Will we ever know?

[charlieh70]

I was just wondering if anyone knows why after over one hundred years, there is still no idea who Jack the Ripper was, yes everyone loves a mystery and everyone has their own idea who it was but the question still remains who was he? I know that this is the more unlikely theory but I am being pushed more to the idea of the Royal conspiracy, purely for the fact that it makes a lot of sense when you think about it maybe its just the fact that it sounds good!

[Graham]

I was just wondering if anyone knows why after over one hundred years, there is still no idea who Jack the Ripper was, yes everyone loves a mystery and everyone has their own idea who it was but the question still remains who was he? I know that this is the more unlikely theory but I am being pushed more to the idea of the Royal conspiracy, purely for the fact that it makes a lot of sense when you think about it maybe its just the fact that it sounds good!

Charlieh,

Get yo' sweet self over to the "So who was Jack the Ripper?" thread.

Graham

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I know that this is the more unlikely theory but I am being pushed more to the idea of the Royal conspiracy, purely for the fact that it makes a lot of sense when you think about it maybe its just the fact that it sounds good!

You're kidding, right?

All the best

[Graham]

You're kidding, right?

All the best

If Charlieh thinks the Royal Conspiracy is valid, then let him/her come over to the appropriate thread and argue his/her case. I'm waiting.....

All the best,

Graham

[poeface]

I don't think we'll ever know because 1) the police of the times didn't know how to deal with such crimes and so did a poor job of collecting and preserving the case evidence and 2) serial killers are "nobodies" and given how hard it is to catch these nobodies now the possibility of catching such a nobody 120 years after the fact is just going to decrease with every passing day.


I'm such a pessimist.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

No, you're not, poeface.
Just a realist with common sense.

All the best

[JilltheRipper]

tbh no one can say yes or no to this question but in my opinion if it was true about the whole Royal Conspiracy then surely to god the prostitutes would have realised by now that there was a pattern going on. how bad of a coincidence wuld it be? they would have said something and most likely they wuld have went to the papers. however.. i do see how people may come to think this is true. no one knows.

[DVV]

Hi JillTR,
Well, I simply know there is no reason to believe in the conspiracy theory!

Amitiés
DVV

[celee]

I was just wondering if anyone knows why after over one hundred years, there is still no idea who Jack the Ripper was, yes everyone loves a mystery and everyone has their own idea who it was but the question still remains who was he? I know that this is the more unlikely theory but I am being pushed more to the idea of the Royal conspiracy, purely for the fact that it makes a lot of sense when you think about it maybe its just the fact that it sounds good!

I feel we do have an idea who Jack the ripper was. I think the case has been solved. However, you can not convince ever person. There is no conclusive case to be made against anyone. I feeel Jack was one of four men.

Druitt
Kosminski
Chapman
Tumblety

Your friend, Brad

[DVV]

Hi Brad,
Druitt: Macnaghten favourite's suspect
Kosminski: Anderson's Jack -without the shadow of a doubt
Tumblety: Littlechild's suspect
Chapman: Abberline's suspect

If you trust that much contemporary police officials'views, how do you explain how contradictory they are?

Amitiés,
David

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Brad,

Most likely the three of them (Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety) were mainly three among other several suspects. Without doubt there may have been others just as likely, although they weren't singled out by Anderson and Macnaghten. Everything we have on them so far is suspicions or statements concerning them, made in retrospect by a coupe of officials in the spirit of pure personal opinions.
As for Chapman, there is no indication of that he ever was a contemporary suspect. He only appears to have been Abberline's little pet theory after 1903 in connection with Chapman's execution.

All the best

[Jeff Leahy]

Brad,

As for Chapman, there is no indication of that he ever was a contemporary suspect. He only appears to have been Abberline's little pet theory after 1903 in connection with Chapman's execution.

All the best

Yes, Chapman is interesting. A serial killer possibly working yards from the murder of Martha Tabram.

However I agree with Glenn. Chapman poisoned his victims. There is no evidance he killed in America or whether the time frames fit. Abberline never said Chapman. Someone said he did.

The Ripper crimes are specific and fit one mans mental state..

Chapman and Tumbelty are both wild stabs in the dark..

I'd stick with two.

Yours Jeff

[celee]

Hi Brad,
Druitt: Macnaghten favourite's suspect
Kosminski: Anderson's Jack -without the shadow of a doubt
Tumblety: Littlechild's suspect
Chapman: Abberline's suspect

If you trust that much contemporary police officials'views, how do you explain how contradictory they are?

Amitiés,
David

Hi,

Druitt was Macnaghten's favourite suspect. I feel that what ever information Macnaghten knew he learned from Monro. So, it is likely that Druitt was also Monro's prefered suspect.

I think Anderson and Swanson believed they knew who Jack the Ripper was. I believe a man was identified, as the Ripper, by a witness. However, I do not believe that the witness who came forward was believed by everyone who worked the case.

Abberline was just connecting the dots. No evidence at all against Chapman. However, Abberline believed if you could kill your wives in such an evil fashion, you could be Jack the ripper. It is not who Abberline points to as a suspect that is so interesting, to me, it is what he claims that makes me wonder. It is obvious that he thought Tabram was a Ripper victim. He claims that he never believed that the Ripper committed suicide or was insane. I believe he used the word "we" that infers the Detectives who worked the case. His statements flys in the face of Macnaghten and Anderson. His theory about Organ harvesting is interesting.

Littlechild was just giving his opinion. I have alot of ideas but I do not want to bore you.

How do I explain why the police officials' views are so differnt? They just did not have firm evidence against anyone. Anderson and Swanson put more stock in their witness then did others, Like Abberline and Monro. Abberline was just grasping years later. Littlechild was just giving an opinion.

Was there a cover up? Well Macnaghten claims to have destroyed private information but the Detectives who worked the case would not have put forth suspects that they knew could not have been Jack the Ripper. If Abberline, for example, knew for sure who the killer was he would just remain silent rather then put forth a fake suspect. So, I do not believe that there was a big cover up involving alot of people. However, I think that Monro was in position to keep information from others.

Your friend, Brad

[Mitch Rowe]

Brad,

Most likely the three of them (Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety) were mainly three among other several suspects. Without doubt there may have been others just as likely, although they weren't singled out by Anderson and Macnaghten. Everything we have on them so far is suspicions or statements concerning them, made in retrospect by a coupe of officials in the spirit of pure personal opinions.
As for Chapman, there is no indication of that he ever was a contemporary suspect. He only appears to have been Abberline's little pet theory after 1903 in connection with Chapman's execution.

All the best

I suspect Abberline would have a bone to pick with you about calling his gut feelings a "pet theory".
If we assume Abberline knew every name on any suspect list then we can assume Abberline didnt consider any of the names useful.

[perrymason]

I should think the safest bet here is to use the 3 men listed as potential profile candidates, and then add "they only thought they knew" to the equation.

Abberline and others were recorded as saying they thought no-one knew the identity of the killer...some, years later, long after these cases were effectively closed. I think what we have are personal opinions based on the facts we know of. And there is no case to be made against anyone in evidence, The Top Three... or anyone else, contrary to some of those senior investigative opinions.

Will there ever be a man caught? Probably not. But I do believe we can potentially re-configure the Canon using some links and data as yet unknown.

For example....what if Joe Fleming, while under no suspicion for any crime but merely an inmate in an insane asylum confides to his doctor in one visit that he killed Kelly and made it look like "Jack done it."

Would those doctors notes, if they existed, impact the perceptions about Millers Court?

Best regards.