Jack the Ripper for dummies

[celee]

Hi,

Well, I thought I would try and make understanding the Ripper murders easy for new commers. I am starting this thread, so people who have maybe basic questions about the case can come and post without fear. People with theories about the case can post there thoughts no matter how out there some ideas might be.

I will start the discussion off,

Jack the Ripper killed 5 woman and five woman only.

1. Nicholes
2. Chapman
3. Stride
4. Eddowes
5. Kelly

Nobody ever got a good look at the Ripper.

Inspector Abberline admitted this in an interview he gave in 1903. Robert Anderson claimed that the Ripper had been identified. However, Anderson's witness could not have been to reliable. He obviously did not convince Abberline and higher officials Like James Monroe. I do believe Anderson had a witness and I believe Anderson believed his witness and thought he knew who the killer was. In my opinion Anderson's witness was Shwartz.

Why the Ripper was Never caught.

The Ripper only struck on 4 nights and he struck in the streets only 3 nights. He killed Kelly in her home. There was no DNA evidence or blood typing, fingerprinting was not yet used. So, anything short of catching the Ripper in the act of murder would not do. those are the reasons the Ripper never got caught.

Why did the Ripper stop killing.

There are only a few reasons why the Ripper would have quit.

1. He died, either of natual causes or he was murdered.

2. He was locked up in an asylum or prison.

3. He moved out of the area and his new murders were never conected to the Ripper murders.

4. I believe that the Killer might have just stoped. He could have been scared that the police were getting too close, or he may have lost his drive. If the murders were lust murders. I think it is possible that the Ripper's lebido just died.

Who was Jack the Ripper,

There are alot of theories all but one are wrong. I believe that the name of the Ripper has been put forward. I feel the Ripper was one of these suspects.

1. Tumblety
2. Druitt
3. Kosminski
4. Chapman
5. Ostrog

I feel Tumbley had something to do with the murders. I feel he had an accomlise and I think his acomplise was Druitt. I posted it so take your shots.

Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim.

Yes, she was and the murders had nothing to do with her. Well except for the fact she was murdered.

Okay, Dummies lets go.

Your friend, Brad

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Brad

Good luck with your quest. Although I think beginners might have been a better choice of wording, more sensitive than dummies.

I was surprised at your inclussion of Ostrog, who I thought it was agreed by most authorities was in prison in france at the time of the attacks.

Would it not have been better to have listed more popular suspects who beginners may have firstly come in contact with ie Sickert, Maybrick and Gull?

Just a thought. Good luck agian

Pirate

[celee]

Hi Brad

Good luck with your quest. Although I think beginners might have been a better choice of wording, more sensitive than dummies.

I was surprised at your inclussion of Ostrog, who I thought it was agreed by most authorities was in prison in france at the time of the attacks.

Would it not have been better to have listed more popular suspects who beginners may have firstly come in contact with ie Sickert, Maybrick and Gull?

Just a thought. Good luck agian

Pirate

Hi Jack,

The word Dummies comes from a popular series of books that is popular in th US. I am not sure were you are located. Titles such as Plumbing for Dummies, Spanish for Dummies. I am trying to funny and inviting not insulting.

I was posting my personal favorite suspects. People can discuss any suspect they want. You by posting, thankyou, have just introduced, Sickert, Maybrick, and Gull.

Ostrog, has been ruled out by most. However, I have read some good arguments that Ostrog could have been the Ripper and Macnaughten names him.

I really just want some fresh thoughts from open minds.

Your friend, Brad

[Limehouse]

Hi Celee,

With reference to your theory, how did Druitt and Tumblety meet and if Tumblety 'had something to do with the murders' helped by Druitt, what was in it for Druitt and what was their motive? Perhaps these questions are best answered on another thread though.

[The Good Michael]

Well, I thought I would try and make understanding the Ripper murders easy for new commers. I am starting this thread, so people who have maybe basic questions about the case can come and post without fear. People with theories about the case can post there thoughts no matter how out there some ideas might be.

I feel Tumbley had something to do with the murders. I feel he had an accomlise and I think his acomplise was Druitt. I posted it so take your shots.

Brad,

I find it ironic that you want to make this thread for "Dummies", yet you have many grammar and spelling errors. Seriously though, isn't that what the introduction is for? It is written concisely and without apparent bias. The "Dummies" should be able to start there.

Cheers,

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
'Dummies' is a word which might offend some people, however unless one has thick skin, mayby Casebook isnt for them....
Being in the racing industry, i would have proberly have used the word novices, as the majority of those develop as time goes by.
Regards Richard.

[Graham]

Before posting anything, I think Brad should perhaps have taken lessons in basic written English, grammar and punctuation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there not, elsewhere on this site, a good deal of basic information for those new to the Case? Or does Brad consider himself up there with the established expert Ripperologists?

Regards,

Graham

[Mike Covell]

I have a copy of JTR For Dummies, it's basically,

Ultimate Sourcebook,
Letters From Hell,
JTR Casebook,
JTR The Facts,
Scotland Yard Investigates,
An Encyclopedia,
JTR A-Z,
JTR's London Then and Now,

All stuck together with Blu Tack!

[Brenda]

I think a "newbie" thread where basic questions can be asked without being called out is actually a really good idea, but I question whether that is the true purpose of the thread. It seems more like an invitation for everyone else to broadly define their personal theories on the case.
"Jack the Ripper killed 5 woman and five woman only." - I don't agree with that statement and I don't think it should be put out there as "instruction" for newcomers.
p.s. its been my experience that a newbie isn't going to take the time to look for a proper thread anyway. Nine times out of ten they will just start a new thread to ask their question.

[Jeff Leahy]

Before posting anything, I think Brad should perhaps have taken lessons in basic written English, grammar and punctuation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is there not, elsewhere on this site, a good deal of basic information for those new to the Case? Or does Brad consider himself up there with the established expert Ripperologists?

Regards,

Graham

Brad made himself perfectly clear.

Let us know when your posting on 'Latin and grammar for school boys' and we'll ignore you.

Pirate

[babybird67]

hi Brad

i have seen the series of books you mention, and we bought one called "Computing for Dummies" (i think was its title) for my father-in-law when he first bought a PC. I don't think he took it as an insult! At least i hope not. So i understand your intention there, although i accept people who may not have seen the series of books might not get what you were trying to do, in which case "novices" or "beginners" may have been a wiser choice; but we can't do everything right so never mind!

There is so very little that can be claimed to be "known" in the case of JtR, and I think this is why the case remains able to beguile such a large number of people so far down the line. For example, your list of victims is already contentious...personally, at the moment, i would include Martha Tabram, and am on the verge of excluding Liz Stride, and that has come from reading the Casebook as well as arguments i read on here from the various Ripperologists and of course information in the excellent series of podcasts. At the end of the day, though, nobody knows 100% how many victims fell to the hand of JtR, and estimates range from 3 to around 9 i believe.

As for spelling and grammar: I make it a point never to point out errors of this kind to anyone, as i honestly believe it is not great netiquette to do so.

There are many reasons why someone's spelling and grammar (or spelin and gramer ) might not be perfect, and these can range from not being very well taught in those fields, to being dyslexic, to being unwell...for example, my other half has atrocious spelling and grammar but he really has a great deal of interesting things to say, and it would be such a shame if people who had interesting things to say (which i would probably estimate as 99% of the population given a chance) were dissuaded from posting for fear that their spelling and grammar were going to be criticised. As long as meaning is clear, the passage is fulfilling its primary duty, which is to communicate from one person to another.

As for suspects, it is no secret my favourite suspect presently is Klosowski, although i have suspicions about Kosminski as well; I used to suspect Tumblety but having read a bit more and listened to the podcast on the subject, I have relegated him from my hot suspect list!

I really want to next get into the MO and signature threads, but i currently don't know enough about those aspects, so have been reading up about various serial killers this weekend to try to improve my knowledge in this area so that hopefully when i launch myself in to discussing those aspects of the case, i will hopefully have something interesting and relevant to say on the matter (one can hope!)

see you around

[perrymason]

Hi Brad,

I like the thinking on this, the key is to remain unbiased when presenting the cases though. Im going to address your personal reflection that you feel that the Jewish witness was Schwartz.

In point of fact, Im not sure Id disagree with that, he is conspicuous in his absence at Inquest...or that any hint of his story even existed.

But in almost every Ripper book written to date regarding the victims and witnesses, Lawende is the man most consider to be that witness.

Not nitpicking you at all.....I think newbies should be sure they are using a baseline that is credible as well,...just making sure that you realize the influence the presentation of the data can have.

All the best Brad

[Malcolm X]

bad spelling/ grammer is unimportant...the keyboard could be at fault, mine drops the S and other letters too, plus it could be due to striking the wrong keys.

[Malcolm X]

As for suspects, it is no secret my favourite suspect presently is Klosowski, although i have suspicions about Kosminski as well; I used to suspect Tumblety but having read a bit more and listened to the podcast on the subject, I have relegated him from my hot suspect list!

I really want to next get into the MO and signature threads, but i currently don't know enough about those aspects, so have been reading up about various serial killers this weekend to try to improve my knowledge in this area so that hopefully when i launch myself in to discussing those aspects of the case, i will hopefully have something interesting and relevant to say on the matter (one can hope!)

see you around

you have to believe in HUTCH before you can favour G.Chapman

[babybird67]

not necessarily Mal

undecided about Hutch at present.