Author: Stuart
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 11:28 am |        |
I know I have.
Doesn't mean that you're "wishy-washy" if you do, or anything else for that matter. It just means that over time (weeks, years, whatever) that you've re-assessed evidence and what-not and changed your mind.
I ask because whenever I watch TV discussion programmes, or listen to conversations in the pub/work and so on, it never ceases to amaze me how some people will continue with their opinion despite overwhelming "facts". Not that there's too many fact concerning Jack, but I'm sure you all get my drift.
Years ago, I never really had a top suspect.
Then I read the Maybrick diary, and plumped for him. Ok. Anti Maybrick people here will probably laugh, but there you go.
Now I favour Chapman. I changed my mind.
As for a suspect like - say for example - Cream, do his accusers stick by that opinion, despite everything pointing away from him?
And others.
Cheers |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 05:42 pm | |
When I first started looking at JtR (early 90's) in earnest, I quite liked Druit. He was listed as a suspect, he died at a time that would explain the sussation of the murders, there was mental illness in his family, he fit the discriptions well enough, he was a teacher so might have chalk. That all looked good to me.
However, after reading more and listening to arguements for and against Druit, I've changed my mind to "unknown local". The mental illness that ran in Druit's family was of an outwardly violent nature (not sure if anyone has indicated just what it was his family suffered from? Was it depression or a schizophrenia of some sort?) Anyway, he seems to be playing cricket at times that would make it either impossible for him to be in the area for the murders, the graffito may not have anything to do with the murders, and apart from McNaughten's mention of him, there's nothing to connect him to the crimes at all.
Since I beleive that once the "correct" person is put under the microscope a lot of things will start to fit extremely well. The "theory" will be nice and simple, it won't require a lot of "could have just made it" or long round about ways to discount evidence that goes against the theory. This hasn't happened with Druit. The closer and closer he's looked at, the more and more he looks like a fairly successful lawyer/teacher who's family had a history of mental illness and suicide - his being part of that history. But, dispite all the information that has been uncovered about him, nothing has turned up that places him in Whitechappel on any of the important times.
Since all of the cases have similar problems (some moreso than others of course), I figure our problem is because we've not actually looked at the right person yet. I don't have anyone in mind, and it's too bad we don't have beat constible's notebooks listing details of their their nightly rounds (listing people they stopped and questioned would be very nice!).
Anyway, I'm rambling now.
- Jeff |
Author: Lisa Jane Turner
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 06:50 pm | |
| What sparked my enthusiasm was the film 'Murder by Decree'. The Stephen Knight 'Final Solution' was all that seemed available back then and I confess I was smitten with his bombardment of evidence...well young impressionable mind and all that. For years following a UK programme televised in 1988, I became an advocate of Kosminski. This involvement led me on quite a few adventures of my own (which I will refrain from going into, save that for a few pints of cider later....)Now I feel pitiful and suspectless, I keep thinking about Joseph Barnett, but at the end of the day, it was most certainly...."who?!" |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 09:22 pm | |
I started reading the case around 1990, when the head of my local (little Connecticut town) library recomended Begg's "Uncencored Facts" book to me. She had taken Rumbelow's tour on her London vacation, and thought I might be interested. I was so impressed with that book, as soon as I'd read it I dedicated myself to helping Mr. Begg catch the Ripper. Now, I believe I have done it.
David |
Author: Timsta
Thursday, 07 November 2002 - 09:32 pm | |
I saw the Barlow/Watt thing on the BBC, then at some later date saw a McNaghten suspects thing (I think they were pushing Kosminski). Didn't think about it much until I recently got interested (largely via Alan Moore and the Servant Girl Annihilators).
Don't have a favorite suspect since I don't believe we have the guy's name or details yet.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 11:24 am | |
Hi all,
I started following the case in the 1970s based on the Stephen Knight writings. I never bought into his claim of a royal conspiracy, but his work interested me in the case.
The first book I wholeheartedly admired was Donald Rumbelow's "The Complete Jack the Ripper." I was disappointed at the time that Rumbelow's position was that more likely than not none of the named suspects was likely to be the killer.
At various times subsequently, I considered Druitt and Kosminski as likely suspects. Upon reflection, I can see how that was really wishful thinking - I wanted the case to be solved.
Today, I have no favorite suspect. I realize we are likely never to know the identity of the murderer.
I am intrigued by Tumblety because he is the latest suspect. I think its possible that Tumblety, Druitt, Kosminski and thousands of others, famous and non-descript, could be the Whitechapel killer.
What interests me today is how certain folks who I think could not have been the killer are fancied by others - and how often they will come up with elaborate explanations and excuses for the evidence against their favorite suspect's candidacy.
Let the parlour game continue!
Rich |
Author: judyjanes
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 12:47 pm | |
Hi Richard,
I agree with your comments with respect to the fact that Jack could be any one of many. Some have been legitimatly cleared for a variety of reasons, however that depends on whether or not there was a killer or several killers. I've changed my mind each time documented proof has been submitted, depending on the source of course. The only thing that holds me back from accepting Tumblety as a suspect, is his very long, thick, red (?) mustache. Surely he would
have stood out because of this. It would be difficult for witnesses to miss this very prominent feature.
Regards judy |
Author: David Knott
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 02:56 pm | |
Hi all,
I'd like to claim the record for most changes of mind as to who JtR was.
My favourites have been (in chronological order): -
Maybrick (for about 2 days)
D'Onston
G Wentworth Bell Smith
W H Bury
George Hutchinson (British)
Jacobite conspiracy.
Can anyone beat that (also bear in mind I've only been at it 4 years or so) |
Author: Vila
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 03:45 pm | |
I've been at this funny little game since the late '60s/early '70s and still can't say that I've a pet suspect... There are several theories that I like on differing levels, but none that convince me that Jack has been found/named/revealed. So far (if I had to put money on the matter) I'd go with a tag-team of La Bruckman, the other sailor (Anderson?), and perhaps a pair of the victim's own boyfriends.
And for the Diary folks, I like to think that Maybrick poisoned himself accidentally and Florie just got shafted over his death. (Not that Sir Jim actually *wrote* the diary, that's a pig in a poke that I'm not willing to purchase.)
Vila
(I've my kevlar underoos on now, you may fire when ready, Gridley...) |
Author: stephen stanley
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 05:09 pm | |
I've been "at it" since the late 60's....started off with Druitt,Always thought Clarence/Gull/Sickert et al too far-fetched & am now a K-something-Ski-ist(But wouldn't rule Tumblety out...)
Steve |
Author: Howard Brown
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 05:57 pm | |
| I got "into it" in the 70's...accepted the Stephen Knight theory....then dropped it. Bought the Maybrick deal hook line and sinker and THEN after reading posts here,reading the likes of Evans,Fido,Wroe,etc..,got really pissed off at myself for not using my head. Mensa people ain't supposed to be fooled as easily as I was. Now I feel that one of the aforementioned scholars has nailed him. However,I still have to read my good friend Ivor Edwards book. This site is such an educational tool for laymen like myself. Few people are as helpful as Mr.Chris George,who time after time,has provided valuable facts to many people. If the Ripper is found out,it will be from one of the true historians on this site. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 06:01 pm | |
I'm a newbie on the boards, but have been interested in the case since I guess about 98-99, when I first read Sugden. I got into Sugden by reading John Douglas, the FBI profiler and I favored Kosminski at first, for a while.
Now that I've read everything and reread everything and wrote a paper about the Metropolitan Police handling of the case, I'm in the Stewart Evans camp behind Tumblety.
I'm mildly annoyed at Cornwell for throwing up another suspect that's not really plausible. But anything to get more people interested is fine with me - they'll realize she's wrong better darn quick.
B |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 10:50 pm | |
"If the Ripper is found out,it will be from one of the true historians on this site."
The "true historians?" Those folks are merely out to sell us, I fear. These are people who believe the franchise is what is important, care only about protecting all the chips they've piled up on the table, and have no future.
No, the case will be solved by someone who dares to think differently.
David |
Author: Howard Brown
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 11:07 pm | |
| Dave.....I wasn't going to reply to your latest "gem",but in the end,I could not resist. Since the case will be solved,as you have stated,by someone who thinks differently,why not do it then ? If not,perhaps instead of studying serial killers,why not a dissertation on serial onanists? You definitely have a leg up on everyone else on the boards. |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 08 November 2002 - 11:58 pm | |
I must admit to all on these boards that I am probably older than most of you and am DEFINITELY an anti-EVERYONE theorist. I read my first Ripper book in 1958 (Stewart), followed that quickly with Matters, and have been hooked ever since; not ONCE, however, have I ever wanted this thing solved. This case's fascination lies with the very fact that we still don't know who the Ripper was. His name alone conjures images for us all: images of fog (none reported), gas lights, lonely women walking darkened streets, and a ghostly demon who rises from the pavement, kills, and then melts away. Even his name is fabricated of shadows. The mystery is the reason we all read and contribute to these boards; the mystery is the reason we get together for conferences and club meetings, the reason we read RIPPER NOTES and the RIP magazines, the reason that RIPPERANA, WHITECHAPEL JOURNAL and RIPPEROO came into being. The mystery is the reason we argue back and forth, make friends, get pissed off at each other, then make up. I, personally, LIKE mysteries. So I cast my vote for NONE OF THE ABOVE, and will continue to do so until I see the Polaroid of the killer standing over Mary. But isn't the chase great?
Cheers to all,
J |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 04:01 am | |
Judy,
Do you mean to say that you have been interested in this case since 1958 (about the time that I was at Madame Tussaud's reading the Metropolitan Police 'Do you recognise this handwriting?' poster) and you haven't solved it yet? Shame on you.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 05:10 am | |
Like Timsta, I became interested because of Barlow/Watt, and I have stuck with their theories ever since. (What ever they were.)
These blokes knew what they were doing, they were on Z Cars after all.
Jim |
Author: judyjanes
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 11:27 am | |
Stewart Evans,
I'm not sure whether your message re Not solving the case yet, shame on you, was actually meant for me or another Judy.
I am too young to have been involved since 1958, but I've been interested in JTR and many other murderers for at least 20 years. I do not mean to come across as the leading world's authority on JTR, David has this distinction.
I have learned more since finding this site in
two years than I have for 20 yrs previously. I
do believe that there is more evidence to be
uncovered and Jack will be unveiled by the person
or persons who can present documented verifiable
evidence.
I would like to pass one by you that you were
involved in with James Tully. In the A-Z book
very little credence was put on Morrison's Kelly
which Tully acknowledged. But the book The Secret
of Prisoner 1167 was very well written and
certainly seems to have back-up information from
good sources, including yourself, of course.
Kelly fits more for the violence of the crimes
as well as a murder conviction than Kosminski
does. The perpertrator of the crimes seemed to
have a vendeta against prostitutes, Kelly sure had
lots of reason to feel this way. His mother was a prostitute , he had a crappy childhood and he did
apparently contract VD from a prostitute, not
necessarily Mary Kelly. And why are his records sealed untill 2030?
His picture as a young man could fit some of the
witnesses statements, he was acting very strange
just before the murder of his wife ,causing a
violent argument initiated apparently by the
discovery of James VD. (Correct me if I am wrong)
not to mention his escape from Broadmoor, at large for many, many years.
I'd love to hear your comments re James Kelly as
a suspect, if you wish to comment.
Many regards
spaceyram |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 01:04 pm | |
'spaceyram',
No, my post is in answer to the one immediately preceding it by Judith Stock (a friend whom I have known for a few years now).
The late Jim Tully was an old friend of mine and I visited him years ago when he lived in Cornwall before he moved to Spain. I had plenty of time to discuss the case with him before his book was published and it was an excellent work. He makes an interesting case for Kelly although I don't think for a minute that he was the Ripper. However, if any suspect is plausible and is proposed as a suspect by anyone who knows the case well, a persuasive case can be made.
Kelly died as a patient in Broadmoor in 1929. There is a 100 year confidentiality rule with the asylum records, ergo his records, as with any one else who died at that time in an asylum, will not be released to the public until 2029/2030. Unfortunately the Morrison booklet on Kelly is not the well-argued and factually-based case that Jim presented. For the finer details and information on Kelly I can merely refer you to Jim's book.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: judyjanes
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 03:40 pm | |
Stewart P Evans
Thank you for clearing up the mistaken idenity,I
thought for a moment that I had come across wrong,
so to speak. It makes perfect sense that the
records re Kelly would still be sealed under the
circumstances, now that you pointed it out in
the most obvious way.
By the way, I thoroughly enjoyed Jack the Ripper
Companion. You and Keith Skinner did not leave
any stone unturned. It must have taken years of
painsaking research to write such a thorough
Encyclopedia.
I refer to it on a regular basis, especially
when certain questions come up on this site.
I must say it is thrilling corresponding with
you and other very talented and well versed
authors and researchers etc.
Thanks again
spaceyram |
Author: Neal Shelden
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 03:43 pm | |
Like many other posters, I got interested in the Stephen Knight book back in 1986, but by the second read realised it was a Sickert fantasy much like the one Cornwell is suffering from at present.
I think the Kosminski findings took the subject forward one step in the direction it should be going, before the Maybrick stuff took it two steps back again.
Joe Barnett and George Hutchinson are more like the type of person I believe Jack the Ripper was but I don't favour them. I do, however, believe the killer knew Mary Jane Kelly but unfortunately I don't have a candidate.
Even the case of David Mulcahy and John Duffy (the railway killings in Britain) brought in to question my long held belief that it was definate that there could only be one murderer.
It is impossible to be certain anymore as to how many victims there were, or if he was killed, sent to asylum, or died in reasonably old age.
It seems strange that with all the brilliant new research carried out by most Ripper researchers, I feel less confident than ever to promote a particular theory about the case.
The only point I still stand by is that I believe the Ripper was a local, but beyond that for every candidate there is a convincing argument for why the person didn't do it. |
Author: Lisa Jane Turner
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 06:30 pm | |
| It's funny I feel that it was such folly to have been taken in by Stephen Knight's book, but at the end of the day, he was responsible for a lot of people getting into this fascinating case by the sounds of some of your comments. I remember many years ago, blimey, must have been the early 80's there was a tv show in England that Knight made. On the basis of the atmosphere of seeing him walking through some of those streets at what appeared to be dawn was worthy in itself. The camera looked up to the dawn sky and semi silhouettes of the rooves of some of the Hugenot houses. I'm getting carried away here .. |
Author: John Savage
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 08:18 pm | |
Lisa,
You say Stephen Knight made a film for TV. I must admit I have never heard of this before, do you have any more information, is it available on video? |
Author: judith stock
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 08:35 pm | |
Dear Friend Stewart, and John Savage, as well.
You are spot on, Stewart; I am no closer to sussing out ol' Jacky than I was when I was but a tyke! But if I had, then we never would have met, right? I know..shame on me, but making friends like you and Rosie, Don and Molly, Keith, Paul Gainey, et. al. has made this a wonderful trip!!
And John, the Knight IS on video (I think it was originally a BBC production, right, Stewart?) but is devilishly hard to find. If you are in the States, maybe I can get mine copied for you. If you are interested, e-mail me at needler@ntelos.net.
Cheers,
J |
Author: judith stock
Saturday, 09 November 2002 - 08:39 pm | |
Dear John,
OOPS! I lied! My copy of JACK THE RIPPER: THE FINAL SOLUTION is on White Star Video, not BBC. I can still copy it for you, but don't go looking for a BBC video.
J |
Author: John Savage
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 02:56 pm | |
Judith,
How very kind of you to make that offer; I shall e mail you directly.
Many thanks,
John Savage |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 03:07 pm | |
Thank you Judy, the feelings are entirely mutual.
With regard to the video of Jack the Ripper: the Final Solution the whole thing is on the two-disc From Hell DVD set. There's a trick to accessing it which I forget at the moment, but no doubt someone else can advise us.
Love and best wishes, as ever,
Stewart |
Author: Lisa Jane Turner
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 05:14 pm | |
Dear All
While we are on the subject of old tv documentaries, does anyone know whether the Daniel Farson 'Guide to the British' has ever been released on video? |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 06:27 pm | |
Lisa,
No it hasn't, I don't even know if a recording of it has survived from those pre-videotape days.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Vicki
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 06:46 pm | |
Hi all,
My first encounter with Jack the Ripper was the movie Time After Time, where HG Wells chases him in the time machine.
The Ripper's murder spree being so old, is voluminous in material to read and research. It's almost overwhelming. Too bad there isn't some kind of a filter to narrow things down.
There are a lot of good suspects. I haven't decided on one, but I have a feeling that his identity was known by some.
Vicki |
Author: judith stock
Sunday, 10 November 2002 - 10:19 pm | |
Dear Stewart,
REALLY? I have had the FROM HELL DVD since it came out, but since I can barely get this iMac to work, my failure to access information on a DVD is not surprising! I'll go check it out and see what I have missed (probably a lot!). Thanks for that information about Knight's "documentary".
Don't be insulted by my failure to choose Tumblety as my candidate; he's as likely as any other. I just haven't seen any hard evidence yet that makes me feel certain we have the right man. Your discovery of the Littlechild letter is certainly one of those true rarities: brand new information on a very old, cold case.
By the way, Don is very appreciative of your assistance in retrieving his e-mail, and said so when he rang Saturday night. I keep asking him why he doesn't get Molly to do it, but he never seems to have an answer for that question.
Hope you and Rosie are keeping well.
Cheers,
Judy |
Author: James Wilson
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 08:28 am | |
My first Jack memory has to be The Final Solution Documentry.At the time I was about 11 and it blew my mind.I recall my father having to explain quite a lot of it,but he was convinced that the Royal theory was true.
Throughout my teens I mostly recall seing Jack related films and the odd tabloid press article.The Hammer film I think embodies the myth beatifully and is the only film I have seen which truely glorifies the murders.
When I got to my early twenties and up till a couple of years ago I got into the books available.The best of these was and is the A-Z followed by the Uncensored Facts,in my humble opinion.
As for who Jack was I think his name is probably in the suspect list,but unless something along the lines of the Littlechild Letter turns up with further evidence about someone we will never know.
I do have several opinions which do not seemed to have changed in recent years,if anything they have been strengthend.The most relevent would be that;
Dr.Tumblety was involed in some way but was most probably not Jack.
That there was a cover up of sorts.
That the leading authorities on the subject apply theoties which are almost too unique i.e.if there were a cover up this has to be put in the Royal Theory and can't be used in another theory for different reasons.
That in general a lot of authors are making money and not taking the case forword.
I am English and I know that the in the corridors of power in this country people like Mcnoughton Anderson Warren ect.wuold probably not been the type of people that I have read they are.I know presuming such things is messy but if your English you know how the facade works with that class of man,think WWI Officers.
If I were to stick my neck out in naming Jack it would go like this -
Tumblety comes to England,gets in touch with some well to do gay doctors (Druitt)to purchase organs but fails.Hires Kosminski and or Cohen to supply organs for money.Gets questioned about who he was selling the organs(could be the missing wittness).Skips bail - authorities cover up there own incompitence.
The above is what I like to think of as my Oliver Stone JFK Theory. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 10:17 am | |
Judy,
On the opening screen, highlight the scapel, and when you select it, it'll bring up the documentary.
Courtesy of eeggs.com. 
B |
Author: Esther Wilson
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 10:47 am | |
This is very interesting! I have the From Hell DVD set and had no idea that this documentary was there. I'm going to go check it out. Thanks for the info and the directions on how to access it.
Esther |
Author: John Savage
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 04:43 pm | |
Stewart,
Many thanks for your advice re. the From Hell Video, I shall have to buy it and hope Santa brings me a DVD player for Christmas.
PS. Please don't leave the boards, your help and opinions will be much missed.
Brian,
Thank you also for the advice on how to select the S. Knight film. Essential info for an old duffer like me. |
Author: judith stock
Monday, 11 November 2002 - 11:51 pm | |
Dear Brian.....have tried to get there, but so far, no luck. Thanks for the advice,though. If I get truly desperate to see it, I may just run my old VHS copy and be done with it!!
Cheers,
J |
Author: Stuart
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 04:10 am | |
Bought the From Hell DVD yesterday and it doesn't play properly on my PlayStation 2. damn!
The documentary works though. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 13 November 2002 - 02:04 pm | |
Hi Stuart,
I enjoyed the documentary on the DVD - though admittedly it seems a bit clumsily produced.
As to the film, while in no way do I suggest the film is an accurate portrayal of the murders, I think it is a well-produced and exciting film.
Rich |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 05:32 am | |
OK - could somebody run by me again the procedure for accessing the Knight documentary? John Hacker's previously posted instructions don't seem to be working for me.
Cheers
Guy |
Author: Stuart
Thursday, 14 November 2002 - 05:55 am | |
Hi Richard
I would love to get my hands on a good documentary.
The one on the DVD, as you say, could have been done better, but it was still interesting. It gave me and my girlfriend (who's got very little knowledge of JTR) a good insight.
The film however...well...I don't go along with conspiracies and all that malarky.
My top suspect is Chapman.
Then I look at other very possibles like Bury, Kelly and so on, all of whom were known nutcases of one sort or another.
cheers
Guy, my DVD had an extra disc with the documentary on. Maybe some versions of the film just have the one disc and no extras. |
