Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Favourite 'wildcard' suspect?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
    It could well be that the only thing that brought druiit to the attention of the police was the timing of his suicide but I personally think there is a little bit more to it than that .

    I am hoping, based on some of what he has said Jonathan's book may cast some light on why Druitt was suspected.
    G U T

    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by GUT View Post
      I am hoping, based on some of what he has said Jonathan's book may cast some light on why Druitt was suspected.
      Me and a lot of other people too!
      Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

      Comment


      • #48
        Danny Boy

        Daniel Sullivan's mother was named Ellen. It was his sister Margaret whom Tom suggested was connected to Pearly Poll.

        His evidence for that was that she shared the same name as a Mog Sullivan mentioned as living alongside Pearly in Dorset Street in 1888. On that flimsy basis it was suggested that Daniel was 'probably' one of the Whitechapel murderers.

        The fact that Margaret is on record as saying that she did not arrive in Dorset Street until around 1900, and that her daughter Matilda was apparently born in Holloway in 1886 suggests she was probably not the same person. Tom tells us that there was 'at least' one other Margaret Sullivan in Whitechapel at the time. Of course, since 1888 was not a census year, we have no idea how many there might have been. But if you look at the 81 and 91 censuses and trawl through press reports and court records, you will see it was not an uncommon name. 'At least one' is no doubt the literal truth, but it is very misleading. There were probably scores, if not hundreds, of women with the same name in London in 1888.

        And the central role played by Pearly Poll in Tom's conspiracy theory has been somewhat undermined by research showing that she was languishing in an infirmary when she was supposed to have been fingering Pizer in Church Street.

        There's no doubt that Daniel Sullivan was involved in a ham-fisted attempt to cover up the fact that Austin was attacked on his brother-in-law's premises on his (Daniel's) watch, but beyond that there is not the slightest shred of evidence of his being involved in any of the murders.

        Comment


        • #49
          I never thought of Druitt as a good suspect... I always felt the "evidence" was his family thinking he may have been the Ripper due to his "deviance' which in all likelihood was homosexuality...not making him a valid suspect, but with Victorian values I can see why the family would think "well if you are deviant enough to be homosexual he must be deviant enough to hack up women" not good enough for me to see him as a valid suspect... the suicide was the other reason.. timing ya know...maybe I'm wrong but that was always my take on him.. again, I am not a Druitt expert so please forgive my ignorance if I am wrong.

          Steadmund Brand
          "The truth is what is, and what should be is a fantasy. A terrible, terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago."- Lenny Bruce

          Comment


          • #50
            Druitt cannot be thought of as a 'wildcard' suspect seeing as he was listed by a contemporary policeman. Whether or not Macnaghten had just cause for including him, however, is another matter entirely.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
              Daniel Sullivan's mother was named Ellen. It was his sister Margaret whom Tom suggested was connected to Pearly Poll.

              His evidence for that was that she shared the same name as a Mog Sullivan mentioned as living alongside Pearly in Dorset Street in 1888. On that flimsy basis it was suggested that Daniel was 'probably' one of the Whitechapel murderers.

              The fact that Margaret is on record as saying that she did not arrive in Dorset Street until around 1900, and that her daughter Matilda was apparently born in Holloway in 1886 suggests she was probably not the same person. Tom tells us that there was 'at least' one other Margaret Sullivan in Whitechapel at the time. Of course, since 1888 was not a census year, we have no idea how many there might have been. But if you look at the 81 and 91 censuses and trawl through press reports and court records, you will see it was not an uncommon name. 'At least one' is no doubt the literal truth, but it is very misleading. There were probably scores, if not hundreds, of women with the same name in London in 1888.

              And the central role played by Pearly Poll in Tom's conspiracy theory has been somewhat undermined by research showing that she was languishing in an infirmary when she was supposed to have been fingering Pizer in Church Street.

              There's no doubt that Daniel Sullivan was involved in a ham-fisted attempt to cover up the fact that Austin was attacked on his brother-in-law's premises on his (Daniel's) watch, but beyond that there is not the slightest shred of evidence of his being involved in any of the murders.
              Hello,

              Yes, he's definitely a wildcard suspect! However, didn't he initially move Austin to a different bed before dressing her in someone else's clothes? Might that suggest that he was intending to cover up more than the fact that she was killed on his watch?

              Comment


              • #52
                Hi Pcdunn,
                Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
                James Kelly intrigues me. I'm trying to find out more about these other murders in various American cities he may have visited. There were several murders of prostitutes in Denver in the 1890s, including a Frenchwoman and a woman from Japan, but it is unclear if they were killed by the same man who was arrested for it.
                I have also come across a newspaper story from New York City about the death of an older streetwalker whose name was unknown, but whose nickname was "Old Shakespeare" (anyone know if this is Carrie Brown?) It is rather grisly in the details of the murder.
                Yes, Carrie Brown's nickname was "Old Shakespear", as she purported to be an actress in her youth, and was fond of quoting Shakespear when drinking.
                Regards,
                MacGuffin
                --------------------
                "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • #53
                  Let's face it all of these so called suspects were only looked at by the police out of desperation when you have no real suspect anything must look good and I think the best of the bunch found their way into sir Melvilles famous memo.If they had been any real evidence against any of them we would know and in the case of Kosminski once he had his shawl taken of him and was locked up in the asylum would he have been left to rot and the police forget about him I think not and what about the witness who refused to give evidence in case a fellow Jew was hung this witness would have been hounded by the police to say the least.I think everyone who has been proposed as jack the ripper could be considered as a wild card.
                  Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I'm not sure if they count as wildcards but i'll go with James Kelly or Jacob Levy.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      If Mary Kelly is key to solving the murders, as many believe, then 'the other Joe' has to be considered a wildcard suspect.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        If he could be shown to be n London at the time Deeming makes a good subject.

                        But he is an interesting subject in his own right.
                        G U T

                        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by GUT View Post
                          If he could be shown to be n London at the time Deeming makes a good subject.

                          But he is an interesting subject in his own right.
                          It's always a very good start to make sure a suspect is in the country at the time of the murders even better if he was in London I know when sickret was proposed the argument about if he was in the country at the time was never resolved but the book went ahead and of course we were told case closed.
                          Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
                            It's always a very good start to make sure a suspect is in the country at the time of the murders even better if he was in London I know when sickret was proposed the argument about if he was in the country at the time was never resolved but the book went ahead and of course we were told case closed.
                            The problem is we can't say with any certainty where he was at the time, many say he was in South Africa, others say he was in London, unfortunately it seems, at this stage, very much open to debate.
                            G U T

                            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by GUT View Post
                              The problem is we can't say with any certainty where he was at the time, many say he was in South Africa, others say he was in London, unfortunately it seems, at this stage, very much open to debate.
                              How can some one write a book and claim case closed if they can't even place their subject in the UK at the time of the murders and expect us to take it seriously.
                              Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
                                How can some one write a book and claim case closed if they can't even place their subject in the UK at the time of the murders and expect us to take it seriously.
                                I know...it's like the H.H Holmes "theory" being floated around....all evidence points to Holmes (Mudgett) being in and around the Toronto Ontario Canada and Buffalo New York USA area at the times of the crimes.. oh well

                                Steadmund Brand
                                "The truth is what is, and what should be is a fantasy. A terrible, terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago."- Lenny Bruce

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X