Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Edward Badham

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Edward Badham

    I have reason to believe that it's more than possible for Edward Badham to be Jack the Ripper. He was never considered a suspect, but many clues point to him.

    1. He moved to the area the same year the killings began.

    2. He was a witness to three of the murders.

    3. He was a Sergent so he was under their noses the whole time.

    What do you think?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Anonnymous View Post
    I have reason to believe that it's more than possible for Edward Badham to be Jack the Ripper. He was never considered a suspect, but many clues point to him.

    1. He moved to the area the same year the killings began.

    2. He was a witness to three of the murders.

    3. He was a Sergent so he was under their noses the whole time.

    What do you think?
    Here's a search of the Press Reports archive to the articles that mention Sergeant Badham. The articles mostly or all concern the Alice McKenzie murder of summer 1889. Was he involved in the 1888 crimes in any way?

    Best regards

    Chris
    Christopher T. George
    Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
    just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
    For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
    RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Chris,

      I believe he took Hutchinson's statement.
      Best Wishes,
      Hunter
      ____________________________________________

      When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Anonnymous View Post
        I have reason to believe that it's more than possible for Edward Badham to be Jack the Ripper. He was never considered a suspect, but many clues point to him.

        1. He moved to the area the same year the killings began.

        2. He was a witness to three of the murders.

        3. He was a Sergent so he was under their noses the whole time.

        What do you think?
        If he was a 'witness' to three of the murders and was a police officer, why didn't he identify the killer?

        Do you mean he gave evidence in court concerning his investigations? If so, that is not the same thing as being a 'witness to three of the murders'.

        Comment

        Working...
        X