Most ridiculous suspect

[Ms Diddles]

i did say long shots! : )

Ha! Agreed! You'd need super magnifying sights on your gun to take down those bad boys!

[MrBarnett]

hi gary
there was a poster on here that was a FT guy. he made alot of strong points and backed up all that stuff. maybe you can dig him up and or the defense of those points. as I said long shot.

I think that was probably Richard Patterson. I have his Thompson book and I was intrigued enough by Thompson as a suspect that I bought his complete works and a couple of biographies of the man. There is little or nothing of any substance that points to Thompson as a suspect and Patterson over eggs what little there is. The scalpel thing is a case in point. As I say, Thompson once mentioned that he had used a scalpel to shave with, he didn’t say when. Based on that Patterson gives the impression that Thompson was wandering around Whitechapel in 1888 with a scalpel in his pocket.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Did Thompson write about mutilating prostitutes? I think that may just be Richard Patterson’s interpretation of things. There is no firm evidence that Thompson was living in Dorset Street in the autumn of 1888, or more generally on the streets of Whitechapel. The suggestion that he carried a scalpel is based on a comment he made about once having shaved with one - that could have been at any time from when he was a student.

hi gary
there was a poster on here that was a FT guy. he made alot of strong points and backed up all that stuff. maybe you can dig him up and or the defense of those points. as I said long shot.

[Abby Normal]

It's a while since I read up on Thompson or Donstan.

I should probably refresh my memory, but I do recall reading about both suspects in the past and thinking "Nah! Nae chance!".

i did say long shots! : )

[Ms Diddles]

It's a while since I read up on Thompson or Donstan.

I should probably refresh my memory, but I do recall reading about both suspects in the past and thinking "Nah! Nae chance!".

[MrBarnett]

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.

Hi Abby,

Did Thompson write about mutilating prostitutes? I think that may just be Richard Patterson’s interpretation of things. There is no firm evidence that Thompson was living in Dorset Street in the autumn of 1888, or more generally on the streets of Whitechapel. The suggestion that he carried a scalpel is based on a comment he made about once having shaved with one - that could have been at any time from when he was a student.

[Abby Normal]

I love that your leading candidates are listed under the very luke warm heading "most least weak"!!!

I take your point and agree completely, but your caution there made me smile!

On balance our tiers look fairly similar.

I'd swap a couple of names around (I'm not sure that Feigenbaum and Issenschmidt deserve full-blown crackpot status) and I'd swap Druitt and Chapman around in the higher tiers.

I remember thinking that Donston and Francis Thompson were rather silly suspects, so I would maybe put them in the "pretty redic" category.

I pass no judgement on Maybrick as that feels like a whole other thing which I know little about.

By and large we're singing from a very similar hymn sheet though!

For the purposes of this thread, I'd say PAV/Gull/Royal conspiracy, Jill the Ripper, Van Gogh, Lewis Carroll & John Merrick would get my votes for Most Ridiculous Suspect.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to make it clear to one and all my stance on Feigenbaum is that he could have been responsible for one,some or all of the murders. and if Fishy had bothered to read my book he would have seen thats what i have postulated and appears at the end of the chapter on Feigenbaum

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have read your book Trevor and I couldn’t recall you stating that he was definitely guilty.

[Trevor Marriott]

Fair enough. I was wrong in that I don’t think that Trevor had stated his case with such certainly.

Proof again that, unlike some, I have no problem in admitting an error when provide with the facts in black and white.

As Tristan has said, we have no need to continue on these points. The facts are in black and white for all to read and form there own judgment should they wish to. I’m quite happy with that.

Just to make it clear to one and all my stance on Feigenbaum is that he could have been responsible for one,some or all of the murders. and if Fishy had bothered to read my book he would have seen thats what i have postulated and appears at the end of the chapter on Feigenbaum

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ms Diddles]

good post herlock.
I see it tiered like this (names pretty much in order from most redic to least):

1. Most ridiculous: prince Eddy/ royal conspiracy, Jill the ripper, Van Gogh, Lewis carrol, Sickert, maybrick, (any other famous character).

2. Pretty redic: Feigenbaum, cream, Deeming, bernardo, isenschmidt, Vassily
(these two categories above I would call crackpot theories)

3. Long shot candidates: Donston, Francis thompson, Piggot, Puckridge, cutbush, flemming, the weak witness suspects-Bowyer, crow, Richardson

4. Least weak : Le grand, Barnett, Tumblty, jacob Levy, druitt

5. Most least weak: Lech, Kelly, Koz, chapman, bury, Hutch (i leave out Blotchy because hes not really named but he would be on this tier).

so as you see-Im fairly openminded, until we get to the tier 1 and 2, then not so much. and as ive often said all the suspects are weak, some just less weaker than others, but IMHO take all the candidates from tier 3-5 and I think theres about 90% chance the ripper is in there.

I love that your leading candidates are listed under the very luke warm heading "most least weak"!!!

I take your point and agree completely, but your caution there made me smile!

On balance our tiers look fairly similar.

I'd swap a couple of names around (I'm not sure that Feigenbaum and Issenschmidt deserve full-blown crackpot status) and I'd swap Druitt and Chapman around in the higher tiers.

I remember thinking that Donston and Francis Thompson were rather silly suspects, so I would maybe put them in the "pretty redic" category.

I pass no judgement on Maybrick as that feels like a whole other thing which I know little about.

By and large we're singing from a very similar hymn sheet though!

For the purposes of this thread, I'd say PAV/Gull/Royal conspiracy, Jill the Ripper, Van Gogh, Lewis Carroll & John Merrick would get my votes for Most Ridiculous Suspect.

[Abby Normal]

Ridiculous suspects…..

For me the first tier has to be those that can be proven by evidence to have been unconnected to the crime by virtue of the fact that they can specifically be shown to have been elsewhere, so Neil Cream (in America) Van Gogh (in France) Prince Eddy (at various Royal residences) - to keep these suspects ‘in the game’ we have to come up with baseless conspiracy theories like Cream having a doppelgänger or forged Court Circulars. These are the most ridiculous suspects imo unless we can find a suspect who was dead at the time.

Then we have the ‘suspects’ who have pretty much been named because their status gives them a selling point like Conan Doyle, MacNaughten, Frank Miles, Lewis Carroll etc. obvious nonsense.

For me the above types richly deserve the title ‘ridiculous.’

Are any others truly ridiculous when we consider that none of us know who the killer was or wasn’t. Yes, I dismiss the Knight theory because research has uncovered so many untruths in the story that it crumbles, although it’s possible of course that there were some grains of truth in there which got woven into a story/legend about JTR, who knows?

Maybrick is a grey area although many have strong opinions either way. I believe the diary to be a forgery but many don’t, and Maybrick’s suspect status is entirely dependant on the genuineness or otherwise of the diary and the watch (which is debated elsewhere)

Then we have what I call the ‘around at the time’ suspects like Mann, Hardiman, Barnado etc. These have no real connection to the crimes apart from the fact of being ‘around at the time’, but it appears that a theorist has selected them and then attempted to build a case for the Prosecution, but one that’s pretty much based on little or next to nothing; or even nothing. I don’t think that I’d call them particularly ’ridiculous’ though. I’d just say ‘highly unlikely.’

Next there are the witnesses which can be separated from the category above. The main two of course are Lechmere and Hutchinson. Whilst I’m strongly of the opinion that these two weren’t the ripper I still wouldn’t call them ‘ridiculous’ because they were both in situ for one murder. So for all that we know….

Finally we have those that have been suspected by those that might have been in a position to have been in possession of important or potentially important information that we don’t have. I tend to favour Druitt of course but I have to add Kosminski and Bury. On paper, and with him being a proven murderer, I’d have to say that Bury appears the strongest. It’s all opinion of course but for me, these 3 are the most interesting and worthiest of further research. Others will disagree of course but I genuinely fail to see how, in any attempt at fairness or open-mindedness, any of these three can be labelled ‘ridiculous.’

So to sum up, and of course this is just my opinion and with ‘ridiculous’ being such a subjective word, I’d only categorise the suspects in the first 2 paragraphs above as genuinely ridiculous. The rest range from unlikely through to likely, or from weak through to strong according to our own individual assessments. In my own opinion of course.

good post herlock.
I see it tiered like this (names pretty much in order from most redic to least):

1. Most ridiculous: prince Eddy/ royal conspiracy, Jill the ripper, Van Gogh, Lewis carrol, Sickert, maybrick, (any other famous character).

2. Pretty redic: Feigenbaum, cream, Deeming, bernardo, isenschmidt, Vassily
(these two categories above I would call crackpot theories)

3. Long shot candidates: Donston, Francis thompson, Piggot, Puckridge, cutbush, flemming, the weak witness suspects-Bowyer, crow, Richardson

4. Least weak : Le grand, Barnett, Tumblty, jacob Levy, druitt

5. Most least weak: Lech, Kelly, Koz, chapman, bury, Hutch (i leave out Blotchy because hes not really named but he would be on this tier).

so as you see-Im fairly openminded, until we get to the tier 1 and 2, then not so much. and as ive often said all the suspects are weak, some just less weaker than others, but IMHO take all the candidates from tier 3-5 and I think theres about 90% chance the ripper is in there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

“I firmly believe that Carl Feigenbaum was Jack the Ripper and that his name will now enter history as that of the world’s most notorious serial killer. For this man was responsible for a series of horrific murders of poor, unfortunate, helpless women on three continents over a period of six years and, after going to his grave, evaded detection for over a century.” ²⁴

So the part where it says'' For this man ''was'' responsible for a series of horrific murders'' is that not stated as fact according to trevor ?



It doesnt say'' i firmly believe this man was responsible'' ......... theres a big different isn there ?

Fair enough. I was wrong in that I don’t think that Trevor had stated his case with such certainly.

Proof again that, unlike some, I have no problem in admitting an error when provide with the facts in black and white.

As Tristan has said, we have no need to continue on these points. The facts are in black and white for all to read and form there own judgment should they wish to. I’m quite happy with that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And just for the record , ive ''Never Ever Ever'' reported anyone for a post directed at me that i took offence too. I copped it on the chin , i wonder how many can say the same ?

I can. If you were insinuating anything.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ridiculous suspects…..

For me the first tier has to be those that can be proven by evidence to have been unconnected to the crime by virtue of the fact that they can specifically be shown to have been elsewhere, so Neil Cream (in America) Van Gogh (in France) Prince Eddy (at various Royal residences) - to keep these suspects ‘in the game’ we have to come up with baseless conspiracy theories like Cream having a doppelgänger or forged Court Circulars. These are the most ridiculous suspects imo unless we can find a suspect who was dead at the time.

Then we have the ‘suspects’ who have pretty much been named because their status gives them a selling point like Conan Doyle, MacNaughten, Frank Miles, Lewis Carroll etc. obvious nonsense.

For me the above types richly deserve the title ‘ridiculous.’

Are any others truly ridiculous when we consider that none of us know who the killer was or wasn’t. Yes, I dismiss the Knight theory because research has uncovered so many untruths in the story that it crumbles, although it’s possible of course that there were some grains of truth in there which got woven into a story/legend about JTR, who knows?

Maybrick is a grey area although many have strong opinions either way. I believe the diary to be a forgery but many don’t, and Maybrick’s suspect status is entirely dependant on the genuineness or otherwise of the diary and the watch (which is debated elsewhere)

Then we have what I call the ‘around at the time’ suspects like Mann, Hardiman, Barnado etc. These have no real connection to the crimes apart from the fact of being ‘around at the time’, but it appears that a theorist has selected them and then attempted to build a case for the Prosecution, but one that’s pretty much based on little or next to nothing; or even nothing. I don’t think that I’d call them particularly ’ridiculous’ though. I’d just say ‘highly unlikely.’

Next there are the witnesses which can be separated from the category above. The main two of course are Lechmere and Hutchinson. Whilst I’m strongly of the opinion that these two weren’t the ripper I still wouldn’t call them ‘ridiculous’ because they were both in situ for one murder. So for all that we know….

Finally we have those that have been suspected by those that might have been in a position to have been in possession of important or potentially important information that we don’t have. I tend to favour Druitt of course but I have to add Kosminski and Bury. On paper, and with him being a proven murderer, I’d have to say that Bury appears the strongest. It’s all opinion of course but for me, these 3 are the most interesting and worthiest of further research. Others will disagree of course but I genuinely fail to see how, in any attempt at fairness or open-mindedness, any of these three can be labelled ‘ridiculous.’

So to sum up, and of course this is just my opinion and with ‘ridiculous’ being such a subjective word, I’d only categorise the suspects in the first 2 paragraphs above as genuinely ridiculous. The rest range from unlikely through to likely, or from weak through to strong according to our own individual assessments. In my own opinion of course.

[Losmandris]

I disagree George , When a suspect ,who ever he might be has far more circumstancial evidence than any hard facts as to use to suggest he was the ripper [which in Druitts case is exactly that IMO ]then he in ''my opinion'' deserves his place on the list or ''Most Ridiculous Suspects'' . The term'' Baiting'' has i dont think has anything to do with it .

When does one move on from these nothing suspect the likes of Druitt, Maybrick ,Feigenbaum and find someone who makes a Real/Better case for being JtR .

Example ? Just read Wolf Vanderlinden,s piece on Feigenbaum and tell me seriously ,does one really think in ones heart of hearts he was Jack the Ripper ? , Cmon really?.... Theres even one book written that basically claims it as a fact!!, case closed all go home . Gobsmacked .

For whats its worth he shouldnt even be on Goldilocks and the 3 bears list of whos been sleeping in my bed ? But thats another story.

Now i have disagreed with George, thats what we humans do. His just as entitled to his opinion as i am mine , feel free to do the same ,just dont be rude or insulting about it .Fishy

Is it even possible to find someone who makes a better case for JtR. Is that just going to be more speculation? Or opinion? I think pinning your flag to any suspects mast is asking for trouble, no one will ever prove it definitively, so why get caught up in it? If the answer is that it is 'part of the fun' of the case then lets keep things civil and respectful. If not I suggest just letting it go and keeping an open mind!