Name your top 3 suspects with top 3 reasons why you think so...

[Jimi]

Poor MOM

Hi All
Hi Tom
Can i ask, are you talking in anagrams or has the dyslexia kicked in?
Cos, what i typed is MMO.
Although at this time of night and a tot or two i quite often read in anagramese
Keep Well
Jimi

[Tom_Wescott]

It's generally called MOM, Jimi.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[tji]

Hi Tom

It's generally called MOM, Jimi.


I think he is just teasing you


tj

[mariab]

my 3 top suspects

1. Barnett or someone local and unconspicuous. I'm currently reading Paley, but I developped this opinion already the very first time I went through the suspects list posted on casebook. I might feel like writing about this at some point.
2. Local Jew (Cohen/Kaminsky etc.), see Fido's theory. More research in the London archives remains to be conducted on this though, and I'd SO wished that it might turn up fruitful.
3. Possibly Le Grand or Tumblety, but I need to read Examiner 2 to absorb the newest info on these two “gentlemen“ before making up my mind.
PS.: The Ripper probably had MOM issues in abundance.

[Abby Normal]

Hi All
Hi Abby
You ask me for my reasons as too believing Jacob Levy as JTR. I don`t want to hi-jack somebody elses thread and there are other threads too discuss this on. However i am allowed too give you my top 3 reasons -:
1. Method
2. Motive
3. Opportunity
Please feel free to ask any other questions on a Levy thread (Jacob the Ripper) perhaps.
Keep Well
Jimi

Thanks Jimi
I followed up on your JL thread and read it for your detalis. Interesting charactor/theory. Thanks!

[Phil H]

Jordan

In the Madame Tussauds thread you wrote:

I saw your two suspects- Druitt and Kosminski, thats cool.You may be onto something with Kosminski probably being at or near the scene of one of the crimes. But just my opinion, from everything I've read it seems to me the Police were focusing on the wrong type of suspect. Like homosexuals, those mentally ill, butchers,mad doctors, people committed to asylums (although I am intrigued by James Kelly who did escape from Broadmoor though I don't think he was insane.) To me this ,among many other factors, is why Jack the Ripper was never caught. Its not that they were stupid or bad Policemen or weren't trying to do their best, its just they had never dealt with something of this magnitude. Its like learning on the job. I think George Hutchinson is an important witness and I'll go ahead and say it, THE most important witness in this case. Look at his description of the person seen with Kelly. Its like the guy is flaunting himself and no ones noticing. Hes like "Here I am all dressed to the nines and they still won't get me. I'll flaunt my wealth and intelligence...."

I'm not sure I fully follow your drift, but if you are saying - as the last sentence implies - that JtR was a "toff", then I'd have to disagree quite strongly.

I don't think there is any evidence to suggest someone in full evening dress, top hat, opera cloak and toting a Gladstone bag. Quite apart from the sheer impracticality, there is NO evidence of such a person being seen in connection with ANY of the murders. The descriptions we have (right or not) are all of working men in working clothes.

Of the contemporary suspects, Pizer was a local worker, Kosminski was a local man, Druitt (had he gone to the East End) would probably have dressed down - and still have stood out.

All the evidence suggests to me a local man, living close to the crime scenes and striking out at certain times.

The movies love the conspiracy theories and the "traditional" JtR regalia (often complete with carriage), but whether upper class people "slummed" or not, such ideas don't ring true to me - I don't see the caped figure sweeping away from Buck's Row unnoticed, or slipping out of the front door of 29 Hanbury St unseen. At 5.30ish in the morning he would have attracted attention.

But maybe I have misunderstood you.

Best wishes,

Phil

[The Good Michael]

Foreign-born Jew (Kosminski/Cohen/Levy) - Because of Swanson and Macnaghten and the grafitti (to me pro-Jew sentiment)

James Kelly- Tully had no real proof, but he seems plausible at least

Someone from Miller's Court - Blotchy?

Mike

[ChainzCooper]

Hey Phil,
I was going to post here but wantd to reply to what you were saying so I just posted on the other thread. Your thoughts?
Jordan

[ChainzCooper]

Jordan

In the Madame Tussauds thread you wrote:

I saw your two suspects- Druitt and Kosminski, thats cool.You may be onto something with Kosminski probably being at or near the scene of one of the crimes. But just my opinion, from everything I've read it seems to me the Police were focusing on the wrong type of suspect. Like homosexuals, those mentally ill, butchers,mad doctors, people committed to asylums (although I am intrigued by James Kelly who did escape from Broadmoor though I don't think he was insane.) To me this ,among many other factors, is why Jack the Ripper was never caught. Its not that they were stupid or bad Policemen or weren't trying to do their best, its just they had never dealt with something of this magnitude. Its like learning on the job. I think George Hutchinson is an important witness and I'll go ahead and say it, THE most important witness in this case. Look at his description of the person seen with Kelly. Its like the guy is flaunting himself and no ones noticing. Hes like "Here I am all dressed to the nines and they still won't get me. I'll flaunt my wealth and intelligence...."

I'm not sure I fully follow your drift, but if you are saying - as the last sentence implies - that JtR was a "toff", then I'd have to disagree quite strongly.

I don't think there is any evidence to suggest someone in full evening dress, top hat, opera cloak and toting a Gladstone bag. Quite apart from the sheer impracticality, there is NO evidence of such a person being seen in connection with ANY of the murders. The descriptions we have (right or not) are all of working men in working clothes.

Of the contemporary suspects, Pizer was a local worker, Kosminski was a local man, Druitt (had he gone to the East End) would probably have dressed down - and still have stood out.

All the evidence suggests to me a local man, living close to the crime scenes and striking out at certain times.

The movies love the conspiracy theories and the "traditional" JtR regalia (often complete with carriage), but whether upper class people "slummed" or not, such ideas don't ring true to me - I don't see the caped figure sweeping away from Buck's Row unnoticed, or slipping out of the front door of 29 Hanbury St unseen. At 5.30ish in the morning he would have attracted attention.

But maybe I have misunderstood you.

Best wishes,

Phil

Hey Phil,
I was refering to George Hutchinson's description of the suspect seen with Mary Kelly not some cartoonish version thats been portrayed through the years. For example, Hutchinson describes a horsehoe pin worn on his tie. I think maybe the Police should have made a sketch of this pin or found a photograph of a similar one and printed that in the papers to jog someones memory. Like if someone's wife, girlfriend, co-worker, friend ,acquaintance, etc notices the person they know wears the same pin it could generate the lead to break the case. I remember a recent episode of The New Detectives I watched on TV. A descomposed body was found in some rural area in Virginia I think. No one could identify who it was but Police were fairly sure based on bone measurements she was a woman. The only thing Police had to go on was a button on her jeans that had a curious printing on it and they could not figure out the manufacturer. They ran a picture of the button in the local Newspapers and someone came forward identifying the make which was a specific brand only found in some Asian countries. This in turn lead Detectives to run a scan on missing Asian women in Virginia and the surrounding states. Guess what? Bingo! After the Detectives did their back work they eventually found the person they were looking for who went missing. Anyways, to make a long story short her husband killed her and dumped her there in the woods and told her family she had moved back to Vietnam I believe. This was basically what I was trying to convey in the post.
I hope I cleared things up.
Jordan

[Phil H]

Jordan,

Personally, I think it's dangerous to base anything on GH's description, which grew over-elaborate with time. It's not impossible, Abberline seemed to accept it, but I have never - over 30 years - found it convincing.

Add to that that we don't know he was the last man MJK took home that night. To my mind the time of her death remains an open question, not only because of Mrs Maxwell's evidence.

But to me the other descriptions - from Lawende and Mrs Long are of a much more working class (or dressed-down, I suppose) character.

Finally,I remain unconvinced that MJK is a victim of JtR or even that the body was that of MJK. There are a lot of unexplained circumstances for me.

On the horseshoe pin - I rather think that such items were rather common in Victorian society - I have seen many in jewellers windows being sold as antiques over the years. Had it been dropped and found in No 13 after the
killing, it would still have indicated only that its owner had been in the room - as may several men that night.

Good to talk,

Phil

[jason_c]

1 and 2. Druitt and Kosminski. They were near contemporary suspects and so far have not been eliminated from our enquiries.

3. Any other working class "mentalist" from the area.

[Rubyretro]

On the horseshoe pin - I rather think that such items were rather common in Victorian society - I have seen many in jewellers windows being sold as antiques over the years.

Phil -I will give you that one, although I've been trawling sites on Victorian tiepins etc etc etc...and never found one example. Nor in a photo of Victorian men.

Taken with the gold watchchain with the red stamp though -also an object which may be more or less rare- it's a very precise description; how many men would REALLY own the TWO together ??

Also these ostentatious objects were worn in full view...you'd think that SOMEONE would have noticed them on a friend or acquaintence !!

I've made a point on another thread how we can easily MISS OUT things , like a beard, from a witness description.....but ADD in such remarkable things?

OK, we can't be 100% sure they didn't exist...but 99.99% sure is good enough for me !

NB: my personal opinion is that Hutch HAD seen these objects on someone -even separately or together- just nowhere near London or the crime scene..Certainly never on a fictitious A Man that night.

[harry]

My three,or is it two?

1 George Hutchinson. Placed at the scene of a murder.

2 Dr Pedeckenko. Because Sir Basil Thomson reportedly believed he was the ripper.

3 The midnight visiror.Placed at the scene of a crime.

[ChainzCooper]

Jordan,

Personally, I think it's dangerous to base anything on GH's description, which grew over-elaborate with time. It's not impossible, Abberline seemed to accept it, but I have never - over 30 years - found it convincing.

Add to that that we don't know he was the last man MJK took home that night. To my mind the time of her death remains an open question, not only because of Mrs Maxwell's evidence.

But to me the other descriptions - from Lawende and Mrs Long are of a much more working class (or dressed-down, I suppose) character.

Finally,I remain unconvinced that MJK is a victim of JtR or even that the body was that of MJK. There are a lot of unexplained circumstances for me.

On the horseshoe pin - I rather think that such items were rather common in Victorian society - I have seen many in jewellers windows being sold as antiques over the years. Had it been dropped and found in No 13 after the
killing, it would still have indicated only that its owner had been in the room - as may several men that night.

Good to talk,

Phil

Hey Phil,
I guess then we just disgaree on Hutchinson's description,which is cool. To me its a vital clue I mean he was interviewed by Inspector Abberline and his story checked out with him. I don't know why its dangerous to use this description, to me they missed an important opportunity to seize on something which could have broken the case wide open. David Berkowitz was caught because Detectives checked parking tickets near the scene of one of his murders. They didn't think to themselves 'No we're not going to use this strategy because we don't want to involve people who were given traffic or parking violations with this case' or 'No the two things just don't correlate'. Also, just because one witness (who saw the perpetrator and victim for a more brief time) and Hutchinson's description don't match 100% doesn't mean hes not telling the truth. Maybe the Ripper wore a different type of dress for this his final murder, kind of like a last hooray. I certainly think so.
Jordan

[ChainzCooper]

Phil -I will give you that one, although I've been trawling sites on Victorian tiepins etc etc etc...and never found one example. Nor in a photo of Victorian men.

Taken with the gold watchchain with the red stamp though -also an object which may be more or less rare- it's a very precise description; how many men would REALLY own the TWO together ??

Also these ostentatious objects were worn in full view...you'd think that SOMEONE would have noticed them on a friend or acquaintence !!

I've made a point on another thread how we can easily MISS OUT things , like a beard, from a witness description.....but ADD in such remarkable things?

OK, we can't be 100% sure they didn't exist...but 99.99% sure is good enough for me !

NB: my personal opinion is that Hutch HAD seen these objects on someone -even separately or together- just nowhere near London or the crime scene..Certainly never on a fictitious A Man that night.

Hey Ruby,
I agree with your posting but don't really understand your last sentence.
Maybe you could explain it to me that'd be cool
Jordan