Jack The Ripper solved?

[Tom_Wescott]

Trevor,

If you ever publish a book on how a Ripperologist can get the kind of press and publicity you do I would imagine it would be your best received book to date. I know I'd be first in line to buy it.

I'm sure you'll agree that at least most of these women were indeed murdered. So which, if any, do you now suspect Fiegenbaum as having been guilty of?

Hi Stewart,

Of course, you're probably dead on correct, but why be a party pooper?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[booth]

solved....

indeed, thanks Tom.
best wishes
Booth

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Tom. Difficult to disagree. Well spoke.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

That is merely your own opinion, and one, dare I add, that not too many on these boards would agree with.

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.

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.

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.

[booth]

'The Whitechapel murders' have now receded 125 years into the past. No evidence to positively identify the murderer existed at the time, none will be found at this remove in time.

As I understand a 'cold case' murder, it is an unsolved murder that has been on the police books for some considerable time and has ceased to be the subject of active investigation. However, it is still one that is within living memory and one upon which it is possible to reopen an active investigation with a view to gathering evidence to positively identify an offender against whom a legal investigation might still be mounted with a view to bringing that miscreant to justice if still living.

The Victorian murders of 1888-1891, popularly referred to as 'the Whitechapel murders', are -

1. Unsolved, and as such incapable of definition as to which ones may have been committed by a common hand.

2. Beyond living memory.

3. Devoid of any hard evidence against anyone.

4. Lacking in any preserved forensic scientific evidence whatsoever.

5. Incomplete as to official records of the investigation (and even if we had all the original police documentation it would only serve to clear up minor mysteries and anomalies).

6. As a result of points 1-5 above, totally incapable of a satisfactory solution.

Thus these murders are a historical murder mystery. Ergo the point Paul Begg makes is valid and all any writer will ever achieve, at best, is to build a historically valid case, based on known facts (such as they are), interpretation, and opinion, against any particular named subject.

As we know, no theorist is ever going to present a case with which everyone agrees and which is totally objective.

Superb. A definitive statement on the case. Totally agree
best wishes
Booth

[booth]

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

Thank you Fisherman. My wording could have been a bit better I realise now
I really appreciate your comments. I'm an infrequent visitor to the waters, and so when I do dip my toe in I'm always afraid of the sharks. Glad to see that someone out there is friendly
best wishes
Booth

[Stewart P Evans]

Historical Murder Mystery

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.
...
Tom Wescott

'The Whitechapel murders' have now receded 125 years into the past. No evidence to positively identify the murderer existed at the time, none will be found at this remove in time.

As I understand a 'cold case' murder, it is an unsolved murder that has been on the police books for some considerable time and has ceased to be the subject of active investigation. However, it is still one that is within living memory and one upon which it is possible to reopen an active investigation with a view to gathering evidence to positively identify an offender against whom a legal investigation might still be mounted with a view to bringing that miscreant to justice if still living.

The Victorian murders of 1888-1891, popularly referred to as 'the Whitechapel murders', are -

1. Unsolved, and as such incapable of definition as to which ones may have been committed by a common hand.

2. Beyond living memory.

3. Devoid of any hard evidence against anyone.

4. Lacking in any preserved forensic scientific evidence whatsoever.

5. Incomplete as to official records of the investigation (and even if we had all the original police documentation it would only serve to clear up minor mysteries and anomalies).

6. As a result of points 1-5 above, totally incapable of a satisfactory solution.

Thus these murders are a historical murder mystery. Ergo the point Paul Begg makes is valid and all any writer will ever achieve, at best, is to build a historically valid case, based on known facts (such as they are), interpretation, and opinion, against any particular named subject.

As we know, no theorist is ever going to present a case with which everyone agrees and which is totally objective.

[Stewart P Evans]

Own Opinion

...
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.

That is merely your own opinion, and one, dare I add, that not too many on these boards would agree with.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Hi Tom
Glad to see you are back to health again.

Just to answer some of your comments directed at me, and I don't take them personally but seek to clear up the ambiguities.

You are correct in the first instance I did way back then suggest that Feigenbaum could have been the elusive Ripper. However in the ensuing years I have continued to carry out my investigation and uncovered more information and new facts not only about Feigenbaum but about the case as a whole.

These have led me to re assess and re evaluate my findings and conclusions on Feigenbaum his suspect viabilty and the case as a whole. That is why the recently released "Secret Police Files" Book now brings my investigation bang up to date.

As to why the 21st Century Investigation is still being offered by the publishers. That is a question best answered by the publishers who are not involved with the new book. I have no control over their actions.

As to selling books at my talks I don't physically offer any book for sale, they are all collectively referred to at the end of the show.

As to the sale of my books and the monies I earn from them and the shows. Both together are still only drops in the ocean compared to all the personal money I have spent since 2002 in conducting this cold case re investigation and it is nice to now be able to recover some of that money from the past.

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.

[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!

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.