Who was 'Jack the Ripper' - the poll.

[Varqm]

Ben, with due respect it's you who clearly have the hobbyist nonsense.You do not have one evidence.Not one. Even Kosminski we do not have one evidence.What kind of evidence/proof is oh because some other serial killer inserted himself into an investigation...Tell that to a lawyer..it's laughable.

[DVV]

Hi Varqm,
we are in 2008 and noboby intends to bring Hutch to court. So I think Ben's post#30 already answers yours.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Varqm,

I see now that you've been confounding "evidence" with "proof", which isn't the same thing. Quite a number of people miss that distinction, so you're not alone. If I heard the case against Hutchinson as a jury member, I would have to return a "not guilty" verdict on current evidence, not because I believe for a moment that there's a stronger argument for his innocence over his guilt, but because he could not be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If that goes for Hutchinson, it certainly holds true for all other suspects.

Best regards,
Ben

[KatBradshaw]

I have recently become more and more convinced that there is more to looked at with Joseph Flemming. I am not sure that I think he was JtR but I think that there seems to be more and more reason to suspect him.

[Ben]

I'd second that, Kat.

It would be quite interesting to know how many of the voters opting for "Other" had Fleming in mind.

[DVV]

That's the problem with this thread: the distinction between named suspects and "others".
Furthermore, some (like me) have voted Hutch with Fleming in mind.

[halomanuk]

Believe me i would have put more suspects like Fleming/Kelly etc on there but,once again,the maximum lines in a poll is 10..

[DVV]

Hi Halomanuk,
I easily understand this, there are too many suspects... I'm just afraid that the results of this poll will be a bit useless, while the poll about victims was very interesting (= Tabram and Stride).

Amitiés,
David

[halomanuk]

It would always be a harder poll as everybody has their own suspect which is impossible to account for in a poll.
Hence the 'others' section where i have asked people to elaborate if they choose that,so that they can put their own suspect across for discussion.

[BillyE]

I don't think it was Aaron Kosminski, but probably someone like him, and who probably lived on Flower and Dean Street. Probably made his living with a knife, and probably worked somewhere near Buck's Row. Has there been a census of FaD St listing people's occupation? Sounds like something up Chris Scott's alley. What do you think? Anyway, a lot of "probably"s, but when dealing with JtR that's really all we have.

[DVV]

Hi all,
I'm just thinking that the problem faced by Halomanuk to elaborate a suspects'list is interesting. Who deserves to be listed? Who doesn't?
So, shall we ask a question such as: "Name the suspects (or categories of suspects, like "sailors", "unknown locals", etc) who, in your opinion, deserve more research and discussion than others."

Here is my choice:

1- Flemtchinson
2- Fleming
3- Hutchinson
4- Unknown local
5- Grainger

[BillyE]

Who doesn't love a game of "Pick Your Ripper"? It's so much fun!

[belinda]

David Cohen Alias Aaron Davis Cohen possibly one and the same as the man known as Nathan Kaminsky

Or

Somebody very much like that

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Other.

I don't think he's anyone we've ever heard of, and was a local man who lived in the area where he operated (not medically speaking ).

[caz]

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.

That’s not saying much though, is it, Ben?

Coming forward to put yourself near your own hideous crime scene when nobody else could have proved you were ever there may be unwise if not totally unheard of. Putting yourself at two or more with the aim of vindicating yourself would trump the lot and get you hanged - for confessing to being an idiot. And none of us would be here discussing it now.

You've got a blind spot where Hutch is concerned, because you only have his word for it that he was there at all (and also that he saw the victim that night) and your case against him depends on that much being true but everything else being lies. If he had been the ripper, and came forward because he thought he needed to excuse a sighting of him loitering, he could so easily have found himself having to excuse his presence near a previous crime scene, in company with a previous victim - a stretch too far because no excuse in the world would do.

Love,

Caz
X