For the 503rd time...some person thinks THEY'VE solved the case!

[Filby]

If anything, I've found the whole thing a burden. I come from a line of very tough private women who have lived shocking lives riddled with loss. As a result of the ripper{s} my GGGrandfather was murdered, and my GGGrandmother fled to Australia in hiding with her daughter. The effect on the female line has resulted in a series of suicides. When my sister left the same way, I moved toward a degree in psychology. Coinciding with some family research, some brief whisperings from my mother turned into a rabbit warren of facts. Starting with the ripper and my family's circle of friends and involvements, the truth of the killings was surprisingly easy to put together, the letters easy to decrypt, and the story fascinating. As my family is well known in Australia for other reasons, I've had my reservations. My purpose behind writing is solely my interest in psychology and the knowledge that the story will end with me if I don't. Scotland Yard was well aware of the killer. It was just too much of an embarrassment by the time they found the truth. A retired Scotland yard detective moved into my Grandmothers lodging house until the day she left for Aus. Even he ended up in an asylum. James Maybrick had nothing to do with those involved. Night gents.

I admire your tenacity but please don't assume we are all gents in the forum. Respectfully speaking, entering the forum like a bull in a china shop claiming you have an unprecedented method for devising a solution is just probably not going to be accepted with open arms with Ripperologists. I can't pretend to speak for the group but I do believe many here have spent decades researching and developing contemporary theories - yes, but more so applying them within the scope of the facts and findings available in 1888, and beyond (if you put any stake in the Swanson marginalia). I wouldn't feel too badly, though, even his statement is shrouded in considerable skepticism and debate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The facts about Gull’s stroke are known. He couldn’t even continue to sit behind a desk and diagnose people. The fact that he survived the stroke and wasn’t bed ridden doesn’t mean that he was physically well. Can anyone seriously imagine him killing and mutilating women in Whitechapel. Prepared at all times to run if he heard or saw someone coming….at 71?

It’s true that it’s not impossible for a 71 year old to kill but to have been a serial killer killing in this way would I’m fairly certain have made him unique in the annals of crime.

The ‘big D’ as you call him. 31 years old, physically fit, mental health issues, dead after Kelly, hinted at as the ripper in 1891 by a politician. Named in a memo in 1894 by the Chief Constable of The Met. Named by other senior officers too. Versus a stroke ridden 71 year old.

I’ll leave it at that.

[Fiver]

All we have for Gull is medical knowledge. Nothing else.

As we know, Gull had a stroke in 1887. Then he had several more over the next 2 years. After the 1887 stroke he wasn’t even well enough to resume his medical practice which would have involved sitting behind a desk diagnosing wealthy patients. At the time of the murders he was 71 years old, double the average age of serial killers.

We would really have to work hard to find a less likely ripper than Gull - Prince Eddy, Van Gogh, Conan Doyle etc.

There's also his views on women. Gull was a strong supporter of women becoming doctors and was the first to coin the term anorexia nervosa and treat it.

[FISHY1118]

The facts about Gull stroke are well published in medical journals and hospital records which have been posted on this forum before . There is nothing to suggest he wasn't physically able at the time to commit the murders according to "those" factual reports . After 1887 he led a full and active life until his death some years later

70 year old men can kill just as easily as 30 ,so that has no bearing as to gulls physical ability.

There much thats been said about Druitt as a suspect ( a poor one at that) but if people want to support him so be it, . I suggest a listen to a previous podcast on him on here that all but closes the case on him for good.

[Marilyn]

The casebook fanatic group needs to acknowledge that for some people around the world, it’s a dark period of their heritage, and not something that has to be ‘solved’. When you know the story, ‘solving’ something like its a puzzle goes out the window. None of the actual story has been uncovered on this forum. They weren’t seen, and you haven’t established why they weren’t! That's your first error. With every comment, post and criticism you’re probing and making a mockery of peoples lives and history. Given the hour that this forum seems to rise and shine, I’m confident in saying, that some British members seem to be good at making a mockery of people until they realise the truth that's been sitting there quietly and privately part of peoples lives. ‘Solving’? I had to giggle. It's not a crossword.

[John Wheat]

I'm not so sure John,

For instance , if your talking about Gull in the R.C theory sense most would agree ,

But as a stand alone , acting alone suspect there might just be a case .

The knowledge of his physical health at the time , which has often been used to eliminate him as a suspect is often mis quoted and wrong. If you studied his life ,and in particular his minor stroke at the time which by no means left him bedridden as some would suggest, then he certainly i think he could have been capable of such a deed. Despite his age.

Yes, granted he didn't match any of the witnesses description, but we have no certainty any of the men seen with any victim or described by any witnesses was in fact the ripper!

As for any Anatomical Knowledge, whether used or not used in any of the mutilation, there is little doubt one would argue he lacked the ability to extract any organ should he desired .

Mary Kelly is indeed in my opinion just the sort of kill and organ removal experiment given he had so much more time than the other victims, that a mad man like Gull ( if he indeed was ) would take great pleasure indulging in .

Just my thoughts on the Gull topic ,and sure he may not have been JtT, others i have no doubt can make a case against him , but as far a the worse suspect goes i can think of many more below Sir Williams Gull . ( and some popular ones at that.) Imo.

Cheers.

Of the suspects mentioned I consider Gull the most likely but by no means a good suspect.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

The casebook fanatic group needs to acknowledge that for some people around the world, it’s a dark period of their heritage, and not something that has to be ‘solved’. When you know the story, ‘solving’ something like its a puzzle goes out the window. None of the actual story has been uncovered on this forum. They weren’t seen, and you haven’t established why they weren’t! That's your first error. With every comment, post and criticism you’re probing and making a mockery of peoples lives and history. Given the hour that this forum seems to rise and shine, I’m confident in saying, that some British members seem to be good at making a mockery of people until they realise the truth that's been sitting there quietly and privately part of peoples lives. ‘Solving’? I had to giggle. It's not a crossword.

Whatever.

[FISHY1118]

Of the suspects mentioned I consider Gull the most likely but by no means a good suspect.

Cheers John

Thanks John

[The Rookie Detective]

Wow, what's just happened?!

I have been away for a few days and return to find this thread.

I think the idea that someone could walk into a Ripperology china shop with a belt full of frag grenades and just start lobbing them all over the place; whilst exhilaratingly refreshing, is also the most antagonist and alienating means of approach.

I have always prided myself on the fact that I know I could spend another decade on this case, and I still wouldn't be able to attain the equivalent amount of knowledge and understanding of the case that the majority of the members on this site have already.

I would never dream of coming across as disrespectful, regardless of how much I thought I knew or believed. Every day is a learning process and it's important to understand that with knowledge comes humility.

You could be the the most skilled and talented individual, but if you lack the humility and mutual respect that forms an intrinsic part of the Ripperology family (and it is a family) then your words count for very little.

I do admire the theoretical idea of going in "guns-a-blazing" because it does help to stir the pot and rock the boat sometimes; but not at the expense of others who have worked for DECADES on the continuum that is this case.

I bid you well for your future book release because it will no doubt raise a few eyebrows and draw attention and focus to your agenda, but take heed of the fact that the majority of the members on this site have heard it all before.

For what it's worth, I have always believed I would be the one who would identify the Ripper... but outside of that personal belief I would never go beyond that boundary for fear of ridicule and moreso; the knowledge that I would be disrespecting the hundreds of other Ripperologists who have earned their stripes.

What a thread though.


ROOKIE Detective

[Herlock Sholmes]

The casebook fanatic group needs to acknowledge that for some people around the world, it’s a dark period of their heritage, and not something that has to be ‘solved’. When you know the story, ‘solving’ something like its a puzzle goes out the window. None of the actual story has been uncovered on this forum. They weren’t seen, and you haven’t established why they weren’t! That's your first error. With every comment, post and criticism you’re probing and making a mockery of peoples lives and history. Given the hour that this forum seems to rise and shine, I’m confident in saying, that some British members seem to be good at making a mockery of people until they realise the truth that's been sitting there quietly and privately part of peoples lives. ‘Solving’? I had to giggle. It's not a crossword.

Before you joined you clearly looked over the site for some time and you can’t fail to have got an impression of the various thoughts and opinions that are held and debated on here. This begs the question why you joined this so-called ‘casebook fanatic group?’ What was your motive? Why join a group to discuss the case with people that you clearly have no time or respect for. If it was simply to discuss your findings/research then you haven’t done that because you haven’t told anyone what they are. Any suggestion that you joined for an exchange of ideas is unlikely because it was only on your second post when you called Jeff naive which showed that you appear to have an issue even when being confronted by someone expressing mild caution at one of your posts; it also calls into question how you would cope/respond to someone questioning your findings. So you haven’t given the impression of someone that copes well with being disagreed with.

Absolutely anyone can come on here and say ‘I’ve solved it.’ We’ve heard it a thousand times before and guess what..no one has so far. If you had the courage of your apparent convictions you would at the very least give some ideas as to your research and theory. Saying ‘I’ve solved it’ impresses no one.

I’ll make a prediction…no book will ever appear.

[Svensson]

Yeah!

And why is this thread in the Pub Talk section anyways? Where's your flippin' pint? Hey?

If anything, this should be in the "Creative Writing" section......

Cheers.

[Svensson]

Before you joined you clearly looked over the site for some time and you can’t fail to have got an impression of the various thoughts and opinions that are held and debated on here. This begs the question why you joined this so-called ‘casebook fanatic group?’ What was your motive? Why join a group to discuss the case with people that you clearly have no time or respect for. If it was simply to discuss your findings/research then you haven’t done that because you haven’t told anyone what they are. Any suggestion that you joined for an exchange of ideas is unlikely because it was only on your second post when you called Jeff naive which showed that you appear to have an issue even when being confronted by someone expressing mild caution at one of your posts; it also calls into question how you would cope/respond to someone questioning your findings. So you haven’t given the impression of someone that copes well with being disagreed with.

Absolutely anyone can come on here and say ‘I’ve solved it.’ We’ve heard it a thousand times before and guess what..no one has so far. If you had the courage of your apparent convictions you would at the very least give some ideas as to your research and theory. Saying ‘I’ve solved it’ impresses no one.

I’ll make a prediction…no book will ever appear.

Do you remember "Pierre"? The wind-up merchant from a few years ago? I wonder if Pierre has undergone some kind of therapy and has returned as Marilyn...

[The Rookie Detective]

Do you remember "Pierre"? The wind-up merchant from a few years ago? I wonder if Pierre has undergone some kind of therapy and has returned as Marilyn...

What's hilarious is that for the first year or so I was on here, everyone thought I was this Pierre guy!?!?

I read through some of Pierre's old posts on various threads and I can see why he ruffled a few feathers.

Did anyone ever find out who Pierre was?!

Thinking about it, this thread does feel very Pierresk!

Haha!


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

The second that Lechmere is mentioned, I am banking on it being Christer after a few Swedish vodkas?

Does that even exist?!


Haha!

RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Jokes aside...

We need to look at all police officers who ended up in an asylum.

We then to decipher where they were stationed and which rank.

Then we need to delve deeper and see where they were posted or where their beat took them.

And then check shipping records for any woman whose husband was murdered and who subsequently travelled one way only and solo to Australia between November 1888- 1902


We then need to see whether the man murdered was a police officer, because the Syntex used is suggestive of the victim having worked in an official capacity who discovered too much and put under house protection.

We also need to cross reference any mention of any long term lodger who stayed with a landlady over a duration of at least 12 years, from 1876-1888, and then stretch those parameters accordingly.


Or we could leave it until the book comes out...

Hmmm... decisions decisions....



RD