Favoured Suspects

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Thanks, pleased to see you taking an interest in Thompson as a candidate. Yes, I agree that the evidence is circumstantial, however, I would say that about all of the candidates. Well, okay, it might be said Kosminski was positively identified, but I would question the reliability of the identification as I'm sure would most people.

It was also interesting to read Paul Begg's review of Richard's book, which was generally positive. In fact, Paul said that, after reading the book, he'd purchased a couple of biographies and his complete works, as well as the fact that he was going to seriously update his A-Z entry.

hey, FT didn't have red hair and a blotchy face did he? ; )

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

Thanks, pleased to see you taking an interest in Thompson as a candidate. Yes, I agree that the evidence is circumstantial, however, I would say that about all of the candidates. Well, okay, it might be said Kosminski was positively identified, but I would question the reliability of the identification as I'm sure would most people.

It was also interesting to read Paul Begg's review of Richard's book, which was generally positive. In fact, Paul said that, after reading the book, he'd purchased a couple of biographies and his complete works, as well as the fact that he was going to seriously update his A-Z entry.

is Richards book on FT?

[John G]

Hi JohnG
since were bickering on the other thread- I thought Id chime in here and give you a solid on FT. LOL!

I favored him a lot when I was first got into it-but he had fallen a bit IMHO.

however, you and others have been posting some interesting info about him and hes now raised back up a bit for me. I find the fact that he lived so close to Kelly very interesting-I didn't know that. one of the reasons He dropped is when I realized there was nothing that ties him directly to the case-and him living so close to Kelly helps that. Lots of circumstantial evidence on him, that's for sure but circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

Hello Abby,

Thanks, pleased to see you taking an interest in Thompson as a candidate. Yes, I agree that the evidence is circumstantial, however, I would say that about all of the candidates. Well, okay, it might be said Kosminski was positively identified, but I would question the reliability of the identification as I'm sure would most people.

It was also interesting to read Paul Begg's review of Richard's book, which was generally positive. In fact, Paul said that, after reading the book, he'd purchased a couple of biographies and his complete works, as well as the fact that he was going to seriously update his A-Z entry.

[Abby Normal]

William Bury, for the reasons you would give, i.e. victim mutilated, chalk writing.

Francis Thompson. Spent six years as a medical student-Dr Phillips seemed to think JtR was a medical expert, which would completely rule out the vast majority of suspects.

Hated women. Was probably living at the Provedence Row night shelter at the time Kelly was murdered, which was about 100 yards from Dorset Street.

Wrote poetry about mutilating women. Soon after the murders wrote about killing female prostitutes with knives.

Fits the profile of this type of killer extremely well, i.e. was a multiple arsonist and had only one relationship with a woman, a prostitute who left him just before the Whitechapel murders began- June 1888. Of course, this could have acted as a catalyst for the subsequent murders.

Hi JohnG
since were bickering on the other thread- I thought Id chime in here and give you a solid on FT. LOL!

I favored him a lot when I was first got into it-but he had fallen a bit IMHO.

however, you and others have been posting some interesting info about him and hes now raised back up a bit for me. I find the fact that he lived so close to Kelly very interesting-I didn't know that. one of the reasons He dropped is when I realized there was nothing that ties him directly to the case-and him living so close to Kelly helps that. Lots of circumstantial evidence on him, that's for sure but circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

[Ben]

Hi C4,

Hutch did have a valid reason for being there.

Well no, not really.

Being surprised at seeing a well-dressed man in Kelly's company was not a particularly "valid reason" for loitering outside Miller's Court for 45 minutes "to see if they came out"; in fact, it's not a "reason" at all.

And something I read about Anderson (I think) has stayed in my mind. It was that he made a decision after "consulting with his friends". Is it so inconceivable that a working class man would do this? That Hutch wanted to be sure about what he should do?

There's nothing inherently problematic about witnesses "consulting with friends" before deciding to take action. The problem here is that Hutchinson's decision to contact the police on the advice of an alleged "fellow lodger" just happened to coincide with the end of the inquest, where Sarah Lewis had recounted her story involving a man standing alone outside the court not long before the cry of "murder" heard by witnesses. The inevitable inference is that Hutchinson only took action because he was the man seen by Lewis, and feared the consequences of being identified as such before he had an opportunity to offer a self-legitimising excuse for his presence there.

All the best,
Ben

[Mike M]

Cutbush for me. Seriously odd bloke. The fact Macnaughten felt the need to pen his memo to counter the allegations in the Sun adds weight to the argument for me.

[Mister Whitechapel]

I too think the Whitechapel Killer was an unknown person or persons which, - unless fantastical new official papers come to light which names individuals we thought lost or impossible to identify - will forever remain shrouded in shadow.

That being said, I secretly (until now) favour James Maybrick as the Ripper. Not because of the evidence presented per se, but because of the whole poetic justice of how the Ripper's "Autumn of Terror" came to an end.

Now, I also understand that it sounds a bit morbid wishing that a likely innocent man was this notorious killer, but I just like the whole narrative the "Diary" gives for motive, methodology, and ultimate conclusion.

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

[Patrick S]

Not much fun, but like Donald Rumbelow I think JtR's name may have slipped through the cracks of time and we may never know.
But if I have to pick someone from the known suspects, I think Levy. I think he could have been the Butchers Row suspect. But it's nothing more than a guess.

This about sums up my thoughts. I'm almost certain we'll never know who Jack the Ripper was, IF there was even such an animal (i.e. someone who murdered - at least - Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly), and what became of him. Another poster mentioned being influenced by books, authors, etc. I find that applies to me, as well. It's a species of 'suspension of disbelief', I imagine. I allow myself to become invested in the narrative. I buy in, only be brought back to reality by further research, conflicting "facts", and reality.

I remember reading an article in a tabloid when I was around twelve years old. It proclaimed 'case closed', all that. They proclaimed that Druitt was Jack. And that's what I believed until I read Sugden some years later and began my immersion in earnest.

Over the years I've been swayed to believe in Druitt (as mentioned), Maybrick (embarrassingly), Tumblety (it didn't last), Hyam Hyams (I thought we had a real chance), Kosminski (but don't we all?), and Cross/Lechmere (a nasty break-up, that one).

I found Sickert and all the other "celebrity suspects" uninteresting and more for profit, if I'm honest.

Now, I'm alone. Jaded. Hardened. Led down the garden path one too many times. But, I'll find love again......I know it's out there......wait.....what the hell was I talking about?

[MsWeatherwax]

It's Mr U.N. Known for me too. An anonymous little man no one took much notice of. If I was forced, under threat of thumbscrews or something, to name a likely suspect I think it would be Levy. I'm convinced Mr Ripper knew his patch inside out.

For me too, I'm afraid...I think he's lost to history now. I wouldn't be completely surprised if he had lodgings on, or near, Whitechapel High Street but that's about it.

I'd love a dusty old box to turn up in someone's attic, bursting at the seams with all the proof anyone would ever need of his true identity, but I'd also like to win the next Euromillions. Since I don't actually do the lottery, I think the chances of my box turning up are roughly the same.

[curious4]

But is there any evidence to suggest that the hairdresser in question was seen loitering near the scene of the crime shortly before it occurred, and only came forward after learning he had been seen by another witness? I'm not aware of anyone having suggested that Hutchinson's description was "too perfect"; it is simply not plausible given the reported circumstances and the brevity with which the sighing allegedly occurred. Unless the above was true of the hairdresser, there's not an awful lot to suggest he was "like Hutch"

All the best,
Ben

P.S. Not an invitation to start another monster Hutchinson debate, as this thread relates to all suspects and persons of interest.

Hello Ben

Hutch did have a valid reason for being there. And something I read about Anderson (I think) has stayed in my mind. It was that he made a decision after "consulting with his friends". Is it so inconceivable that a working class man would do this? That Hutch wanted to be sure about what he should do? And I have read that some have found Hutch's description too detailed.

Best wishes
C4

[Rosella]

It's Mr U.N. Known for me too. An anonymous little man no one took much notice of. If I was forced, under threat of thumbscrews or something, to name a likely suspect I think it would be Levy. I'm convinced Mr Ripper knew his patch inside out.

[AlanG]

Koz-Only suspect with possible direct evidence against-ID by witness. named by three police officials. threatened sister with knife. mental issues-somewhat violent. Local avg Joe.

In my mind there is no getting around this. Couple that with the fact he lived in the heart of Whitechapel and was under intense surveillance after the Kelly murder and was subsequently institutionalised soon after.

I had my moments with Chapman too. But in the end, with the evidence we have, it always comes back to AK. I could be wrong.

[GUT]

I tend to prefer or dismiss the suspect of any book I'm currently reading, depending on the quality of the author's research.

Once I've finished the book commonsense takes over again and I go back to no favoured suspect.

I'm currently reading Mike Hawley's Tumberty book.

How are you thinking after reading it has he moved up or down?

[Ben]

Said this before but witnesses like Hutch do exist, notably the hairdresser who gave a perfect description of the Swedish Foreign Minister's murderer but was not believed by the police because the description was "too perfect".

But is there any evidence to suggest that the hairdresser in question was seen loitering near the scene of the crime shortly before it occurred, and only came forward after learning he had been seen by another witness? I'm not aware of anyone having suggested that Hutchinson's description was "too perfect"; it is simply not plausible given the reported circumstances and the brevity with which the sighing allegedly occurred. Unless the above was true of the hairdresser, there's not an awful lot to suggest he was "like Hutch"

All the best,
Ben

P.S. Not an invitation to start another monster Hutchinson debate, as this thread relates to all suspects and persons of interest.

[Elamarna]

Its interesting that the same sort of thing a few months back gives a slightly different result for me

Top is Still Kos, with the rider it could be someone else very like him, but some confusion some where. the reasoning is 3 senior officers name him, two suggest some form of id took place.

Next Levy, could fit into the above, he certainly had a trigger to start him off. And could easily be the suspect watched by Cox/Sagar.

Now a change, Tumblety has moved back up following Mike Hawley's excellent new book. he is suggested by Littlechild, and is certainly worth a new look.


Then Druitt and Bury and Cutbush in no particular order.


steve