Who was 'Jack the Ripper' - the poll.

[sdreid]

What does "specify" mean? I thought it meant we had to give a name.

[Sam Flynn]

What does "specify" mean? I thought it meant we had to give a name.

In Ripperology, I think it means "to make the argument for a given suspect appear specious", Stan

[DVV]

Similar sentiments to the above post. I am also a Flemingite (Flemingist?) but I DO believe he and Hutch were one and the same so I voted 'George Hutchinson'. Hope that makes sense.

Exactly what I did.
But what could we have done if Fleming had been listed?
Big little problem.
Something like Buridan's donkey.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

To continue, there is a problem with Hutchinson, since some of the 4 people who have voted for him believe him to be Hutch, while others believe Hutch to be an alias.
One name, two rippers.

[Ben]

Hi Dave,

It all amounts to the same thing, though. Those that voted for Hutchinson in the poll did so because they believe that the individual who signed the witness statement as "George Hutchinson" was the killer.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Those that voted for Hutchinson in the poll did so because they believe that the individual who signed the witness statement as "George Hutchinson" was the killer.

...that's bad news for Sgt Badham! (If certain speculations are to be believed.)

[DVV]

True Ben,
I'm a bit depressed and brainless these days, and of course Fish has voted "others".
Yet, pure "Hutchinsonians" have to be distinguished from "Flemtchinsonians", no?
Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

...that's bad news for Sgt Badham!

Come to think of it, wasn't he first on the scene at the McKenzie murder?

Bit convenient?

[Ben]

Hey David,

The Fishmeister is a Flemingo without being Hutch-happy, so that would explain his vote, but for those who subscribe to the Hutch-Fleming theory, it would still make sense to vote "Hutchinson" i.e. the man who introduced himself to police using that name.

Brainless you most certainly are not.

Cheers,
Ben

[Suzi]

A 'grey' (Not hair colour!), local man who wasn't noticed day to day in the streets (There is an invisibility associated with familiarity)

- Now this could be someone who everyone knew as a 'local' ,a friend,someone you were used to...a trustee aka...a Policeman,a Publican,a Dustman,a Ratman,a Cats Meat man, a local Trader or even 'someone harnessing horses'!, a 'do-gooder' of some sort, a Priest, a Fireman, a Temperance man, a neighbour,a husband/wife....the List is endless!!

You will never get me past the idea that the 'Ripper' (!) /or let's say the killer of at least some of these poor women-was among the crowds gathering when the bodies various were discovered,saying "Oooooh gawd ..."'Orrible murder- Nah nobody in their roight moind could 'ave done such an 'orrrible 'orror"- and then fading into the crowd that were then hurried on their way by the Old Bill!...Back to his hidey 'ole.........

Suz xx

That's my idea- ---Let's face it it works with the modern day counterparts!...No bugger suspects 'em- least of all their wives/family!-

'Praps this shouldn't be on this thread- !

[The Good Michael]

Come on, Mike, you know that isn't remotely the case.

It is the case. I have no issue with the argument for HUNCHinson as Kelly's killer, but as the Ripper, there is no case that I think could be believable.

Besides, I wanted to see James Kelly's name up there.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

but as the Ripper, there is no case that I think could be believable

I'd respectufully submit that you're asking too much there, Mike.

As far as most are concerned, crime scene evidence connects Kelly with the other victims, and any individual behaving suspiciously in relation to one crime in the series is, by extension, a candidate for the others in the series. Obviously if we had a suspect who came forward with dodgy self-vindicating excuse for loitering outside more than one crime scene, he'd trump Hutchinson, but we have no such suspect. James Kelly can't even be placed in London during the murders, as far as I'm aware.

Best regards,
Ben

[Roy Corduroy]

(There is an invisibility associated with familiarity)

- Now this could be someone who everyone knew as a 'local' ,a friend,someone you were used to...a trustee aka...a Policeman,a Publican,a Dustman,a Ratman,a Cats Meat man, a local Trader or even 'someone harnessing horses'!, a 'do-gooder' of some sort, a Priest, a Fireman, a Temperance man, a neighbour,a husband/wife....the List is endless!!

an ivisibility associated with familiarity. You have a good way of putting that, Suzi.

RatMan! Ed G Robinson said You dirty rat

Roy

[Varqm]

You could create/construct anything in your mind but there is nothing whatsoever that leads to Barnett,Hutchinson,Fleming as suspects.
- Although written good and with due respect , Bob Hinton's book did not prove anything.I think if Bob reads/examine his book again he too will change his mind about anything out there leading to Hutchinson. I hope Bob responds.
- Barnett got his alibi straight

[Ben]

I'm sorry Varqm, but you continue to talk a ridiculous amount of ill-informed hobbyist nonsense that you must be disabused of. Hutchinson almost certainly came forward with a dubious account of his activity once he learned that another witness had seen him at the crime scene, thus rendering him an entirely reasonable suspect, whilst Fleming moved into the murder district in August of 1888, "ill-used" the most brutally dispatched victim in the series, lived in the heart of the district, and was commited to a lunatic asylum for the rest of his days. Nobody's forcing you to believe that either of them was Jack the Ripper, but it's frustrating to see you dismiss them in so cavalier a fashion for no good reason.

Barnett I'm less enthusiastic about as a suspect, but to assert that he "got his alibi straight" is nonetheless too bold and overconfident an assumption.

I'm not sure quite what sort of response you're hoping for from Bob, but if you're expecting him to revise his entire stance on the basis of a four-line gauche attempt at naysaying that doesn't even attempt any explanatory reasoning, you may end up disappointed. Instead, you might just contemplate the folly of discarding the baby with the bathwater.