Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and

[Trevor Marriott]

Tisn't.

Well you are one who clearly falls into the category of not being able to assess and evaluate fact from fiction because without a doubt most of Tumbletys viability as a suspect is nothing more than fiction.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, this could well be the case. Alas, as with most things in this case, it is only speculation. The simple answer is, unfortunately, we are never going to know the identity of the murderer for certain.

But we know it wasnt Tumblety thats for sure.

[Trevor Marriott]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ0nFQgRApY

But I dont make them up as i go along like others on here I think is called trying to fit square pegs in round holes.

I cant be bothered to continue these pointless argument because as i have stated the blinkers are up, the rose tinted spectacles are in place and they have both been there for many years and will no doubt remain there.

Maybe its time for you and some of the other old sweats in Ripperology to withdraw and retire gracefully, enjoy the rest of your days I certainly intend to now, believe it or not there is a life beyond Ripperology

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
''Believe it or not there is a life beyond Ripperology''
..IS THERE?
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

Regarding Alex Chisholm’s hypothesis that Barnett may have killed Kelly and only Kelly, and then engaged in post mortem copy-cat mutilations, and that Barnett passed his lengthy interrogation because he had alibis for the other murders and the police were looking for Jack the Ripper.

Against this we have evidence (eg Bernard Davis) that the police were actually open minded enough in 1888 to consider the possibility that Kelly wasn’t a Ripper victim and they seem to have investigated each murder to see if they could have been ‘domestics’, which were and are the most common type of murder and the one they were most used to investigating and solving.

Also how do we know that Barnett read Kelly the stories about the other murders? From Barnett himself! If he had undertaken post mortem mutilations to create a Ripper connection would he have admitted that he was want to red Kelly these stories? Seems unlikely.

I don’t think it’s true that the murders before and after the ‘5’ quickly lost their association with the sequence. This is reading history back to front. 19th century accounts tended commonly to ascribe seven or more murders to the Ripper surely. It was only post 1950s that the ‘5’ became accepted, their cohesion cemented and the association of the others correspondingly weakened – surely?

[auspirograph]

Clutterbuck

Silly question, and forgive me if it's been asked before, but is Lindsay Clutterbuck any relation to Dorothy Clutterbuck?

No, not a silly question... why do you ask... what difference would it make...?

[Chris]

I cant be bothered to continue these pointless argument ...

Promises, promises, always promises ...

[Tom_Wescott]

Regarding Alex Chisholm’s hypothesis that Barnett may have killed Kelly and only Kelly, and then engaged in post mortem copy-cat mutilations, and that Barnett passed his lengthy interrogation because he had alibis for the other murders and the police were looking for Jack the Ripper.

Against this we have evidence (eg Bernard Davis) that the police were actually open minded enough in 1888 to consider the possibility that Kelly wasn’t a Ripper victim and they seem to have investigated each murder to see if they could have been ‘domestics’, which were and are the most common type of murder and the one they were most used to investigating and solving.

Also how do we know that Barnett read Kelly the stories about the other murders? From Barnett himself! If he had undertaken post mortem mutilations to create a Ripper connection would he have admitted that he was want to red Kelly these stories? Seems unlikely.

I don’t think it’s true that the murders before and after the ‘5’ quickly lost their association with the sequence. This is reading history back to front. 19th century accounts tended commonly to ascribe seven or more murders to the Ripper surely. It was only post 1950s that the ‘5’ became accepted, their cohesion cemented and the association of the others correspondingly weakened – surely?

Hi Lech, I completely agree. Unfortunately, Stewart and Trevor just don't have the knowledge of or appreciation for police work that you and I possess, so I'm afraid your pleas will fall on deaf ears.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Magpie]

No, not a silly question... why do you ask... what difference would it make...?

Just curiosity. I ran across Dorothy while researching something else and idly wondered if they were related. I know it's not an outrageously unique name, but neither does it seem to be particularly common.

[Sally]

Regarding Alex Chisholm’s hypothesis that Barnett may have killed Kelly and only Kelly, and then engaged in post mortem copy-cat mutilations, and that Barnett passed his lengthy interrogation because he had alibis for the other murders and the police were looking for Jack the Ripper.

Against this we have evidence (eg Bernard Davis) that the police were actually open minded enough in 1888 to consider the possibility that Kelly wasn’t a Ripper victim and they seem to have investigated each murder to see if they could have been ‘domestics’, which were and are the most common type of murder and the one they were most used to investigating and solving.

Also how do we know that Barnett read Kelly the stories about the other murders? From Barnett himself! If he had undertaken post mortem mutilations to create a Ripper connection would he have admitted that he was want to red Kelly these stories? Seems unlikely.

I don’t think it’s true that the murders before and after the ‘5’ quickly lost their association with the sequence. This is reading history back to front. 19th century accounts tended commonly to ascribe seven or more murders to the Ripper surely. It was only post 1950s that the ‘5’ became accepted, their cohesion cemented and the association of the others correspondingly weakened – surely?

Surely the salient point here is that Barnett had an alibi for Kelly's murder?

His whereabouts were accounted for; ergo, Barnett didn't kill Kelly.

Regarding the proposed 'differences' between Kelly's murder and those of the other victims; I find the idea that Barnett (could be substituted for A.N. Other) copied what he understood to be a 'Ripper Style' murder from his reading of the popular press less convincing than the idea that a serial killer of women found himself with the opportuinity to fulfil his fantasies at will.

Seriously considering Barnett as a suspect only goes to show how easy it is to turn somebody into one at will. As somebody once said (see below) it doesn't take much.

[PaulWilliams]

Clutterbucks' thesis

Lindsay Clutterbuck's thesis can be downloaded for free from the British Library,

http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=7&uin=uk.bl.ethos.247489

[Lechmere]

Yes Sally
Though the square shaped Barnett theory is bashed into a round culprit hole with the assumption that the police didn't properly 'check out' his alibi.

[Stewart P Evans]

Alibi

Surely the salient point here is that Barnett had an alibi for Kelly's murder?
His whereabouts were accounted for; ergo, Barnett didn't kill Kelly.
...
Seriously considering Barnett as a suspect only goes to show how easy it is to turn somebody into one at will. As somebody once said (see below) it doesn't take much.

Well, Bruce Paley considered Barnett as a very likely suspect for all the Ripper murders, including Kelly, the case for which he set out in his excellent book Jack the Ripper The Simple Truth, London, Headline, 1995.

No police reports have survived regarding Barnett's interview with the police, so we are left to rely upon press reports based on what Barnett said himself in interviews. As regards an alibi all Barnett stated was that 'on Thursday night he was at a lodging house in New Street, Bishopsgate Street, and was playing whist there until half-past twelve when he went to bed.' It's difficult to know how Barnett could supply corroboration that he was actually asleep in bed all night.

So his alibi was that he was in bed and Bruce Paley states, 'If the police kept any records of their interview with him or of their investigation into Barnett's activities, they have not survived, so there is no way of knowing how thoroughly the police checked out Barnett's story.' If the police were as inept as certain theorists claim when pushing their own theories, probably not very well.

[Stewart P Evans]

Sounds...

Yes Sally
Though the square shaped Barnett theory is bashed into a round culprit hole with the assumption that the police didn't properly 'check out' his alibi.

Sounds a bit like the square shaped Cross/Lechmere theory being bashed into a round culprit hole with the assumption that the police didn't properly check out who he was.

[Lechmere]

If Barnett hadn’t been checked out to the degree he told the press then it seems likely that the police would have read those stories and, even if they were a little slow on the uptake, a light would have come on in their heads. But maybe not.
Common Lodging Houses entailed communal living – no privacy. I rather doubt Barnett could have sneaked in and out unnoticed by his bedfellows. But maybe not.

There isn't any account whatsoever, in any source, of Charles Lechmere being 'checked out' and we know he was still being referred to by his false name in an internal private police report dated as late as 19th October 1888. The suggestion that Charles Lechmere wasn't 'checked out' is not based on pure conjecture, and certainly not on conjecture that flies in the face of the known facts.