Jack The Ripper solved?

[Stewart P Evans]

Rather depends...

...
Remember the saying "A new broom sweeps clean" !!!!!!!!!!!!!
...

Well that rather depends upon how clean or untainted the 'new broom' is. And, of course, very much upon the ability of the person wielding that 'new broom'.

[Stewart P Evans]

Others

..
With regards to Feigenbaum I did in the first instance suggest he could have been the killer of all the women but further research and with the emergence of new facts I was quite happy to publicly denounce him as being involved in all of the murders. Its a shame some cant swallow their pride and do the same with regards to other suspects they have championed.
...

Others have done the same, but, I would agree, not all. Suspects appear to be the bugbear of this subject. However, it's pointless writing a book about a proposed suspect if you are not going to make out some sort of viable case for him. Indeed, if you weren't it is unlikely that any commercial publisher would commission a book from you. So the moral is avoid writing a book about a specific suspect - if you can.

I also agree that new facts, where they are relevant and exist, should be examined and internalized. You should also be flexible enough to modify your views and belief if needs must. That doesn't mean that you have to accept every new theory, interpretation and idea that comes along, as the proposer is often wrong. I feel that you often present your own interpretation of things as a fact. This must be avoided. But it's fine to present your own ideas, opinions and theories, so long as they are presented as such.

[Stewart P Evans]

Far be it from me...

...
Why doesn't Begg or Fido and others post anymore, could it be that they in years gone by nailed their colors to the mast with regards to published works appertaining to specific suspects etc and now new facts have emerged negating much of what they wrote where do they go now ?
...

Far be it from me to make statements on behalf of either Paul or Martin but as you have named them perhaps I should.

As I understand it Martin has rarely posted on the boards because of his busy work schedule and other matters that take precedence over posting on message boards. He does, from time to time, make an appearance to address various points.

With regard to Paul, he has been very unwell, and is still in hospital on the mend. I am sure that he will have responses to specific points when he is able to address them.

[Stewart P Evans]

Fair

Stewart
It is not me that allowances need to be made for it is those who have over the years become so immersed in their own theories to the point that they now look at the case through rose tinted spectacles. These persons have not and will not accept changes to their perceptions no matter what is put before them.
...

Let it not be said that I am not fair. What you say here is true in some cases, but you cannot make such a sweeping statement about everyone.

[Trevor Marriott]

Your responses are sometimes specious.

The vast majority of posters on these boards have never authored a book proposing a suspect. Many are also unbiased and objective. Leading authors such as Don Rumbelow, Robin Odell, Richard Whittington-Egan, Phil Sugden, Keith Skinner, and so on never post on the boards. And as far as I know none of them subscribes to your theories. Others, such as Martin Fido and latterly Paul Begg rarely post. Helena, as I understand it, has written a book about George Chapman, not a book trying to prove that George Chapman was the Ripper. She would probably not appreciate being called a Ripperologist.

You have to learn to understand exactly where people are 'coming from' and realize that most people who disagree with you are not authors pushing their own particular suspect. Still, we have to realize that you are a relative newcomer to the subject and make a few allowances for you.

Stewart
It is not me that allowances need to be made for it is those who have over the years become so immersed in their own theories to the point that they now look at the case through rose tinted spectacles. These persons have not and will not accept changes to their perceptions no matter what is put before them.

Why doesn't Begg or Fido and others post anymore, could it be that they in years gone by nailed their colors to the mast with regards to published works appertaining to specific suspects etc and now new facts have emerged negating much of what they wrote where do they go now ?

With regards to Feigenbaum I did in the first instance suggest he could have been the killer of all the women but further research and with the emergence of new facts I was quite happy to publicly denounce him as being involved in all of the murders. Its a shame some cant swallow their pride and do the same with regards to other suspects they have championed.

Remember the saying "A new broom sweeps clean" !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Knowledge is a wonderful thing but if it is not used correctly then it is wasted. But to much is a dangerous attribute.

[Stewart P Evans]

Probably

...
Hi Stewart,
Of course, you're probably dead on correct, but why be a party pooper?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Probably because I don't think that I am a particularly nice person and I speak my mind too much (something to be avoided around here, I think). Also the cynicism resulting from far too many years as a law enforcement officer has taken its toll on me.

[Stewart P Evans]

Specious

...
Just go through the list of authors who are board members and that will answer your question
Only last year I believe we had a book suggesting Kosminski along with a documentary made by Ripperolgists suggesting he was a prime suspect. and only recently a new book on Chapman. Do I need to say more ?

Your responses are sometimes specious.

The vast majority of posters on these boards have never authored a book proposing a suspect. Many are also unbiased and objective. Leading authors such as Don Rumbelow, Robin Odell, Richard Whittington-Egan, Phil Sugden, Keith Skinner, and so on never post on the boards. And as far as I know none of them subscribes to your theories. Others, such as Martin Fido and latterly Paul Begg rarely post. Helena, as I understand it, has written a book about George Chapman, not a book trying to prove that George Chapman was the Ripper. She would probably not appreciate being called a Ripperologist.

You have to learn to understand exactly where people are 'coming from' and realize that most people who disagree with you are not authors pushing their own particular suspect. Still, we have to realize that you are a relative newcomer to the subject and make a few allowances for you.

[Stewart P Evans]

Prove?

You may not now be trying to prove anyone was the ripper but that has not always been the case has it not ?
...

As I seem to have to constantly point out I have never tried to prove that anyone was the Ripper. As a police officer (still serving in 1995) I have always known that such thing is an impossibility. And I stated so at the time.

I had been reading about the case, and researching it, for over thirty years before I ever heard of Tumblety. In that time my preferred suspects had been Druitt and then Kosminski. I might add here that I don't think it is too much of a problem for anyone to have a preferred suspect. I have always been realistic enough to know that as it is impossible to prove who the Ripper was all one could do was to make out a best possible scenario for any named individual being the murderer. In doing so it is, of course, impossible to be fully objective and impossible to avoid being selective. However, honesty should always prevail.

[Trevor Marriott]

Who is there who has written a book on Tumblety, Chapman, Kosminski or Druitt, and is/are also '(a) board member(s)' who would disagree with you?

In my case I do disagree with you, but not because I have written a book on a particular suspect. I am not trying to prove any particular person might have been the Ripper. In fact, quite the contrary.

You may not now be trying to prove anyone was the ripper but that has not always been the case has it not ?

Just go through the list of authors who are board members and that will answer your question

Only last year I believe we had a book suggesting Kosminski along with a documentary made by Ripperolgists suggesting he was a prime suspect. and only recently a new book on Chapman. Do I need to say more ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Kosminski was a police suspect at the time. Druitt was certainly such, if not at the time, then very shortly afterwards and Abberline is reported as having expressed a firm view that the arrest of Chapman was also the capture of the Ripper. Just how is Feigenbaum, whom you've yet to show was even in England at the time of the Whitechapel Murders, ahead of these three by (as you put it) "a country mile"?

Kosminski, Druitt was not a suspect at the time of the murders he was only first mentioned in 1894 in a police document that has been proved to be inaccurate unsafe and unreliable.

Un corroborated opinions of ageing police officers in later years do not warrant the person named as being a prime suspect especially when they conflict with others opinions they gave in later years.

Extract from the National Police Gazette dated 1896

" Feigenbaum admits that he was frequently in London at different periods during the time covered by the murders, which extended from 1887 until the summer of 1891"

Now I do not intend to continue to argue on here on these issues which have been argued about over the years. You raised issues, I have answered them. You and others have two choices to accept or reject me I don't care anymore.

[Bridewell]

A Country Mile?

Out of all the main suspects and I use the term suspects loosely as some dont know the difference between a "person of interest" and a "prime suspect" Feigenbaum is still the most interesting and is ahead of Kosminski, Chapman and Druitt by a country mile.

Kosminski was a police suspect at the time. Druitt was certainly such, if not at the time, then very shortly afterwards and Abberline is reported as having expressed a firm view that the arrest of Chapman was also the capture of the Ripper. Just how is Feigenbaum, whom you've yet to show was even in England at the time of the Whitechapel Murders, ahead of these three by (as you put it) "a country mile"?

[Tom_Wescott]

Who is there who has written a book on Tumblety, Chapman, Kosminski or Druitt, and is/are also '(a) board member(s)' who would disagree with you?

In my case I do disagree with you, but not because I have written a book on a particular suspect. I am not trying to prove any particular person might have been the Ripper. In fact, quite the contrary.

You're trying to prove that no particular person was Jack the Ripper? It sounds like you might agree with Trevor after all!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Quite the contrary

...
Could be something to do with them publishing books past and present all attempting to make a case for the likes of Tumblety,Chapman, Kosmisnki, Druitt etc etc. of course they are going to fight tooth and nail to prop up their theories and do what they can to shoot down in flames anyone that threatens their published works.

Who is there who has written a book on Tumblety, Chapman, Kosminski or Druitt, and is/are also '(a) board member(s)' who would disagree with you?

In my case I do disagree with you, but not because I have written a book on a particular suspect. I am not trying to prove any particular person might have been the Ripper. In fact, quite the contrary.

[Stewart P Evans]

Who...

...
And why would some of the board members not agree well I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to work that one out.
...

Who agrees with you?

[Stewart P Evans]

What...?

An opinion backed up with strong circumstantial evidence which is sadly missing when it comes to the likes of the aforementioned suspects who have been regarded as "prime suspects" I think even you must agree on that point.
...

What do you regard as strong circumstantial evidence?