New Theories

[Ally]

thanks DGB it's very kind of you to take the time to look.

I don't quite follow what you mean re Chapman, it might be that I've been trying to get a lot of ideas down quickly and have missed a few steps that make sense, would you mind please expanding on what you said.

Thanks,
Dave

He means that if your suspect was working until 12 noon on Sept 8, he would not have been able to kill Chapman as she was killed approximately six hours earlier, at around 6 in the morning on the 8th.

[Cogidubnus]

Yes, this is far from being the run of the mill "nutter" website...the theories are backed by such evidence as there is, and in all truth probably echo the thoughts of many students here.

The facts of the case are honestly stated and both coherently and intelligently stated, and the author's conclusions, so far, whether one agrees with them or not, are at least logically arrived at.

That "so far" is an important proviso though...as I didn't see on the site, the promised new suspect! I may've missed him though...just so long as he isn't a carman or a diarist!

All the best

Dave

[DaveShuts]

thanks DGB it's very kind of you to take the time to look.

I don't quite follow what you mean re Chapman, it might be that I've been trying to get a lot of ideas down quickly and have missed a few steps that make sense, would you mind please expanding on what you said.

Thanks,
Dave

[DGB]

Hi Dave

I really like your website I thought your theories were well presented, concise and fairly clear. I also think your website looks great as well.

I agree your second theory is definitely the strongest of the three. A good re-examination of an age-old question.

Just one query however. You mention the following:

"For the second murder on Saturday 8th September 1888 he would have finished work at 12 noon on Saturday and be in his weekend off. He would not be due back to work until Monday at 12 noon;"

Perhaps I've misunderstood but this doesn't seem to fit with the timing of the Chapman murder.

[Abby Normal]

Hi
Why don't you just cut and paste them here then so you don't have to re type it all out. I doubt anyone will click on an unknown link-I know I won't.

But I do want to hear your theories.

[DaveShuts]

Hello,
I've been interested in the Ripper for many long years, and I *think* I have some new theories.

I'm not trying to make a name for myself or be silly, it's just that I've always thought that some things are obvious and don't seem to have been picked up on generally.

You can see my ideas at my website, rather than my re-typing them out in entirety, the relevant bits are in the "theories" section, I personally think the 1st & 2nd theories are the best, with the 2nd theory being best of all.

The interesting thing is that I have followed these ideas and found someone who is probably a brand new Ripper suspect - that is to say I followed the logic, thought about who might *might have been capable* of being JTR and then looked at the records.

Amazingly, and totally NOT what I was expecteting, I found someone who fitted the bill who committed suicide shortly after the final murder.

Now, I obviously need to do a lot more research, which I am trying to do, but it's not my strong point, and I think I've even found one clear example of this where I thought I had pinned down the person via birth etc records, only to find that the suspect did not die in 1888, but instead died many years later in a "mental hospital".

It's very easy to mislead yourself, but I do believe that I'm on the right track, and hopefully with the results of the research I'm doing may have another viable suspect to add to the pot.

I do however fully realise that it will probably be a total red herring. like all of those who have gone before me trying to put a name to the invisible face.

Anyway, I'd be greatly appreciative of any input, ideas, or thoughts regarding what I consider to be my logical interpretations of the data.

And when I get the results of my investigations I will share the conclusions with you whether they look good, bad, or indifferent.

Thanks,
Dave