Jack the Ripper for dummies

undecided about Hutch at present.

Maybe I can help there BB. Hutch is a discredited witness who claimed to be a friend of the murdered woman and offered ridiculous sightings 3 full days after the murder and after the official Inquest had closed,.. Blotchy Face is the man who was witnessed entering Marys room in her company..and that last person seen with her alive. His departure time is unknown.

One is historically irrelevant....and the other is what should be the prime suspect for her murder...the last man seen with her entering her very room the night she is killed.

Hutch is still what he always was, and inexplicable excerpt in the cases of the Canonical victims. As Packer was and is. As Cadosche was and is... based on the creds given Mrs Long...as Schwartz was and is... based on his total absence in the Inquest records and Browns inclusion,.. and as Caroline Maxwell was and is. As Mrs Malcolm is.

Discredited witnesses do not necessarily make probable suspects.

All the best BB

[John Bennett]

...the keyboard could be at fault, mine drops the S

Same here, as Chat room participants may confirm. At the moment it eem to be working plendidly.

Let's not judge those who post with erroneous grammar too harshly. Surely it's the content/intent that is important.

[babybird67]

hahaha

BB!

'Undecided'??

If the Hutch-obsessed Zealots with whom you are acquainted haven't yet succeeded in brainwashing you into compliance to the cause, I'm afraid we...Damn...

Ahem!

THEY - haven't been trying hard enough!

Oh no, my dreaded secret is out! I'm a traitor to the cause! I should be strung up immediately!

Maybe i am having so much fun in the act of being corrupted that i cannot bear to have the corruption over with and my position clear! hehe

xx

undecided about Hutch at present.

BB!

'Undecided'??

If the Hutch-obsessed Zealots with whom you are acquainted haven't yet succeeded in brainwashing you into compliance to the cause, I'm afraid we...Damn...

Ahem!

THEY - haven't been trying hard enough!

[babybird67]

not necessarily Mal

undecided about Hutch at present.

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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!

[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

[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.

[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