What are the chances ~suspect unkown~

[Henry Flower]

It's an intriguing thought, Phil.

I would say, let's keep our fingers crossed - except that now you have me paranoid that if new info does come to light, we'll have been manipulated somehow... or, exploited.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Henry,

Rest assured- the technological revolution is so widespread now that trying to rip off the masses after the Diary debacle et al would need considerable financial clout, and most ideas of such would be seen quickly I'd imagine.

You being an artist can compare. If an unknown 'Sickert' painting cropped up for example, with supposed 'proof' re. jTR...it would be subject to intense scrutiny. Same re documents and photos. The 'evidence' would have to be impeccable, not to mention provenance.

So it would have to be the genuine stuff or nothing at all, methinks.
The risks are just too great otherwise.
Paranoia relieved a little?

Kindly

Phil

[Henry Flower]

Thanks Phil - better now. Except... while, yes, it would have to be genuine or nothing at all, I'd still be wondering... why now, and on whose say-so? Why not until now?

Regards,

Henry

[Wickerman]

Hi, Jon,
Don't understand where you're going with this?

For instance, if you would plz.

No intention of hi-Jacking the thread, so briefly. A person described as being "in the vicinity" yet not known to have been suspected.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

Thanks Phil - better now. Except... while, yes, it would have to be genuine or nothing at all, I'd still be wondering... why now, and on whose say-so? Why not until now?

Regards,

Henry

Hello Henry,

1888-2013...125th anniversary.
Maximum effect- wider interest- greater attention- larger potential- bigger audience- possible expanded potential (eventual sales)- ipso facto, top of the Christmas Tree.
The last time (1988), it all kicked off with stuff turning up in 1987- which set up high sales for the follow up stuff in anniversary year.

Cynical? Possibly. Realistic? -
The History Book on the shelf is always repeating itself. (Andersson/Ulvaeus)


kindly

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Previously undocumented suspects

Cynical? Possibly. Realistic? -
The History Book on the shelf is always repeating itself. (Andersson/Ulvaeus)

I'd love to be able to tell you that you were wrong to be so cynical Phil...but sadly I don't think you are!

Dave

[Bridewell]

Quote:
Originally Posted by richardnunweek
Hi,
The truth is somebody out there knows something..
Our Jack[ believe it ] had a mother, maybe siblings, he was once a harmless dribbling baby, he could well have had mature relationships, and acted responsibly, he could have served in the army, and accepted discipline.
People would have known him , during the murders, and after maybe even suspected him, and quite possibly shielded him from discovery,
The latter is most likely the reason why no one has admitted knowledge, simply to protect the integrity of the family that are still living, knowing that not only was a past member of the family the notorious killer, but someone actually protected him from the hangman, which was just as shameful.
It would take a strong family member to drag up all that dirt.
But someone knows ..
Regards Richard.
With due respect, somebody or some people at the time may have known something, but I think it is very unlikely that the knowledge was passed down from generation to generation and is still out there. I think you are being overly optimistic.

Best regards

Chris
__________________
Christopher T. George

I think I agree with Richard on this one. I don't know that a secret of that magnitude would be easily concealed. Questions would be asked by inquisitive descendants:

"Daddy, who's that in this picture?"
"That's Great Uncle Bert. We never talk about him".
"Mummy, why don't we talk about Great Uncle Bert?"
"Be quiet, dear, and eat your dinner."

If I'd had a conversation like that in my childhood, my curiosity would have been awakened. No, I'm not sure that a secret of that magnitude would be easily concealed. You wouldn't want the secret to become public knowledge, but you'd need to prepare your children for the possibility that , one day, it might. I think, when they were old enough to keep a secret, you'd tell them. Just my opinion though.

Probably wishful thinking on my part, but I suspect there may be a family out there somewhere holding on to a ghastly secret.

Regards, Bridewell

[Henry Flower]

Bridewell, I think it must be wishful thinking, sadly. I simply can't imagine that anyone alive now has knowledge of who the Ripper was.

I know that if my great-great grandfather was known in the family to have been the Ripper I would have no hesitation going public - not that I'd think it was 'cool' or anything, merely that at this distance in time I wouldn't think it reflects badly on current family members, and a duty to historical truth might by now outweigh any sense of duty to a family member never met and long deceased.

Besides which - think of the money that could made on the back of such knowledge.... Mmmmmm... monnneeyyyyy.........

Come to think of it, my grandfather always insisted we must never discuss my great-uncle Jacob. I think he lived in London when he was younger. Blotchy chap. Carroty. Worked as a horse slaughterer / pork butcher / surgeon / proferrer of arcane handshakes. I have a photo somewhere - or I can knock something up on photoshop at any rate.

[Bridewell]

You're Probably Right

Bridewell, I think it must be wishful thinking, sadly. I simply can't imagine that anyone alive now has knowledge of who the Ripper was.

I know that if my great-great grandfather was known in the family to have been the Ripper I would have no hesitation going public - not that I'd think it was 'cool' or anything, merely that at this distance in time I wouldn't think it reflects badly on current family members, and a duty to historical truth might by now outweigh any sense of duty to a family member never met and long deceased.

Besides which - think of the money that could made on the back of such knowledge.... Mmmmmm... monnneeyyyyy.........

Come to think of it, my grandfather always insisted we must never discuss my great-uncle Jacob. I think he lived in London when he was younger. Blotchy chap. Carroty. Worked as a horse slaughterer / pork butcher / surgeon / proferrer of arcane handshakes. I have a photo somewhere - or I can knock something up on photoshop at any rate.

Hi Henry,

You're probably right, but there's no harm in hoping. "Great-Uncle Jacob" is an anagram of "Clean-cut Rage Job". by the way (even down to the hyphen!), so I look forward to reading your best-selling book, "Jack the Ripper - My Family And Other Anagrams" (provided you allow me copyright on the title)..

Regards, Bridewell

[Henry Flower]

Bridewell - that's absolutely superb.

I think you need anagram-management therapy.

[gary]

Just a mention regarding 'someone must know who he is'.
There was a passenger in the yorkshire ripper's car, when he
spotted a lone woman walking down a quiet lane, and he told the
passenger "wait here a moment I'm going to have a go at this one",
before stepping out of the car with a stocking loaded with a heavy
stone. The idiot did not think to put the police onto him, and he went
on to kill several more women afterwards, which could have obviously
been prevented.
People sometimes just don't want to get involved.
Gary.

[Bridewell]

Bridewell - that's absolutely superb.

I think you need anagram-management therapy.

I fear it's too late, but thank-you anyway.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Henry Flower]

Gary - like I said earlier in this thread - Jack the Ripper too may have had his Trevor Birdsall. Birdsall did eventually send an anonymous note to the police naming his friend Peter Sutcliffe as the Yorkshire Ripper, and followed this up with a visit to Bradford police in person - but his information was never acted on. It was also volunteered, as you point out, far far too late.

[Abby Normal]

Hello everyone,

this has been going through my head and well I would like to know what are the chances that the Ripper isn't even a suspect that was considered? I mean I've seen geographic profiling done on the Ripper, I've seen the sketch that looks an awful lot like the machete actor, I've read books that point to one suspect or another each claiming to draw from accurate and historical sources and so on...but what are the chances that the Ripper is someone not even on anyone's map; then or now? Just some Psychopath no one gave a 2nd glance to.

Hi Clark
Good question. personally I think its 50/50. As in 50% chance that it is someone whos name has never come up in any of the source material or in any of the other writings (books, articles etc)-a total unknown. And a 50 % chance that the name has come up as either a suspect (like chapman, Hutch etc) or a witness (like a Boyer, Cross) or someone else peripherally associated with the case whose named but was never a suspect.

[Robert]

I suppose the odds are it's someone we've never heard of - Mr U.N. Known.
Even that's a problem - it may have been Mr A.N. Other instead.