Most ridiculous suspect

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Cheers George,

Fair points about Druitt. One of my points, as you’ve no doubt read, is that Druitt does sound unlikely as a person as a ripper suspect as we have no evidence of him having any connection to prostitutes or any issue with them or women in general or indeed any propensity for violence. This is why I pretty much eliminate any suggestion that MacNaughten simply selected him to add to his ‘better than Cutbush’ list just because he committed suicide after Kelly. He was a teacher at a posh school, a Barrister, a cricketer player at a decent standard (with his name appearing in print) plus Treasurer of a Club an he had a well to do family in Dorset. This would have meant that anyone looking into him would have found it easy to get some background information on him; to contact and question family members and also to check various records/newspapers which for all that Mac would have known might have led someone to have said “hold on, he was in court in Bournemouth for on the day of the Chapman murder,” for example.

No problem at all with anyone considering him a weak suspect but ‘ridiculous?’ I think we can all see what’s going on with that?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As far as I can recall I don’t think that Trevor claims that Feigenbaum was the ripper ‘as a fact.’ He just believes that he’s a strong suspect. Or even the strongest so far?

[Herlock Sholmes]

To criticise someone for dismissing someone out of hand isn’t an insult. It’s perfectly reasonable and sensible. We shouldn’t dismiss a suspect without proper consideration or just because we can’t prove guilt or because it clashes with a favoured suspect or theory.

[FISHY1118]

Is it new evidents that contradicts wolf ?does it somehow make his dissertation incorrect ? is it enough to form or changes opinion against what wolf wrote ?

if it is then of course ill check it out , but if its not then my above post remains .

So yes ???

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anyone is free to call Druitt a ridiculous suspect. Someone can suggest that he was an alien if that suits them. But what if we found a report from Major Henry Smith stating his belief that George Morris was possibly the ripper and that a family member had told him of his guilt? Would we instantly dismiss him as ‘ridiculous’ because it wasn’t corroborated and that we have no incriminating evidence against Morris? Or, would we take the view - well Smith was a senior Police Officer so his information just might have been correct leaving us with an intriguing possibility. Its worth considering.’

Former or latter? Sadly for the subject some would prefer the former. Fortunately I think that the majority would have the latter approach though.

[FISHY1118]

As far as I can recall I don’t think that Trevor claims that Feigenbaum was the ripper ‘as a fact.’ He just believes that he’s a strong suspect.

“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 ?

[FISHY1118]

To criticise someone for dismissing someone out of hand isn’t an insult. It’s perfectly reasonable and sensible. We shouldn’t dismiss a suspect without proper consideration or just because we can’t prove guilt or because it clashes with a favoured suspect or theory.

I was referring to the worded insults that went back and fouth recently , not so much the subject they were attached too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was referring to the worded insults that went back and fouth recently , not so much the subject they were attached too.

There were no insults Fishy. If someone dismisses a suspect without due and fair-minded consideration (which is very clearly what I was said, that’s not a trait that’s worthy of applause but of criticism) And additionally if some says that a poster has said something then that poster proves in black and white that he categorically didn’t say that then I see nothing wrong in stating that fact.

That said, I don’t wish to make any further comment on that particular subject.

[FISHY1118]

There were no insults Fishy. If someone dismisses a suspect without due and fair-minded consideration (which is very clearly what I was said, that’s not a trait that’s worthy of applause but of criticism) And additionally if some says that a poster has said something then that poster proves in black and white that he categorically didn’t say that then I see nothing wrong in stating that fact.

That said, I don’t wish to make any further comment on that particular subject.

There were insults that came after the inital discussion that were attached to posters replys back and fourth, thats all i was referring too, not the topic .

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 ?

[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!

[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.

[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]

“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.

[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.

[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.