How have your views changed.....?

[Steve S]

..Since you first got interested?.......40 years on,I still believe in the canonical 5(& maybe Tabram)....I still think there's a chance the central news & lusk letters may have come from the killer...Suspect-wise,I still think there's something,somewhere in Martin Fido's theory...At any rate,it was the last one that didn't make me go 'Yeah,yeah,yeah'............
Steve

[kensei]

When I was younger and did my first real reading on the case I thought the killer was Aaron Kosminsky. I held that view until my mid-30s when Patricia Cornwell's book came out and I thought her case against Walter Sickert was impressive until it made me delve into the case in depth and I learned that she was wrong on many points (and that it probably wasn't Kosminski either). I'm 41 now, have been lucky enough to travel to London twice and visit the sites, and I'm now firmly of the opinion that we'll probably never know but that several people remain on the list of intriguing suspects, Kosminski and Sickert being near the bottom and men like William Bury and James Kelly nearer the top. Of course my views could easily change again tomorrow.

The whole Royal Conspiracy/Dr. Gull theory I never believed for a second, even when young and completely ignorant. Same with Druitt and Ostrog- I just never understood why they were considered top suspects.

[Steve S]

I think it also depends what books were around when your interest started...For me it was Cullen & Odell,so I started off with my feet on the ground.....

[The Grave Maurice]

I’ve been mulling this over, Steve, and it’s interesting how close my views are to yours---although you and I seem to be of about the same vintage, so maybe it’s an age-related thing.

I started out with Odell and Cullen too, and I still think Robin was pretty close to the mark. Maybe JtR wasn’t a shochet, but an unknown, insignificant East Ender is still as close as I think we’re ever going to get to an identity.

I continue to cling to the C5, with Tabram as a likely addition. (Tabram is a good example of my views changing.) One difference between us, though, is that I’ve come to believe all the letters and postcards are hoaxes, although back in the day, I assumed that the DB letter, SJ postcard, and Lusk letter were genuine.

My views have had a couple of detours though. After Farson’s book came out I (and just about everyone I knew at the time with an interest in the subject) was a Druittist. That lasted for quite a while. And I blush to admit that when the diary first surfaced I was very excited about Maybrick as a candidate, until cooler heads showed me the error of my ways.

[protohistorian]

When I was younger and did my first real reading on the case I thought the killer was Aaron Kosminsky. I held that view until my mid-30s when Patricia Cornwell's book came out and I thought her case against Walter Sickert was impressive until it made me delve into the case in depth and I learned that she was wrong on many points (and that it probably wasn't Kosminski either). I'm 41 now, have been lucky enough to travel to London twice and visit the sites, and I'm now firmly of the opinion that we'll probably never know but that several people remain on the list of intriguing suspects, Kosminski and Sickert being near the bottom and men like William Bury and James Kelly nearer the top. Of course my views could easily change again tomorrow.

The whole Royal Conspiracy/Dr. Gull theory I never believed for a second, even when young and completely ignorant. Same with Druitt and Ostrog- I just never understood why they were considered top suspects.

Can you imagine what we will know tomorrow?

[Steve S]

Must admit I did a Kelly detour...Never went along with anything Sickert or Maybrick-ish...wonder if it's 'cos I'm more history than crime orientated.....complex doesn't do it for me..& yes,I do reckon it's age related in as much as which books were availiable.
Steve

[PC2267]

I'm undecided about whether Stride is a real victim of "Jack" or not. Was he disturbed and that's why he did Eddowes, or was Stride simply the victim of random east end violence, like so many that have been documented over the years? There certainly appears to be no shortage of throat cutting in those days?

I'm also not convinced that "Jack" was one person or not?

[Batman]

Since the 80s following Fido's Crimes and Trials of JtR I use to believe Stride was probably not a victim, that the Goulston st. graffiti was just coincidence and that Kozminski/Cohen was JtR. I believed this right up until last year after reading Robert House.

I have changed my mind considerably since then, probably because I have been lurking here since making only one post when I joined back at the very start of 2013 and reading what people are saying.

I don't believe JtR was a Jew.
I believe in the C5.
I don't accept Hutchinson and Blotchy is more likely candidate. Ada Wilson described someone identical to him attacking her.
I also believe there is medical knowledge (read Nich Warren).

[Azarna]

I have had 30 years of reading books and articles on JTR, reading websites, watching documentaries and listening to countless theories, ideas and "final solutions".. and I still feel as I did then, that I have no idea who did it.

I have never had a pet suspect. There are some suspects I am pretty sure definitely did not do it, and some that I believe could have. But no one person has ever shone out. There has just never been enough evidence pointing to any particular suspect to convince me.

I feel that the suspects suggested by the police of the day should certainly be given serious consideration. After all, the police back then had all the records we are missing and personal knowledge and experience that we can never ever have.

But it also have to be born in mind that there have been countless intelligent, well-read individuals that have considered elements of the cases since then. And with that many people "working the case" it is inevitable that some good information must have come to light that the 1888 police did not think of or know about. So maybe the solution lies with modern theories after all.

I enjoy the mystery, and all the myriad of related subjects that come up in the course of Ripperology. The first time I read an account of the crimes I was hooked. And I am still hooked today :-)

[Harry D]

I used to think Mark Twain was the Ripper... but now I'm not so sure.

[John G]

My views have changed frequently over the years. I used to think Tabram wasn't a Ripper victim, now I think she probably was. However, I am slightly less sure about Stride than I used to be, but still think she probably was a Ripper victim. I used to believe George Hutchinson's evidence, now I think I was seriously misguided! I'm a lot less sure about BS man and Schwartz's evidence generally. I used to regard William Bury as by far the strongest candidate, now I have serious reservations about him. To be frank, I suppose I could just go on and on!

[Damaso Marte]

Mostly, I have become far more skeptical of eyewitness accounts and police memoirs.

[pinkmoon]

I believed the dear boss letter was genuine now I don't I think the only communication that has a chance of coming from the killer is the lusk letter as for the identity I've always swayed towards Druitt based purely on the story my ancestors told and because of the appalling photo of her corpse.I would like to add that I never believed that our killer took a shawl to any of the murder sites and I can't be swayed on that.I did believe the goulston street message was written by our killer but now I don't based on the same reasoning as the dear boss letter .

[GUT]

I used to be really indecisive about everything.


But now I'm just not sure,

[Jonathan H]

Like many I accepted the caricature of Sir Melville as a hands-off, desk jockey who relied on his over-rated memory and/or who was poorly informed. That for him to have thought Druitt was a middle-aged doctor (e.g. a suspect with anatomical know-how), who killed himself the same morning as Kelly's murder, proved that he must never have done even minimal research, let alone conferred with a member of the Druitt family. He just stumbled upon malicious gossip about an alleged medical man who killed himself at the right time, and that was that.

Reading "The Lodger" by Evans and Gainey convinced me that Dr. Tumblety was the leading police suspect, at least in 1888, but that Macnaghten and Sims were rather peculiar and slippery sources, not to be taken at face value. This excellent book inspired further research and then came the revelation--which is right there in Evans and Gainey--that the data about Druitt was being discreetly reshaped for public consumption (the frantic brother recast as the frantic friends is one of two new contributions I have made to the subject, it's significance a matter of debate).

Other excellent works helped change my mind, though their interpretations were by no means the same as mine. But that is the measure of great historical works; they provide you with a fair and judicious approach--and enough data--to think for yourself and thus reinterpret the material.

For example,"--Scotland Yard Investigates" by Evans and Rumbelow made me realize that the Ripper investigation spanned years, not a single 'autumn of terror' and therefore Druitt died at the wrong time: two years too early. Another example, Paul Begg in the "--The Facts" had speculated about whether a highly regarded charmer such as Macnaghten should be taken so literally.

The next-to-final revelation was that it was not a mystery, for the public, after 1898. It was case-as-closed-as-you-can-get except that the killer could never be brought to trial. Nonetheless members of the so-called better classes (an MP, a police chief, a famous writer, an Anglican Vicar) were convinced it was a fellow gent (e.g. one of us) and commendably said so, rather than blame a poor immigrant (e.g. one of them).

When they all passed away the subject was rebooted as a mystery, the doctor element, which was fictitious, persisting (Dr. Pedachenko, Dr. Stanley) whilst the tragic suicide, which was real, falling away. Hence Druitt, a young barrister, disappointingly not fitting the--by 1959--redundant public relations campaign, the fiend as Henry Jekyll, which had been orchestrated in the Edwardian era to hide his identity.