from open minded to convinced.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I'm hoping for a piece of irrefutable evidence which some collector has been sitting on for years, perhaps not realising that they have the key to the puzzle.

Not likely though, I admit!

Best wishes
C4

I'm hoping for some lost files somewhere in Scotland Yards archives.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

Come on over.

The water is warm, the food plentiful and the natives are friendly.

Regards,

Simon

[spyglass]

Hello Spyglass. Interesting question.

I used to believe in "Jack the Ripper." But no longer.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,
Could you elaborate on that, or can I assume that you're going along the Simon Wood route of thinking ?

Regards

[Iain Wilson]

Interesting question.

I've certainly been convinced that some suspects are more plausible than others, but nothing has ever been written to make me think "That's the guy!" or to sway me to a theory that I've previously thought was out there or bonkers.

Cheers,

Iain

[curious4]

I'm hoping for a piece of irrefutable evidence which some collector has been sitting on for years, perhaps not realising that they have the key to the puzzle.

Not likely though, I admit!

Best wishes
C4

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
After being interested in this case since the early 1960's and read all of the old books, and most of the new ones, I find myself having to force myself in reading the newest publications, because to be honest, I have seen it all before.
There is no such thing as ''Case proven''..or DNA proven, we all know this, so how can enthusiasm be restored.?
I think its is very unlikely , we will advance, but I live in hope,
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

cahnge of belief

Hello Spyglass. Interesting question.

I used to believe in "Jack the Ripper." But no longer.

Cheers.
LC

[Barnaby]

Great idea for a thread!

I've been convinced by things I've read that someone could not be Jack the Ripper. A recent example is Helena Wojtczak's excellent book on George Chapman. I've also read lots of things by people advocating a certain suspect but I've come away convinced otherwise. Those authors I won't mention.

Given that proof is highly unlikely, for me being "convinced" means someone presents evidence that clearly enhances the interest in a particular suspect. That doesn't mean the suspect is the Ripper. That doesn't mean that I believe he is the Ripper. It means I'm convinced that a particular suspect is probably better than most. Not to open a can of worms but for me a recent example is Fisherman's advocacy of Lechmere as the murderer. I also remain "convinced" from Tully's book that James Kelly is an excellent suspect.

We can also discuss this in terms of particular aspects of the crimes. For example, I had always discounted the pre-canonical victims with the possible exception of Tabram. Tom Wescott's book (The Bank Holiday Murders) convinced me otherwise.

[belinda]

Actually the reverse has happened to me. I have gone from being almost certain to having no idea

[GUT]

The rule of thumb seems to be, that everyone accepts "solid proof" will never be achieved, but we only insist on it when someone challenges our theories!

Actually It's THE reason I don't have a theory.

I want proof, ie evidence (which probably no longer exists) not speculation.

[Wickerman]

The rule of thumb seems to be, that everyone accepts "solid proof" will never be achieved, but we only insist on it when someone challenges our theories!

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Unless someone can link a suspect to every crime scene, I have to keep an open mind on who is the killer.

This said, I made a choice of having six victims from the same hand. But I can be convinced otherwise with solid proof.

[Wickerman]

Well I think I first had an open mind that the case might be solved, but I have long since become convinced that it won't.

On the other hand, I was for a long time convinced that Stride was not a Ripper victim, now I have more of an open mind about that case.

[packers stem]

Perhaps Jack took time off to get caught up on his dismembering as the Torsoman... Seriously, I agree that the gap in October is very interesting.

Possible explanations might be:
-- illness
-- locked up in a jail, prison, or insane asylum
-- traveling abroad
-- attending to royal business
-- scouting out the whereabouts of his final victim
-- finishing up his latest novel or artwork

I'll add to that with thought the job was done in September then had to replan and chose the Lord mayor parade day as an excellent opportunity

[Pcdunn]

Maybe JtR had other engagements in October?

Good god , I have been swayed by every book I have ever read ....then another came along ....in fact, when you add it up, the case has been solved every year since 1978 as far as I was concerned. If I were an 'ologist worth listening to, I would speculate that the answer to the case lies within the month of October 1888, when no murders occurred.....very strange indeed that ?

Perhaps Jack took time off to get caught up on his dismembering as the Torsoman... Seriously, I agree that the gap in October is very interesting.

Possible explanations might be:
-- illness
-- locked up in a jail, prison, or insane asylum
-- traveling abroad
-- attending to royal business
-- scouting out the whereabouts of his final victim
-- finishing up his latest novel or artwork