Is there a chance someone knows for sure the identity of the ripper?

[SuspectZero]

The problem with your "illustrated" suspect is he ran off to Dieppe due to involvement in a later scandal due to liking male prostitutes. Still, he may have detested female prostitutes enough to kill a few.

Lord Arthur lived in France until his death, which I believe was in the 1920s.

Jeff

I think he said "not Mr. A though."

[DJA]

"I want to believe!!!"



Go ahead, believe.

Instead of doing your homework,you have decided to troll me twice.

I have a sense of humour.

That is simply pathetic.

Edit. Jim Drysdale was a Criminologist,Professor of Psychology and a Reverend.

Scotland Yard asked him to go over and assist them.

He treated other Psychologists and Psychiatrists.

He was also a hypnotherapist. Probably only second to Robert McNeilly in Australia. I also knew Harry Stevenson.

When I finally complete my project,I intend dedicating it to him.

Your credentials?

[Wickerman]

Of course the women could not possibly have been attempting to blackmail Jack.

Oh dear, oh dear...good grief!!!
Beam me up Scotty...

[Wickerman]

That is so naive.

What has happened in Australia,just over the last twenty years alone, shows how wrong you are, even in modern times.

Police,medicos,clerics,politicians,trade unionists,etc.

The "Underbelly" TV series might open your eyes.

One of the journalists behind the original book ,John Silvester,grew up with a well known policeman for a father.
He is also a Hawthorn supporter with a sense of humour
Carna Hawks!

Not that long ago,an ex under cover policeman described the force as being 70% corrupt.

I know of one case where a high ranking Judge got police to entrap a criminal for rape in a Kew hotel.
The prostitute had been flown down from Sydney and set up in the criminals usual hotel.
You can guess why.
All the press could run with was "It's Not OK To Rape A Prostitute".

Been helping a friend bring his story to the screen.It includes some of the Underbelly characters in their early days.
One of Russell Crowe's producers has shown a lingering interest.
Ray Mooney is script editor.

Christopher Dale Flannery and Roger Rogerson are worth looking up.

Bit early on a Sunday morning for me,however was there not a big police scandal around that time in London.

If police cover up for a criminal and he escalates further down the track due to blackmail attempts,they have their hand well and truly stuck in the gourd.

PS. My favourite niece is a career policewoman.
Time spent as an Academy Instructor seems to have bored her,so she is now on a First Strike Team.

A cousin lost his life in the Line of Duty.

I have worked with a Criminologist, Prof. Jim Drysdale, who was much more than just that.

"I want to believe!!!"



Go ahead, believe.

[DJA]

Deleted.

[DJA]

You might also keep in mind that a family or set of friends of somebody suspected of being a killer might close ranks because they share the same opinion of the killer towards his or her victims.

Getting closer.

I don't think Dr. Phillips quite thought that way, which placed him a in a conflicting position.

The CV5 were different characters.

Jack possibly viewed them that way.

Suspect he felt betrayed by Eddowes.

Mary Kelly engineered the whole thing.

[DJA]

The Ripper took advantage of weak, poor & vulnerable women.

A killer of this type is rarely viewed by the public as anything other than a pure monster. A family member may have had knowledge, or suspicions, but I doubt anyone outside the immediate family would keep quite if they had intimate knowledge of these types of murders.

Of course the women could not possibly have been attempting to blackmail Jack.

Have you ever read WE Gladstone's letter to The Times!

[DJA]

Forget the cover up, too melodramatic.

On the one hand we can accept a family cover up, this happens all the time. We might also consider an institutional cover up by the Medical Association in so far as to play down the publication of any medical evidence to avoid the scandal of suspecting a physician.
However, if it became known (by admission, or from personal knowledge) within the institution (be that the police or medical) that a member was guilty, I have no doubt no such cover up would be entertained by either institution.

It is quite one thing to cover up certain details in case the press, and by extension the public, adopt the wrong impression, but once a culprit is identified, even internally, it is quite another matter to cover up the guilty party.

So the cover up theory has very defined limitations, in the real world.

That is so naive.

What has happened in Australia,just over the last twenty years alone, shows how wrong you are, even in modern times.

Police,medicos,clerics,politicians,trade unionists,etc.

The "Underbelly" TV series might open your eyes.

One of the journalists behind the original book ,John Silvester,grew up with a well known policeman for a father.
He is also a Hawthorn supporter with a sense of humour
Carna Hawks!

Not that long ago,an ex under cover policeman described the force as being 70% corrupt.

I know of one case where a high ranking Judge got police to entrap a criminal for rape in a Kew hotel.
The prostitute had been flown down from Sydney and set up in the criminals usual hotel.
You can guess why.
All the press could run with was "It's Not OK To Rape A Prostitute".

Been helping a friend bring his story to the screen.It includes some of the Underbelly characters in their early days.
One of Russell Crowe's producers has shown a lingering interest.
Ray Mooney is script editor.

Christopher Dale Flannery and Roger Rogerson are worth looking up.

Bit early on a Sunday morning for me,however was there not a big police scandal around that time in London.

If police cover up for a criminal and he escalates further down the track due to blackmail attempts,they have their hand well and truly stuck in the gourd.

PS. My favourite niece is a career policewoman.
Time spent as an Academy Instructor seems to have bored her,so she is now on a First Strike Team.

A cousin lost his life in the Line of Duty.

I have worked with a Criminologist, Prof. Jim Drysdale, who was much more than just that.

[Wickerman]

One significant factor does not seem to be present in the above examples. The Ripper took advantage of weak, poor & vulnerable women. These destitute members of society garner pity even in life, but to victimize them to death usually carries no favour with anyone.

A killer of this type is rarely viewed by the public as anything other than a pure monster. A family member may have had knowledge, or suspicions, but I doubt anyone outside the immediate family would keep quite if they had intimate knowledge of these types of murders.

[DJA]

The problem with your "illustrated" suspect is he ran off to Dieppe due to involvement in a later scandal due to liking male prostitutes. Still, he may have detested female prostitutes enough to kill a few.

Lord Arthur lived in France until his death, which I believe was in the 1920s.

Jeff

You certainly missed my points.

Thoroughly aware of the timing of the Cleveland Street Scandal.

Abberline and Matthews ran both cases.

The real culprits were not caught in either case.

Jack the Ripper's murder victims were painted as prostitutes.

You will eventually find the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 to be behind both cases.

Once again,clues were and still are missed and even argued against.

[Mayerling]

You might also keep in mind that a family or set of friends of somebody suspected of being a killer might close ranks because they share the same opinion of the killer towards his or her victims. This is true regarding the 18th Century "Appin" Murder in Scotland of the "Red Fox" of the Campbell Clan, shot in a forest in 1754. A man was hanged for the killing after a questionable trial in front of a jury made up of the victim's kin. The general view is that the defendant was not guilty (although he knew who did it) and no member of his family ever revealed the actual criminal (in 1900 Andrew Lang wrote of the mystery and concluded the descendants of those who knew still knew the true identity but would never give it - although by 1900 this knowledge had no further bad effect on the persons who knew the truth in they could no longer be punished.

The same thing is true about the "mysterious" slaying of William Clements, 3rd Earl of Leitrim, in 1878 in Ireland. Arrests followed, but nobody was tried for the killing - one of the arrested parties died of natural causes in jail. Today there is a monument to the honor of the three men who killed Leitrim, and their names are listed.

Frequently these loyalties deal with political matters ("Jacobite" v. collaborators in the "Appin" murder; "Landlordism" v. budding Irish nationalism in the murder of Lord Leitrim). Interestingly it can be inflicted on a group. For some time the spot where Gavrillo Princip stood when he assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, was marked by false "footprints" posed on the spot. The Yugoslav government did this in the 1920s, when the Serbians (Princip's homeland) controlled the country. Tito never removed them, but after his death, when Yugoslavia broke up, Bosnians (who hated being annexed to Yugoslavia after World War I) demolished the hated footprints.

I don't know of many private defendants in criminal matters who retain such a loyalty. Yet years ago, in college, I met a descendant of one of the Salem "witches". But these poor people are now considered fully innocent of the charges that hanged them.

Jeff

[Wickerman]

Forget the cover up, too melodramatic.

On the one hand we can accept a family cover up, this happens all the time. We might also consider an institutional cover up by the Medical Association in so far as to play down the publication of any medical evidence to avoid the scandal of suspecting a physician.
However, if it became known (by admission, or from personal knowledge) within the institution (be that the police or medical) that a member was guilty, I have no doubt no such cover up would be entertained by either institution.

It is quite one thing to cover up certain details in case the press, and by extension the public, adopt the wrong impression, but once a culprit is identified, even internally, it is quite another matter to cover up the guilty party.

So the cover up theory has very defined limitations, in the real world.

[Mayerling]

This person is wearing shoes and gaiters, and was around horses a lot.

Not Mr A though.

Abberline and Matthews pretty much ran his case.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Major_Lord_Henry_Arthur_George_Somerset_%281851-1926%29%2C_-_Vanity_fair_nov_19_1887.jpg

He left for Dieppe in a hurry.

Mary Kelly's landlord lived there before becoming an English landlord. Pure coincidence.

Oddly,Walter Sickert also resided in Dieppe and painted the thriving racehorse scene.Not the Ripper though.

The problem with your "illustrated" suspect is he ran off to Dieppe due to involvement in a later scandal due to liking male prostitutes. Still, he may have detested female prostitutes enough to kill a few.

Lord Arthur lived in France until his death, which I believe was in the 1920s.

Jeff

[DJA]

Reckon Jack knew he was not going to be caught and had a bit of jolly.

If he was caught,all Hell would break loose.

[harry]

With most killers,especially of the serial kind,I believe there is an element of a gamble involved.That is,they figure they could be caught,but consider also there is a chance they can beat the odds,and like most gamblers it becomes an obsession to win.Such persons,I am convinced, also like it known they are or was successful,and either leave evidence,or intrude into the investigation.Part of the game?