What criteria should a suspect meet?

[Abby Normal]

That's a good point, Dave. I hope you're around to remind people of that when I publish it. Nevertheless, assuming Abby has read my Casebook Examiner essay on the Grand one, she should have an idea of how dangerous he was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom
I want to read your article on LeGrand-unfortunately I was too late when I subscribed to Casebook to get that edition. And when I tried to pay for that back issue, the automated payment system would not let me.

But I really would love to read your article-he sounds like a fascinating individual and a potentially viable suspect.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Abby. My article doesn't argue for Le Grand as the Ripper, but merely to give some reasoning why he's a viable suspect. Keeping in mind that out of necessity, any argument for a suspect must be circumstancial, my book should deliver the most captivating and convincing argument for a suspect ever put forth. However, that does not constitute proof. I have trouble imagining anybody coming up with proof solid enough for us all to agree the case has been solved. In the absence of such proof, I cannot be convinced that Le Grand or anyone else was the Ripper. The funny thing about Le Grand is that when he is set into the frame, so many of those nagging questions that other writers dismiss as 'coincidence' suddenly make perfect sense. I suppose that is the thing that most intrigues me about the Great Dane.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Debra A]

How they dare ??
He's mine !!!!!!!!!!!

He's all yours.
I was just checking out he didn't have an alibi as stated elsewhere.

[DVV]

He's all yours.
I was just checking out he didn't have an alibi as stated elsewhere.

Well done, Debra.
The very idea of Fleming having an alibi....me fait hurler de rire !

Amitiés !

[mariab]

LOL Debs, it seems like I'm spotting a severe case of hero worship. Keeping gabbing about you and getting you in trouble left and right.
My most sincere apologies.

[harry]

Mariab,
It was neither of the two names you mentioned.The book was not specificaly a Ripper book,nor is the author,as far as I know,a known ripper researcher.It was just an article on the Ripper,by an author I had not heard of previously,and it is not stated how the author came to know of Sir Basil Thomson's opinion.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby. My article doesn't argue for Le Grand as the Ripper, but merely to give some reasoning why he's a viable suspect. Keeping in mind that out of necessity, any argument for a suspect must be circumstancial, my book should deliver the most captivating and convincing argument for a suspect ever put forth. However, that does not constitute proof. I have trouble imagining anybody coming up with proof solid enough for us all to agree the case has been solved. In the absence of such proof, I cannot be convinced that Le Grand or anyone else was the Ripper. The funny thing about Le Grand is that when he is set into the frame, so many of those nagging questions that other writers dismiss as 'coincidence' suddenly make perfect sense. I suppose that is the thing that most intrigues me about the Great Dane.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom
Definitely will read your book when it comes out. In the mean time, since I can't seem to get the casebook edition that has your article on Le Grand, is there any other way that i can be able to read it?

Thanks!

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Abby,

I'm concerned to hear that there's a problem with ordering that issue. You can send me a PM with your e-mail address and I'll see what I can do.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

To Abby Normal:
Hi Abby. You've been experiencing problems ordering a back issue for Examiner because generally the automated payment systems for subscriptions are not programmed for ordering back issues of the mags.
Apart from contacting the author as you did in this case, you can also PM the editor for Examiner, Don Souden, who posts as Supe here on casebook.
By the by, I have a similar problem with contacting Edoardo Zinna for one of his old articles, and if a couple other things don't work out, I'll simply back order the Rip issue in question from Chris George.

To Tom:
Have you ever considered uploading your Examiner 1 and 2 articles as dissertations here on casebook? Particularly the Examiner 1 article ought to be more openly publicized and should be a must read, considering the appalling misconceptions and tons of wrong information which still abound on the casebook forums about the Stride inquest.

Mariab,
It was neither of the two names you mentioned.The book was not specificaly a Ripper book,nor is the author,as far as I know,a known ripper researcher.It was just an article on the Ripper,by an author I had not heard of previously,and it is not stated how the author came to know of Sir Basil Thomson's opinion.

If the author is not a known Ripperologist and especially if he doesn't state how he came to know of Basil Thompson's (alleged) opinion, his article does not diserve to be taken seriously.
Even before researching Pedachenko (on casebook and in The Ultimate), I'm pretty sure that there's nothing of significance in there. I'll try to look him up on sunday. (I'm sitting on a thick, complex French article on deadline with the editors, which needs to be wrapped by monday.)

[harry]

Mariab,
Perhaps that is why the Ripper crimes were not solved,because some information was not taken seriously.As to the author not being a known ripperologist,does it matter?

[mariab]

Harry,
I've fought elitism all my life. What I meant is that in Ripperology, like in all fields of research, a newbie with some promise will be duly noticed by their more experienced colleagues (who are always on the lookout for new talent). I can hardly imagine that some noteworthy publication has been out there without the Ripperologists having gotten wind of it. No comment in almost all cases means bad news.
Might I inquire the name of the author of the article in question? And I promise I'll look up Pedachenko more thoroughly in the next couple of days. Still, your author's inability to quote his sources pertaining to Basil Thompson's (alleged) opinion already hinders my taking him very seriously.

After so many years and with so much evidence missing, the Ripper crimes cannot ever be solved at 100%, even with the most optimistic approach. The best we can do is reasonably speculate, based upon the evidence. What's nice is that there's truly new, solid evidence still coming out.

[The Good Michael]

After so many years and with so much evidence missing, the Ripper crimes cannot ever be solved at 100%,

That can be said about anything. Many people believe Shakespeare wasn't a real person. Others can't fathom how ancient people could have built a pyramid. Still others believe in a God that can't be proved. As long as faith in something takes precedence over reason, nothing ever is 100%. These faith-filled folks (say that five times quickly), cling unshakeably to their beliefs no matter what amount of concrete evidence is thrown their way. I suggest that if we found photos of say... Kosminski posing with his victims, either they were photoshopped, or Hutchinson forced an imbecile to pose so that he could throw the coppers off his trail.

Mike

[mariab]

That can be said about anything. Many people believe Shakespeare wasn't a real person.

Shakespeare most definitely was a real person, but he can be compared to the Ripper case forensically, as the autographs of his plays have not survived*, similarly to the non surviving Whitechapel Police reports pertaining to the Ripper investigation. I'm positive that, had Abberline's reports have survived, we might have had a clearer picture about some of the witnesses (particularly Schwartz, Lawende, and Hutchinson). I'm most curious to find out what are the other 2 names (besides “Mc Grath“) of “persons of interest“ listed in the Secret Branch's ledgers.

* My bosses wife is a collaborator in the critical edition of Shakespeare's works, although she's only done Pericles by herself.

[The Good Michael]

Shakespeare most definitely was a real person,

My point was, you can't prove it to some people, so it can never be a 100% belief. By the way, Shakespear's signature does exist, but I assume you are referring to any signed copies of his plays.

Mike

[mariab]

Agree with your point, Michael, many people won't accept even proof, but do these people count?
I had forgotten that Shakespeare's signature exists, I'm not even sure if it's an authentic one, but the point is, I have a super serious/super valid (SPE-like!) reference to ask about all things Shakespeare. I was referring to the autograph manuscripts of his plays, which have not survived. No clue if the signature you've mentioned was on any manuscript copies of his plays, and no time to look it up now, as I gotta run some errands before the shops close (which some of them do stressfully early in Germany)...