Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

James Kelly vs. Robert Mann?

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

  • James Kelly vs. Robert Mann?

    I just want people's opinions here of between these two who do you think was more likely to have been 'Jack the Ripper', and why? I chose these two because they have had the two most recent television shows dedicated to them. Thanks.

    I'll post this for RM and the main section for best coverage.

  • #2
    James Kelly ofcourse, he atleast actually killed someone.

    Arguing for Mann is about as logical as arguing for Abberline being the ripper, because they both had access to the bodies and scenes. lame

    Comment


    • #3
      Out of those two, I'd say James Kelly.
      "You want to take revenge for my murdered sister? Sister would definitely have not ... we would not have wanted you to be like this."

      ~ Angelina Durless

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by FutureM.D. View Post
        James Kelly ofcourse, he atleast actually killed someone.

        Arguing for Mann is about as logical as arguing for Abberline being the ripper, because they both had access to the bodies and scenes. lame
        Just to put the record straight Kelly was never proven guilty of any murder

        Comment


        • #5
          Robert Mann isn't and never was a suspect, so he's out from the get-go. As for Kelly, he too doesn't have legs to stand on as a suspect, but at least the argument for him isn't quite so ridiculous.

          Yours truly,

          Tom Wescott

          Comment


          • #6
            Neither of them should be in the top level of likely suspects, but agree with everyone else that James Kelly is the better of the two. Having said that, and I'll probably get scolded for saying this, but Robert Mann is far from being the worst suspect that's been put forward.....

            Cheers,
            Adam.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi Adam. I'd have to agree with you on that, considering some suspects, including police suspect Michael Ostrog, weren't even in London at the time of some or all of the murders, whereas Robert Mann was.

              Yours truly,

              Tom Wescott

              Comment


              • #8
                Pleased that we agree, Tom. One would think it should be a pre-requisite in order to suspect someone that they were actually in London, or even England in general, during the period of all the murders. Unfortunately, some theorists would beg to differ on this.....

                Cheers,
                Adam.

                Comment


                • #9
                  In all fairness to the Met Police, they didn't know where Ostrog was. Why they didn't consult with French authorities, on this matter, or even if they did, I don't know. He fit their profile... just like Druitt and Kosminsky... insane, suicidal, homicidal maniac - etc; and with Druitt and Ostrog - medical knowledge... though Druitt was a lawyer and Ostrog a charletan. There you go.

                  I believe it was Sugden who finally traced Ostrog down some 100 years after the MM.
                  Best Wishes,
                  Hunter
                  ____________________________________________

                  When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    Just to put the record straight Kelly was never proven guilty of any murder
                    what? he was found guilty of murder, admitted to it, and his mother in law was in the room when he committed it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      Just to put the record straight Kelly was never proven guilty of any murder
                      Beg your pardon Trevor?

                      Kelly was tried for Murder on August 1st, 1883. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. His sentence was then commuted on August 17th.

                      In what way does this constitute never being proven guilty of any murder?
                      Say hello: http://www.myspace.com/alansharpauthor

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I saw both recent documentaries, enjoyed watching both of them, and appreciated the passion Mr. Trow and Detective Norris brought during each presentation. I may have missed something, but during Trow's analysis of Martha Tabram's murder it was stated that Mann came upon Tabram's already dead body and then began stabbing at it. What was never explained was who killed her first and how it was done. Did anyone else notice this? Also I'm just not quite sure about Detective Norris penning Brown as the tenth Ripper victim then counting the canonical five and of course, Kelly's wife while adding three other victims in. I think he included Martha Tabram in that so that would leave two more for 10. This link seems kind of flimsy to me I mean how do you chose which other two to include? Just some things I thought while watching them.
                        Jordan

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If I have to choose between the two, then Kelly is the only choice. Mann is, in my opinion, a complete non-starter.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Chainz,

                            Not only Brown, but he also included a woman found in the Hudson river (I think), but he doesn't give a date or a name.

                            I like Kelly as suspect, but the detective work was shoddy.

                            Mike
                            huh?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ripper1 View Post
                              I just want people's opinions here of between these two who do you think was more likely to have been 'Jack the Ripper', and why? I chose these two because they have had the two most recent television shows dedicated to them. Thanks.

                              I'll post this for RM and the main section for best coverage.
                              Hi Ripper
                              Kelly. He is as good a suspect as any other.

                              Known murderer of woman by knife, local-knew area well, quite the slippery fellow,user of prostitutes, had Mommy issues, contemporary person of interest, fits witness description, escaped just prior to the murders and deemed INSANE.

                              He was crazy allright, like a fox.
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X