What can be done?

[Geddy2112]

A great deal of discussion on this forum, the other forum and Facebook revolve around a suspect being named, a theory given then the 'I agree' or 'I don't agree' come in, sometimes a touch harsher than that of course. We also have fabulous artefacts from the era, newspaper reports, photographs and stories.

However my question is... How can we solve the case, if possible. What do 'we' as a collective need to do to get this sorted. What would be a good plan? Can we act together to solve the case to a reasonable conclusion?

[Lewis C]

I don't think that the case can be solved with the evidence that we have now, so the only chance of solving the case is to uncover more evidence.

[The Rookie Detective]

A great deal of discussion on this forum, the other forum and Facebook revolve around a suspect being named, a theory given then the 'I agree' or 'I don't agree' come in, sometimes a touch harsher than that of course. We also have fabulous artefacts from the era, newspaper reports, photographs and stories.

However my question is... How can we solve the case, if possible. What do 'we' as a collective need to do to get this sorted. What would be a good plan? Can we act together to solve the case to a reasonable conclusion?

The case will never be solved.

Partially because nothing can ever be proven definitively and conclusively after all this time; the entire population of the world at the time now being deceased.

The other key reason being that there are those who never really want the case to be solved anyway. For whatever reason, they are not interested in solving the mystery and confining the case firmly into history where it belongs; but rather, they prefer to keep the case running as a perpetual continuum.
There is certainly a divide between those 2 ways of thinking.
Unfortunately, it's the latter group that choose to not accept or be satisfied by any new data that may support a particular suspect or person of interest
If for example a photograph was ever discovered of a man holding a knife, sitting on the bed at Miller's Court with MJK laying next to him, it would automatically be rejected as a fake.

The correct question would of course be... Who took the photo?


I was recently told by a member over on Forums that "whodunnit's" were not welcome on the particular thread I was commenting on; namely "Was Kosminski the Ripper?"
I felt that the question warranted my "whodunnit" suspect orientated approach, but clearly it ruffled a few feathers because the individual clearly fell into the group of not wanting the case to be solved or someone like me coming along and bringing fresh ideas to the table by clearing away the cobwebs.

In other words, there are always going to be those who have no true want or desire for the case to be solved, and until we are all working to the same objectives, then the case will never truly progress in the way it needs to.

Until the day comes when a person isn't criticised or ridiculed for being suspect orientated, then maybe, just maybe some new data can be accepted.
It's not about new data being found, it's about the data being worked on as a collective and then being accepted or rejected if warranted.

You can tell within 30 seconds which side of the fence someone falls; if their first response to a new thread is partronizing; condescending, or deliberately diverts from the source question in a bid to saturate the thread with comments that have no relevance to the topic, then they're the individuals who have a motivation to hinder those of us who want to know the answers, and to know the truth in a bid to find some closure.


Thankfully, the majority of people on this site and over on forums have the correct mindset, but there will always be a few rotten apples to poison the cart.

I have always been focused primarily on suspects and victims, but to admit that, is not seen as appropriate by some because in their eyes I am rocking the boat by trying to actively find answers and avoid procrastination.


RD

[Robert St Devil]

I was recently told by a member over on Forums that "whodunnit's" were not welcome on the particular thread I was commenting on; namely "Was Kosminski the Ripper?"

Yes generally SPECULATION is frowned upon within the community AND EVEN THOUGH we are experiencing an era when ripperologists are pointing to “characters” within the casebook it’s NOT a game of Clue(do), it’s NOT random assertions of Colonel Mustard murdering Dr. Black or Mr Boddy with a candlestick in the Observatory.

[The Rookie Detective]

Yes generally SPECULATION is frowned upon within the community AND EVEN THOUGH we are experiencing an era when ripperologists are pointing to “characters” within the casebook it’s NOT a game of Clue(do), it’s NOT random assertions of Colonel Mustard murdering Dr. Black or Mr Boddy with a candlestick in the Observatory.

That is very true and I accept your point.


However, when a thread starts with the question...

"Was Kosminski the Ripper?"

I believe that warrants a reply that discusses possible suspects.


If it doesn't, then why ask the question in the first place?


If the question was...

"What do we know about the life of Mary Jane Kelly?"

And then I started talking about Ripper suspects, then I would deserve to be countered over my mention of a suspect because it diverts from the MJK discussion.
Someone would then be quite right in highlighting that the topic did not concern a suspect because the discussion related to a victim.


But if someone starts a thread by asking "Was Kosminski the Ripper?"

Then it DOES warrant a discussion over suspects.


Of course, it isn't really about that; it's because I raised some valid points and the person in question didn't like me talking about it because it was seen as rocking the boat.


You are quite right; it isn't a game, and it certainly isn't Cluedo...but it is an open-world conversation about who the killer could have been.


BUT...

If I am told I cannot discuss potential VALID suspects in an unsolved cold case where the primary focus is to work out WHO THE KILLER WAS, then it renders the entire process as a complete waste of time for everyone.

Ripperology would then take the abhorrent form of an elitist misogynistic conformist cigar-smoking conservative gentleman's club, where cricket is the only sport that can be referred to.


Thank goodness we aren't at that stage yet.


*moves Colonel Mustard into the Study and checks his cards


RD

[John Wheat]

A great deal of discussion on this forum, the other forum and Facebook revolve around a suspect being named, a theory given then the 'I agree' or 'I don't agree' come in, sometimes a touch harsher than that of course. We also have fabulous artefacts from the era, newspaper reports, photographs and stories.

However my question is... How can we solve the case, if possible. What do 'we' as a collective need to do to get this sorted. What would be a good plan? Can we act together to solve the case to a reasonable conclusion?

Hi Geddy2112

I doubt the case will ever be solved. However I sill believe the perpetrator of the Ripper murders is likely to have been some one we know about. My money is on Bury however if not Bury then Kelly. I myself put more emphasis on those with a propensity for violence and for that matter violent murder rather than some of what I would term the more dubious reasons for suspicion such as they were in London at the time of the Ripper murders or they were alive in 1888.

Cheers John

[Michael W Richards]

A great deal of discussion on this forum, the other forum and Facebook revolve around a suspect being named, a theory given then the 'I agree' or 'I don't agree' come in, sometimes a touch harsher than that of course. We also have fabulous artefacts from the era, newspaper reports, photographs and stories.

However my question is... How can we solve the case, if possible. What do 'we' as a collective need to do to get this sorted. What would be a good plan? Can we act together to solve the case to a reasonable conclusion?

There is not one good case,... meaning with accompanying hard evidence,.. to use to accuse any suspect named as of this date to any of these five murders. Note I say any of these murders....not all five. No-one has proven that any of these victims were connected by their killer...they have surmised as much. And in cases like Liz Strides, the inclusion of victims is based purely on instincts and guesses. There is evidence that could be used to connect some by killer, but that is not a suspect based theory, its a medical evidence theory. The suspect based discussions are just recreation, not the result of any investigation.

[The Baron]

"Undiscovered murders are rare in London, and the "Jack-the-Ripper" crimes are not within that category. And if the Police here had powers such as the French Police possess, the murderer would have been brought to justice."



The Baron

[Michael W Richards]

"Undiscovered murders are rare in London, and the "Jack-the-Ripper" crimes are not within that category. And if the Police here had powers such as the French Police possess, the murderer would have been brought to justice."



The Baron

Ive wondered....is that a veiled reference to Vasiliev?

[Scott Nelson]

Probably not. Vassili or Wassili may have been a press fabrication.

[Michael W Richards]

Probably not. Vassili or Wassili may have been a press fabrication.

"Between November and December 1888 several British and international newspapers identified a new Ripper suspect: Nikolay Vasiliev, also called Nicolas Vassili or Wassily. Not only that, but two books brought out in America during the same period, The History of the Whitechapel Murders: A Full and Authentic Narrative of the Above Murders, (Richard K Fox, Publisher and Printer, New York) and Leather Apron; Or, the Horrors of Whitechapel, London (Philadelphia), no doubt inspired by press reports, fingered Vasiliev as the most likely suspect.¹"

"The newspapers described him as tall, lean, with a brawny form, a pale, waxy complexion (which may have been a side effect of castration) and burning black eyes. He was released from the asylum on 1 January 1888, when he was 40 years of age."

I believe Scott those snippets, and others, suggest that on some level there is likely a basis in fact for some of this, even if certain elements are fabricated. I thought that reference to the French Authorities must relate to a specific case that he used to compare with the crimes in Whitechapel. This character, if real, was caught and incarcerated, perhaps due to less restrictive laws concerning violent criminals.

[Robert St Devil]

Ive wondered....is that a veiled reference to Vasiliev?

… or Josef Vacher

[Tani]

… or Josef Vacher

My first thought; he is considered the French version of JtR.

[Geddy2112]

Ive wondered....is that a veiled reference to Vasiliev?

I thought it was a quote from the narrator of the Missing Evidence..