from open minded to convinced.

[spyglass]

Hi all,
I was wondering whether any members on here who were once open minded on the case/suspect, have later been convinced, or certainly swayed by just one book/theory?

Regards.

[Utahraptor]

I have been convinced/swayed on numerous occasions, but it is always temporary! Only hard evidence coming to light would convince me now.

[spyglass]

I have been convinced/swayed on numerous occasions, but it is always temporary! Only hard evidence coming to light would convince me now.

Hi,
That's me as well.
What I should have said was " convinced by one book/theory and nothing else is going to change your mind".

[GUT]

Far from it.

A few times I've read something and thought well that sounds good, but then when I actually dissect it the "sounds good" doesn't seem to last real long.

[packers stem]

Far from it.

A few times I've read something and thought well that sounds good, but then when I actually dissect it the "sounds good" doesn't seem to last real long.

Been convinced then unconvinced a number of times over the years but I always keep going back to the mystery within that is Mary Kelly and believe the key lies there....not the missing key you understand

[Jason]

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 ?

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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!

[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.

[belinda]

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

[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.

[lynn cates]

cahnge of belief

Hello Spyglass. Interesting question.

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

Cheers.
LC