Most ridiculous suspect

[Aethelwulf]

Maybrick by a country mile. Maybrick also has some of the most ridiculous sub-theories and some of the outright worst posts I ever read on here - non worse than the Maybrick interpretation of the GSG - a stream of utter gibberish!

[Abby Normal]

Maybrick by a country mile. Maybrick also has some of the most ridiculous sub-theories and some of the outright worst posts I ever read on here - non worse than the Maybrick interpretation of the GSG - a stream of utter gibberish!

lol. totally agree wulf. Never has a more ridiculous suspect gotten more wasted ink than it deserves. maybrick and that stupid diary should have been drummed out of ripperology along time ago.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anyone that dismisses Druitt out of hand is simply clueless (but we all know that of course)

Id go for Van Gogh and Neil Cream (both out of the country at the time which still doesn’t deter some -I’m still waiting for a non-existent suspect or one that was dead at the time.) I’d add Conan Doyle to the list plus MacNaughten.

[FISHY1118]

Anyone that dismisses Druitt out of hand is simply clueless (but we all know that of course)

Id go for Van Gogh and Neil Cream (both out of the country at the time which still doesn’t deter some -I’m still waiting for a non-existent suspect or one that was dead at the time.) I’d add Conan Doyle to the list plus MacNaughten.

Of all the suspects where the amount circumstancial evidence is more common that fact , Druitt fits this title to a tee. its just too easy to dismiss him on that bases alone .

[C. F. Leon]

What was the fictional story that a time-travelling Sherlock Holmes was the Ripper?

But I agree that the worst suspects for the time & amount of ink wasted on them have got to be Maybrick, Prince Eddy and the whole Royal Conspiracy.

I asked a couple of times and have NEVER gotten an answer: was Queen Victoria really seriously mentioned as a suspect and who by? I've certainly used her as a joke suspect a couple of times, but Really?

[FISHY1118]

Fast forward 134 years and the conspiracies continue

[GBinOz]

What was the fictional story that a time-travelling Sherlock Holmes was the Ripper?

But I agree that the worst suspects for the time & amount of ink wasted on them have got to be Maybrick, Prince Eddy and the whole Royal Conspiracy.

I asked a couple of times and have NEVER gotten an answer: was Queen Victoria really seriously mentioned as a suspect and who by? I've certainly used her as a joke suspect a couple of times, but Really?

Without wishing to be seen in any way as ascribing to the "Royal theory", Queen Victoria's involvement was suggested as asking Sir William Gull to resolve the problems created by her grandson. AFAIK she has never been suggested as the ripper, as that would be nonsense. Eddy had iron clad alibis for the murder dates, so he is in the clear. The most the Royal theory can be, if it were to be entertained at all, is Gull and his coachman, Netley, cleaning up after Eddy's purported marriage to Annie Crooks having produced a royal heir.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Yes george thats about the gist of it., Just two points that always seem to pop up regularly as untrue tho if you like , 1 Gull was paralysed down one side after a stroke in 1887 , there for could not possibly be jack the ripper ,2 Walter sickert was out of the country while the murders were being committed. . If proof of theses two points exist ,ive yet to see it . Cheers.

[mpriestnall]

I believe Druitt may have been killed by another's hand rather than his own. Maybe because he had knowledge of JTR's identity and killing him was to prevent him revealing this knowledge.

[GBinOz]

I believe Druitt may have been killed by another's hand rather than his own. Maybe because he had knowledge of JTR's identity and killing him was to prevent him revealing this knowledge.

I'm inclined to agree.

Cheers, George

[rjpalmer]

Yes george thats about the gist of it., Just two points that always seem to pop up regularly as untrue tho if you like , 1 Gull was paralysed down one side after a stroke in 1887 , there for could not possibly be jack the ripper ,2 Walter sickert was out of the country while the murders were being committed. . If proof of theses two points exist ,ive yet to see it . Cheers.

Regarding Sickert, see item #6 in the link below.

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Patricia Cornwell and Walter Sickert: A Primer

[FISHY1118]

Regarding Sickert, see item #6 in the link below.

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Patricia Cornwell and Walter Sickert: A Primer

Yes ,im aware of this article, and frankly its not even close to proof of that sickert was in france at the time of the murders .


''His last London sketch is dated August 4th, and there are no sources to indicate that he was in London after that date''. This tells us nothing .

'' On September 6th, Sickert's mother wrote from St. Valéry-en-Caux, describing how Walter and his brother Bernhard were having such a "happy time" swimming and painting there''. Chapman was killed on sept 8th

''A letter sent by a French painter, Jacques-Emile Blanche, to his father described a visit with Sickert on September 16th. Walter's wife Ellen wrote to her brother-in-law on September 21st, stating that her husband was in France for some weeks now'. Again, sickert could well have been in London on the 8th for the chapman murder

''There is evidence to suggest that Sickert stayed in the Dieppe area at least until early October, 1888. He painted a local buther's shop, "flooded with sunlight" in a piece he titled The October Sun.'' if there is evidence ,then this isnt it .


''Although any one of these several bits of evidence could feasibly be ignored or explained away, the combination of all these independent sources confirming the same thing - namely, that Sickert was in France at the time of the Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes murders - suggests that Sickert could not have been the killer.'' It merely confirms the existence of what was said by others ,it by no means confirms he was in france during the ripper murders.


FWIW , I dont believe Sickert was the ripper , but to use the reason that he was in france as proof during the time the murders they were being committed is wrong . As i stated, if proof exist ive yet to see it .

[Herlock Sholmes]

'' On September 6th, Sickert's mother wrote from St. Valéry-en-Caux, describing how Walter and his brother Bernhard were having such a "happy time" swimming and painting there''. Chapman was killed on sept 8th

''A letter sent by a French painter, Jacques-Emile Blanche, to his father described a visit with Sickert on September 16th. Walter's wife Ellen wrote to her brother-in-law on September 21st, stating that her husband was in France for some weeks now'. Again, sickert could well have been in London on the 8th for the chapman murder

''There is evidence to suggest that Sickert stayed in the Dieppe area at least until early October, 1888. He painted a local buther's shop, "flooded with sunlight" in a piece he titled The October Sun.'' if there is evidence ,then this isnt it .

.[/B]

If Sickert was having fun in France on the 6th why would his mother have bothered writing home if they were intending to be back on the 8th? It doesn’t sound like she (and they) are preparing for the return journey. Then we have a letter from his wife explicitly stating that on the 21st he’d been in France for weeks.

Two questions about the letter from Jaques-Emile Blanche - does is state where the visit with Sickert took place, and is there anything concrete to show that, if the visit occurred in England, he didn’t simply get the date wrong.

It appears that in the above there are three extremely strong pointers to Sickert being in France for the Chapman murder and one which casts a doubt?

[FISHY1118]

If Sickert was having fun in France on the 6th why would his mother have bothered writing home if they were intending to be back on the 8th? It doesn’t sound like she (and they) are preparing for the return journey. Then we have a letter from his wife explicitly stating that on the 21st he’d been in France for weeks.

Two questions about the letter from Jaques-Emile Blanche - does is state where the visit with Sickert took place, and is there anything concrete to show that, if the visit occurred in England, he didn’t simply get the date wrong.

It appears that in the above there are three extremely strong pointers to Sickert being in France for the Chapman murder and one which casts a doubt?

But of course we have no way of knowing the travel plans of the sickert family do we ? Just because they were having fun on the 6th doesnt mean they werent home on the 8th.
Some weeks Is still a vauge description of time from the wife letter ,particularly when we dont know the exact contents of its wording .( ive never seen it ) 13 days could that that be described as weeks . ? All in all still not proof .

[rjpalmer]

Some weeks Is still a vauge description of time from the wife letter

Yes, "some weeks" is vague insofar as it might refer to three weeks, or four weeks, or five weeks, but it's not vague enough not to cover the date of September 8th, which was only 13 days earlier, and his presence in France before that date is corroborated by the reference to him swimming and painting on September 6th.

The way I look at it is this. If there was evidence that Sickert was a Peter Sutcliffe, or a Ted Bundy, or a Joseph Vacher, this 'alibi' might be worthy of further scrutiny, but there isn't, nor is there any other reason to suspect him of the crimes, so the alibi is good enough for me. There is no CCTV footage, but there doesn't need to be. As the police say, "Mr. Sickert has been eliminated from our inquiries."

Of course, suspects are sometimes wrongly eliminated--it's a risk one takes in narrowing the field--and if you have evidence that Sickert's wife and mother and artistic friends knew he was the Ripper and had the foresight to furnish him with a bogus alibi against all future suspicions, I might reconsider, but I don't see there much chance of that happening, do you?

Au revoir, Walter.