Most ridiculous suspect

[Losmandris]

I'm curious, though. Doesn't that leave you studying the game of chess without ever moving any of the pieces?

The history of the murders can't be understood without looking at the suspects. How different would our understanding of the case be if the murderer was Cutbush as opposed to Kosminski?

Or Leary, Paul, Kidney, Barnett, and Sadler, as opposed to Levy?

Looking for suspects is like chasing ghosts. In this sense JtR does not actually exist, he is not actually real as we don't know who he actually was. We can simply speculate on the type of person he may have been. He only exists in the consciousnesses of people who have a particular suspect in mind. Until something definitive comes to light, which IMHO will never happen, his identity is pure conjecture. So why get caught up on one particular person? Apart from the fun of it I suppose. That I don't mind, what I do have issue with is the sniping that goes on between us. At the end of the day we are all just dealing with theories. That I why I stay clear of nailing my colours to a particular mast. There is so much more, for me at least, of interest in the case that naming the culprit. If that is studying the game of chess without ever moving any of the pieces, then so be it.

At the end of the day the killer has already been identified. First name: Jack. Last name: the Ripper. People simply turn him into whatever or whoever they like. Everyone is right and everybody is wrong about him at the same time. That is probably the appeal!

[caz]

J. Maybrick- all questions about the history of the diary itself aside, without the diary how likely is he as a suspect?

He isn't a bonafide ripper suspect, with or without the diary.

But the watch makes him a curiosity in my view.

The diary was pretty much guaranteed to clear its supposed author of any possible suspicion, not being in the right person's handwriting.

If anyone wanted to protect a friend or relative from being implicated in a serious crime, a faked confessional diary in someone else's handwriting would appear to be a most effective way of doing so.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Looking for suspects is like chasing ghosts. In this sense JtR does not actually exist, he is not actually real as we don't know who he actually was. We can simply speculate on the type of person he may have been. He only exists in the consciousnesses of people who have a particular suspect in mind. Until something definitive comes to light, which IMHO will never happen, his identity is pure conjecture. So why get caught up on one particular person? Apart from the fun of it I suppose. That I don't mind, what I do have issue with is the sniping that goes on between us. At the end of the day we are all just dealing with theories. That I why I stay clear of nailing my colours to a particular mast. There is so much more, for me at least, of interest in the case that naming the culprit. If that is studying the game of chess without ever moving any of the pieces, then so be it.

At the end of the day the killer has already been identified. First name: Jack. Last name: the Ripper. People simply turn him into whatever or whoever they like. Everyone is right and everybody is wrong about him at the same time. That is probably the appeal!

Good post, Losmandris.

If anyone thinks this is akin to a game of chess, where the winner will have moved the pieces in the right way to identify the ripper, I suspect they are destined for disappointment.

I know my own limitations at chess, so I prefer to watch others moving the pieces and stay well away from the game myself.

Where the ripper's identity is concerned, any man alive and free in 1888 appears fair game to be moved into the centre of operations, and it's the known players in Whitechapel - victims, witnesses and policemen - who are all too often treated like pawns, to be moved around to fit one's personal hunches about the murderer in each case.

Now that's a no-win situation and it's getting no less 'stale, mate'.

If we insist on voicing our opinions here, we must expect them to be trashed. It's the nature of the beast.

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

Methinks some are being little mischievous and baiting others by labelling Lechmere and Maybrick the "most ridiculous". For what it's worth, I'm not impressed by either, and have argued often against them. Lechmere appears to have fallen victim to his own innocence. The carman had the chance to leave Buck's Row, never to be seen again, but he remained and hailed the first passer-by. We only have his name to put in the frame because he came forward to the inquest. These are either the actions of a man with nothing to hide, or a killer brazenly challenging the police. With no evidence to support the latter, I give Lechmere the benefit of the doubt. As for Maybrick, the diary is almost certainly a hoax. Someone wanted to take two cause célèbres of the time and weave them together, for fun or profit. It's at best a work of fiction, at worst a piece of fraud. The errors, the dodgy provenance, handwriting style etc. are well-documented, but remain a subject of debate. Obviously the standard of falsification is higher for a certain few than others.

At any rate, both of them still have circumstantial links to the case. Lechmere, in the form of a witness at the crime scene, and Maybrick in the form of an alleged confession. I can't bring myself in good faith to put them ahead of Lewis Carroll, Jill the Ripper, Prince Eddy etc. when it comes to the daffiest suspects.

[Trevor Marriott]

At least that is something with a contemporary person at the time. Suspected by people that actually knew him, his family or from those who had access lots of information relating to the case we will, in all likelihood never see. I totally agree he is an unlikely suspect but considering all we have to go on, he is head and shoulders above so many others.

But we dont know where Magnaghten got the information from, and how reliable it was. Just because he was senior police officer that doenst mean to say that his information was as good and more reliable than all the other information the police gathered in relation to other persons of interest, and all of that from an evidential perspective you can write on the back of a postage stamp.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

But we dont know where Magnaghten got the information from, and how reliable it was. Just because he was senior police officer that doenst mean to say that his information was as good and more reliable than all the other information the police gathered in relation to other persons of interest, and all of that from an evidential perspective you can write on the back of a postage stamp.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

maybe he got it from Feigenbaums lawyer? hes pretty reliable I hear.

[Losmandris]

But we dont know where Magnaghten got the information from, and how reliable it was. Just because he was senior police officer that doenst mean to say that his information was as good and more reliable than all the other information the police gathered in relation to other persons of interest, and all of that from an evidential perspective you can write on the back of a postage stamp.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's the whole point. We don't know. It could be the gospel truth. He could have been given evidence that puts MJD 100% in the frame. There can't be an 'evidential perspective' 130 years later, everything is just speculation. Nothing more.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But we dont know where Magnaghten got the information from, and how reliable it was. Just because he was senior police officer that doenst mean to say that his information was as good and more reliable than all the other information the police gathered in relation to other persons of interest, and all of that from an evidential perspective you can write on the back of a postage stamp.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And most (including myself) would agree that we can’t take any aspect of the case and simply assume that’s it’s true or valid, whether it comes from someone loafing on the street or witnesses like Richardson or Hutchinson or Paul or whether it comes from a Police Officer whether high ranking or not. But there’s nothing wrong with exploring the possibility that the information might have been valid. I see no reason to assume that MacNaughten lied and for me at least the choice of Druitt speaks against this imo. So the alternatives are perhaps, a) the information from the family was genuine given but they were mistaken about him being the ripper (possible), or b) the information came from someone (possibly close to the family) who might have sought to punish them in some way by ruining their reputation (possible), or c) that the information was correct (possible).

We have 3 possibilities so why simply dismiss one in favour of the other two when we cannot prove the truth of either? Anyone can call Druitt a weak suspect and that’s fine but the same could be said of every single suspect that we look at but the fact he was mentioned by MacNaughten alone is enough to make him worthy of consideration and certainly raises him above the majority of suspects. If we took any amount of JTR polls Druitt will always usually appear near the top so his appearance in this thread is not really worth wasting any thinking time on.

[Herlock Sholmes]

maybe he got it from Feigenbaums lawyer? hes pretty reliable I hear.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's the whole point. We don't know. It could be the gospel truth. He could have been given evidence that puts MJD 100% in the frame. There can't be an 'evidential perspective' 130 years later, everything is just speculation. Nothing more.

Exactly. It appears that some are very certain that they know for certain what’s certainly unknown to the rest of us Tristan. And I’m certain about that.

[FISHY1118]

Seeings how the thread is titled ''Most Ridiculous Suspects'' , in we go Carl Feigenbaum. at no 4.

[GBinOz]

So the alternatives are perhaps, a) the information from the family was genuine given but they were mistaken about him being the ripper (possible), or b) the information came from someone (possibly close to the family) who might have sought to punish them in some way by ruining their reputation (possible), or c) that the information was correct (possible).

Hi Herlock,

While I am not a Druitt advocate, I certainly don't dismiss him as a suspect. The problem I see with your alternatives is that we don't know the content of "the information". Another of the aspects I see against Druitt's candidacy is the relative locations of his office at King's Bench Walk with Mitre Square and the GSG. Still, it is nonsense to rate him anywhere in a thread titled "the most ludicrous suspect". The term "baiting" comes to mind.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Herlock,

While I am not a Druitt advocate, I certainly don't dismiss him as a suspect. The problem I see with your alternatives is that we don't know the content of "the information". Another of the aspects I see against Druitt's candidacy is the relative locations of his office at King's Bench Walk with Mitre Square and the GSG. Still, it is nonsense to rate him anywhere in a thread titled "the most ludicrous suspect". The term "baiting" comes to mind.

Cheers, George

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

So I take it you dont like Feigenbaum as a suspect, I vould suggest you read the lenghty chapter on Feigenbaum found in my book "Jack the Ripper-The real Truth" which goes into much more detail than Wolfs dissertaion and includes new evidence that wasnt availale when Wolf penned his dissertaion.

Oh and by the way there are only a few pics so you might struggle with the reading part

https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=trevor+marriott&i=stripbooks&crid=3AANEFU85O9UR&sprefix=Trevor+Marriott%2Cstripbooks%2C86&ref=nb_sb_ss_c_2_15_ts-doa-p

[FISHY1118]

So I take it you dont like Feigenbaum as a suspect, I vould suggest you read the lenghty chapter on Feigenbaum found in my book "Jack the Ripper-The real Truth" which goes into much more detail than Wolfs dissertaion and includes new evidence that wasnt availale when Wolf penned his dissertaion.

Oh and by the way there are only a few pics so you might struggle with the reading part

https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=trevor+marriott&i=stripbooks&crid=3AANEFU85O9UR&sprefix=Trevor+Marriott%2Cstripbooks%2C86&ref=nb_sb_ss_c_2_15_ts-doa-p

Just dont be rude or insulting about it .Fishy, Did you not see this bit Trevor ?