Author: Saucy Jacky
Wednesday, 20 November 2002 - 10:00 pm |        |
I have noticed that over the years (especially recent years) there have been more and more suspects added to the list. I have a few problems with this. 1) If we continue to add names, sorting through the case will become a chore among chores 2) Many of the "new" suspects are more romantic than anything else. Perhaps we should return Mr. Hyde to the list? 3) If the killer is not one of the already suspected persons, wouldn't it be more likely that it is a nobody whose name has slipped into the mist of history?
While some of the new suspects are plausible, most are just fantasy. The sort of idea of a man in a silk hat gliding through the fog. Anyone agree? |
Author: Ky
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 01:57 am | |
Saucy Jacky,
While it's true that most new suspects are romantic fantasy, it would also be true that the 'nobody' lost to the mists of time will be discovered and added the list of 'new' suspects. Oh, the endless circle.
Ky |
Author: Dan Norder
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 04:02 am | |
More suspects are a good thing. It's better than trying to choose from a small list of suspects assembled by a police force understandably inexperienced with investigating serial killers. It's better to have a list of a thousand suspects that contains the name of the killer than a list of ten that most likely doesn't.
Many of the new names mentioned (Sickert being the major current example) are easy to dismiss by anyone who does a little bit of research ("Not even in London at the time? Out. Who's next?"), so I don't think that's much of a chore at all.
Dan |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 01:57 pm | |
| Sickert as a 'suspect' isn't new, he's been around since the mid 1970's. I suppose the best result of the latest proposal of him, by Ms. Cornwell, is the fact that now the art establishment has become interested and supplied more information on him, especially in relation to his activities at the time of the murders. |
Author: Goryboy
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 02:17 pm | |
Good point by Stewart: regardless of one's estimation of Ms Cornwell's work, her celebrity has caused a bright light to be cast on Walter Sickert. Although I'm 99% certain Sickert wasn't JTR (there's always the tiniest possibility), any light cast on any suspect that reveals new information can (and often does) have a ripple effect on other suspects, places, times, etc.
Also, Dan's view that "It's better to have a list of a thousand suspects that contains the name of the killer than a list of ten that most likely doesn't" is one with which I heartily agree. Thanks to serious researchers and writers like Evans, Sugden, Fido, Skinner, Begg, et al, we now have more information on this case than ever. And thanks to the contributions of serious students of the case like Viper, Conlon, Spryder and others, we can share it instantaneously. A researcher's dream....
Just a tip of the bowler (or wideawake) to all involved.
Cheerio,
John |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 21 November 2002 - 08:25 pm | |
Ky,
Are you General Nguyen Cao Ky, of the former Army of the Republic of Viet Nam? General Ky opened a package store in California after the war. If you are, welcome.
David |
Author: Ky
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 12:01 am | |
David,
Damn! You've discovered my clever disguise!
Dan,
I agree, the more the merrier.
Ky |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 04:51 am | |
Hi Dan,
well said. If we were to take everybody living in England in 1888 we could whittle the number down by using the facts we have. If somebody was able to use all the data without trying to prove that X was Jack I am sure he (or she) would narrow the list down to about a dozen people who could have been Jack. And it would not surprise me if very few of our suspects would remain....
Philip |
Author: Stuart
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 05:23 am | |
Until I find out otherwise, it seems to me that those who could have been JTR are:-
Chapman
Bury
Cohen (or whatever his name is)
Tumblety
The Lodger (Tumblety?)
This is the only other person....AN Other (I know that sounds a bit poor, but it's more likely than those that follow.
As of this minute I can't see it being anyone else.
It isn't
Sickert (in France)
Maybrick (diary is nonsense)
Ostrog (in custody in France)
Royals (yeah...right)
Barnett (possibly, very doubtful though)
Kelly (I don't think JTR was a "lunatic")
Kosminsky (I don't think JTR was a "lunatic")
Druitt (very possible, but cricket matches etc seem to point away from him)
cheers |
Author: Jack Traisson
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 06:57 am | |
If you don't think JtR was a lunatic how does David Cohen (Aaron Davis Cohen) make it on to your list of possibilities? He was certified in December of 1888, sent to Colney Hatch, and died there the following year.
I find that these type of lists that rate JtR candidates are always biased, and ultimately meaningless.
Cheers |
Author: Stuart
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 07:24 am | |
Got me there.
Just a hunch. Pathetic I know.
I just don't really know enough about him yet. All the name confusion around him makes me suspicious.
As for my list in general. Or anyone's list come to it. I think that everyone has a "list" of some sort.
Would you put the Royals/Lewis Carrol etc up there with serious candidates like Chapman/Tumblety etc?
I'd find it hard to believe if you did.
You have probably got favourites/could be's/possibles/no ways in your mind somewhere.
If you don't believe the Maybrick diary (I don't) then he would be in your "no way" column, and so on.
I don't think my list is biased. Against or for whom is it biased?
I admit my knowledge is "sketchy" and I'm not a serious researcher or ex-policeman or american novelist (oops), but I'm seriously trying to add some ideas here.
Lets look at Lewis Carrol. He's on the suspects page. As far as I'm concerned, the case against him is a joke, and his inclusion on the suspects page actually harms the seriousness of this board I believe.
I was going to suggest at some point that the admin of this board, split the "suspect" into 2 camps. Could be and Others.
Others being people like Lewis.
Stick Maybrick in with the Could be's come to that. It's not "impossible" I suppose.
Someone will now come back and say "well it's not impossible that it isn't Lewis Carrol". Yeah. I suppose so. In that case, put everyone in Europe around in 1888 on the list then.
Cheers Jack. |
Author: Jack Traisson
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 08:01 am | |
Hi Stuart,
By biased, I mean that your own personal belief system plays a part in your lists. You put Chapman on your JtR list, and have Barnett as doubtful. Others, using there own bias, might have it the other way around.
I am not a theorist, so I can not endorse any candidate. Do I have lists? Yes - contemporary and non-contemporary suspects. I would also acknowledge that certain suspects are non-starters. You have named several that I completely agree with. If I were to compile a full list of names I would be here all day :-)
Cheers |
Author: Stuart
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 10:53 am | |
Hi Jack.
Nicely put.
I've got Chapman in there because he did actually kill people. Important that. Same with Bury.
Top coppers of the days (or shortly afterwards) thought him a possible.
Barnett. Hmmm...Hates his girlfriend being a nightlady, so kills various nightladies to scare her off. Not too sure on that. It's possible, but he went 4 hours of police questioning, and they had no suspicions. The police then weren't as clued up as nowadays, but I can't buy the theory on him.
Non-starters actually get me down. Can't someone move them off the suspects page?
Is Cutbush a serious candidate?
Why isn't he there?
cheers
stu |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 01:05 pm | |
Hi all,
I am working on a novel presently on the case that definitely has "too many suspects." In the novel, Barnett murders Kelly, Kosminski/Cohen kills Stride, and Jack the Ripper is. . .
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 04:23 pm | |
Rich,
Sickert? ;)
B |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 04:27 pm | |
Brian,
There is right now a fictional work in the public domain suggesting Sickert is the killer. . .it's by an American writer. . .but I cannot remember her name.
Rich |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 22 November 2002 - 08:33 pm | |
Rich,
Thanks a lot - I just burned my nose on the coffee I snorted when I read your post.
B |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 04:14 am | |
Stuart,
You missed Mary Kelly as the killer.Fantastic?.
No more than some of the others.A case could be made against her.She was at a murder site the night of a killing,and there are those that believe she was not a victim.
Motive?.One could be conjured up.That's nothing new.Perhaps she collected body parts too.
Opportunity?.As much as anyone else.
Method?.As suggested by autopsy reports.
Of course I do not believe she was the Ripper,just that to suggest her is no more ridiculous than the suggestion of others that their chosen suspect is guilty. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 23 November 2002 - 01:00 pm | |
Brian,
: )
Rich |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Wednesday, 27 November 2002 - 11:04 pm | |
| Barnett is my pet suspect. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt (MY doubt) that he killed MJK. If he did in fact kill the others, I don't buy that it was to scare MJK off the streets. I buy more into a scenario where he was sexually deficient in some way, only through violence could he achieve sexual fulfillment. I believe this could be the reason MJK had grown to loathe Barnett also...some kind of weird sexual something-or-other that made her uncomfortable. He didn't turn his violence upon her until he was rejected by her. |
