where do you stand?

[TomTomKent]

So I have been away from Ripperology a while, and I thought it would be interesting to gauge how opinions may have changed since I last posted and lurked. I must admit I expect the trend to be largely the same: We will never prove the identity of the Ripper, various suspects are more or less convincing from others, etc. But would you all be so kind as to offer your opinions on;

1) the three most plausible suspects (if any)?
2) which victims were"Jacks" work?
3) most plausible identity of Leather Apron who harrassed women in the area?
4)) which if any letters came from the killer?

I look forwards to seeing how diverse views are and if they have evolved over the year or so I have been distracted. Thankyou.

[lynn cates]

honest and succinct

Hello Tom. Good idea for a thread.

1. None of them.

2. None of them.

3. Jacob Isenschmid.

4. None of them.

Hopefully, my honest opinions here have not come off as overly succinct.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

So here's my position.

I try to be flexible and hold two or three possible scenarios in my mind at any one time.

I have, however, tended to move away from the idea of the "canonical five" and I believe that more than one hand was responsible for some of the murders.

1) the three most plausible suspects (if any)?

a) Kosminski (not necessarily Aaron). I am taken by Scott nelson's very recent artickle re david Cohen, but have to digest it fully. I put Kosminski first on the basis of location; Anderson and Swanson; and the mention by Macnaghten.

b) someone very like Kosminski - a local, poor, perhaps Jewish/immigrant, with local knowledge and some place to go close to the murder sites.

c) if only some of the murders were committed by Jack then possibly a suspect who was ruled out by later murders, Issenschmidt even maybe Cross/Lechmere (but don't tell Fisherman!).

2) which victims were"Jacks" work?

My prime "model at the moment would be: Polly; Annie and (maybe) Kate with Mckenzie as a later possibility.

Liz Stride I still think died by a different hand (possibly Kidney) based on the very public location; lack of mutilation; the fact that she almost certainly was not soliciting (she was on a date) and the site - off "Jack's" usual beat.

Kelly I think was killed by an "intimate" - Barnett is a possibility, also Flemming or even McCarthy. I base that on the very personal nature of her wounds and the clear attempt to eradicate her as a personality even as a woman.

Eddowes might be a Ripper victim, but I am open to the idea that something else was going on. A link to Kelly is possible, through her use of the name, and a Fenian link I have not ruled out.

3) most plausible identity of Leather Apron who harrassed women in the area?

Not Pizer. Possibly Cohen (see Scott Nelson's article) or Kosminski.

4)) which if any letters came from the killer?

None, including the Lusk letter; nor was the GSG by Jack's hand.

Sickert, van Gogh, Lewis carroll etc are all innocent.

Phil

[Fisherman]

So here's my position.
... a suspect who was ruled out by later murders ...Cross/Lechmere (but don't tell Fisherman!).
Phil

Ha, Phil! Overheard that! And, to accomodate some posters, I then took the liberty to turn your post into a very succinct pointing out of Lechmere only.

I mean, you would never do that yourself, so you obviously needed a hand - mine!

Otherwise, I agree that among the suspects presented over the years, Kosminski has to be one of the better ones. That is not to say that he is a good suspect at all, though.
I am currently re-reading Sugden (for the umpteenth time), and I had forgotten how he simply rules Kos out totally. To be frank, I find it refreshing. Last time I read him, all that Kosminski hoo-hah had not taken flight ...

Once again apologizing for taking the liberty to boost my man at your expense,

Fisherman

[Phil H]

No worries Fishy, I am always open minded.

My concerns are almost always about methodology rather than the conclusions reached; or the suspect named.

Phil

[Steve S]

I'll go along with Phil on suspects and Mr. Apron..
On victims, I still favour C5 plus maybe Tabram,
Letters?....Dunno..guess one/some COULD be.......

Steve

[Abby Normal]

So I have been away from Ripperology a while, and I thought it would be interesting to gauge how opinions may have changed since I last posted and lurked. I must admit I expect the trend to be largely the same: We will never prove the identity of the Ripper, various suspects are more or less convincing from others, etc. But would you all be so kind as to offer your opinions on;

1) the three most plausible suspects (if any)?
2) which victims were"Jacks" work?
3) most plausible identity of Leather Apron who harrassed women in the area?
4)) which if any letters came from the killer?

I look forwards to seeing how diverse views are and if they have evolved over the year or so I have been distracted. Thankyou.

1) the three most plausible suspects (if any)?
Blotchy
Hutch
Koz and Chapman (tie)

2) which victims were"Jacks" work?
Annie Millwood (possible)
Ada Wilson (possible)
Emma Smith (possible)
Martha Tabram (probable)
Polly Nichols (definite)
Annie Chapman (definite)
Liz Stride (definite)
Catherine Eddowes (definite)
Mary Kelly (definite)
Alice McKenzie (possible)



3) most plausible identity of Leather Apron who harrassed women in the area?

John Pizer-he admitted it in court.

4)) which if any letters came from the killer?
Goulston Street writing (Probable)
From Hell (possible-50/50)
if not from killer then-
Dear Boss (possible- 50/50)

[Phil H]

Pizer certainly did admit being "Leather Apron" in court, but something about the story doesn't jive for me.

If some of the police knew that Pizer was known as "LA" from the start, why didn't they say so?

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil H,

Earlier on the same day of the inquest Pizer denied ever being known as Leather Apron.

You're right. It doesn't jive.

Go figure.

Regards,

Simon

[Sally]

Good idea for a thread -

I would say:

1) the three most plausible suspects (if any)?

I can only think of two (in no particular order of merit)

a) Kosminski - a local man
b) An unknown local man

Beyond that, whilst there may be sufficient circumstance regarding many of our current 'suspects' to allow us to speculate, that's all there is - not enough for me.

2) which victims were"Jacks" work?

Probably all of them up to Kelly, including Emma Smith etc. Even the Ripper ha to start somewhere. Subsequent to that, Alice McKenzie perhaps.

3) most plausible identity of Leather Apron who harrassed women in the area?

John Pizer.

4)) which if any letters came from the killer?

I don't think any of them did.

[Wickerman]

1) the three most plausible suspects (if any)?

None mentioned by name, to date.
Though in my opinion the real JtR would feel more at home among the Druitt's social class, than the Kosminski, Blotchy, types.


2) which victims were"Jacks" work?

Without doubt, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly.
With a close possibility of Ada Wilson, an outside possibility of Liz Stride, and a remote possibility of Martha Tabram.


3) most plausible identity of Leather Apron who harrassed women in the area?

With Pizer not being sure himself, then neither am I.


4) which if any letters came from the killer?

None!

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil H]

Though in my opinion the real JtR would feel more at home among the Druitt's social class, than the Kosminski, Blotchy, types.

Jon - without trawling back though ALL your previous posts, could you explain briefly the reasoning behind that opinion?

Thanks

Phil

[bolo]

1) I don't find any of the known suspects very plausible.

2) Most probably Polly, Annie, Kate and perhaps Martha Tabram. Liz looks like the victim of an assault by a different hand to me (and not just because of the missing mutilations) and Kelly... well, I'm inclined to say that she was slaughtered by someone she knew and who either went to extreme lengths to let it look like a Ripper killing or was very much irate, or both.

3) Jack Pizer?

4) None.

Regards,

Boris

[Jonathan H]

I agree, Wickerman.

I would go further and argue that the top hat toff, though a visual cliche, also stands in for the core truth: for the original and likely solution to the 'mystery'.

1)

To certain police it was no longer a mystery, and several of them said so in public.

We cannot get closer than these police primary sources, which contradict each other -- requiring a persuasive theory as to why?

Anybody who argues that this is all quite simple and straight-forward does not appreciate what a difficult knot this is to untangle. This is often the case with historical sources which are fragmentary and influenced by competing pressures, egos and agendas.

No compelling source has ever turned up outside those police sources pointing to a likely suspect they missed -- say a diary for example -- and so it is a question of judging, from this distance, whether one or more of the significant police figures are reliable enough as historical sources to be able to say that since they were convinced, they were professionals and they were there then likely it was solved by one of them.

That leaves Dr. Francis Tumblety (Littlchild -- who is arguably far less definitive than the others) Montague Druitt (Macnaghten -- who was as certain as you could be about an entirely posthumous suspect) Aaron Kosminski (if his fictional doppelganager 'Kosminski' is he -- advocated very firmly by Anderson and arguably by Swanson too though only in private) and George Chapman (Abberline, who concedes that this convicted murderer was not a contemporaneous suspect to 1888).

Tumblety, Druitt, Kosminski and Chapman.

Of these I subscribe to the [revisionist] theory that Macnaghten is the most reliable source, which leaves Druitt as the last suspect standing.

This argument has been rejected by all experienced researchers as unconvincing, fatally relying, it has been said, on too much [novelistic] conjecture.

2) Since Macnaghten believed it was Druitt, from 'secret information' only received 'some years after', he was forced into accepting Kelly as the final victim rather than Coles, and that took out McKenzie and Mylett too.

But if he was wrong then 'Jack' as an unsuspected killer could have done them all: from Smith to Coles. Eliminate Macnaghten as a relibale source and other victims should come back into play: Tumblety could have done Tabram and Kosminski could have done McKenzie, and so on.

3) 'Leather Apron' is likely an urban myth fuelled by the tabloids.

4) No letters were by the murderer and, though Mac claims in his memoirs that the [un-named] Druitt wrote the graffiti, I think he was simply being polemical against Anderson and his Jewish suspect (for example to make this work he has to clean up the spelling of 'Jews').

I think that there was nothing of a literary nature contributed by the real killer, including the graffiti (and Macnaghten does not claim that it was the 'only clue' left behind in his internal report(s) ). Macnaghten also claims that it was he who identified the reporter who faked the 'Dear Boss' letter in about June 1890.


On the other hand, the revisionist theory that there was no single murderer who could be designated as 'Jack' is also fair, as is that the police sources all cancel each other out -- at least not without harder surviving evidence clarifying their judgments.

[Wickerman]

Though in my opinion the real JtR would feel more at home among the Druitt's social class, than the Kosminski, Blotchy, types.

Jon - without trawling back though ALL your previous posts, could you explain briefly the reasoning behind that opinion?

Thanks

Phil

Hi Phil.
I'm not sure I could be brief, its a mixture of contemporary opinion (Dr. Bond was one), witness statements, people seen in the vicinity, etc. I don't claim to know anything no-one else has access to. Much of how we view the case has to do with what we are inclined to accept as reliable.
My views are just as likely to be shot full of holes as anyone else seeing as how we all lack proof.
I just can't satisfy myself that the actual killer has been identified by name.

Regards, Jon S.