project elimination: Lewis Carroll

[protohistorian]

As the case around this gentleman centers pn his diary and the accusation that the days of the murders are in red ink I submit the following. Not only are thet not red ink, they do not exist. I have never posted a poll so I am unsure how this works. High is insuffient, low is sufficient how about that.

[The Grave Maurice]

Perhaps I don't follow discussion of the fringe candidates as closely as I should but, as far as I know, Carroll has been put forward only by Richard Wallace in his laughable 1996 effort, JtR: "Light-hearted Friend". Despite an introduction written by Colin Wilson (what was he thinking?) no one else seems to have taken the suggestion seriously.

But let's not rule Carroll out too quickly. In my view he ranks just after Queen Victoria as a viable suspect.

[protohistorian]

Perhaps I don't follow discussion of the fringe candidates as closely as I should but, as far as I know, Carroll has been put forward only by Richard Wallace in his laughable 1996 effort, JtR: "Light-hearted Friend". Despite an introduction written by Colin Wilson (what was he thinking?) no one else seems to have taken the suggestion seriously.

But let's not rule Carroll out too quickly. In my view he ranks just after Queen Victoria as a viable suspect.

I agree he's fringe, but in an effort to encourage others, I had to start somewhere. My hope is we can narrow the suspect page.

[The Grave Maurice]

My hope is we can narrow the suspect page.

Well, I'm all for that.

[LTowell]

I've thought the same thing about Colin Wilson, especially as his name usually shows up on the front of the book.

From what I read into Colin Wilson's intro, he was being complimentary merely for the historical ambience of Victorian London that Wallace gives in his book, much like Wilson did with Bruce Paley's book about Joseph Barnett. True, it looks a bit wonky, but to me Wilson's writings (in the Ripper case and all the great work in true crime in general) allow him a bit of leeway.

Oh, and yes, please get Lewis Carroll off the list-it's just embarrassing.

[caz]

Trouble is, even the stupidest case for someone being Jack doesn't eliminate him from the pool of potential rippers if he could have been in the area between August and November 1888, doesn't have an alibi for the nights in question and hasn't got a free pass due to age or disability.

As Stan Russo has often said, by that token we could rid ourselves of any suspect we didn't particularly fancy for the role by coming up with some daft theory involving faked artefacts, coaches, conspiracy, codes or anagrams. If I found solid proof that a relative of mine had been a serial killer, my best plan to get him eliminated would be to involve him in a theory so ridiculous that everyone would be slapping each other on the back and agreeing that the poor swine was obviously completely innocent.

I'm afraid we've been down this road before and the best way to deal with it is by leaving the road well alone and leaving the odd theorist talking to him/herself on any of the 'suspect' suspect threads.

Otherwise it's a bit like burning books. Crap theories should stand as a warning or others will be along to take their place.

Love,

Caz
X

[Roy Corduroy]

On another thread, Jon Menges, the voice of RipperCast, supplied the following info about the suspect and his sidekick Mr. Bayne.



Regardless, Dodgson had alibis (from wiki)

* On April 3, 1888, when Emma Elizabeth Smith was attacked in London, Carroll was in Oxford and was temporarily unable to walk due to health problems.
* From August 31 through September 30, 1888, when Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were killed, Carroll was vacationing in Eastbourne, East Sussex along with Isa Bowman, a child actress and personal friend of his. Meanwhile, Thomas Vere Bayne had severe back pain during the summer of 1888 and was barely able to move.
* On November 9, 1888, when Mary Jane Kelly was killed, both Carroll and Bayne were reportedly in Oxford.

So based on this, I say - Hasta LaVista, Baby

I'm late
I'm late
I'm late
For a very important date

[protohistorian]

Trouble is, even the stupidest case for someone being Jack doesn't eliminate him from the pool of potential rippers if he could have been in the area between August and November 1888, doesn't have an alibi for the nights in question and hasn't got a free pass due to age or disability.

As Stan Russo has often said, by that token we could rid ourselves of any suspect we didn't particularly fancy for the role by coming up with some daft theory involving faked artefacts, coaches, conspiracy, codes or anagrams. If I found solid proof that a relative of mine had been a serial killer, my best plan to get him eliminated would be to involve him in a theory so ridiculous that everyone would be slapping each other on the back and agreeing that the poor swine was obviously completely innocent.

I'm afraid we've been down this road before and the best way to deal with it is by leaving the road well alone and leaving the odd theorist talking to him/herself on any of the 'suspect' suspect threads.

Otherwise it's a bit like burning books. Crap theories should stand as a warning or others will be along to take their place.

Love,

Caz
X

I was hoping to elimunate candidates from our considerations. The case is a hard one to grapple with eithout jackass suggestions based on someone existing in 1888.