A New Theory as to the Killer's Identity

[jerryd]

Just wondering. Were prisoners really let out on license in Victorian times? I'm not sure they were.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4,

William Wallace Brodie was in London on license in late August of 1888, after being released early from a 14 year year sentence for larceny.

[MysterySinger]

Hallo Mysterysinger

Could you point me in the direction of said letter?

Cheers
C4

Yes it's post #34 on this thread.

[curious4]

Thank you both !

C4

[David Orsam]

He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in 1879 having been convicted of rape.

Great stuff! This is the kind of augmentation I was hoping for from members of this forum. So now we have a candidate who is proven to have committed a serious sexual offence. How many others can that be said about?

What fools the police are, he even gave them his name.

[David Orsam]

Do we have info on the communication referred to in Monro's second letter from an anonymous source?

No, the file doesn't contain any enclosures to letters.

[David Orsam]

The Monro letter of August 1888 indicated that William Ripper was out on licence.

I believe he would have been commonly known as 'a ticket of leave man'.

[David Orsam]

So that was your sociological experiment David: To demonstrate to the posters on the forum here "How anyone can extract a theory from the slimmest material".

I think you need to find out what a sociological experiment actually is Pierre. This wasn't one. It was a demonstration of the absurdity of the type of arguments you have been peddling on this forum so far. I can see that it has not registered with you – although your attempts to distance yourself from the letter perhaps suggest that it has.

[jerryd]

Great stuff! This is the kind of augmentation I was hoping for from members of this forum. So now we have a candidate who is proven to have committed a serious sexual offence. How many others can that be said about?

What fools the police are, he even gave them his name.

David,

You also have one (Brodie) that admitted to killing all the Whitechapel victims including Alice McKenzie. He made that admission once in July of 1889 and also in South Africa shortly before arriving in Whitechapel before the McKenzie murder. Brodie is not available for all the murders, granted, but I have a feeling he may have known something. He happened to live at 2, Harvey's Buildings at the time of the McKenzie murder in 1889. Also residing at 2, Harvey's Buildings at the same time was our friend John Arnold of Pinchin Torso fame. In the same block was the office of Charles LeGrand on Agar Street. A strange set of coincidences in my opinion.

[David Orsam]

I have told you several times that the source I have is not a source on which I have built the theory of who the killer is.

You said you understood that.

No I didn't. I said that I understood you want to now say it. But you have said different things at different times.

On 18 September, you listed the letter as one of 9 elements of your theory, under the heading of things you 'know' about the murderer. You said, 'He wrote a letter to the editor in a paper not signing it “Jack the Ripper” where he gave the exact address to one of the murder sites.' We now know this is not true, that you falsely represented the nature of the letter and that the author did not give the exact address to one of the murder sites. As you said to me on 14 November, 'What do yo think, David? Do you think the Whitechapel murderer wrote the exact adress to the police?' and 'If he had written the actual names, the police would have been there waiting for him.' There is also no reason to suppose your suspect even wrote the letter.

Despite this, you elaborated on the content of the letter in a post dated 13 November, adding new elements to it:

'I have found such a letter (unknown by ripperology) in the press. He uses a metaphorical language and gives the adress to Miller´s Court, the name of Mary Jane Kelly, her room number and the date of the murder.'

We know now that this is not true and that the author of the letter gives neither the address nor the name of Mary Jane Kelly in the letter. So you falsely represented the nature of the letter once again.

As we see in your post of 14 November, where now Mary Jane Kelly has vanished and we are left only with a 'Mary'. Thus:

"I have also told you about a letter I think he wrote in the press, giving the adress to Miller´s Court and the name of the victim: Mary."

Yet, it would seem - you never say anything clearly - that even the name Mary is not mentioned in the letter but it merely makes some sort of allusion to Tennyson (presumably not mentioning Tennyson either) – 'a hint at Tennyson' - and one of Tennyson's plays was called 'Queen Mary'. That is how you tease the name Mary Jane Kelly from the letter!

You also said on 14 November:

'I believe that is why I think I have found him. I found his trail.' - So you were explicitly linking the letter, i.e. his trail, to a reason why you thought you have found the killer.

Furthermore, in the same post, you said that the letter was not 'the starting point for the theory' and not one of the 'corner stones'. But it clearly forms part of your theory otherwise you would not have mentioned it. In your own words:'I can only allow myself to think that letters predicting the murders could have been written by the murderer'. I mean, if you have a letter in which your suspect reveals, in coded form, the location and names of his next victims before killing them, it simply must be part of your theory. Anything else would not make sense other than an appreciation that the letter is not from your suspect and does not reveal the location and names of his next victims.

[curious4]

I believe he would have been commonly known as 'a ticket of leave man'.

Wouldn't his license have been revoked if he was caught commiting a crime, however small? I can't see him being able to pay his fine, so he would presumably have been locked up and then made to serve the rest of his sentence.

Best wishes
C4

[David Orsam]

Wouldn't his license have been revoked if he was caught commiting a crime, however small? I can't see him being able to pay his fine, so he would presumably have been locked up and then made to serve the rest of his sentence.

Well he was convicted on 12 June of being drunk & disorderly and the Home Office were requesting a report on 17 August as to his conduct and character since his release from prison, so that doesn't look to be what has happened here.

[MysterySinger]

Re William Ripper - here's some evidence for you...more to follow

[MysterySinger]

And another for you...

[curious4]

Well he was convicted on 12 June of being drunk & disorderly and the Home Office were requesting a report on 17 August as to his conduct and character since his release from prison, so that doesn't look to be what has happened here.

No, there's no getting away from that "since", although I'd like to. Wanting to know what his behaviour was like during the period he was out of prison. But no, will have to admit defeat on this one. Don't think he was the killer though, if they had their eyes on him in august, surely he would have been carefully watched. Especially with a name like Ripper!

[MysterySinger]

No I doubt he was JTR. However, if it was him - and the Police knew about it he was locked away again - I doubt they'd want to publicise the fact. How would it look? Name of Ripper, deliberately released on licence, all that terror and those women needlessly killed. Not a good day for the Justice system.