Author: David Jetson
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 11:45 am |        |
I mean, from the list of suspects. Who do you think definitely didn't do it?
You don't have to be able to conclusively prove that Walter Sickert was out of the country at some crucial time, I'm asking who do you feel sure didn't do it.
I feel that Walter just wasn't the type, his behavior that is known - like not killing anyone for 50 years after the Whitechapel murders ceased - is a pretty sure indicator that he wasn't Jack.
Anyhoo, here's my list of "suspects that I consider cleared to my own satisfaction."
Prince Eddie
William Gull
Lewis carroll
Dr Cream
James Maybrick
Michael Ostrog
Francis Tumblety
Walter Sickert
All the other famous writers/poets/painters that get mentioned...
Any of the cops
Any of the politicians
I'll add more if any come to mind... |
Author: Monty
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 12:21 pm | |
David,
My Mum
My Dad
Sooty
Hold on....TUMBLETY !?!?! Why ?!?!? Maybrick ?!?!? How come ??
I thought you had to ...wait, no sorry...Ive just re-read your post....carry on.
Most that you've mentioned plus Barnett. Not sure about his involvement with Kelly but cant see his involvement with the others.
Monty
 |
Author: chris scott
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 01:07 pm | |
David
For what it's worth this is the list of "suspects" I would definitely exclude:
Pedachenko
Duke of Clarence
Sickert
Churchill
Tchkersoff
Carroll
Gull
Barnett
Maybrick
Cream
Ostrog
Deeming
J K Stephen
Netley
Of the others I would think these are most worthy of serious study
Druitt
Tumblety
D'Onston
But I have to say my prediction is that if and when JTR's identity is proven beyond doubt, the name that appears will not figure on any current list of "suspects". This is not to imply that I have some secret, earth-shattering theory that I will reveal in the fullness of time. Merely that I suspect that the Whitechapel murderer was a local "nobody" who has not yet come to our attention
Regards
Chris Scott |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 01:49 pm | |
Hi David
I agree with your list except I wouldn't totally rule out Tumblety (or some other as yet unknown Dr. T).
Personally I'm unconvinced by Druitt - just seems a convenient suicide. Not really any more reason to suspect him - perhaps less - than Buchan.
But I would like to know more about Bury, Hutchinson, Chapman, K...sky et al, La Bruckman etc. I favour a denizen of the area, possibly unstable but not visibly barking mad. SK's seem often to fall into the relatively unobtrusive class - whether they are mad or not is not a debate I'd like to get into - it's being explored as we speak elsewhere, but at least they don't typically come on like foaming lunatics, or they'd not get near their victims.
If Barnett and Kidney killed - which I find unlikely but just possible - then I only see them as down for one each, and hence not really JtR, though possibly murderers.
Regards
Pete |
Author: Chris Phillips
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 02:47 pm | |
On Druitt, I grant that in some ways he isn't an "ideal suspect" - particularly as he wasn't local to Whitechapel - but if he had been "just another suicide", I don't understand why he should ever have become Macnaghten's prime suspect.
Macnaghten's statements about "secret information" he had received, indicating suspicions by Druitt's family, and allegations of "sexual insanity", must surely be taken into account.
Then there's the letter Daniel Farson says he received from a Mr Knowles, before it was discovered that Druitt was a suspect, alleging a pamphlet about the Ripper published by a "Lionel Druitt, Drewett or Drewery" in Australia - where Montague's cousin Lionel had emigrated. Unless that can be explained more satisfactorily than it was by Howells and Skinner, I think that has to be put in the balance as well.
All frustratingly elusive stuff, but more pointers to involvement than exist for most "suspects". |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 08:06 pm | |
David,
I don't get why you started another thread for the same baisc purpose as the "What do you accept/reject/put in the "maybe" pile?" thread, which you also started just last week.
It seems to me that we're better off keeping the same basic conversations organized together instead of spreading them out all over.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 10 January 2003 - 08:16 pm | |
David,
Thanks for creating this thread. It is a good one. I enjoy seeing what suspects have been ruled out while not having to read through the views people hold on every aspect of the case.
Thanks,
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 05:37 pm | |
Rich,
What was I thinking? Heaven forbid you should have to read other people's views on the case as a whole.
Since we know how you whine when you don't get your way, no doubt you'll be complaining on every thread on the board that messages shouldn't be organized by topic. But then they aren't right now anyway because they all become "Rich's thread to cause pointless arguments" regardless of what the subject line says.
Tsk, tsk, Richie. Learn to play nice. 
It's bad enough trying to follow the threads of conversation on this site with them all broken into pieces here and there. Let's not make it worse.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 08:34 pm | |
Hi Dan,
I am sorry that I complimented another poster and it bothered you. Please accept my apologies.
Rich |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 11 January 2003 - 09:38 pm | |
I think we can rule out the following suspects
as suspects (or even people).
Pedechenko
Sickert
Cream
Gissing
Randolph Churchill
Lewis Caroll
Dr. Stanley
Albert Victor, the Duke of Clarence
Richard Mansfield
William E. Gladstone
James Monro
Melville Macnaughten
Sir William Gull
That said, their peripheral roles or interests in
the case or comments on it would be of interest
to us.
I once looked into Deeming as the original suspect, writing an article about him in Medicine,
Science, and the Law back in 1988. The evidence
for him being the Ripper is very, very, very weak,
but curious enough to merit an occasional look.
I don't think he's the Ripper, but he too is pulled into the maelstrom of the Whitechapel Murders by timing, behavior (not entirely his own), and circumstances.
I have no favorite candidate for the Ripper at
this time. I have tried to examine the case in
different ways to create an image of the killer,
but I admit indifferent, even contradictory
results.
Jeff Bloomfield |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 12:17 am | |
I would rule out Queen Victoria. . .witness descriptions include no one that portly.
Rich |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 10:22 am | |
Hi Chris
Not to dismiss Macnaughten, but I really think he was just coming up with three (out of many) suspects that to him were more likely than Cutbush, who he was outraged was suggested as a suspect. I don't think there was any specific evidence against Druitt except his own family suspected him - and even why is not recorded.
The fact that he was 'sexually insane' need not detain our attention, unless the form the insanity took was slicing up ladies of the night. Indeed, if by 'sexually insane' he means 'homosexual' it would actually seem to be a good reason to exclude him - homosexual killers do not normally prey on the opposite sex.
There is also the cricketing alibi.
Anyway, I'm not arguing that he should be regarded as a non-suspect, but I do find him very unlikely.
Regards
Pete |
Author: Chris Phillips
Sunday, 12 January 2003 - 10:58 am | |
I suppose granted that no one is suggesting he should be "definitely excluded" - as per the title of the thread - further discussion of Druitt here is probably off-topic.
But I think, despite one phrase used by Macnaghten, it's clear that Druitt did become his favoured suspect - judging both by his own statements and the "leaks" to the press about the Ripper having drowned himself.
I'd like to know what Macnaghten did mean by "sexually insane", but to my mind it does sound relevant if we view JTR as a sexual serial killer.
As for the cricketing schedule, I think "alibi" is a bit of a misnomer. It comes in two halves:
(1) As Druitt played cricket in the West Country on several weekends in August-September, Sugden suggests he may have been there continuously, therefore being out of London for the Tabram and Nichols killings. That may or may not be true, but none of the individual cricket matches presents any time difficulty.
(2) Druitt played cricket at Blackheath at 11.30 after the murder of Chapman about 6 hours earlier. Again, there's no time difficulty, as the journey from Hanbury Street to Blackheath would be unlikely to take much more than an hour. But there's a feeling that Druitt may have been too tired to play after being up all night, or perhaps that cricket-playing is just an intrinsically unlikely activity after committing a brutal murder. |
