Jack The Ripper solved?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Tom. Difficult to disagree. Well spoke.

Cheers.
LC

[booth]

solved....

indeed, thanks Tom.
best wishes
Booth

[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

[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?

[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]

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.

[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

[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"?

[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.