I think I have found him.

[Patrick S]

I posted this over on the 'Double Event' post based on some info Pierre threw out there. I'll post it here, too:

I GOT IT! I’m thinking John Ruskin. He was a little old in 1888. Almost 70. Perhaps he became Jack the Ripper because of the whole Effie Gray John Millais triangle thing? It’s been said he suffered a breakdown in 1888, right?

Am I warm?

[Rosella]

^^ I think it's EW Hornung, Conan Doyle's brother in law, the man who wrote the Raffles stories about an amoral and rather cynical gentleman burglar. These stories were incredibly popular in Victorian Britain and are still known today.

Hornung was only 22 in 1888 but had a moustache and looked older. He was a journalist in London throughout the Ripper killings and it was said that he became interested in criminology as a result.

Hornung had worked on sheep stations in Australia to build up his strength, and would have learned how to slaughter animals.

[Patrick S]

^^ I think it's EW Hornung, Conan Doyle's brother in law, the man who wrote the Raffles stories about an amoral and rather cynical gentleman burglar. These stories were incredibly popular in Victorian Britain and are still known today.

Hornung was only 22 in 1888 but had a moustache and looked older. He was a journalist in London throughout the Ripper killings and it was said that he became interested in criminology as a result.

Hornung had worked on sheep stations in Australia to build up his strength, and would have learned how to slaughter animals.

Rosella - Your guy is way better than mine.....

[Pcdunn]

Guess the Ripper

Rosella - Your guy is way better than mine.....

Perhaps it was Bram Stoker?

[Shaggyrand]

Perhaps it was Bram Stoker?

Partnered with Dan Leno. He's found a code hidden in Leno's plays and the fourth, sixth and ninth chapters of Dracula.

[Pierre]

Pierre,

Given your virtual certainty (sans the final piece of evidence/research to all but cement your assertion) what are your opinions of other presented suspects throughout 'Ripperology' history? Have you identified any repeated omission, mis-interpreation, or missed angle, in their respective cases that these investigators should address to recognise and/or admit their own 'persons of interest' are incorrect?

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

Hi,

I haven´t studied the others since I think I have found the killer. But from what I have seen the biggest problem with all the others is lack of a connection to every victim, lack of a clear motive, lack of enough resources to be the killer and - methodologically - I have found many misinterpretations of the material from the 19th Century.

Regards Pierre

[Sleuth1888]

Without necessarily blurting out the name of the killer, will you be able to give us a few examples of what you think the true case details and interpretations are based on the assumption that current and former understanding of the case is incorrect?

Thanks,
Sleuth

[Pierre]

Without necessarily blurting out the name of the killer, will you be able to give us a few examples of what you think the true case details and interpretations are based on the assumption that current and former understanding of the case is incorrect?

Thanks,
Sleuth

I can only say that you have to be absolutely free of bias and foreknowledge when you go through data. If you read the data with any presuppositions you will miss out on things and make the wrong choices and interpretations. For example you will fail to recognize important data that others have missed and you will draw conclusions that are not historically correct. You must let the data kick back. You have to be prepared to find things that you don´t understand and still keep them and research them. The pattern of Jack the Ripper is both simple and complex. You will find data where you least expect it and you will find obvious things that you don´t understand. And history has destroyed knowledge about this killer, so you have to deconstruct history first.

Regards Pierre

[Sleuth1888]

Thank you for our reply Pierre.

May I ask, what is your primary research source?

[GUT]

What is the "data" you keep mentioning?

[Pierre]

Thank you for our reply Pierre.

May I ask, what is your primary research source?

Historical data sources produced by the killer and produced by others.

Regards Pierre

[Harry D]

Hi,

I haven´t studied the others since I think I have found the killer. But from what I have seen the biggest problem with all the others is lack of a connection to every victim, lack of a clear motive, lack of enough resources to be the killer and - methodologically - I have found many misinterpretations of the material from the 19th Century.

Regards Pierre

Why does the killer need to have a connection to every victim?

[DJA]

Why does the killer need to have a connection to every victim?

Truth of the matter is that he did.

The murders were not random.

Ever considered that the women were hunting Jack?

Look at the changes of addresses and proximities to each other that resulted.

Check Kate and Liz's movements during the day and early evening.

Ever considered that they and BS man were working together.

Eddowes was ill and still exhausted from the trek back from Kent.

Didn't take much for her to become intoxicated and unconscious.

Notice how quickly she recovered and her concern about the time.

[Mister Whitechapel]

Hi,

I haven´t studied the others since I think I have found the killer. But from what I have seen the biggest problem with all the others is lack of a connection to every victim, lack of a clear motive, lack of enough resources to be the killer and - methodologically - I have found many misinterpretations of the material from the 19th Century.

Regards Pierre

I see. Thank you for your insight; I am sure this will spur others to review their methodology with a more critical eye to reach the same conclusion as you will, perhaps, one day share with the world.

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

[caz]

I posted this over on the 'Double Event' post based on some info Pierre threw out there. I'll post it here, too:

I GOT IT! I’m thinking John Ruskin. He was a little old in 1888. Almost 70. Perhaps he became Jack the Ripper because of the whole Effie Gray John Millais triangle thing? It’s been said he suffered a breakdown in 1888, right?

Am I warm?

I think most people know John Ruskin existed, don't they?

I thought Pierre said nobody knows (yet) of his suspect's existence.

Or has he gone back on that?

Love,

Caz
X