Vote for the Worst!

[Sally]

A new poll to vote for your worst Ripper suspect ever - and let's face it, there are a few!

Please feel free to explain why your worst is the very worst in your opinion

If your favourite bad suspect hasn't made it into the list - not to worry - you can name and shame him [or her] right here!

Happy voting Everybody....

[GUT]

G'day Sally

So you decided to go with it.

I'd say anyone who can be proven to have not been in England at the time.

As opposed to someone who cannot be proven to have been in England.

[Sally]

Yep - if you can't prove that they were in the country at the time I'd say it's a non-starter.

Mind you, it hasn't stopped Charles Van Onselen with Joseph Silver, has it? He really can't prove that his suspect was in the country at the time [because his candidate for secretly being Silver on the quiet certainly wasn't] so he says that the weight of the evidence should tell us that Silver was the Ripper regardless.

If the evidence doesn't fit with the theory, well, never mind! We don't want the facts getting in the way of a good story, do we?

Actually, they're all pretty bad, looking at the list. Just as well it's a multiple voting poll

[GUT]

G'day Sally

Actually I disagree in a minor way

Yep - if you can't prove that they were in the country at the time I'd say it's a non-starter.

Not being able to prove they were in the Country is different to being able to prove that they were NOT in the Country.

For example we can not prove James Kelly was in England at the time, but nor can we prove that he wasn't, so to me he is a better bet than say Prince Eddy who I think we can prove was in Scotland or Van Gogh who I think we can prove was in France.

[bolo]

Hello Sally,

my pick would be Walter Sickert.

He got dragged through the mire twice, first by Knight in a tale of masons, caped doctors and conspiracy, then by Cornwell who even went as far as using mitochondrial DNA found on some stamps as evidence and destroyed genuine works of art just to get her point across (and sell more books).

For me, Sickert stands for all the artists/painters like Toulouse-Lautrec or Van Gogh who got accused of being the ripper in the past just because they were different than average people and suffered from physical shortcomings, mental conditions or addictions, or simply liked to draw prostitutes or gave their pictures ambiguous titles.

As an admirer of Walter Sickert's pioneering work I think it is high time for this nonsense to stop once and for all.

Best wishes,

Boris

[Sally]

Actually I disagree in a minor way



Not being able to prove they were in the Country is different to being able to prove that they were NOT in the Country.

For example we can not prove James Kelly was in England at the time, but nor can we prove that he wasn't, so to me he is a better bet than say Prince Eddy who I think we can prove was in Scotland or Van Gogh who I think we can prove was in France.

Yes, being able to prove that they were not in the country at the time is obviously better than not being able to prove that they were. But having no evidence that they were in the country at all is still a bit of a problem - of course, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence - but it would weaken a case against a candidate, I feel.

In Van Gogh's case, of course, we've learned from Dale Larner that Van Gogh was able to fool everybody who believes him to have been in France when the Whitechapel Murders were committed by nipping over the Channel, doing in a poor unfortunate, and nipping back over before anybody had the time to notice.

Clever, these Serial-Killer-cum-Artist types....

[GUT]

Clever, these Serial-Killer-cum-Artist types....

Or clever Dale if anyone "buys" it.

[Hunter]

If the evidence doesn't fit with the theory, well, never mind! We don't want the facts getting in the way of a good story, do we?

That can be said about the promoters of supposedly more credible "suspects" also.

[Sally]

Hello Sally,

my pick would be Walter Sickert.

He got dragged through the mire twice, first by Knight in a tale of masons, caped doctors and conspiracy, then by Cornwell who even went as far as using mitochondrial DNA found on some stamps as evidence and destroyed genuine works of art just to get her point across (and sell more books).

For me, Sickert stands for all the artists/painters like Toulouse-Lautrec or Van Gogh who got accused of being the ripper in the past just because they were different than average people and suffered from physical shortcomings, mental conditions or addictions, or simply liked to draw prostitutes or gave their pictures ambiguous titles.

As an admirer of Walter Sickert's pioneering work I think it is high time for this nonsense to stop once and for all.

Best wishes,

Boris

Hi Boris,

Yes, I agree - Sickert is a terrible suspect. Even if does turn out that he did send a letter or two, it goes no way to demonstrating that he was a killer. Many, many people sent 'hoax' letters at the time.

Artists are an easy target for anyone wanting to write a melodramatic suspect book though: they appeal to the public lust for a 'special' culprit and they were often closely associated with prostitutes for various reasons; not least because they often served as models.

Sickert's a bad suspect - but as bad as Van Gogh?

Tricky one to call...

[Steadmund Brand]

I had to go with other- Joesph Merrick- OK we know he was there blah blah blah but come on now.. seriously, something tells me that, well... someone would have noticed him....he isn't my only "worst suspect" but felt he should be on the list.....

Now that being said... *IF* he were the Ripper.. David Lynch could have made an even better movie about him

--Steadmund Brand--

[bolo]

Hello again, Sally,

Hi Boris,

Yes, I agree - Sickert is a terrible suspect. Even if does turn out that he did send a letter or two, it goes no way to demonstrating that he was a killer. Many, many people sent 'hoax' letters at the time.

Artists are an easy target for anyone wanting to write a melodramatic suspect book though: they appeal to the public lust for a 'special' culprit and they were often closely associated with prostitutes for various reasons; not least because they often served as models.

Sickert's a bad suspect - but as bad as Van Gogh?

Tricky one to call...

well, yes, technically Van Gogh is among the most ludicrous choices as a Ripper candidate, perhaps even more so than Sickert, but not much. Like I said, I used Sickert as a placeholder for the suspected artists/painters as a whole (and because he's my favourite artist of the lot).

The whole let's-blame-the-bohème thing is not much different to the Royal Conspiracy, Knight even lumped the two together in his Final Solution which admittedly makes a good read but little sense. It seems to be a part of human nature or the modern man to be precise to blame extraordinary crimes on extraordinary people, those above us, those outside of the snuggly boredom of everyday life, the Prince or painter who turn into a mutilating Hyde at night, the monster in the shadows, the mad doctor with top hat and cape.

It's a pity that books like Cornwell's or Knight's still seem to have a great influence on the general public outside of Ripperological circles (or 'civilians', if you will ... ).

Best wishes,

Boris

[DVV]

Why is Crossmere missing ?

[John Wheat]

I wonder how many books in total have been written about these ridiculous suspects? And I'd say most of them were to make a quick buck.

[Harry D]

Why is Crossmere missing ?

I think A.N. Other is another one of Lechmere's aliases.

[Sally]

I think A.N. Other is another one of Lechmere's aliases.

It is, in fact, an anagram of 'No Heart', which could be a clue...