Jack The Ripper solved?

[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 ?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

Plumbing

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

Here you are plumbing rather deep waters.

Knowledge should go hand in glove with experience and be tempered with common sense. A complex combination indeed. 'Too much knowledge', can there ever be too much? It is dangerous only if used wrongly or deliberately misused.

It is more a question of the individual understanding the knowledge he has and making the correct interpretation and application of that knowledge.

[HelenaWojtczak]

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.

SECOND in line - behind ME!

Helena

[Tom_Wescott]

Stewart,

It sounds like you regret writing and publishing The Lodger. And I suppose you're being facetious when you say you're not a nice person. I don't believe that's true at all.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

It wasnt directed at everyone.It is but a small minority mainly from here and JTR forums. The public at large over the years have formed their own perceptions as a result of being misled through all the tv documentaries etc they have seen over the years not to mention all the books naming the killer.

These are the ones that are now prepared to look and listen, and are prepared to accept new facts which now change their perceptions.

[Trevor Marriott]

SECOND in line - behind ME!

Helena

Hi Helena
One question with regards to your latest book which I haven't read. In the book do you suggest that Chapman could have been JTR ? Because the title ceratinly suggests that

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi Helena
One question with regards to your latest book which I haven't read. In the book do you suggest that Chapman could have been JTR ? Because the title ceratinly suggests that

Hi Trevor

Have you seen The Mousetrap? If so perhaps you could tell me who "dunnit" and save me the bother.

Best wishes

Helena