Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Simon Wood 25 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Sam Flynn 34 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Simon Wood 37 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Sam Flynn 43 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: The Whitechapel Murders of 1888: Another Dead End? - by John Malcolm 1 hour and 6 minutes ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Simon Wood 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (34 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (10 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (10 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - (5 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (4 posts)
General Discussion: The Weapon - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Shades of Whitechapel

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-18-2009, 11:30 PM
sdreid sdreid is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: McWopetaz Metroplex, Illinois U. S. of A.
Posts: 4,957
Default

Yer ole bud How's.

I think in that more intelligently worded version, Ramsey would fit into Level 3 as I see the case in its current stage.
__________________
This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

Stan Reid
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-03-2009, 06:03 AM
sdreid sdreid is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: McWopetaz Metroplex, Illinois U. S. of A.
Posts: 4,957
Default

When I posted in JTRF about 20 minutes later, I had the thought to word Level 3 a little better I think. Like this:

Level 3: Cases where there are suspect(s) of merit but they are doubtful and/or conflicting.

I hope that clears it up a bit.
__________________
This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

Stan Reid
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-03-2009, 09:25 AM
Nothing to see Nothing to see is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 338
Default

Well, I certainly agree with you on your Level 2 and Lizzie Borden. Myself, I've always pictured Lizzie naked, lying in wait to do in Mom and Dad. But that probably says more about me than it does about Lizzie.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-06-2009, 03:57 PM
sdreid sdreid is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: McWopetaz Metroplex, Illinois U. S. of A.
Posts: 4,957
Default

That was how Elizabeth Montgomery played it and she probably looked a lot better sans garments than Lizzy.
__________________
This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

Stan Reid
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-06-2009, 04:29 PM
perrymason
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Stan,

Its seems like you feel JtR belongs in #3, rather than in my opinion, a #4 on the scale.

Identifying people known at the time to be of a character type that would fit a serial killer profile....which is in this case itself was bound to 5 set victims of the period by the majority of contemporary opinion,.. are not in my opinion valid "suspects" at all. I think that also applies to "suspects" named in memorandums, book notes, private letters or conversations among investigators and reporters.

Isnt the real truth here that not one person that we call "suspect" here has any evidence or investigative clues that would suggest they committed the 5 crimes alleged to have been by Jacks hand?

For me thats the oddity of this study....sound researchers and historians and criminologists assess the viability of suspects compiled... based on little more than their known character flaws and known criminal behavior...not always violent in nature.

I suppose thats a bit blasphemous in Ripperology, the entity that feeds off those "suspected" men.....but without intending disrespect to anyone, we really have no right to call literally every man suggested as a possibility as a "suspect".

In this study, "suspect" is just someone with access to the women and knowledge of the area, we have no idea whether the illness that the killer had manifested itself in prior crimes or violent behaviors before the murders.....in which case the list of "possibles" could be pages in length.

My personal opinion is that the term "suspect" in these cases is misleading.

All the best Stan.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-06-2009, 06:27 PM
sdreid sdreid is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: McWopetaz Metroplex, Illinois U. S. of A.
Posts: 4,957
Default

I understand that position Michael but I couldn't quite put him on the same level with cases that don't even have a suspect/candidate.
__________________
This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

Stan Reid
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-15-2009, 03:06 AM
sdreid sdreid is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: McWopetaz Metroplex, Illinois U. S. of A.
Posts: 4,957
Default

It initially surprised me that Level 4 was the tier where I had the most difficulty coming up with examples. I guess there aren't that many cases where the investigators don't at least have a person or persons of interest. Before, I hadn't given it any thought.
__________________
This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

Stan Reid
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-15-2009, 10:46 PM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,360
Default

Hi Stan,

Good stuff and a bloody good idea! But:

Quote:
Level 1: Cases where there is a standing conviction but some doubt about it (James Hanratty) or cases where there is no conviction but where there is little doubt regarding the perpetrator (Bella Kiss).
Hanratty I'm still arguing about (and probably will until I go tits up), but would you include Hauptmann in your Level 1? For ages I thought Hauptmann had been stitched up, but now I'm not so sure. As little seems to have been written recently about the Lindberg Kidnap Case, what's the current thinking in the USA?

Cheers,

Graham
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-15-2009, 11:31 PM
sdreid sdreid is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: McWopetaz Metroplex, Illinois U. S. of A.
Posts: 4,957
Default

Hi Graham,

Yes, I think I would put Hauptmann at Level 1 but I'm sure some would prefer to put him at 0. Personally, I think he was likely involved although not necessarily directly.
__________________
This my opinion and to the best of my knowledge, that is, if I'm not joking.

Stan Reid
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-15-2009, 11:36 PM
Graham Graham is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Midlands
Posts: 3,360
Default

Hi Stan,

Maybe this is off-thread, but my take on the Lindberg Kidnap was that Fish was the brains behind the thing, and Hauptmann was the 'leg-man' who got it slightly wrong...

It's been some time since I read up on this case (Ludovic Kennedy's great book being the last) so can you point me towards some more modern interpretations?

Cheers,

Graham
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:46 AM.


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