Most ridiculous suspect

[rjpalmer]

So then its also fairly obvious that Druitt was in Bounemouth on the 3rd and 4th of Aug playing in a cricket carnival ,that he would not travel 200 miles to stab Martha Tabram to death on the 7th then travel 200 miles back ?

Why not? If Wally Sickert could swim The Channel and be back in Dieppe the following week, why can't a man take two three-hour train trips within the span of a week?

Bournemouth to London is closer to 100 miles than 200.

[Iconoclast]

Regarding the supposed FM on Mary's blood splattered wall . Couldn't someone have researched MJD , wrote a fake diary then say the letters meant "From Monty" for instance
Regards Darryl

Someone could have done this but it's irrelevant as that hoaxer would face the same extraordinary challenge which your Maybrick hoaxer faced and we have Maybrick's scrapbook not Monty's so it is to the actual one we must address the question.

Letters on Kelly's wall were first suggested to Keith Skinner and Martin Fido by Simon Wood at the City Darts pub in 1989, and - as it transpired - Simon was referring to other shapes on the wall and he and Martin decided by the end of the evening that no more would come of it (Keith having been sidetracked away from the conversation).

Letters on Kelly's were then raised around the end of 1992 by Martin Fido as part of his analysis of the case for Shirley Harrison, and more or less the same time by Paul Begg on behalf of Paul Feldman's research. These letters were the iconic 'F' and 'M'.

As the scrapbook had been first made public on Monday, April 13, 1992, and as those letters had never to that point been mentioned (despite the likes of Dan Farson publishing such a remarkably clear version of them in his 1973 paperback), then - if the scrapbook is a hoax - the hoaxer has to be the first person to ever notice those letters from which seed he or she backward engineers a story to 'F'lorence 'M'aybrick and thence to James Maybrick and then gets the kind of luck which wins lotteries in successive draws when Maybrick works on every level, when circumstantial evidence aligns with him, and when a watch mysteriously appears (June 1993, IIRC) which can be dated to 'many tens of years old' by a microscopic fragment of an implement used to scratch in the back of it being broken off and embedded into the markings.

Anything is possible, but not everything is likely.

[Abby Normal]

Yes seriously herlock ,

You know as well as i do about he exteme unlikelyhood of Druittt being jack the ripper , as i mentioned in my previouse post which certain parts you chose to ignore. Indeed Tabram is considered by many to be a ripper victim, and the time frame allowed for the murders for Druitt to have committed just arnt in the realm of probability to even consider , adding to this, the murders after he was dead that are attributed to jtr ? Enough said .

Just for the record i never said you claimed Druitt to be the ripper, yell from the tallest tree if that your thing . What i dont agree with is the contempt you have for other posters by labeling them ''Clueless'' when they have an opinion as to why Druitt is a poor suspect . There is a good case for druitt not being the ripper ,im sure theres a book or two or the odd article that makes the same case , i doubt very much the conclusions they reached were Clueless .


As for sickert , ill stick with the fact that no proof exist he was in france at the time of the murder/s .

As a matter of interest id like to see a copy of Sickerts mothers letter dated the 6th sept , i would want to see the year 1888 somewhere on that letter wouldnt you .? it seems a bit odd that a 28 and 26[not sure exact age of bernard ] year old sons would be frolicing around the pool with there mother , could this be from an eariler year perhaps , ?

fishy
herlock said those who dismiss druitt "out of hand" are clueless. you see the difference I hope.

He was in england at least, was known to visit london and at one point had an office there. His suicide coincides with the end of the C5 and he generally fits the witness descriptions. More importantly he was suspected by a senior police officer-at the time.

Im sorry but Sickert as a suspect is almost as ridiculous, if not more in some ways, than maybrick. the royal conspiracy and its off shoot goofball theories, while making for good movies, has been a black eye on Ripperology about the same as Maybrick and the stupid diary. There are similar ridiculous suspects-like Van Gogh and lewis carrol etc, but luckily they have been pretty much drummed out of existance, and rightfully so. Unfortunately the crackpot theories of sickert and maybrick have not-but hopefully this thread will go a little ways toward that end.

ill stick with the fact that no proof exist he was in france at the time of the murder/s .

when one has to resort to these type of desperate defenses, similar to a certain diary thread title, it just shows how weak and ridiculous a suspect actually is.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes seriously herlock ,

You know as well as i do about he exteme unlikelyhood of Druittt being jack the ripper , as i mentioned in my previouse post which certain parts you chose to ignore. Indeed Tabram is considered by many to be a ripper victim, and the time frame allowed for the murders for Druitt to have committed just arnt in the realm of probability to even consider , adding to this, the murders after he was dead that are attributed to jtr ? Enough said .

None of the suspects are ‘likely’ in my opinion Fishy. Druitt is no more ‘unlikely’ than any other suspect.

If you believe that being 4 hours away from a murder scene 3 days before the actual murder eliminates that person then you really do need to discus the notion of an alibi with someone. I can’t believe that you’re even suggesting this. Even if Tabram was a victim (and she might have been) he could have walked from Wimborne and still got there well in time! If you’re trying to use this point to dismiss Druitt then it’s desperation I’m afraid.

Just for the record i never said you claimed Druitt to be the ripper, yell from the tallest tree if that your thing . What i dont agree with is the contempt you have for other posters by labeling them ''Clueless'' when they have an opinion as to why Druitt is a poor suspect . There is a good case for druitt not being the ripper ,im sure theres a book or two or the odd article that makes the same case , i doubt very much the conclusions they reached were Clueless .

You have exaggerated what I said Fishy. I haven’t said that if someone doesn’t think that Druitt is a good suspect then they are clueless. Many don’t and I have no issue with that. My criticism was reserved for those who simply dismiss him out of hand and try to state as a fact that he wasn’t or couldn’t have been the ripper. He might have been for all that we know but of course equally he might not have been. I know Erobitha mentioned the effect that the suggestion of Maybrick as the ripper has on people I’d add the same point for Druitt. For some inexplicable reason some people lose all sense of balance when his name is mentioned. He has more going for him than most suspects. At the very least he’s worthy of consideration and further research.


As for sickert , ill stick with the fact that no proof exist he was in france at the time of the murder/s .

And I’ve agreed that there’s no absolute proof that he was there but I can’t see anyone agreeing with you when you try to say that definite proof that Sickert was in France 2 days before Chapman’s murder is easily dismissed and yet Druitt being 4 hours away 3 whole days before a murder is somehow conclusive proof that he couldn’t have been the killer. Surely you can’t be suggesting this Fishy?

As a matter of interest id like to see a copy of Sickerts mothers letter dated the 6th sept , i would want to see the year 1888 somewhere on that letter wouldnt you .? it seems a bit odd that a 28 and 26[not sure exact age of bernard ] year old sons would be frolicing around the pool with there mother , could this be from an eariler year perhaps , ?

Im sorry Fishy but I sense that you’re indulging in a bit of wish-thinking here because Sickert is an integral part of the theory that you favour. If someone revealed evidence that Druitt was in France, apparently enjoying himself, 2 days before an accepted ripper murder (and accepting that travel was slower in those days), at the very least I’d have to admit that this would point to a probability that he wasn’t present at the murder. It’s not 100% proof of course and I haven’t claimed that but by anyone’s standards it’s a powerful point against him.

[Iconoclast]

He was in england at least, was known to visit london and at one point had an office there. His suicide coincides with the end of the C5 and he generally fits the witness descriptions. More importantly he was suspected by a senior police officer-at the time.

He was in England at least (along with around 20 million other adult men, I'd guess, but at least we're narrowing the list down here), was known to visit London (hey - it's getting smaller) and at one point had an office there (good God, it must be him!). His suicide coincides with the end of the C5 (as did the deaths of probably many thousands of men in England between November 9 and December 31, 1888) and he generally fits the witness descriptions (as would, generally, countless others). More importantly he was suspected by a senior police officer-at the time (I think you'll find that he was a suspect after the time of his death - just one of three picked-out by senile police chiefs two decades later whose detective forces singularly failed to detect Jack, but who needed a suspect in order to peddle their penny dreadful autobiographies).

And yet James Maybrick is such a terrible candidate? If only he'd written a scrapbook more to everyone's tastes, eh?

when one has to resort to these type of desperate defenses, similar to a certain diary thread title, it just shows how weak and ridiculous a suspect actually is.

And typed - no doubt - without a shred of irony ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

So then its also fairly obvious that Druitt was in Bounemouth on the 3rd and 4th of Aug playing in a cricket carnival ,that he would not travel 200 miles to stab Martha Tabram to death on the 7th then travel 200 miles back ?

Why would he have to travel back? Druitt didn’t live in Bournemouth.

Not to mention all the other murders that are attibuted to JTR after Druitt was pulled dead out of the Thames River ?

If they were proven to have been ripper murders then Druitt very obviously couldn’t have been the ripper. But we don’t know. Individuals have opinions but none of us know for certain.

and his cricketing schudule during the C5 murders makes it damm near impossible that Druitt was Jack the Ripper .

Sorry Fishy but you’re simply making things up. Druitt’s cricket playing has been researched in depth and there is absolutely nothing that prevents him from being the ripper on that score (and believe me, people have tried.) Again, and just because some people have a tendency to equate me saying that Druitt is a reasonable suspect with me saying that he was definitely the ripper, we cannot eliminate Druitt - but that applies to many suspects of course. It’s down to our individual judgment to decide how strong or weak a suspect he is. If someone considers him a weak suspect then that’s fine, I don’t lose sleep over it, but its still baffling why people will go to any lengths to try and get him out of the way though.

[rjpalmer]

The last I heard, Blackheath is in London. Did it used to be in the midlands?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Someone could have done this but it's irrelevant as that hoaxer would face the same extraordinary challenge which your Maybrick hoaxer faced and we have Maybrick's scrapbook not Monty's so it is to the actual one we must address the question.

Letters on Kelly's wall were first suggested to Keith Skinner and Martin Fido by Simon Wood at the City Darts pub in 1989, and - as it transpired - Simon was referring to other shapes on the wall and he and Martin decided by the end of the evening that no more would come of it (Keith having been sidetracked away from the conversation).

Letters on Kelly's were then raised around the end of 1992 by Martin Fido as part of his analysis of the case for Shirley Harrison, and more or less the same time by Paul Begg on behalf of Paul Feldman's research. These letters were the iconic 'F' and 'M'.

As the scrapbook had been first made public on Monday, April 13, 1992, and as those letters had never to that point been mentioned (despite the likes of Dan Farson publishing such a remarkably clear version of them in his 1973 paperback), then - if the scrapbook is a hoax - the hoaxer has to be the first person to ever notice those letters from which seed he or she backward engineers a story to 'F'lorence 'M'aybrick and thence to James Maybrick and then gets the kind of luck which wins lotteries in successive draws when Maybrick works on every level, when circumstantial evidence aligns with him, and when a watch mysteriously appears (June 1993, IIRC) which can be dated to 'many tens of years old' by a microscopic fragment of an implement used to scratch in the back of it being broken off and embedded into the markings.

Anything is possible, but not everything is likely.

Trouble is if the FM was there, and not just say, bloodstains. The police would almost certainly see it as a definite clue and want it preserved, especially after the debacle of the GSG. Where is the evidence of this ? There isn't any . "I subsequently took an inventory of the contents of the room. There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off. We have since gone through the ashes in the fireplace". Abberline for instance.

Not only that but they would have questioned Barnett and Maria Harvey on the lettering IE Did they notice the lettering before the murder. There is no evidence they did. "There was a man's clay pipe in the room, and Barnett informed me that he smoked it" Abberline, again.

It is sheer folly to think the police would not mention any drawing of FM , "by whatever means" on the wall if it was fresh and probably by Mary's murderer.

Regards Darryl

[erobitha]

So anyone who had a reside [ work or otherwise ] within distance of any of the murder sites within 20 odd years before the killings is obviously a prime suspect

You are of course right, that is the one and only thing we should focus on. Forget the accumulation of all other elements - this is the one smoking gun.

[erobitha]

Now I'm no fan of the Druitt theory, but I would still rate him light years ahead of Maybrick as a suspect.

Good for you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The last I heard, Blackheath is in London. Did it used to be in the midlands?

There is a Blackheath in the Midlands. I have a friend who lives there.

Yes…..I have a friend.

[Iconoclast]

Trouble is if the FM was there, and not just say, bloodstains. The police would almost certainly see it as a definite clue and want it preserved, especially after the debacle of the GSG. Where is the evidence of this ? There isn't any . "I subsequently took an inventory of the contents of the room. There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off. We have since gone through the ashes in the fireplace". Abberline for instance.

Not only that but they would have questioned Barnett and Maria Harvey on the lettering IE Did they notice the lettering before the murder. There is no evidence they did. "There was a man's clay pipe in the room, and Barnett informed me that he smoked it" Abberline, again.

It is sheer folly to think the police would not mention any drawing of FM , "by whatever means" on the wall if it was fresh and probably by Mary's murderer.

Regards Darryl

If this is your best retort, you don't have one, I'm afraid.

Miller's Court was not well-lit. Kelly's room was even less well-lit. The lack of natural light would not have affected the interrogation of something obvious like clothing burnt in the grate, but would not have lent itself to the easy identification of initials having been left on the wall (and elsewhere, by the way). If the police had noticed the initials, they may have made something of them, but there's no obvious reason why they would (they were hardly a typical killer's calling-card in 1888) so you shouldn't use the fiasco of the GSG as a guiding principle around their discovery 'if they were there'.

The only reason why we are able to see those initials and the people there at the time could not was light. The photographer's flash lit-up Kelly's room brightly enough for detail on the wall to be perceived. Why did those who looked at the photographs not notice the initials on the wall? I don't know. Why did no-one notice them until 1992, I don't know. It obviously doesn't mean they weren't there. What are their significance? Well, James Maybrick wrote four pages of his scrapbook solely about the carnage he committed in Kelly's room, and amongst it he told us "An initial here, an initial there, will tell of the whoring mother". And we can see 'FM' on Kelly's wall, an 'F' on her arm, and her legs appear pushed-up in the form of an 'M'. And that's just what we see from one angle. Who knows where else we would find those initials if we had more photographs? As previously explained, a hoaxer would have to have been singularly inspired to have spotted what no-one else had spotted and then turned that into a clue. It's possible, just not very likely.

[rjpalmer]

There is no evidence of Maybrick being Jack . Again show me some

Well, for one thing, he is said to have wielded a wicked soup spoon while living in Norfolk, Va. He killed them with kindness.

[JeffHamm]

There is a Blackheath in the Midlands. I have a friend who lives there.

Yes…..I have a friend.

The key question, is "Do they?" ha ha

- Jeff

[erobitha]

Well, for one thing, he is said to have wielded a wicked soup spoon while living in Norfolk, Va. He killed them with kindness.

That one act of generosity obviously outweighs all of the other circumstantial evidence gathered against him. Good spot RJ.

I wonder if this a spontaneous act of kindness? I mean there would be absolutely no benefit for him in any way would there?

Such a generous man.