Casebook Forums

Casebook Forums (https://forum.casebook.org/index.php)
-   General Suspect Discussion (https://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=49)
-   -   Favorite suspect/s? (https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10143)

Abby Normal 03-03-2017 07:01 AM

Favorite suspect/s?
 
Hi All
Id be curious to take inventory and to see what members here favorite suspect/s are. Please feel to give a brief explanation as to why.

I keep an open mind, and rank them in tiers as to their validity based on my own opinion. Below are mine and pretty much in order of preference.

Tier one- Hutch and Blotchy number 1 and 1a. Then Chapman, Kelly, Bury and Kosminsky. IMHO I think there is just a slightly better than 50/50 chance one of these 6 men was the ripper.

Tier two-Barnett, Bowyer, Lechmere, Druitt, Flemming, Richardson, Tumblety, Jacob Levy, Francis Thompson, Donston. Combined with my tier one suspects I would say about 60 % chance any of these men where the ripper.

Tier Three (the fantastical suspects)-Sickert, maybrick, royal conspiracy, etc. Almost zero chance for any of these types.

so about 60% chance IMHO of a named suspect and about 40% it was an(totally) unknown or unnamed suspect.

Whos yours?

Elamarna 03-03-2017 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abby Normal (Post 409779)
Hi All
Id be curious to take inventory and to see what members here favorite suspect/s are. Please feel to give a brief explanation as to why.

I keep an open mind, and rank them in tiers as to their validity based on my own opinion. Below are mine and pretty much in order of preference.

Tier one- Hutch and Blotchy number 1 and 1a. Then Chapman, Kelly, Bury and Kosminsky. IMHO I think there is just a slightly better than 50/50 chance one of these 6 men was the ripper.

Tier two-Barnett, Bowyer, Lechmere, Druitt, Flemming, Richardson, Tumblety, Jacob Levy, Francis Thompson, Donston. Combined with my tier one suspects I would say about 60 % chance any of these men where the ripper.

Tier Three (the fantastical suspects)-Sickert, maybrick, royal conspiracy, etc. Almost zero chance for any of these types.

so about 60% chance IMHO of a named suspect and about 40% it was an(totally) unknown or unnamed suspect.

Whos yours?

Hi Abby

Yes its that time again i guess.

Mine, much as yours has not changed much over the last year.

I stick to my often posted point, that none are good to me, but the better ones if we are accepting the C5 in total are :


Someone referred to as Kosminski, but it might not be Aaron, but someone like him, Jacob levy, David Cohen or other unknown local person.

If as some believe there are only two killed by a serial killer then Isenschmid is a good candidate.


Next would be: Bury, Lechmere, Druitt, Tumblety and Hyam Hyams.

The rest of the serious ones and I include Sickert and Maybrick, in that they are not complete non starters, unlike say Lewis Carroll, plus all those you mention and I have not, are all much of muchness.

However we cannot conclude the killer has not been named amongst them



There are a few theories I have a liking for, more because the ideas intrigue me rather than any hard evidence.

Those include believe it or not the mystery policeman, as per Pierre. I just have a sneaking suspicion that he did have a suspect, not that the suspect was the Ripper.

The idea hinted at by Simon Wood, some sort of conspiracy, possibly linked to Ireland, its very intriguing; unfortunately its all hints.

And finally my favourite outsider, and coincidentally Rippologist has an article on him this issue, Thomas Cutbush.


Steve

Abby Normal 03-03-2017 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elamarna (Post 409781)
Hi Abby

Yes its that time again i guess.

Mine, much as yours has not changed much over the last year.

I stick to my often posted point, that none are good to me, but the better ones if we are accepting the C5 in total are :


Someone referred to as Kosminski, but it might not be Aaron, but someone like him, Jacob levy, David Cohen or other unknown local person.

If as some believe there are only two killed by a serial killer then Isenschmid is a good candidate.


Next would be: Bury, Lechmere, Druitt, Tumblety and Hyam Hyams.

The rest of the serious ones and I include Sickert and Maybrick, in that they are not complete non starters, unlike say Lewis Carroll, plus all those you mention and I have not, are all much of muchness.

However we cannot conclude the killer has not been named amongst them



There are a few theories I have a liking for, more because the ideas intrigue me rather than any hard evidence.

Those include believe it or not the mystery policeman, as per Pierre. I just have a sneaking suspicion that he did have a suspect, not that the suspect was the Ripper.

The idea hinted at by Simon Wood, some sort of conspiracy, possibly linked to Ireland, its very intriguing; unfortunately its all hints.

And finally my favourite outsider, and coincidentally Rippologist has an article on him this issue, Thomas Cutbush.


Steve

Thanks El
interesting post! I had to look up Hyam Hyams again. To me he is in the same category as all the other crazy jewish suspects that have come to the front via Anderson and then Fido. I dismiss David Cohen, Kaminsky etc. Wild goose chase IMHO. no connection whatsoever to the murders or the case in general.

Jacob Levy was also someone I dismissed because of this but there has been a pretty strong case that he was the cousin of Levy (of Lawende sighting fame). So since he now has a possible connection I have to include him.

As IMHO the C5 at least were done by the same hand, Isenschmidt is a non starter for me.

Unlike you though, I just don't see anything remotely possible for maybrick and sickert. maybe .1%possibility because I guess by the laws of physics they cant be totally ruled out. LOL!

as per the mystery policeman-Since I think that about 40% chance its an unknown and or unnamed suspect-I would have include the possibility that it was a policeman.

I don't find any of the conspiracy ideas even intriguing.

ahh Cutbush. why isn't he more considered? he was a suspect at the time? right? I know the MM was written in refuting him as a suspect, but suspect nonetheless at the time correct?

has anything ruled him out?
I need to read the article.

But more or less I am the same as you-I think they are all weak suspects, some just less weak than others.

Mayerling 03-03-2017 08:49 AM

Hi Abby,

I still to think the most likely individual (with or without assistance) was a local party who knew the back alleys and short-cuts of Whitechapel to avoid capture. Also a local person might have had a room where he or she could get out of bloodstained clothing without observation.

Of the known ones I never have been really enamoured by any of them as much as their biggest supporters have been. But

1) Druitt
2) [Aaron?] Kosminski
3) Deeming (but with Really Big!! reservations). I should add that my first essay in this field was about Frederick Deeming, but even then I wasn't really thrilled about my research results.

Two or three intrigue me for their own careers:

1) Dr. Tumblety
2) D'Onston Stevenson
3) William Bury

General interest in criminal history would make me consider these two for study purposes:

1) Dr. Thomas Neill Cream
2) George Chapman

As the list goes down we have some others of note but with less sureness than the eight mentioned:

1) Mary Pearcy (tied for "Jill the Ripper" by some with Mrs. Dyer)
2) James Kenneth Stephen
3) James Maybrick (or his brother)
4) Dr. Sir William Gull (but why is nobody considering that other crime curious leading physician, Sir James Paget?)
5) The "Cutbush" police connection and the business of a possible police killer.

Recently Dr. Bond has been pushed as a candidate. Actually that sounds rather interesting.

Absolutely not:

1) Vincent Van Gogh
2) Dr. Charles Ludwig Dodgson (noted logician, photographer, and author of "Sylvie and Bruno").

Jeff

Abby Normal 03-03-2017 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayerling (Post 409785)
Hi Abby,

I still to think the most likely individual (with or without assistance) was a local party who knew the back alleys and short-cuts of Whitechapel to avoid capture. Also a local person might have had a room where he or she could get out of bloodstained clothing without observation.

Of the known ones I never have been really enamoured by any of them as much as their biggest supporters have been. But

1) Druitt
2) [Aaron?] Kosminski
3) Deeming (but with Really Big!! reservations). I should add that my first essay in this field was about Frederick Deeming, but even then I wasn't really thrilled about my research results.

Two or three intrigue me for their own careers:

1) Dr. Tumblety
2) D'Onston Stevenson
3) William Bury

General interest in criminal history would make me consider these two for study purposes:

1) Dr. Thomas Neill Cream
2) George Chapman

As the list goes down we have some others of note but with less sureness than the eight mentioned:

1) Mary Pearcy (tied for "Jill the Ripper" by some with Mrs. Dyer)
2) James Kenneth Stephen
3) James Maybrick (or his brother)
4) Dr. Sir William Gull (but why is nobody considering that other crime curious leading physician, Sir James Paget?)
5) The "Cutbush" police connection and the business of a possible police killer.

Recently Dr. Bond has been pushed as a candidate. Actually that sounds rather interesting.

Absolutely not:

1) Vincent Van Gogh
2) Dr. Charles Ludwig Dodgson (noted logician, photographer, and author of "Sylvie and Bruno").

Jeff

Thanks mayer
Fascinating.

But weren't Deeming and cream ruled out? Deeming was in south Africa or on a ship and cream was in prison? right?

whos mary pearcy? and whats the case for her?

Elamarna 03-03-2017 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abby Normal (Post 409784)
Thanks E

ahh Cutbush. why isn't he more considered? he was a suspect at the time? right? I know the MM was written in refuting him as a suspect, but suspect nonetheless at the time correct?

has anything ruled him out?
I need to read the article.

But more or less I am the same as you-I think they are all weak suspects, some just less weak than others.


Cutbush said in1891 that people were saying he was Jack , but he wasn't he added.

The Sun obviously decided he was at a later date when MM wrote the memoranda.

It seems that he was not a close relation of the police man of the same name so why did MM think he was?
Was it just a mistake? Why did MM not check with the family?
Is it possible that the supposed connection was a blind? Just an excuse to write Cutbush off?

Also the circumstances of the committal and the crimes he was accused of ask a few question.


He has been my outsider for years now.


Steve

Abby Normal 03-03-2017 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elamarna (Post 409789)
Cutbush said in1891 that people were saying he was Jack , but he wasn't he added.

The Sun obviously decided he was at a later date when MM wrote the memoranda.

It seems that he was not a close relation of the police man of the same name so why did MM think he was?
Was it just a mistake? Why did MM not check with the family?
Is it possible that the supposed connection was a blind? Just an excuse to write Cutbush off?

Also the circumstances of the committal and the crimes he was accused of ask a few question.


He has been my outsider for years now.


Steve

Hi El
the riperologist article seems to raise the legit question of whether he actually even committed the crimes (stabbing/poking women with a knife) he was charged with.

the Sun at the time puts him out there as a possible suspect for the ripper.

But why do you think he could be a valid suspect, even as outsider?

Elamarna 03-03-2017 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abby Normal (Post 409791)
Hi El
the riperologist article seems to raise the legit question of whether he actually even committed the crimes (stabbing/poking women with a knife) he was charged with.

the Sun at the time puts him out there as a possible suspect for the ripper.

But why do you think he could be a valid suspect, even as outsider?

Interesting question.

No facts at all and you know I don't like arguing without facts.

But give you a list of reasons.

1. It seems he was saying that others were saying he was the killer.

2. As you rightly say great deal of debate he committed any crimes. But he was locked up to stop anu defence.

3. The sun via an inside source belived he was the killer. That inside source while never official named was known to be a serving police man.

4. There is no proof he was related to a senior police officer. That should be easy to establish so why was the memoranda so much more than that.

5. It could be that they just wished to dismiss him as a suspect for the public. Never used memoranda so was not needed. Why were they worried about this guy being named. Surely if innocence it would blow over.


6. He worked in the area, so we can say he may have known it well. Anyway cerainly there, just like Kos, levy, Hutch, Barnett and Lech.


That's a quick summary.


Note I am not saying it's what I beleive, but those are the possible reasons.



Steve

Abby Normal 03-03-2017 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elamarna (Post 409794)
Interesting question.

No facts at all and you know I don't like arguing without facts.

But give you a list of reasons.

1. It seems he was saying that others were saying he was the killer.

2. As you rightly say great deal of debate he committed any crimes. But he was locked up to stop anu defence.

3. The sun via an inside source belived he was the killer. That inside source while never official named was known to be a serving police man.

4. There is no proof he was related to a senior police officer. That should be easy to establish so why was the memoranda so much more than that.

5. It could be that they just wished to dismiss him as a suspect for the public. Never used memoranda so was not needed. Why were they worried about this guy being named. Surely if innocence it would blow over.


6. He worked in the area, so we can say he may have known it well. Anyway cerainly there, just like Kos, levy, Hutch, Barnett and Lech.


That's a quick summary.


Note I am not saying it's what I beleive, but those are the possible reasons.



Steve

Thanks El
Here is a man who was in the area, was charged with stabbing women with a knife a few years after the ripper murders, with a deteriorating mental capacity. Was a contemporaneous suspect, at least in the press. hes not discounted By McNaughton-in fact one could argue he does view him as a suspect, just that the other three make better suspects.

and here we have a juicy story that he could be related to a cop- a reason for the conspiracists to claim why the MM was written. the whole thing a cover up to protect a high ranking police officer!

so why isn't he considered a more viable suspect? I would think people would have a field day with this guy.

one last question was the Sun article written in 91 or 94?

Elamarna 03-03-2017 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abby Normal (Post 409799)
Thanks El
Here is a man who was in the area, was charged with stabbing women with a knife a few years after the ripper murders, with a deteriorating mental capacity. Was a contemporaneous suspect, at least in the press. hes not discounted By McNaughton-in fact one could argue he does view him as a suspect, just that the other three make better suspects.

and here we have a juicy story that he could be related to a cop- a reason for the conspiracists to claim why the MM was written. the whole thing a cover up to protect a high ranking police officer!

so why isn't he considered a more viable suspect? I would think people would have a field day with this guy.

one last question was the Sun article written in 91 or 94?


The later date, MM memorandum was direct reply to sun, whom it was written for is open to question, one assumes for home secretary if questions ever asked.

The sun published a series of articles, not just the one.,

Steve


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.