Morally Right

[John Wheat]

Maybrick, Tumblety, Druitt, Lechmere, Dr Barnardo, Ostrog. What do they all have in common? None of them are proven murderer's so is it morally right to accuse any of them of or indeed anyone else without any proof that they were the notorious serial killer Jack the Ripper?

[Enigma]

This might be a matter of semantics. To say they are suspected of being the Ripper is perhaps more accurate and morally acceptable than making an outright accusation.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi John,

I kind of see what your getting at, but it seems to be an odd premise in my eyes.

True, Bury was a killer, and a fair candidate for the Whitechapel crimes. But to limit suspicion to convicted murderers is disingenuous. By default, H.H Holmes becomes a viable suspect, but Druitt is off limits? No murderer is a known murderer until they're caught, so if, for example, it actually was Druitt, well, he was never caught, so...

Would it be right to say that the sentiment is that Ripperology should distance itself from throwing any old hat into the ring, based on little to no good reason?

[FISHY1118]

Ill just say this John , ill sleep with my head on the pillow every night, happy with my reasons for eliminating at least 3 of thoses name to the dustbin of history as far as them ever being a viable suspect for Jack the Ripper .

Just my opinion of course.

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

I kind of see what your getting at, but it seems to be an odd premise in my eyes.

True, Bury was a killer, and a fair candidate for the Whitechapel crimes. But to limit suspicion to convicted murderers is disingenuous. By default, H.H Holmes becomes a viable suspect, but Druitt is off limits? No murderer is a known murderer until they're caught, so if, for example, it actually was Druitt, well, he was never caught, so...

Would it be right to say that the sentiment is that Ripperology should distance itself from throwing any old hat into the ring, based on little to no good reason?

I'm just asking the question. It's not necessarily my opinion. However I would say Ripperology should distance itself from throwing any old hat into the ring.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Philosophically speaking, the dead are not moral beings and given they have no conscious experience they cannot be harmed/distressed.

On the other hand, the dead maintain a reputation, their physical bodies are their private property (including when dead) and they are entitled to decide what happens to their money and their assets after death.

Furthermore, you could argue that there is a moral obligation to the dead because it harms the living (moral beings).

Ultimately, whether or not we have a moral obligation to the dead is debatable. Much of the way we interact with the dead is the result of social customs rather than moral obligation.

I'd say it's a question of your own personal ethics including the old adage: "do as you would be done to".

[Losmandris]

I think we are on 'dodgy' ground accusing anyone of being the murderer to be honest. With the passing of time, I think that is now pretty much impossible to ever firmly establish who they were. That is why I steer pretty clear of 'suspectology'

[John Wheat]

I think we are on 'dodgy' ground accusing anyone of being the murderer to be honest. With the passing of time, I think that is now pretty much impossible to ever firmly establish who they were. That is why I steer pretty clear of 'suspectology'

I'm not so sure Losmandris but I think you have a point to some extent.

Cheers John

[Wickerman]

Maybrick, Tumblety, Druitt, Lechmere, Dr Barnardo, Ostrog. What do they all have in common? None of them are proven murderer's so is it morally right to accuse any of them of or indeed anyone else without any proof that they were the notorious serial killer Jack the Ripper?

My first reaction when I read this was possibly the wrong one - that Peter Sutcliffe wasn't a proven killer either. I think it's fair to say most serial killers don't have a criminal record for murder.

Yet I do agree in part with the sentiment, it's become a parlor game for some people to pick a character, then dream up an accusation against them. All the named suspects are pretty-much baseless.
We can't possibly know enough about the private life of an individual who lived over a century ago to accuse them of these murders. It's just not possible. Just like today, a serial killer could have a normal family life, but at night turn into something else. It doesn't matter who it is, or what their daily life was. It is their night-life that needs to be investigated, and that is an impossibility at this remote time.

I wonder if the more relevant question is, why do 'they' do it?
By 'they' I mean the accusers - why do they make baseless accusations against a person they know nothing about?

[rjpalmer]

All the named suspects are pretty-much baseless.

That's merely an assumption, Wick, and you really have no way of knowing whether or not you are correct.

Macnaghten had his reasons for naming Druitt; Swanson for Kosminski; Littlechild for Tumblety; Race for Cutbush; Sagar for an unnamed City Suspect; Abberline for Koslowski.

Even if all of these suspects are proven innocent, the idea that the suspicions against them were 'baseless' is unnecessarily dismissive to the point of being flippant.

As I see it, the proper perspective is to try to figure out what the case against these men may have amounted to and then take it from there, with the obvious caveat that they can't all be guilty, so a certain amount of skepticism is in order.

The Barnardos, the Maybricks, the Lechmeres, the Lewis Carrolls, the Walter Sickerts, etc. are a different matter.

[Losmandris]

I'm not so sure Losmandris but I think you have a point to some extent.

Cheers John

The problem with 'suspectology' is that is so easy for us to fill in the blanks. Because lets face it even with the people named at the time, there are a lot of blank spaces. It gets to a point where it gets just silly. As mentioned above nowadays literally anyone who was around at the time is potentially in the frame. The bizarre thing is, the more blank spaces the easier it is to turn them into a suspect. Hence all the names on the list you mention. I mean, of course it does not really matter, its all a bit of a game now. But when you really consider the type of person we are talking about here.........maybe pointing those fingers is a bit morally skew-whiff, albeit on some cosmic/karmic level as it were.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ill just say this John , ill sleep with my head on the pillow every night, happy with my reasons for eliminating at least 3 of thoses name to the dustbin of history as far as them ever being a viable suspect for Jack the Ripper .

Just my opinion of course.

Id eliminate 4 probably 5.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm just asking the question. It's not necessarily my opinion. However I would say Ripperology should distance itself from throwing any old hat into the ring.

If we burned that many hats John it would take the fire service all day to put the fire out.

[Wickerman]

That's merely an assumption, Wick, and you really have no way of knowing whether or not you are correct.

Yes, the word I mistakenly left out was 'modern', I wasn't referring to Tumblety or Druitt, but the context of the sentence (parlor game & dream up) might have suggested that. Subsequent posts also place emphasis on the 'modern' theorists here on Casebook, which was the context I responded to.

The Barnardos, the Maybricks, the Lechmeres, the Lewis Carrolls, the Walter Sickerts, etc. are a different matter.

To which you apparently then make a point of hi-liting.

I think we both know what reservations to allow for with the contemporary suspects, it's the modern ones we both have issues with.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, the word I mistakenly left out was 'modern', I wasn't referring to Tumblety or Druitt, but the context of the sentence (parlor game & dream up) might have suggested that. Subsequent posts also place emphasis on the 'modern' theorists here on Casebook, which was the context I responded to.



To which you apparently then make a point of hi-liting.

I think we both know what reservations to allow for with the contemporary suspects, it's the modern ones we both have issues with.

throwing lechmere in with that crowd is ludicrous. but yes the other ridiculous type suspects like those listed, especially the famous ones it is morally wrong as well as just being farfetched nonsense. if any 'suspect' has a valid reason for suspicion though, im pretty much OK with it.