Favoured Suspect...

[FrankO]

I see I've been sloppy in my last post. The quote I was actually reacting to there was this one:

i think if the real killer didnt write dear boss and didnt like the name he was being called, i think he would have said so. and since no one did, and the real killer apparently liked the shock and notoriety he was making by exposing the bodies, then i think he probably liked the name and the notoriety it was giving him.

Carry on...

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Abby,

I look at this in another way. By the time the ‘From Hell’ letter was written, the name Jack the Ripper for the murderer had already settled with the public. By 9 or 10 October, several men had already used the name or they’d confessed to being “Jack the Ripper”.

The Daily News of 9 October even contained this snippet: “The Central News, since the original letter and postcard of “Jack the Ripper” were published, has received from 30 to 40 communications daily signed “Jack the Ripper,” evidently the concoctions of silly notoriety hunters.”

So, by the time the ‘From Hell’ letter was penned down, letter writers had all (as far as I know) been using “Jack the Ripper” to sign their letters to make them look genuine or to make them be taken seriously. The person who wrote “From Hell”, however, didn’t.

If he was not, why wouldn’t he use “Jack the Ripper”? Of course, it's still possible that he didn't, but it just doesn't make much sense, if any. If he was, however, there's an argument to be made that he didn't use it, actually, to distinguish himself from all those people who pretended to be the killer.

So, instead of signing with 'Jack the Ripper', he sent his letter together with a piece of kidney - as a sort of authentication. As far as I know, it wasn’t widely discussed or made public that the killer had taken a kidney from Eddowes, which to me makes it all the more plausible that the letter writer was, in fact, the Ripper.

Just my two (counter)cents.

Cheers,
Frank

Excellent post Frank, well said!

[FrankO]

the term jack the ripper, whether written by the killer or not, is simply what he came to be called then and has lasted to this day. not sure why people struggle with that. imho i lean toward that dear boss/saucy jack or from hell were written by the killer. if i had to pick i agree, probably from hell most likely.

Hi Abby,

I look at this in another way. By the time the ‘From Hell’ letter was written, the name Jack the Ripper for the murderer had already settled with the public. By 9 or 10 October, several men had already used the name or they’d confessed to being “Jack the Ripper”.

The Daily News of 9 October even contained this snippet: “The Central News, since the original letter and postcard of “Jack the Ripper” were published, has received from 30 to 40 communications daily signed “Jack the Ripper,” evidently the concoctions of silly notoriety hunters.”

So, by the time the ‘From Hell’ letter was penned down, letter writers had all (as far as I know) been using “Jack the Ripper” to sign their letters to make them look genuine or to make them be taken seriously. The person who wrote “From Hell”, however, didn’t.

If he was not, why wouldn’t he use “Jack the Ripper”? Of course, it's still possible that he didn't, but it just doesn't make much sense, if any. If he was, however, there's an argument to be made that he didn't use it, actually, to distinguish himself from all those people who pretended to be the killer.

So, instead of signing with 'Jack the Ripper', he sent his letter together with a piece of kidney - as a sort of authentication. As far as I know, it wasn’t widely discussed or made public that the killer had taken a kidney from Eddowes, which to me makes it all the more plausible that the letter writer was, in fact, the Ripper.

Just my two (counter)cents.

Cheers,
Frank

[Abby Normal]

The term "Canonical 5" is a Macnaghten construct and based on his subjective opinion.

This is despite the official police file on the case consisting of up to 11 possible victims.


Similarly, the term "Jack the Ripper" is a construct of the individual who wrote "Dear Boss"

If this letter was not written by the real killer, then the term "Jack the Ripper" has no contextual relevance to the case.

The term "Whitechapel Murderer" should be the term used when discussing the case, because it covers a broader range of possibilities.

I would suggest that "From Hell" which doesn't mention "Jack the Ripper" is the authentic letter; if there actually was one written by the killer.

It's also poignant to acknowledge that the likes of Bury and Maybrick with an alleged link to the use of the name "Jack the Ripper' may inadvertently be one of the strongest reasons to infact rule them out as the real killer.

In other words, if the Dear Boss letter wasn't written by the killer, then any suspect linked to the name would have no actual link to the real killer.

Would the real killer adopt the name "Jack the Ripper" based on someone else's invention?

I doubt it.

hi rookie
the term jack the ripper, whether written by the killer or not, is simply what he came to be called then and has lasted to this day. not sure why people struggle with that. imho i lean toward that dear boss/saucy jack or from hell were written by the killer. if i had to pick i agree, probably from hell most likely.

maybrick was never associated with the name.

i think if the real killer didnt write dear boss and didnt like the name he was being called, i think he would have said so. and since no one did, and the real killer apparently liked the shock and notoriety he was making by exposing the bodies, then i think he probably liked the name and the notoriety it was giving him.

and btw, the idea that dear boss/saucy jack was written by a journalist is the biggest myth in ripperology. there is no real evidence, it was just speculation later. and of course the main culprit is our old boastful friend anderson lol. in fact, most of the police at the time beleived they were authentic.
And the letters get three things right and imho have the ring of authenticity to them.

[FrankO]

Would the real killer adopt the name "Jack the Ripper" based on someone else's invention?

I'm with you, RD. I think he wouldn't.

Cheers,
Frank

[GBinOz]

The term "Canonical 5" is a Macnaghten construct and based on his subjective opinion.

This is despite the official police file on the case consisting of up to 11 possible victims.


Similarly, the term "Jack the Ripper" is a construct of the individual who wrote "Dear Boss"

If this letter was not written by the real killer, then the term "Jack the Ripper" has no contextual relevance to the case.

The term "Whitechapel Murderer" should be the term used when discussing the case, because it covers a broader range of possibilities.

I would suggest that "From Hell" which doesn't mention "Jack the Ripper" is the authentic letter; if there actually was one written by the killer.

It's also poignant to acknowledge that the likes of Bury and Maybrick with an alleged link to the use of the name "Jack the Ripper' may inadvertently be one of the strongest reasons to infact rule them out as the real killer.

In other words, if the Dear Boss letter wasn't written by the killer, then any suspect linked to the name would have no actual link to the real killer.

Would the real killer adopt the name "Jack the Ripper" based on someone else's invention?

I doubt it.

Well said RD. Succinct and right on the money. Excellent post.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

The term "Canonical 5" is a Macnaghten construct and based on his subjective opinion.

This is despite the official police file on the case consisting of up to 11 possible victims.


Similarly, the term "Jack the Ripper" is a construct of the individual who wrote "Dear Boss"

If this letter was not written by the real killer, then the term "Jack the Ripper" has no contextual relevance to the case.

The term "Whitechapel Murderer" should be the term used when discussing the case, because it covers a broader range of possibilities.

I would suggest that "From Hell" which doesn't mention "Jack the Ripper" is the authentic letter; if there actually was one written by the killer.

It's also poignant to acknowledge that the likes of Bury and Maybrick with an alleged link to the use of the name "Jack the Ripper' may inadvertently be one of the strongest reasons to infact rule them out as the real killer.

In other words, if the Dear Boss letter wasn't written by the killer, then any suspect linked to the name would have no actual link to the real killer.

Would the real killer adopt the name "Jack the Ripper" based on someone else's invention?

I doubt it.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

I would submit that most of this forum, and the other place, to a lesser degree, is based on opinions based on speculation.

Cheers, George

My bad about Baxter,



Of course it should have been "Why Should we"

[FISHY1118]

Well done in spelling Sir Melville Macnaghten's name correctly. It's getting rather rare.

Cheers. I have been known to misspell a word or two tho over the years

[rjpalmer]

Of course we also have the opinion of Macnaghten.

Well done in spelling Sir Melville Macnaghten's name correctly. It's getting rather rare.

[GBinOz]

Why shouldn't we assume Eddowes and Kelly aren't related George?
Could you restate this without double negatives please?
And weren't those opinions that of the coroner's not Baxters ?
Baxter was the coroner.
I just don't get your argument and way of thinking based on what is known and accepted together with the mountain of evidence overall regarding the C5 .
There is no mountain of evidence. We don't even have transcripts of the Inquests, being forced to rely on conflicting press reports. What is accepted is far from based on what is known. We are basically trying to assemble a jigsaw that has most of the pieces missing.
But I guess you're entitled to your opinion of course.

Hi Fishy,

I would submit that most of this forum, and the other place, to a lesser degree, is based on opinions based on speculation.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Why shouldn't we assume Eddowes and Kelly aren't related George?

And weren't those opinions that of the coroner's not Baxters ? I just don't get your argument and way of thinking based on what is known and accepted together with the mountain of evidence overall regarding the C5 .

But I guess you're entitled to your opinion of course.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Of course we also have the opinion of Macnaghten who said there were " 5 and only 5 murders " so we can only speculate and opinionize as to whether those extra 4 ( or how ever many more one wants to add ) are unrelated to the C5 .

A couple of things , just on Baxter and his opinion about two different techniques, can you point that out to me as I can't seem to find it .

And what evidence is there that leads you to assume Eddowes and kellys murders were not related or not a ripper victim/s ( in Kelly's case) .? Cheers.

Hi Fishy,

Baxter's opinion was expressed in his summary at the Stride inquest - quite near the end.

"There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator;"

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_stride.html

I'm not saying that it should be assumed that the Eddowes and Kelly murders were not related, only that it should not be assumed that they are related. The C5 is only a concept presented by Macnaghten who was planting tea in India when these murders took place. There were differences of opinion by the actual investigators and the doctors involved with the cases at the time as to how the victims might have been related to any particular perpetrator. I don't think it is productive to place the "5 and only 5" in a sacrosanct box labelled Jack the Ripper. McKenzie's injuries have more in common with those of Nichols than Stride's injuries in comparison to Nichols, but McKenzie is often attributed to someone else because she is not one of the "5 and only 5". JMO.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

My daughter looked at the autopsies in isolation and formed the opinion that entirely different techniques were employed.

We so often confine our discussions to the C5, but there were, according to Swanson, 9 Whitechapel murders plus an attempt (Farmer) and and an alleged (Mylett), and of course the torso murders. So how many killers were involved?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Of course we also have the opinion of Macnaghten who said there were " 5 and only 5 murders " so we can only speculate and opinionize as to whether those extra 4 ( or how ever many more one wants to add ) are unrelated to the C5 .

A couple of things , just on Baxter and his opinion about two different techniques, can you point that out to me as I can't seem to find it .

And what evidence is there that leads you to assume Eddowes and kellys murders were not related or not a ripper victim/s ( in Kelly's case) .? Cheers.

[FrankO]

On the night of the double event there were three women that had their throats cut, so I'm not entirely persuaded as to rarity.

Hi George,

When I talk about rarity of the 4 mutilation murders, I refer to the mutilations, not the cut throats.

It is not so much that I like to have an unusual opinion. Rather that I don't feel obliged to conform to a usual opinion.

Then apologies for having said something incorrect about you. I just get that impression sometimes.

I don't feel obliged to conform to a usual opinion, either. I do the same as you, which is to examine each murder on its own merits. Only I arrive at other probable conclusions, possibly because we put stock in different basic things.

I find the premise that if evidence points to suspect for some murders, but it is assumed that he must be innocent because he has an alibi for other murders, to be an apocryphal assumption.

I have to admit that I don't give the named suspects much thought. Some seem to be promising, but still, too much information is missing.

Cheers,
Frank