Most ridiculous suspect

[MrBarnett]

I seem to recall Richard Patterson arguing that Thompson chose Whitechapel as the location of the murders because of its religious significance. He (Richard) claimed that Whitechapel was the only district of London to have a place of worship as part of its name.

[MrBarnett]

Fair enough, Abby!

I'll get back to you when I've finished the book.

I’ll be interested to hear your opinion too, Ms D.

[GBinOz]

Fair enough, Abby!

I'll get back to you when I've finished the book.

Hi Ms Diddles,

I'll also be interested in your opinion. I too found his poetry arguments a little on the fringe, but his theory of the little taught Virchow surgical technique, and Thompson's skin and eye resemblance to Stephen White's sighting was intriguing. Jacob Levy is also on my list.

Cheers, George

[jollybonnet]

Since we've all done speculating on who the Ripper may have been, I was just curious to see who everyone believes to be the most ridiculous suspect ever put forward as being Jack the Ripper. I will provide with my top 3 and see if you all agree or disagree and let me know who you think is the most ridiculous.

1. Lewis Carroll

2. Prince Albert Edward Victor (tied with William Gull)

3. "Jill the Ripper"

Bill Sikes, aided by the Artful Dodger

[Ms Diddles]

cool-let me know what you think. ive always found him intriguing_in the area, jilted by a prostitute, failed medical student, issues. Ive seen more than one credible person posting for his inclusion and making reasonable arguments for.
To me he is somewhat similar to a jacob levy type, so if you can accept levy as valid, then you should for FT too IMHO.

Fair enough, Abby!

I'll get back to you when I've finished the book.

[Abby Normal]

After giving it some consideration I stumped up for Richard Patterson's Francis Thompson book.

The only case I've seen made for him as the WM is based on the "his poetry is a bit rippy" argument, and as such I'd thrown him out as a non starter.

I doubt the book will change my mind, but at least if I still dismiss him, it will be in a slightly better informed manner!

cool-let me know what you think. ive always found him intriguing_in the area, jilted by a prostitute, failed medical student, issues. Ive seen more than one credible person posting for his inclusion and making reasonable arguments for.
To me he is somewhat similar to a jacob levy type, so if you can accept levy as valid, then you should for FT too IMHO.

[Ms Diddles]

cheer diddy!
Issenschmidt was incarcerated after chapman, and feigenbaum cant even be placed in the country at the time so they are both most definitely ridiculous suspects. Feigenbut wasnt ever suspected or person of interest by the police, has no ties whatsoever to the case or even England for that matter, was an after the fact "suspect", mentioned by his lawyer lol.Im sorry hes out. but hey if it makes you feel better, at least they are both not on my Most ridiculous tier : )

FT was a failed medical student who wrote about mutilating prostitutes, was jilted by one, lived on the streets of WC and at one time during the autumn of terror lived on Dorset street and was known to carry a dissecting scalpel. Donston was a shady character, had some medical training, was suspected at the time and brought to the attention of the police and wrote letters to police and press about the case and was also living in WC during the crimes. fascinating charactors and FT is even kind of famous as a poet, but as I admit they are long shots but IMHO def NOT crackpot/ridiculous suspects, they tick alot of boxes.

After giving it some consideration I stumped up for Richard Patterson's Francis Thompson book.

The only case I've seen made for him as the WM is based on the "his poetry is a bit rippy" argument, and as such I'd thrown him out as a non starter.

I doubt the book will change my mind, but at least if I still dismiss him, it will be in a slightly better informed manner!

[Abby Normal]

Just because there is not physical evidence to show categorically that ..... the private information that MM references was insubstantial .... and you see where this goes I hope?

You can't apply different criterion. Either the evidence is solid, or it's not, and when push comes to shove, there is no solid evidence against any of the suspects. it's all vapour.

- Jeff

exactly. the main criterion for me, and todays police for that matter, is being able to place a suspect near or with a victim near time of death. step one then, when judging a candidate for the ripper is where were they? how close can they be placed to a victim. if you cant place them in london, let alone the country, then a suspect you do not have IMHO.

i guess its also why i place alot of emphasis on the witness suspects, and suspects like bury, kelly, kos and chapman. not only were they there, they were suspected by the police. thats about as much as well get.

like you say, vapor.
but theres vapor and then theres fairy wisp. sicert, maybrick, feigenbaum are all fairy dust. you could call it fantasy and i would not object this time ; )

[Trevor Marriott]

Just because there is not physical evidence to show categorically that ..... the private information that MM references was insubstantial .... and you see where this goes I hope?

You can't apply different criterion. Either the evidence is solid, or it's not, and when push comes to shove, there is no solid evidence against any of the suspects. it's all vapour.

- Jeff

But there is more against some than
others

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

There is no desparation only by those who want to eliminate him

Just because there is no physical evidnce to show categorically that he was in London at the the times of the canonical murders, you cannot say he was not in London because you have no evidence to show where he was at the times of those murders.

There are inferences that can be drawn from the other facts and evidence to suggest he was and he is a much better suspect than your Druitt

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Just because there is not physical evidence to show categorically that ..... the private information that MM references was insubstantial .... and you see where this goes I hope?

You can't apply different criterion. Either the evidence is solid, or it's not, and when push comes to shove, there is no solid evidence against any of the suspects. it's all vapour.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Getting back to Feigenbaums Lawyers statement to the press which you pour cold water on. I have to ask why would he lie about what was said to him, and what he did because he was in that position where he could have been asked by the press to elaborate and disclose what enquiries he himself had conducted to show Feigenbaum was in London at the time of the murders? If he was in fact lying he was playing a dangerous game, and there are other parts of his statement which have been corroborated.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He would lie for the same reason McNaughton would lie. You and I both know it doesn't matter if we can prove why these people might lie, all that matters is that we cannot be sure they did not. Without independent confirmation of the truth of their statements then it's just unconfirmed.

And that's what we're mostly left with, a lot of single source bits of information. From an police standpoint, it's mostly "unconfirmed". From a historical perspective, it's mostly "unsubstantiated" - which at least lets us suggest that idea has precedence, or "preferred status" if you will. But, in the end, we really have nothing to pin the tail on the donkey.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

I’ve asked this before but why is it that on the subject of Druitt some posters are so desperate to dismiss him that it leads them to manipulate, ignore and lie. They twist, bend, contort and distort in all manner of frankly embarrassing ways. WHY?

Some posters need to stop being dishonest and utterly embarrassingly pathetic and get a grip. Some don’t find Druitt a strong suspect. Fine, who cares, so what. We’ve heard your boring nonsense a million times over. If your not interested in this particular part of the case why don’t you do the whole Ripperological world a favour and simply let it go and make posts on stamp collecting or badger grooming. I know that your humongous egos might not allow this or that you that your trolling hobby might be ruined but that’s just tough. If you have to resort to making things up to make your points then rock bottom has long ago been scraped.

Im just curious after the warning from Admin everyone got last week,

Are you on a break?

[Trevor Marriott]

And even the quote from his lawyer is a long way from a confession.

when I saw him again I mentioned the Whitechapel murders to which he replied, “The lord was responsible for my acts, and that to him only could I confess.” I was so startled that for the moment I did not know what to do I then looked up the dates of the Whitechapel murders and selected two. When I saw Feigenbaum again and was talking with him I said: "Carl, were you in London from this date to that one," naming those selected. "Yes", he answered, and relapsed into silence. I then communicated with London and discovered that Feigenbaum was also there when other women fell victim to the knife of some mysterious assassin.”

Lawton mentions Whitechapel, he replies “The Lord is responsible for my acts, ….” Confession???

No one has suggested he made a confession !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

Without his Lawyers ‘statement’ no one would have mention him. There isn’t a single, solitary fact that connects him to the Whitechapel murders. The fact that he was a murderer in America doesn’t qualify.

He murdered a non-prostitute.
Not in the streets.
In a room where someone else was present.
He didn’t mutilate.

In America.

More desperation.

And even the quote from his lawyer is a long way from a confession.

when I saw him again I mentioned the Whitechapel murders to which he replied, “The lord was responsible for my acts, and that to him only could I confess.” I was so startled that for the moment I did not know what to do I then looked up the dates of the Whitechapel murders and selected two. When I saw Feigenbaum again and was talking with him I said: "Carl, were you in London from this date to that one," naming those selected. "Yes", he answered, and relapsed into silence. I then communicated with London and discovered that Feigenbaum was also there when other women fell victim to the knife of some mysterious assassin.”

Lawton mentions Whitechapel, he replies “The Lord is responsible for my acts, ….” Confession???

[Trevor Marriott]

It is for the proposer of a theory to prove his case, not for his peers to disprove it. Even showing that a ship owned by a suspects employer was in port near Whitechapel on the nights of the C5 in not sufficient. Proof must be proffered that the suspect was in the employ of that owner on board that ship on the nights in question. JMO.

Cheers, George

Well if we could conclusively prove those points beyond any reasonable doubt it would be a done deal case closed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But because we cannot do that, the whole excercise is to be able to produce sufficient and adequate facts and evidence to make him a suspect, a suspect who by reason of what is known about him in my opinion elevates him above other persons on interest and allows a proper inference to be drawn from what is known.

"Inference" - a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk