Would you tell?

[Stan41]

Hi all:
I am a new member here, but have been lurking for a long time. Have been interested in the JTR case for as long as I can remember.

My question:
If you found positive proof of who the ripper was, would you go public with it or just keep it to yourself?

I think I would just keep mum. I wouldn't want to go the ordeal. Besides, people need an unsolved mystery to think about.

Stan

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Stan,

it would depend on who it was and how sure I was. If they were related to me I would not (probably, although truth be told im not so good with secrets). Otherwise I would want to be 100% sure. Im talking really sure. It seems like nothing to us maybe but I have always said that in this case we are really damaging someone's reputation (whatever it was before) to call them JtR and that we must have proof that would have been sufficent to convict them - or at least go to trial at the time. Speculation and possibilities would not suffice for me. Dead men cant defend themselves, and short of a time machine how can we really know. Someone may have an alibi we are unaware of - we ourselves arent casting alibis for each day in case in 100 years someone tries to frame us for a murder and nor would they have been in 1888.

Jenni

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Stan,

If in your premise there was such incontrovertible evidence that could empirically link any one identifiable person to any of the Canonical murders, Id make it available for free.

I personally believe that this myth of Jack the Ripper has shaped enough student minds in the past 120 plus years, the truth would be far more interesting to me at this stage.

Best regards Stan,

Mike R

[Robert]

I would post the info (unless someone gave it to me under a promise of confidentiality). I wouldn't say that it proved anything. I'd just say that so-and-so was a good suspect, or something like that.

Welcome Stan.

[007]

I'm with Mike. As long as there was incontravertable evidence proving who Jack was then I'd release it.

Welcome to the boards!

~Greg

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stan,

Welccome indeed.
A certain killer? I'd name him.
And if he was a blood relative, I'd be ashamed.
But I'd do it. Whatever.

One truth to make all the lies go away.
The genre would still live on-in a different way.

Yes. I'd name him. And I wouldnt accept one penny in doing so, nor for any follow up situation unless it was directly paid to a charity. Any fee Id get offered for anything? Id give to a worthwhile charity. Help a London child, Children in Need, or similar.


Best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Stan41

Actually you have arguably stumbled upon the core of this 'mytsery' which simultanenously provides it solution.

I subscribe to the theory -- it's mine -- that a police chief of the time faced exactly this dilemma. He had found the true identity of Jack the Ripper but the latter was long dead, and thus his culpability could never be tested by due process.

On the one hand the solution was embarrassing for Scotland Yard because the police, in their ignorance, had been fruitlessly chasing a phantom for several years and it would ruin a respectable family if the full story came out -- and they might even sue on the basis of any insinuation that they had known of their member's guilt and done nothing.

On the other hand the deceased was almost certainly 'Jack', barring a trial and conviction, and this was now known to a senior chief at Scotland Yard.

What to do ...?

In all fairness, I have to point out to you, Stan41, that this theory is considered quite wrong by very experienced researcher-writers on this subject.

Though these writers often robustly disagree about other aspects of the case they are, nonethless, firmly united in opposition to this revisionist interpretation; that the murderer's true identity was posthumously and deliberately disguised by a single police chief, for public consumption, in order to protect 'Jack's' family (and the Yard's rep).

[Stan41]

I don't think I would tell, because if you had proof positive the newspapers, television, would be authors would make your life miserable.

I suppose such knowledge could be turned into some money, but at my age in life (71) I certainly don't want to launch into any new business ventures.

Also, it would destroy forums such as this. No more Casebook!

And besides, justice could not be served. The people involved are long dead and JTR has long ago received his just desserts, whatever they are.

It would certainly make these forums interesting to read if you knew the real truth and no one else did.

Just my thoughts.
Stan

[Phil Carter]

I don't think I would tell, because if you had proof positive the newspapers, television, would be authors would make your life miserable.

I suppose such knowledge could be turned into some money, but at my age in life (71) I certainly don't want to launch into any new business ventures.

Also, it would destroy forums such as this. No more Casebook!

And besides, justice could not be served. The people involved are long dead and JTR has long ago received his just desserts, whatever they are.

It would certainly make these forums interesting to read if you knew the real truth and no one else did.

Just my thoughts.
Stan

Hello Stan,

There's an old saying in show business.
'The hardest thing to find is yesterday's newspaper'

Other things would take the stage. People would move on to other things.

These forums would survive- but in a different way. And Jonathan could tell me over many posts the true point of surfing in shark infested waters, and Id discuss revisionism with him.
And if both Jonathan and I, and every commentator alive or dead were all wrong all the time, Id raise my glass and smile at us all. And how daft we all are at times.

EDIT: I'd be absolutely delighted if Jonathan was right all along!
Best wishes

Phil

[Sally]

Several have claimed to know the identity of Jack the Ripper over the decades, leading to numerous press releases, books, t.v. programmes etc.

If you knew the identity of Jack the Ripper, incontravertably, and released the information, would that be the end of it - or would it just be perceived by the public as yet another 'solution'?

You'd have to work hard to convince, I feel. For instance, if you found a signed confession by the killer - you'd have to prove it wasn't a fake, etc.
Would you want all that trouble?

If you convinced the world with your evidence, you'd be famous! You could write a best selling book and make a fortune! You might want to do that, you might not.

Then again, doesn't the world deserve to know the truth? It would be some justice for the victims, at least, if their killer could finally be named.

In short, I think you'd have to cosider the implications of your discovery very carefully.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
If the truth ever came my way, I can honestly say I would disclose it immediately, not for financial gain, but for all of us, that have followed this case [for decades in some cases.]
And like Sally, I would have peace of mind that justice would finally be done, and the victims would have at last have their killer named.
They deserve that.
Regards Richard.

[johns]

Hi,
If the truth ever came my way, I can honestly say I would disclose it immediately, not for financial gain, but for all of us, that have followed this case [for decades in some cases.]
And like Sally, I would have peace of mind that justice would finally be done, and the victims would have at last have their killer named.
They deserve that.
Regards Richard.

Perfectly put and I agree.

[Steven Russell]

It seems there are lots of noble and high-minded people among us. If I had definite proof, I'd share it too but only after taking expert advice on how I could make a shed-load of money out of it.

Just being honest.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Jenni Shelden]

I have to say, anyone who says they wouldnt go for the bucks, I think you are not being honest with yourself

Aside from this - i think a book or documentary film is the best way to put forward a cohesive argument and set forward facts in a way that they can be checked and verified (or picked apart as the case may be).

It would be nice to try and put something free of charge on the internet but it would be difficult for it to be seen from the trees

Jenni

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jenn,

You are welcome to your opinion of course, but I can assure you that from my point of view, I would only do ANY interview, spin-off etc, with a charitable cause in mind. Otherwise I'd not do any spin-off. Why?
Well for one Ive had my 15mins in the media spotlight and know full well the level that it can be lowered to- and wouldn't, under ANY circumstances use personal financial gain get into the picture, especially in this situation.
For another, my interest in this started with my family being there at the time. They had very little and never sought to gain anything from their experiences in the East End. Telling me about those experiences, background to the case, was for me to hear them, an honour. They asked for, expected and accepted nothing from me (nor anyone else) for telling me what they knew - I would not ask for, expect nor accept anything personal gain for telling others what I knew. And when the attention subsided, I'd just go back to being an everyday man again.

So I can assure you, with very good reasons, I am not lying to myself nor to the world on here in saying I would not accept any personal financial gain, but would do things for two charities I hold most dear- Help a London Child (originally through Capitol Radio in the 1970 's) and Children in Need.

Thats just the way I see it. It's that simple. I cant speak for others whn have their own reasons, for all I know.

best wishes

Phil