Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Still a viable suspect?

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

  • Still a viable suspect?

    I have never really studied Stephenson as a suspect. No, scratch that, I have never studied him at all so really do not know nothing. All I know is the basics and the rather confusing theory proposed by Ivor Edwards, which just confused me somewhat!! Anyway, I wanted to study Stephenson more as a suspect and was just wondering if what has been written about him is still worthy of looking into as I have heard that a lot of what has been said in the past has proven to be untrue. Is D'Onston as a suspect, and what is written about him being the Ripper, worth looking into or am I just wasting my time like I did with Sickert all those years ago?!
    Best regards,
    Adam


    "They assumed Kelly was the last... they assumed wrong" - Me

  • #2
    UJ:

    Based on the incredible research compiled by fellow Ripperologists Mike Covell, and Howard Brown, it's been pretty much suggested and followed up with evidence that Stephenson was not the Ripper. I have not followed their research closely to suggest the details (I'll allow Mike or How the pleasure of that) But mostly he's another suspect who can mostly be eliminated and doesn't "fit the bill".

    Regards,
    Justin
    They who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape those who dream only by night. - Edgar Allan Poe

    Comment


    • #3
      D'Onston Still a Viable Police Suspect

      Originally posted by Uncle Jack View Post
      I have never really studied Stephenson as a suspect. No, scratch that, I have never studied him at all so really do not know nothing. All I know is the basics and the rather confusing theory proposed by Ivor Edwards, which just confused me somewhat!! Anyway, I wanted to study Stephenson more as a suspect and was just wondering if what has been written about him is still worthy of looking into as I have heard that a lot of what has been said in the past has proven to be untrue. Is D'Onston as a suspect, and what is written about him being the Ripper, worth looking into or am I just wasting my time like I did with Sickert all those years ago?!
      Hi Uncle Jack,

      Yes, D'Onston is still a viable suspect simply because he is one of the best documented Scotland Yard suspects we have. That cannot be set aside with a wave of the hand and opinion. Unlike Walter Sickert, who has no police file, a study of D'Onston yields a great deal about the times and the police investigation on the Whitechapel murders and certainly is not wasted time as he has been researched since at least the late 1950's.

      He may not have been Jack the Ripper but he had drawn enough attention when he injected himself into the case. It is really, I think up to the individual to form an independant view on D'Onston taking into consideration all the evidence.

      I have prepared a summary of the police documentation on this suspect you may like to also consider:

      http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=162
      Jack the Ripper Writers -- An online community of crime writers and historians.

      http://ripperwriters.aforumfree.com

      http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...nd-black-magic

      "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Uncle Jack,

        If you have not done so already I suggest you read Melvyn Harris book "The True Face of Jack the Ripper", which is probably the best account of Robert Donston Stephenson we have. You will also find much information here at Casebook and also on Howard's site.

        I have researched the man for the last five or six years, and in my opinion he is no more likely to have been JTR than the man in the moon. However I have enjoyed the chase and learnt a great deal. Give it a go, and if you have any questions we shall all be here to help.

        Rgds
        John

        Comment


        • #5
          I liked Ivor Edwards book even though I thought ultimately it seems like fitting a round peg in a square hole. I mean one of the murders is off on his diagram by 63 yards I think but this is done by the killer for cover. Which I then thought 'Well why didn't the Ripper just move into another spot which does fit?' I mean the basis of him as a suspect is his plotting the murders with a map and compass but still doesn't get it right? Just doesn't seem to add up. But nonetheless I don't mean to sound to harsh. I appreciate Ivor Edwards book and his passion to the case regardless
          Jordan

          Comment


          • #6
            I seem to remember a poster on here who found that d'onston used the exact same phrase as one if the ripper letters in his own writing like the same day or close to it. This really intrigues me. Does anyone remember?

            Comment

            Working...
            X