Rippercast- The Jack the Ripper Podcast

[Bailey]

Sounds like a good one - I'm not that up to speed on Cutbush so will be very interested. And yay to AP for putting himself out there

B.

[jmenges]

Upcoming episode on Thomas Cutbush

Hi all,

After being off for a couple of weeks, Rippercast is back this Sunday with a discussion of suspect Thomas Cutbush.

Joining the show will be special guest AP Wolf. Also appearing will be Paul Begg, Ben Holme, Howard Brown, Ally Ryder (hopefully) and others.

Any questions or comments from listeners about the suspect candidacy of Thomas Cutbush that you would like us to address to our guest and participants, should be emailed to rippernet@mac.com , Private Messaged to myself, or left as a comment below.

Thanks for listening,

Stay Tuned!



JM

[White-Knight]

I still think leave the list long, but create a premier league..the criteria for which...

1. interviewed/considered by the police investigation at the time.

and/or

2. demonstrated a history of violent crime.

if culling is really the aim, JM...same criteria, lose the lower divisions!?

WK.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Chris:

If you have Skype capability or accessibility, would you consider appearing on Rippercast to offer your criteria for suspects as you've just mentioned,but with further elaboration ?

Thanks...

[Chris]

No more thoughts on eliminating suspects? What criteria do you use? Establish a firm alibi for the suspect? Or rehabilitate the name if solid evidence is lacking?

Time is running out for listener input. We record tomorrow.

I suppose you could safely eliminate the following:
(1) Suspects with an alibi (e.g. Price Albert Victor);
(2) Suspects who didn't exist (e.g. Pedachenko);
(3) Suspects against whom the only substantive evidence is faked (e.g. Sir John Williams);
(4) Suspects against whom the only evidence is frivolous (e.g. Lewis Carroll).

But based on past experience, there would be endless arguments about which suspects these criteria applied to - particularly (3) and (4).

To be honest, I think that rather than starting with a huge long list of all the people who've ever been suspected and trying to whittle it down, it would be better to start with an empty list and insist on some reasonable grounds for suspicion before adding names to it. Though obviously the "standard of proof" would have to be extremely lax, as there's no proper evidence against any of them ...

[Roy Corduroy]

Establish a firm alibi for the suspect?

That's a good idea. Prince Albert Victor can be eliminated that way. I've noticed it in Press Reports. Be reading about something, and there is a notice in the paper where he was on such and such day.

But the he was never suspected of actually doing the killing, right, just being part of something. Or was he? Just a thought. Good luck with this one.

Roy

[jmenges]

No more thoughts on eliminating suspects? What criteria do you use? Establish a firm alibi for the suspect? Or rehabilitate the name if solid evidence is lacking?

Time is running out for listener input. We record tomorrow.

JM

[Sam Flynn]

That's it, Ally, I was bred to be sure footed over narrow passes, to get over mountains, and carry people and their goods safely home.

... doesn't mean you're a jackass, AP. On that evidence, you could just as well be a Sherpa - no wonder some people have a habit of tensing up when you're around.

[Cap'n Jack]

Okay, JM, let's do a Cutbush show sometime.

[Cap'n Jack]

That's it, Ally, I was bred to be sure footed over narrow passes, to get over mountains, and carry people and their goods safely home.

[Ally]

Hiya Jonathon,

Out of my boundless devotion to you and the podcast, I'll wait til some other opportunity on some other thread to point out what jackass I think AP is.

Peace out.

[jmenges]

JM, let me get this right,
as long as Im being villified, condemned and castigated you are more than happy for the thread to continue as such, but the very moment someone pops up to offer me some support, you claim it to be 'off-topic'.
Not in my court calender you don't.
You allow me, and anyone else, the courtesy and good manners to reply to negative comment about my good self, that have been made on this thread, and will be replied to on this thread.

Hi AP,

Comments made in reference to Cutbush's absence on the Casebook suspect list were fine by me. And I came onto this thread to clarify your status in regards to the podcast, i.e. that you, despite our occasional spats, are welcome to participate in the thing.

Once this thread became more about Ally's vs AP's approach to other posters, and White-Knight's possible ignorant newbie status, I thought it needed to get back on track.

I'd be more than happy to delete every post in response to my question save Grave Maurice's (edit- and White Knight's and your first responses, even tho it contained a mis characterization about me) if there is some appearance that I'm being unfair.

JM

[jmenges]

To reiterate what this portion of the thread concerns...

Episode 38, to record Sunday 11 January, will be focused on eliminating the "popular" suspects who just do not belong. Rippercast is soliciting listener input for this topic.

The suspects listed on the Casebook Suspect page are as follows:

Prince Albert Victor
Joseph Barnett
Alfred Napier Blanchard
W.H. Bury
Lewis Carroll
David Cohen
Dr. T. Neill Cream
Frederick Deeming
Montague John Druitt
Carl Feigenbaum
Fogelma
George Hutchinson (Br.)
Hyam Hyams
Jill the Ripper
James Kelly
Severin Klosowski (George Chapman)
Aaron Kosminski
Jacob Levy
The Lodger
James Maybrick
Michael Ostrog
Dr. Pedachenko
The Royal Conspiracy
Walter Sickert
James Kenneth Stephen
R. DŽOnston Stephenson
Alois Szemeredy
Francis Thompson
Francis Tumblety
Nicholas Vassily
Dr. John Williams

and...

Thomas Cutbush

Why in the world are all of these names listed? Which ones can we safely remove for all eternity from this list? Are there names that we need to add, just so we can absolve them? Which suspects should go, and which should stay, and Why?

Please feel free to discuss this topic here, via PM or email me your ideas at rippernet@mac.com

Listener input will be read and included in the show.

You have until Sunday, 11 Jan, 2pmESTUS, 7pmGMT to submit your thoughts and ideas.


Thanks to Grave Maurice for his input, it has been noted. I quite agree with most of your list.

Any comments or questions about potential or upcoming guests (or if you, the listener, believe you could contribute constructively to this subject and would like to appear on the show) should be directed to me in private.

Thanks,

JM

[Cap'n Jack]

JM, let me get this right,
as long as Im being villified, condemned and castigated you are more than happy for the thread to continue as such, but the very moment someone pops up to offer me some support, you claim it to be 'off-topic'.
Not in my court calender you don't.
You allow me, and anyone else, the courtesy and good manners to reply to negative comment about my good self, that have been made on this thread, and will be replied to on this thread.

[White-Knight]

its not THAT off topic J.M. as it concerns a potential guest on the show. But I take your point.

goodbye.

W.K.