: Maybe
All the witness: Taken with a grain of salt
Goulston Street Graffiti: Reasonably sure
Ostrog: jailed in France: Reject
La Bruckman: Maybe
John Anderson: Maybe
I find it hard to totally reject Druitt.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 05:32 pm | | I think this thread has the possibility to reopen every argument ever made on the board, so discussing individual bits should probably directed to their own threads.
Being as cautious as I am to rule anything in or out, my maybe column would be huge. I'd have to put levels of possibility in there. So I have: Accept, Highly Likely, Probably, Maybe, Unlikely, Highly Unlikely, and Reject.
Victims (pre-canon):
Millwood: Maybe; Wilson: Maybe; Smith: Highly Unlikely; Tabram: Probably; Houston (Texas, U.S.) serial killings: Highly Unlikely.
Victims (canon):
Nichols: Accept; Chapman: Accept; Stride: Unlikely; Eddowes: Accept; Kelly: Accept.
Victims (post-canon):
MacKenzie: Unlikely; Coles: Unlikely; Brown (in U.S.): Maybe; Ronan: Unlikely (probably should be Highly Unlikely because of the 20 year difference, but it was right upstairs from Kelly's old room).
Torsos: Maybe...
Facts about the killer:
Male: Accept; White: Probably (really depends upon how you define it); Foreigner: Maybe; Jewish: Maybe.
Lived in Whitechapel: Probably; Royal: Reject; Upper class: Highly Unlikely; Middle class: Maybe; Working poor: Maybe; Homeless poor: Unlikely; Mason or aware of Mason rituals: Highly Unlikely.
Stalker: Unlikely for most vicitms; Wilson (regardless of whether Jack did it): Highly Likely; Kelly: Maybe.
Homosexual: Highly Unlikely; Insane: Reject (assuming proper legal definition, I know that Brian knws what it means but others may only be familiar with the loose popular understand of the term); Sexual psychopath: Accept; Cannibal: Probably.
Medical background: Unlikely; Butcher-level background: Maybe; Disguise skills: Unlikely
Communication:
Goulston Graffiti: Unlikely; "Dear Boss" letter: Unlikely; "Saucy Jacky" postcard: Unlikely; "From Hell" (Lusk): Maybe; Oppenshaw letter: Highly Unlikely; Any other letters: Highly Unlikely; Hotel guestbook: Reject; Supposed letters on Eddowe's face, Kelly's face or Kelly's wall: Reject; Supposed meaning in Sickert's paintings, Carroll's writings, Poetry by Stephen or Thompson, etc.: Reject.
Witness statements:
Long: Maybe; Packer: Reject; Schwartz: Maybe (and when you throw in the Unlikely for Stride being a ripper victim the overall value of what Schwartz said becomes a Highly Unlikely); Lawende: Maybe; Cox: Maybe; Hutchinson: Highly Unlikely; Maxwell: Reject.
Suspects for Jack the Ripper:
Prince Albert, Carroll, Cream, Conder, Deeming, Gull, Maybrick, Sickert, Stephen, Thompson: Reject
Cutbush, Druitt, Kelly, Kosminski, Tumblety: Highly Unlikely.
Anderson, Barnett, Bury, D'Onston (aka Stephenson), Ostrog: Unlikely
(Yes, Ostrog was jailed in France, but not until after the MJK killing, so not a Reject in my mind... the timing is too close though to make him any higher).
Chapman (aka Klosowski), Hutchinson, La Bruckman, Unknown Other: Maybe
Suspects for Stride's murder:
Kidney, Kosminski, Ostrog: Maybe.
My suspect list moves around from day to day, but that's how it looks right now.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Kevin Braun
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 06:47 pm | | | Michael Ostrog, was arrested by the Paris police on 26 July 1888 and convicted on 14 November 1888. The Complete History of Jack the Ripper,Philip Sugden |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 07:06 pm | | Kevin,
Assuming he was locked up the whole time that explains why the officials in London couldn't find him during the time of the murders then. I remembered it being arrested Nov. 14, but presumably I had poor memory or an ambiguous reference somewhere.
Since I don't much go for the theories that really have suspects out running around when records say they are jailed (Cream, Tumblety) I guess that would push Ostrog back down to Reject.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Garry Ross
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 09:32 pm | | Evening all,
I've never seen Stride as a Ripper victim...I think she was put in there due to Eddowes' murder on the same night. If she was murdered on a different night perhaps she'd never be included in the list at all?
I go for 4 victims...possibly only 3.
Haven't a clue who the killer was and still have no definite favourite suspect either.
I still find it curious how everything just stopped though...the murders, the investigations etc.
Royal Conspiracy? yeah right, they still can't hide anything these days
take care
Garry |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 11:37 pm | | This is fun! Let me re-do the Schoenemanian list. Please allow me not to answer certain items, to keep my theory secret.
Smith: Reject
Tabram: Accept
Nichols: Accept
Chapman: Accept
Stride: Accept
Eddowes: Accept
Kelly: Accept
Coles: Reject
MacKenzie: Reject
Suspect ID info
Male: Accept
White: Accept
Lived in Whitechapel: Answer withheld (A.W.)
Upper class: Reject
Middle class: A.W.
Working poor: A.W.
Homeless poor: Reject
Stalker: Reject
Homosexual: Reject
Insane: A.W.
Disabled: Reject
Foreigner: A.W.
Jewish: A.W.
Medical background: Maybe
Letters:
"Dear Boss": Reject
"Saucy Jacky": Reject
"From Hell" (Lusk): Accept
The rest: Reject
Witness testimony:
Elizabeth Long: Accept
Matthew Packer: Reject
Schwartz: Accept
Lawende: Accept
Hutchinson: Reject
Evidence:
Goulston Street Graffiti: Accept
Bloody Apron: Accept
Farthings at Chapman scene: Reject
Suspects:
Druitt: Reject
D'Onston: Reject
Tumblety: Reject
Ostrog: Reject
Sickert: Reject
Maybrick: Reject
Albert Victor: Reject
Gull: Reject
Kosminski: A.W.
Chapman: Reject
Barnett: Reject
David |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 03:18 am | | | Now you have to take the accept and maybe and anything else, and come up with a definate.Of course,this has proved fruitless in the past as to identifying the killer or killers,and untill there is universal agreement on all points,I am of the opinion that the thread will be stuck on maybe,s,and maybe,s will not identify the killer. |
Author: David Jetson
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 07:56 am | | Thanks to the folks who replied. I'm not actually trying to solve the crimes here, I'm more trying to get a feel for what the majority opinion is on aspects of the crimes.
It seems like I agree with the general feelings about the letters, for instance: I think the Lusk letter (from Hell) is the only one that is worth considering. I was also interested in seeing what people think about the bodycount - I agree that in fact there are only three that are definately unquestionably by the same hand, and that the others are a little more doubtful, and though I believe that all the canonicals are Jack's work, that's based on feeling rather than certainty.
I think it's a worthwhile excersise in terms of getting an overview of what the general feeling is on this forum. |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 10:54 am | | "I think it's a worthwhile excersise in terms of getting an overview of what the general feeling is on this forum."
Hey David,
I agree that it's been worthwhile to get a look at people's overall views of the case. When you break these discussions down to their respective threads you only get a partial view of someone's outlook on the case. It's like trying to "solve" the murders by reading only the "A-Z" !
Sir Robert |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 12:36 pm | | Greetings all:
It's a bit like playing "Clue", isn't it? Was it Colonel Mustard in the Drawing Room with the knife?
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Stuart
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 10:14 am | | Here's my go.
I know I'm late, but I've only just really noticed this thread.
Smith: Reject
Tabram: Accept
Nichols: Accept
Chapman: Accept
Stride: Accept although most unlikely of the 6
Eddowes: Accept
Kelly: Accept
Coles: Reject
MacKenzie: Reject
Torso murders: Reject
Suspect ID info
Male: Accept
White: Accept
Lived in Whitechapel: In or Near
Upper class: Reject
Middle class: Reject
Working poor: Accept
Homeless poor: maybe
Stalker: Reject
Homosexual: Reject
Insane: Depend on what insane means. He’s a “nutter”
Disabled: Reject
Foreigner: possibly
Jewish: possibly
Medical background: Maybe had anatomical knowledge
Letters:
"Dear Boss": Reject
"Saucy Jacky": Reject
"From Hell" (Lusk): Reject
The rest: Reject
Witness testimony:
Elizabeth Long: Accept
Matthew Packer: Reject
Schwartz: Accept
Lawende: Accept
Hutchinson: Reject
Evidence:
Goulston Street Graffiti: Reject
Bloody Apron: Accept
Farthings at Chapman scene: Reject (they weren’t there were they?)
Suspects:
Druitt: Possibly
D'Onston: Reject
Tumblety: Reject
Ostrog: Err..No
Cream; Bigger NO
Sickert: Reject
Maybrick: Reject
Albert Victor: Reject
Gull: Reject
Kosminski: Possibly
Chapman: V Possibly
Barnett: Reject
Cohen: Possibly
Kelly: V Possibly
Bury: V Possibly (my fave)
Sundry poets, writers etc: Reject
Father of GWB. Possibly although odd.
Cutbush: Possibly
Jill: Reject
Deeming: Reject
Ah well...
Stu |
Author: judith stock
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 12:57 pm | | Hi, Stu...seems we are very much on the same page:
I accept as victims ONLY the following, Tabram (practice), Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.I think Stride belongs to Kidney.
I accept NONE of the letters, except MAYBE, POSSIBLY, the Lusk letter.
I accept all your premises regarding the suspect, and reject the same ones you do.
I do think all the witness testimony should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. It IS possible that someone saw the Ripper, but I doubt that detailed descriptions are possible....we've all the seen the studies about "eyewitness" testimony, so I won't go there again.
Regarding evidence....ONE piece:the bit of apron. NOT the graffiti, NOT the non-existent farthings, NOT a so-called "arrangement" of bits at the feet of Chapman.
SUSPECTS??? So far, I have not seen anything compelling enough to make me hang the moniker "Jack the Ripper" on anyone.
But isn't the mystery compelling?
Cheers,
J |
Author: richard nunweek
Thursday, 09 January 2003 - 01:23 pm | | HI EVERYONE
i believe martha tabram was a victim because of the thirty nine stab wounds which to me is significant polly nicholls also annie chapman because of 39 connection. liz stride i also accept because of the two murders were in close distance and time. also who was responsible for the graffiti i belief was the man who hutchinson saw talk to kelly because THE JEWS ARE NOT THE MEN WHO WILL BE BLAMED FOR NOTHING and YOU WILL BE ALRIGHT FOR WHAT I HAVE TOLD YOU has the same sound to it vocally . i believe the same killer was responsible for these murders and not one for liz stride and one for mary kelly
regards richard |
Author: Stuart
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 05:48 am | | Hi Judith.
Witness testimony.
It was dark in those streets, which always makes me wonder just how accurate they would be.
Height for example. How easy is it to judge someone's height? If they are stood alone I would say it is difficult. If they are stood next to a post-box then you could compare. Same as if they were stood next to a person.
Mrs Long said "He was a little taller than the victim (Chapman)". Chapman was 5'0" I believe. Question is...
1/ How much constitutes a little taller? 1"? 3"?
2/ Is headgear guilty of adding inches if you catch my drift?
On the letters, I reject them all, but the Lusk letter is best bet if I had to plump for one.
Compelling? You bet!
Since I watched that TV prog about Cornwell last autumn, I've bought and read whatever I can find.
More still to do.
Cheers
Stu |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 10:10 am | | Hi All,
I guess it's my turn:
Smith: Reject(Although possibly a good Motive Starter.(See Below))
Tabram: Reject(Yet goes with above Motive Idea.)
Nichols: Accept
Chapman: Accept
Stride: Maybe
Eddowes: Accept
Kelly: Accept
Coles: Reject
MacKenzie: Reject
Torso murders: Reject
Suspect ID info
Male: Accept
White: Accept
Lived in Whitechapel: In or Near
Upper class: Reject
Middle class: Maybe
Working poor: Maybe(But more than Likely)
Homeless poor: Maybe
Stalker: Reject
Homosexual: Reject
Insane: Maybe(Actually it's a bit Yes and No.)
Disabled: Reject
Foreigner: possibly
Jewish: possibly
Medical background: Maybe had anatomical knowledge
Letters:
"Dear Boss": Reject
"Saucy Jacky": Reject
"From Hell" (Lusk): Maybe
The rest: Reject
Witness testimony:
Elizabeth Long: Accept
Matthew Packer: Reject
Schwartz: Accept
Lawende: Maybe
Hutchinson: Reject
Evidence:
Goulston Street Graffiti: Maybe
Bloody Apron: Accept
Farthings at Chapman scene: Reject(Didn't exist.)
Suspects:
Druitt: Reject
D'Onston: Reject(Yet highly interesting.)
Tumblety: Reject
Ostrog: Reject
Cream: Reject
Sickert: Reject
Maybrick: Reject(Possiblity of his writing the Diary? Maybe.)
Albert Victor: Reject
Gull: Reject
Kosminski: Maybe(More than likely not.)
Chapman: Maybe(More than likely not.)
Barnett: Reject
Cohen: Maybe(Yet Highly Doubtful.)
Kelly: Maybe(Haven't really done any research on him yet.)
Bury: Maybe(Same as above)
Poets, Writers, or Artists: Reject(Although I find Francis Thompson an Entertaining Suspect.)
Cutbush: Reject(Insane? Accept)
Jill: Reject
Deeming: Reject
Ok, well my POSSIBLE Motive Starter involving Smith and Tabram works this way:
Jack had NOTHING to do with Smith, and I STRONGLY doubt that he had anything to do with Tabram as well. However, I have a feeling that Jack knew Smith.(Whether he knew her personally or worked in the Hospital when she died is up in the air in my mind.) Yet he had some feelings for her.(Be it Pity, Love, or whatever.)
As we all know Smith died of Peritonitis. This was due from a blunt object being forced into her vagina and tearing her uterus. Doing research on Peritonitis one will find that the organs most affected would be:
1.) Uterus
2.) Bladder
3.) Kidney(s)(One or both could be infected, which eventually causes Renal Shutdown)
4.) Heart(Since the Kidneys cease to work Toxins are not filtered out and bombard the Heart until we have Cardiac Arrest.)
Organs taken by Jack the Ripper:
1.) Uterus(Annie Chapman)
2.) Bladder(Annie Chapman)
3.) Kidney(Catherine Eddowes)
4.) Heart(Mary Kelly)
Also another interesting Coincidence is that Emma Smith's Left Ear had been cut and she had a slight cut along her neck.(Possibly from one of the Gang holding a knife to her throat, to keep her from screaming.) While we have all the victims in Jack's case had their throats cut, and Eddowes Left ear had been nearly cut off(as well as possibly Mary Kelly's.)
As for Tabram, I feel she was the 'Trigger'. She was Brutually Murdered on a 'Bank Holiday', as was Emma Smith. Not to mention she was killed not far from the scene where Emma was raped, as well as near where Emma lived). And like Emma, there was a short trial, very little coverage, and very few people caring about her death.
I think this is what started Jack on his Killing Spree. The idea that a Brutal crime happened not only once, but twice, and nothing was done about either one, teetered him over the brink.
Now of course I could be wrong, but so far it's the ONLY motive I've found that seems logical for both the 'start' as well as the 'finish' of the crimes.
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: Michael Raney
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 03:47 pm | | Ok, my turn (better late than never).
Smith: Reject
Tabram: Maybe
Nichols: Accept
Chapman: Accept
Stride: Maybe (Very possible)
Eddowes: Accept
Kelly: Accept
Coles: Reject
MacKenzie: Reject
Torso murders: Reject
Suspect ID info
Male: Accept
White: Accept
Age: 25-40 (I know, quite a range)
Lived in Whitechapel: In or Near
Upper class: Reject
Middle class: Maybe
Working poor: Maybe (very likely)
Homeless poor: Reject
Stalker: Reject
Homosexual: Reject
Insane: Not in the legal sense (I do however, believe that he was mentally disturbed)
Disabled: Reject
Foreigner: possibly
Jewish: possibly
Medical background: Reject
Letters:
"Dear Boss": Reject
"Saucy Jacky": Reject
"From Hell" (Lusk): Maybe
The rest: Reject
Witness testimony:
Elizabeth Long: Accept
Matthew Packer: Reject
Schwartz: Accept
Lawende: Maybe
Hutchinson: Reject
Evidence:
Goulston Street Graffiti: Maybe
Bloody Apron: Accept
Farthings at Chapman scene: Reject(There were no Farthings!)
Suspects:
Druitt: Reject
D'Onston: Reject
Tumblety: Reject
Ostrog: Reject
Cream: Reject
Sickert: Reject
Maybrick: Reject
Albert Victor: Reject
Gull: Reject
Kosminski: Maybe (low possiblity)
Chapman: Maybe
Barnett: Maybe (He was in the reject pile, recently changed)
Cohen: Maybe
Kelly: Maybe
Bury: Reject
Poets, Writers, or Artists: Reject
Cutbush: Reject
Jill: Reject
Deeming: Reject
I also think it could be someone yet to be discovered.
Just MHO,
Mikey |
|
|
|
|
