So......who do you think it was?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Thought you might appreciate that.

Hello DLDW.

". . . but if it was just one individual who perpetrated these acts . . ."

Excellent!

Cheers.
LC

It is important for an investigator to remain objective. I think more likely a single individual was responsible for most of these, but it just isn't conclusive either way. Need more DATA!!!!!!!!! Please. Anyone ever think we will get bombed with some new stuffs that moves the case along at least an inch? Somebody out there has something useful they are hording. Not nice, not nice at all. First against the wall, I says.

[Abby Normal]

Hi,
I also believe Mary Kelly to have been the key.and believe the Ripper was known to her.
I believe Hutchinson's statement, and I would say its near enough a certainty that Mary would not have taken a man dressed like that , and she had just met,back to her room, unless she had no reason to suspect him of any abuse.
I have a inkling that the Lord mayors show is a factor in this.
I have a suspicion that this man had previously told Kelly, that he would escort her to the show, and that is why he was dressed that way, I also feel that Mrs Harvey left her bonnet with Mary the previous night, for the purpose of Kelly wearing it the following morning .
So did ''A man'' kill Mary..logic says yes.
Why was he dressed like that?..to gain Kelly's trust.
Why was he waiting on the corner when Hutch saw him...'waiting for Mary who had arranged to met him, and escort him back through Dorset street.
Why not kill her on the streets?
Because he wanted to afford the luxury of time on this one,
That's my take on it.
But just one possibility out of many.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard
Meeting him for an event the next day at 2:00 am? Really?
And if she had a prearranged meeting planned with wealthy Aman why in the world is she wasting her time asking hutch for money? Or getting staggeringly drunk and bringing home blotchy a few hours before such a meeting?

IMHO that scenario just does not fit.

[Amanda Sumner]

G'Day Amanda



Couldn't agree more



So do you believe that he didn't engage with them and possibly just attacked? [Just trying to clarify].

I think it's possible that he watched and waited. I think the attacks were sudden and totally unexpected. I'm not saying that the women did not see him or exchanged words but I don't think he chatted openly on street corners or bought them drinks in pubs.
Hutch's statements are odd and I can't help wondering if he just wanted his 15 minutes of fame. If the man he described did exist, I can't see him being the Ripper and allowing someone to be close enough to hear the conversation or be able to describe details of what he was wearing, right down to the buttons and colour of handkerchief! It does not make sense, in my opinion.
This was someone who looked very unremarkable, he blended in and faded out unnoticed among the thousands of people who lived in that area. It could have been anyone.

[pinkmoon]

Hi evertonmarc and welcome,Druitts the man for me however In all probability our killer was somebody who has never been brought into the gaze of the general public.why Druitt because he was chosen by a high ranking police officer who obviously didn't have any conclusive proof but when he heard his" private information" must have conducted some basic checks i.e was he free to kill on the given dates.As for reading material Philips sugdens history of jack the ripper is excellent whittington Egan book is excellent too both available on kindle and presented in a sane and sensible way trevor Marriott's books are very entertaining and do challenge the know facts which ain't a bad thing .Stewart p Evans produced a source book which is a must always his tumblety book called the lodger is excellent as well good luck and happy reading p.s you have a very understanding wive mine thinks I should go out and get a proper hobby.

[Patrick S]

Ah! THE question! I love it!

Like many, I've had several pet theories and beliefs over the years. Where I am now, and I've said this before here, is favoring that unknown man angle. After this particular round of reading, study, and research, I'm of the belief that it's a man whose name appears nowhere in the case files. A quiet man, kept very much to himself. Socially very awkward, to the point the victims felt they needed to draw him out of his shell in order to get his coin in exchange for their services. This was no act, but it did serve to put the women off their guard, even as the JtR panic gripped the area. I do not believe that the killer was observed by most/any of the witnesses. I believe he was a young man, early to mid twenties. I believe he either lived alone or with a mother who was either oblivious of his comings and goings, or chose to ignore and/or protect him. To the outside world he was a nobody. To those aquainted with him he was 'queer', odd, but harmless. What became of him? Who knows? Chances are he died quietly sometime after the killings ended. I do not believe he killed himself. Serial killers do not normally do so. Perhaps someone knew what he was up to and took matters into their own hands and kept it quiet to protect the family. Perhaps he was committed. Perhaps whatever malady that drove him to kill finally took his life (brain tumor, syphilis, etc.). All part of the mystery. Let us know how you liked the tour.

[robhouse]

It was Kozminski. I have incontrovertible 100% proof, that I will be revealing i the next issue of Ripperologist.

RH

[robhouse]

Just kidding

[pinkmoon]

I've just taken possession of a diary a mate of mine who I used to drink with gave it me it contains a full confession to the ripper murders I'm not going to bother making its contents public because no one would believe it would they?

[Amanda Sumner]

I've just taken possession of a diary a mate of mine who I used to drink with gave it me it contains a full confession to the ripper murders I'm not going to bother making its contents public because no one would believe it would they?

Certainly not Pinkmoon, unless, of course, it was written by a complete unknown
who we can trace, that he lived at the relevant time and place, and just happened to leave a will that we discover and, guess what? The writing matches perfectly!

[GUT]

G'Day Amanda

I think it's possible that he watched and waited. I think the attacks were sudden and totally unexpected. I'm not saying that the women did not see him or exchanged words but I don't think he chatted openly on street corners or bought them drinks in pubs.

That's how I suspect it went down too, there was no need for him to engage them, just wait till he found some woman in the right place and GO.

[AndrewL]

My take:

I think many of us are subconsciously influenced by who we want the Ripper to be rather than the meagre evidence we have. In my case, I want it to be Druitt because I think an upper-class Ripper would be a psychologically interesting solution - much more interesting than a poor Polish Jew although I have to concede that the case for Kosminski is at least as strong.

I am often reminded of Colin Wilson's warning:
"It seems to me that identifying suspects who could have been Jack the Ripper is a waste of time, since London at the time must have been full of people who could have been the Ripper."
To me, this is a strong argument against Bury, Kelly, Stephenson and many others.

The only suspects with any real validity in my eyes are those actually named by policemen, since the police knew far more about the case than we ever will. Those suspects are Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety and Chapman.

If you want to narrow it further, then I think Druitt and Kosminski must be top of the list because of the certainty expressed by Macnaghten and Anderson. (Yes, I know Macnaghten wasn't absolutely certain but he sounded very confident.) I think there must have been concrete reasons for this. The two policemen may have been misguided, their evidence may have been no good, but there must have been something - and we can't be certain either way without knowing what that evidence was.

I would love to speculate further, but sadly that just isn't justified by the facts we have. It's like trying to solve a jigsaw where 90 per cent of the pieces are missing.

[GUT]

G'Day Andrew

If you want to narrow it further, then I think Druitt and Kosminski must be top of the list because of the certainty expressed by Macnaghten and Anderson.

In my opinion, which probably isn't worth a lot, it is something that must be given a fair bit of weight.

[Damaso Marte]

Somebody who owned a lot of hats

[Tom_Wescott]

Somebody who owned a lot of hats

John Pizer?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Druitt's a no-go. Kozminski still remains.

[Amanda Sumner]

John Pizer?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Druitt's a no-go. Kozminski still remains.

Poor Druitt. Here was a man with enough problems of his own, who took his own life because of them and the only reason anyone remembers him is because of the timing of his suicide! Had he killed himself at any other time no one would probably have heard of him. Police talked a lot of rubbish then, as they do now, and they had a habit of making statements with very little reason. What facts did Abberline have when deciding that they had caught the Ripper after Chapman was arrested all those years later?
Kozminski is an interesting fellow and so is Levy. Think they are my two favourites out of the whole bunch, but I still think it's far more likely to have been someone completely unknown to us then, as now.