Robert Louis Stevenson

[jsantos]

Mr Bridewell,

I was happy knowing that you weren`t indifferent regarding this theory.

Thank you

[Phil Carter]

Mr Santos.

I have just wasted an hour of my life reading your speculative suggestion and your petulant rejection of the well-reasoned counter-arguments. This is, without doubt, the silliest of the many silly theories inflicted on Casebook members. Robert Louis Stevenson was in the South Seas throughout the Autumn of Terror. There is abundant evidence that this was so. He was a sick man and in the wrong hemisphere, so he simply cannot be the Whitechapel Murderer

There is no evidence to support your case and there never will be.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Bridewell,

Thank you for giving me an extra hour to enjoy otherwise.
The silliest? Well Sooty, the 5 inch glove puppet mentioned by Sugden still gets my vote.

Find a famous contemporary name and pin the tail on the donkey seems to be the rage at the moment. Quoits, anyone?

Best wishes

Phil

[jsantos]

Ok, I understood. The famous people are free of any suspicion…
What a joke...

[miss marple]

Your the joke Mr Santos,
'Famous people' as you call them usually have very well documented lives, so we know a lot about them.
No 'famous person' has turned out to be a psychopathic serial killer yet.
Artists and writers are creatives who contribute to our understanding of ourselves and the society in which we live.The drives that make us creative are different from the destructive force that makes a serial killer. Psychos lack empathy. Creatives have it to an excessive degree.
You posts are offensive, you will never destroy a mind greater than yours.

Miss Marple

[jsantos]

Miss Marple

What`s your problem???

[jsantos]

I sent an email to the administrators of the site to say that they could erase this post if this violated some rule.

So...

This post is about a hypothetical theory.

If you do not agree... Ok

If you do not like... Ok

If you find nonsense... Ok

Why you do not send an email to the administrators complaining?

[jsantos]

Site Rules

Major Rules and Consequences

6. Do not engage in personal vendettas or harassment. To wit: people will disagree, sometimes vehemently, however, if you have a personal distaste for a particular poster/ theory/topic, ignore them/it. Do not follow them/it around the boards, do not engage in never ending commentary after their every post or every time the subject is raised, do not take every opportunity to attack them/it. To prove harassment, there must be a pattern established. Having an argument with someone (or even a series of arguments) does not constitute harassment. If you are responding to a poster in kind, you are not being harassed, you are having an argument. If you are not responding and they continue to harass you, you may invoke the harassment rule. If that occurs, neither one of you will be permitted to respond to the others posts. If you have a particular distaste for a topic, to the point that you will not allow others to discuss the theory without resorting to ridicule or derailing the thread (and again, if there is a pattern established) you might also be prohibited from commenting on that theory.

[TomTomKent]

I see that this thread went on for several more pages of groundless speculation after I last read it, and has had absolutely zero facts added in support of RandomCelebrity#1989786 being the Ripper.Just more "If people had lied about it, and if people had known he was famous and...." kind of ramblings.

Here's a news flash. If Santa was real he could have slipped out of Whitechappel with out being seen. Baring in mind we know where Stevenson was at the time, and the crux of this idea is what might have been in a different version of a book that wasn't published, and might have just been the morbid imaginings of a writer, then on balance Santa who has no alibi is surely the better suspect?

[jsantos]

RLS was several times in London. He knew London very well. By the way Robert lived in bournemouth between July of 1884 until August of 1887.

He`s departure of London in 1887, only one year before Jack the Ripper crimes can be much more than a coincidence.

It would be the perfect alibi.

[jsantos]

"Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde" written before the crimes, became in the book published with bigger relation with Jack the Ripper. And why?

Not only for at the time of the murders, a theatrical version of this book was being performed. But because the book history.

This is the most important reason about the connection between Dr Jekyll and Jack the Ripper!

Richard Mansfield was only one "victim". Was not Richard who wrote such horrible story...

[jsantos]

I still believe that "The Ebb-Tide" is based in whitechapel crimes.

And when RLS said in a letter:
"MY DEAR COLVIN, - Your pleasing letter RE THE EBB TIDE, to
hand. I propose, if it be not too late, to delete Lloyd's
name. He has nothing to do with the last half. The first we
wrote together, as the beginning of a long yarn. The second
is entirely mine; and I think it rather unfair on the young
man to couple his name with so infamous a work."

Why? Why say that?

If "The Ebb-Tide" is just a fictional story as everyone says ...

[TomTomKent]

I still believe that "The Ebb-Tide" is based in whitechapel crimes.

And when RLS said in a letter:
"MY DEAR COLVIN, - Your pleasing letter RE THE EBB TIDE, to
hand. I propose, if it be not too late, to delete Lloyd's
name. He has nothing to do with the last half. The first we
wrote together, as the beginning of a long yarn. The second
is entirely mine; and I think it rather unfair on the young
man to couple his name with so infamous a work."

Why? Why say that?

If "The Ebb-Tide" is just a fictional story as everyone says ...

Yes.

What if the Ebb-Tide was just fiction? Like everybody says? And there are other reasons to consider it an infamous work. Like matters of taste? What if the note is only as it appears to be and your laboured unsupported assertions have no substance?

What then?

Repeating the same tosh doesn't make it any more substantial. You have nothing of substance in your argument. Nothing at all.

[jsantos]

Why has no substance at all?

There are so many coincidences, like some people like to say, that RLS is a more credible suspect that most of the suspects mentioned here. Montague John Druitt committed suicide at the wrong time and becomes a major suspect! Someone invents a diary of James Maybrick and this becomes a major suspect! ...

[TomTomKent]

Why has no substance at all?

There are so many coincidences, like some people like to say, that RLS is a more credible suspect that most of the suspects mentioned here. Montague John Druitt committed suicide at the wrong time and becomes a major suspect! Someone invents a diary of James Maybrick and this becomes a major suspect! ...

Because all the coincidence you are making your case on are just coincidence. Subjective at best. And "other suspects you don't think are viable are also discussed" doesn't make YOUR suspect viable.

Nothing you have suggested makes Stephenson a viable suspect. You are basing everything on the idea that some of his works are reminicent of something you think about the Ripper. It is coincidence. It is as lame as the "codes" and "clues" in the works of Sickert, Wilde, Carol, or others.

By your logic we must also conclude that the Titanic was a pre-meditated sinking because of similarities to the sinking of the fictional Titan. Worse still HG Wells is single handedly responsible for the second world war and the Hiroshima bomb. Unless Heinland also takes credit for the nuclear bomb.

At the very BEST you could claim that some later draft of the novel not published until SIX YEARS AFTER THE KILLINGS was influenced by the killings. Why don't I believe it included any of the details you claim BEFORE the murders? Why because you are making an assumption of what was in the book before it was published. And what was in the destroyed draft of Hyde that you can not possibly have read.

This means you have nothing. No evidence to suggest this is a viabole suspect. Sorry, but that is all there is to it.

[Limehouse]

"Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde" written before the crimes, became in the book published with bigger relation with Jack the Ripper. And why?

Not only for at the time of the murders, a theatrical version of this book was being performed. But because the book history.

This is the most important reason about the connection between Dr Jekyll and Jack the Ripper!

Richard Mansfield was only one "victim". Was not Richard who wrote such horrible story...

There IS no connection between this book and JtR. The crimes of Mr Hyde are in no way similar to those of JtR. The ONLY relevant point is that, because the book was being dramatised in London at the time of the crimes, people thought JtR might be 'like a Jekyll and Hyde character'.