Name the Name with a short answer why please :D

[JeffHamm]

I assumed it had to be a different envelope because how someone could seriously connect that envelope to Barnett is beyond me.

As far as I know, that's the only envelope connected to the Chapman case, and how it came into her possession is known. I, too, can't fathom how it could have been suggested it was connected to Barnett, but perhaps it's in a "Barnett as JtR" suspect book? If so, it's undoubtedly an incorrect inference.

- Jeff

[Astatine211]

There was a piece of envelope found with Annie Chapman, but it wasn't Barnett's. She was seen at the doss house with a box of pills, which broke, and so she picked up a piece of envelope to put the pills in (it's in the inquest testimony). It's unrelated to JtR, though the police at the time thought it might be a lead as it was an envelope from a military establishment (a barracks or base of some sort, I forget the regiment offhand). Given that Tabram was seen with soldiers (and at that time Tabram was though part of the series), it was at first thought this might possibly have been dropped by her killer. So it was considered a lead and they followed it up, but it ended up leading them back to her doss house, not to her killer.

- Jeff

I assumed it had to be a different envelope because how someone could seriously connect that envelope to Barnett is beyond me.

[JeffHamm]

That's a new one on me. What envelope that belonged to Barnett?

There was a piece of envelope found with Annie Chapman, but it wasn't Barnett's. She was seen at the doss house with a box of pills, which broke, and so she picked up a piece of envelope to put the pills in (it's in the inquest testimony). It's unrelated to JtR, though the police at the time thought it might be a lead as it was an envelope from a military establishment (a barracks or base of some sort, I forget the regiment offhand). Given that Tabram was seen with soldiers (and at that time Tabram was though part of the series), it was at first thought this might possibly have been dropped by her killer. So it was considered a lead and they followed it up, but it ended up leading them back to her doss house, not to her killer.

- Jeff

[erobitha]

I understand your position. The fact remains, there only ever was one person (one author) with more than enough inside knowledge of both subjects to have been the principal source behind the deception.
Every time a fraud is uncovered, whether it be a work of art, a book, or an ancient antique, invariably we find a range of reasons why they did it. It isn't always for money, quite often it is for the challenge, which may not make sense to some, but it doesn't have to.
If the creator never does make money or receive any kind of material benefit they have thee best alibi - "It wasn't me, had no reason to do it" - which is precisely your position, which is also what the creator is relying on.

To simply have deceived some of the best minds in the world can be a huge gratification for some.

Well, I hope for my sanity you are wrong.

[Wickerman]

Now that’s a theory and half.

I think I know to whom you may infer. You think he fabricated the whole thing, I would ask why? If he is as respected as I think him to be, would that not simply ruin his reputation as a well respected researcher?

It would be the death knell of his career. A career where he has always aimed to remain impartial wherever possible.

I personally struggle greatly with this one.

I understand your position. The fact remains, there only ever was one person (one author) with more than enough inside knowledge of both subjects to have been the principal source behind the deception.
Every time a fraud is uncovered, whether it be a work of art, a book, or an ancient antique, invariably we find a range of reasons why they did it. It isn't always for money, quite often it is for the challenge, which may not make sense to some, but it doesn't have to.
If the creator never does make money or receive any kind of material benefit they have thee best alibi - "It wasn't me, had no reason to do it" - which is precisely your position, which is also what the creator is relying on.

To simply have deceived some of the best minds in the world can be a huge gratification for some.

[Scott Nelson]

Joseph Barnett - I don't consider him as a suspect but I just want to know why an envelope that belonged to Barnett was found in the courtyard of Hanbury Street after the murder of Annie Chapman???

That's a new one on me. What envelope that belonged to Barnett?

[Ms Diddles]

1) unknown local / non-local
2) Koz
3) Druitt
4) Lechmere
5) Bury

That's my current five aside team.

There are a few others on the bench who get substituted every so often!

[Abby Normal]

Hi clarke
I got hutch and blotchy 1 and 1a.
after that Chapman, Bury, James kelly, koz and lech. (pretty much in that order)

a bit further down i got druitt, barnett, tumblety (working with someone else) richardson, bowyer.

IMHO all the suspects are weak, some just less weak but with all the names above i think we have a slightly better than 50/50 chance the ripper is one of them.

I know you only asked for one, sorry, this just how me brain works.

[John Wheat]

I'll do that thank you

No problem.

[clark2710]

Bury was a violent murderer who murdered his ex prostitute wife by strangling her and then performed some post mortem mutilations on his wife in Dundee Scotland. Which they had relocated to shortly after Mary Kelly's murder. Before this Bury had been in Bow, London which is close to Whitechapel. Bury also fits the psych profiles remarkably well. That's just for starters. Bury is a suspect I recommend you look into. As very few Ripper suspects are proven violent murderers.

I'll do that thank you

[John Wheat]

I really need to brush up on all the suspects as I'm not familiar with many of them. Bury being one. But please, can you speak of some of your reasoning as to why you think he's the one?

Bury was a violent murderer who murdered his ex prostitute wife by strangling her and then performed some post mortem mutilations on his wife in Dundee Scotland. Which they had relocated to shortly after Mary Kelly's murder. Before this Bury had been in Bow, London which is close to Whitechapel. Bury also fits the psych profiles remarkably well. That's just for starters. Bury is a suspect I recommend you look into. As very few Ripper suspects are proven violent murderers.

[clark2710]

Person or persons unknown and likely to stay that way.

I truly think the answer is in someone's attic, old house, or whatever. A diary that's un read, some paperwork or evidence that was thought lost. I think someone has the answers and doesn't know it.

[clark2710]

I believe Bury was the Ripper. There are a number of reasons I believe this.

I really need to brush up on all the suspects as I'm not familiar with many of them. Bury being one. But please, can you speak of some of your reasoning as to why you think he's the one?

[erobitha]

Hi Caz.

There only ever was one well respected researcher who had intimate knowledge of both Maybrick & Jack the Ripper, at the time the 'Diary' surfaced, it's just that without proof it wouldn't be acceptable for me to name him. Though today it shouldn't be difficult for anyone to identify the name themselves. There's only one.

The book was an intentional fabrication right from the start, in my view.

Now that’s a theory and half.

I think I know to whom you may infer. You think he fabricated the whole thing, I would ask why? If he is as respected as I think him to be, would that not simply ruin his reputation as a well respected researcher?

It would be the death knell of his career. A career where he has always aimed to remain impartial wherever possible.

I personally struggle greatly with this one.

[Wickerman]

Whoever the diary's author was, it makes little sense that they would have made an effort to research Maybrick and the ripper murders to get the basic chronology right and make sure he had no hard and fast alibis, but then spend all of two minutes on an unprovable story that the diary came from a former Saddle Pub regular who had since died.

Hi Caz.

There only ever was one well respected researcher who had intimate knowledge of both Maybrick & Jack the Ripper, at the time the 'Diary' surfaced, it's just that without proof it wouldn't be acceptable for me to name him. Though today it shouldn't be difficult for anyone to identify the name themselves. There's only one.

The book was an intentional fabrication right from the start, in my view.