Jack The Ripper solved?

[booth]

Hi all,

Found this today:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/431148/Jack-the-Ripper-mystery-solved-by-top-detective-after-125-years

Apparently we don't need to talk about it anymore, it's all been solved.

Rich

[YankeeSergeant]

All

Saw that here in the states. All they mentioned was that they allegedly know who wrote the Jack the Ripper letters More specifically the Dear Boss letter. Did they get it right? I don't know but I don't believe even if they did that it solves the murders. Of course that is my humble opinion. Neil

[Michael W Richards]

Gotta say it.....to state that the removal of the organs has been proven to have taken place at the mortuary, not at the crime scene, is indeed proof of something......proof that this so-called solution is nothing but another theory.

This gent isnt interested in fact finding...he's just someone who thinks that by merely stating something it becomes fact,..... when the facts are that he has proven nothing....and likely will continue on that same vein as long as he can find someone to agree with him.

Some see studying these cases as a scholarly effort, some see the study as a fascinating look at Victorian England, or the characters associated with the cases,...some study as amateur sleuths, imaging that they might find the solution that has evaded countless analysts for over 125 years...and some, like the figure in the article, see the popular interest in the cases as an opportunity to make some easy money.

Cheers

[robhouse]

Seriously, can someone make it stop? Please?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYjrJM4RQ3I

I mean, does Trevor even actually believe that Jack the Ripper never existed? Is that his position now? I thought it was Feigenbaum.

Or is this an example of the press "misinterpreting what he stated"? One would think he might issue a correction to "the press" if this is the case.

As much as anything, this is an illustration of the depressing state of "news" these days. This is how something becomes "news"... through the endless repetition of a total crap story, it gains a sort of news-worthiness. For anyone who knows how google rankings work... the fact that Trevor's ramblings are repeated pretty much verbatim from his press kit in numerous local online newspapers, means that the very repetition causes this particular item to gain credibility in the eyes of a search ranking engine, hence increasing its likelihood of being repeated in more and more places and eventually bubbling all the way up to CNN etc.

It is still utter crap. I would like to see Trevor come on this website and try to state that the Whitechapel killer never existed.

RH

[RavenDarkendale]

Pilate said to Jesus, "And what is truth?"

People seem to be still searching...

[Graham]

Gotta say it.....to state that the removal of the organs has been proven to have taken place at the mortuary, not at the crime scene, is indeed proof of something......proof that this so-called solution is nothing but another theory.

This gent isnt interested in fact finding...he's just someone who thinks that by merely stating something it becomes fact,..... when the facts are that he has proven nothing....and likely will continue on that same vein as long as he can find someone to agree with him.

Some see studying these cases as a scholarly effort, some see the study as a fascinating look at Victorian England, or the characters associated with the cases,...some study as amateur sleuths, imaging that they might find the solution that has evaded countless analysts for over 125 years...and some, like the figure in the article, see the popular interest in the cases as an opportunity to make some easy money.

Cheers

This post, as far as I'm concerned, says it all...thank you, Michael, for voicing what many of us feel. Personally, these days I have little more than a passing interest in the Ripper Case, as I believe most of the juice was squeezed out of it years ago, and in 2013 very large and spurious mountains are being made from exceedingly small molehills.

The rubbish on this Forum concerning Van Gogh, Sickert, and others, and the constant, endless, mindless gainsaying, nit-picking and insulting personal criticism turns what was once an interesting and absorbing discussion into a complete farce.

By all means, look at the history of, and the personalities in, the Case, but to pick a 'name' or a 'theory' or a 'what happened is this...' out of the air, which is what many so-called 'investigators' are doing, dilutes the whole thing into little more than froth (and, for some, the hopes of a nice pay-off somewhere along the line).

Well said, Michael.

Graham

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have been with this subject since the early 1960s, and I am just as passionate about the case now as I have ever been.
I agree some less credible suspects have arisen in the last few years, and many speculative theories have come about, however that is the whole point of this subject, a vast army of amateur detectives, using their knowledge to wade through all the clues and red herrings that have become Jack the Ripper.
If we don't have new approaches, and cooperate new suspects, or even suggest other ways in interpreting the evidence we have, we will have little chance in advancing.
I do not agree with Stewart or Trevor in their attitude , that being ''Get a life''.they have both been successful in this subject, and been not shy in expressing their opinion, and I for one welcome all views on this subject whether I agree with them or not.
Regards Richard.

[Blackkat]

This post, as far as I'm concerned, says it all...thank you, Michael, for voicing what many of us feel. Personally, these days I have little more than a passing interest in the Ripper Case, as I believe most of the juice was squeezed out of it years ago, and in 2013 very large and spurious mountains are being made from exceedingly small molehills.

The rubbish on this Forum concerning Van Gogh, Sickert, and others, and the constant, endless, mindless gainsaying, nit-picking and insulting personal criticism turns what was once an interesting and absorbing discussion into a complete farce.

By all means, look at the history of, and the personalities in, the Case, but to pick a 'name' or a 'theory' or a 'what happened is this...' out of the air, which is what many so-called 'investigators' are doing, dilutes the whole thing into little more than froth (and, for some, the hopes of a nice pay-off somewhere along the line).

Well said, Michael.

Graham

^ this

[Sherlock Holmes]

I Mr. Holmes stick to the facts and the facts are that nothing has been solved and in addition there is no doubt the "monster", as I shall call him, for that is what he is, really exists.
Regards
Mr Holmes

[Ausgirl]

Didn't see my own reason for being here included in the litany of poo, but as I don't much fit the image of a scholar, I'll assume it's in there somewhere.

I see nothing much wrong with folks picking up a stone of an idea and flipping it over for a look.. Really, not everyone is superglued to every theory that passes through their minds and onto the forum page.

And not all of us have been here for donkey's years, and perhaps enjoy the process of personal dicovery and discussion over 'shut up, go and read everything and then shut up some more until you produce a viable and ironclad thesis, in triplicate'.

That said, I don't even bother clicking on the 'solved' announcements any more. Saves me a lot of liverishness.

[caz]

Well said, Ausgirl. Particularly the following:

Really, not everyone is superglued to every theory that passes through their minds and onto the forum page.

And not all of us have been here for donkey's years, and perhaps enjoy the process of personal dicovery and discussion over 'shut up, go and read everything and then shut up some more until you produce a viable and ironclad thesis, in triplicate'.

I have been here for donkeys' years, and still resent* being told how I am meant to think about the case, and what evidence I need to reject out of hand, and what I need to cling to for dear life. Every single Whitechapel murder remains unsolved, and very possibly unsolvable, so we are all steeped as deeply in speculation and interpretation as the next person, newbie and old hand alike, when we debate the subject.

*Actually, 'resent' is a bit strong. I am more amused or bemused than resentful.

Love,

Caz
X

[booth]

solved....

Hi all,

I posted the original link because I find it highly amusing that anyone these days can state categorically that they have identified the killer of those poor women in 1888.
I am by no means an expert, but I have had an interest in the case for about 28 years, and have read quite a lot of the many books on the case...some have been wonderful, compelling pieces of research, some have been rehashed versions of other peoples work, some have been dreadful. One ability that I have, that I am quietly happy about actually, is being able to spot the dross quite quickly and so avoid wasting my money. Sadly I will never get my money back from Mr Williams and Mr Price, and I doubt that Miss Cornwell is writing me a cheque any time soon, but those are the only two books that I my spidey senses have failed me on. I still have my well thumbed paperback copy of Stephen Knight's wonderful story, and I hold that in higher regard than many pieces of work out on the shelves at the moment.
Mr Marriot has apparently stated that Jack never really existed, and all those complicated organ removals happened in the confines of the various mortuary shacks that the victims ended up in after their murder. It's a bold theory, and no doubt is backed up by well researched info. I find it a tad surprising that this information is only now coming to light, and has been missed for all these years. I, like others, also assumed that Mr Marriot had nailed his own prime suspect, Feigenbaum, to the post a while ago, so to come along and kick the legs out from his own theory is a bit puzzling.
Anyway, no doubt, the theory is fully explained when you buy a ticket for his touring show, and buy the subsequent book. Another theory to go with all the others, and given time it will be buried by others.
I have always believed that we probably have the Ripper's name "in the file" already, and have missed it as it becomes buried by dissertation and theory and conjecture and disagreement. The truth is, unless we find the definitive "smoking gun" piece of evidence (and who's to say we haven't already?) we will never know. All we are doing now, all these years later, is playing a rather morbid game of Whodunnit? Please don't be offended, I'm not having a pop at any Ripper enthusiast (because I'm one), but for anyone to stand up and say "I'm absolutely right about this" is rather far fetched. The only people who had the best chance to catch the Ripper died a long time ago, and all we have now are their official papers and written memories, and we must trust them above any modern theories we might invent. That's all we can do surely?
One of the best pieces of writing about the Ripper case I have ever read is in the graphic novel "From Hell", by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell, at the end of the book. In the Appendix 2, "Dance of the gull catchers", Moore explains why he decided to write a fiction story about the Ripper. He uses Knight's tale, and embellishes it with a lot more fiction, and produces quite an effective piece of work (forget the film version). In said appendix, he examines the history of Ripper writing up to that point, and highlights the sad fact that with each theory, the story becomes more and more diluted, and any new facts become harder and harder to find. Thus, the "truth" about the Ripper, that we all want to know who he was and why he did what he did, becomes lost, and practically impossible to find.
I hope that no-one is offended by anything I've written here. I am a big fan of the message boards on this site, and fully appreciate the expertise of some who have made the study of the Ripper crimes their life's work. But I am also aware that there are those who take things very personally sometimes (that's my view based on reading the message boards for along, long time) and so I hope I do not incur anyone's wrath. I'm a beginner, with I hope a good level of enthusiasm, but I don't and never will claim to know definitively who the Ripper was.
I don't think any of us will ever know.
regards and best wishes,
Booth

[Tom_Wescott]

I believe it was Paul Begg who said there's two ways to approach a study of this case: from a scholarly perspective, i.e. putting it into context with it's own history and history in general, or to approach it as a cold case. Paul opts for the former, believing the latter is for some reason wrong. I personally think the two go hand in hand.

I like what Ausgirl said, about picking up rocks and flipping them over. That's precisely my approach. Look where others aren't, see what you find, gather as many pieces as possible and see what fits. Not every rock you turn over will reveal something, but occasionally you'll find treasure. And as morbid as this might sound....have fun with it! It's both history and a whodunnit, what's not to like? Have fun with it. Take the study seriously, but don't take yourself too seriously. At least that's my thought.

I was glad to see Rob House's post, because I was beginning to think I was the only one confused about Trevor's view...He has a book naming Carl Fiegenbaum as the Ripper. He's pimped that book for 7 or so years now. All of the sudden, he tells us there was no Ripper. What does that mean? And why is he still selling his 21st Century Investigation book on the net, in stores, and at his talks, if he considers it invalid now?

As for Cazminski, woe be tide anyone who tries to tell her what to think and say!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Booth:

...for anyone to stand up and say "I'm absolutely right about this" is rather far fetched.

You are probably correct on that score, although not necessarily so! You would have nailed it if you had used the phrase "I KNOW that I am right about this". For somebody may have pointed the Ripper out already, and if so, then this somebody WILL be absolutely right. He or she won´t be able to prove it, though.
Myself, I think one of the problems that sometimes arises is when somebody says about some other person that he or she claims to be absolutely right, although no such claim has been made.

I hope that no-one is offended by anything I've written here.

I´m afraid omebody probably is - that goes with the territory. I´m not that somebody, though - I think you are being perfectly reasonable and very logical, and spelling out your message in a very clear way.

I don't think any of us will ever know.

I hope you are wrong. But I realise that the odds are in your favour.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I believe it was Paul Begg who said there's two ways to approach a study of this case: from a scholarly perspective, i.e. putting it into context with it's own history and history in general, or to approach it as a cold case. Paul opts for the former, believing the latter is for some reason wrong. I personally think the two go hand in hand.

I like what Ausgirl said, about picking up rocks and flipping them over. That's precisely my approach. Look where others aren't, see what you find, gather as many pieces as possible and see what fits. Not every rock you turn over will reveal something, but occasionally you'll find treasure. And as morbid as this might sound....have fun with it! It's both history and a whodunnit, what's not to like? Have fun with it. Take the study seriously, but don't take yourself too seriously. At least that's my thought.

Tom Wescott

Many will disagree with this, Tom. Not me, though! I agree one hundred per cent; this is the exact way to go about things. And I also think that one must "have fun" along the way, as you put it. Once that is gone, it´s time to leave the stage.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. Don´t mourne my agreeing with you on this score too much - we´ll find other matters do disagree on, I´m sure!