Jack The Ripper (Compendium Thread)

What do you think is the most likely ?

  • The Ripper was a Freemason?

    Votes: 6 9.7%
  • The Ripper had medical knowledge?

    Votes: 8 12.9%
  • It was Maybrick?

    Votes: 4 6.5%
  • The Ripper was 'of the same class' as his victims?

    Votes: 7 11.3%
  • The Ripper was foreign?

    Votes: 2 3.2%
  • It was Druitt?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • None of the suspects yet put forward?

    Votes: 15 24.2%
  • It was a woman?

    Votes: 2 3.2%
  • Another?

    Votes: 18 29.0%

  • Total voters
    62
A

Anonymous

Guest
Gotta say that I have never been convinced by the whole Royal connection thing, whether pointing the finger at the Duke of Clarence and Avondale or Sickert.

I was pretty much a Tumblety subscriber, in so far as the profile seemed to fit. He was a working class porn peddlar abandoned by his parents to make his living on the St Laurence. He was not, to my knowledge a homosexual, which is important because there is, AFAIK, no recorded case of a homosexual serial killer who targeted women.

In terms of the profile though, that famous one from the FBI, I do not agree with the the disorganised asocial killer. I think that quite the opposite, the post mortem disfigurement and mutilation show a consistancy that is more in keeping with the organised killer. Now that comes with provisios in that the "double act" was more than likely disturbed, as was the one disturbed by the cartman. But the consistant use of the knife, even knives of various lengths suggests less a killer of opportunity and more like an evolved MO.

What I would say is that the whole Masonic connection suggested by the Stephen Knight" interpretation is complete rubbish. The three conspirators of Hiram Abif legend were not called the Jubelo, Jubela, and Jubelum nor were later investigators able to find reference to this information.

Finally, I think the fact that there is strong evidence for all of the "Dear Boss" lettersbeing fakes, is too often overlooked. It is almost certain that two journalists one for the new at the time Star and one for the Pall Mall gazette, cooked up those letters to give the story a spicy name.

Has anyone read Philip Sugden's The Complete history of Jack the Ripper? Very good compilation with excellent analysis.

I still think Tumbelty is the best candidate and Littlechild's interest in him, I think was more than Fenian related as Tumblety made only donations to the Fenian cause as opposed being a part of it. Has anyone got any hard evidence of Tumblety not being in the country when a murder happened, except for Martha Tabram (Turner) cause I don't think she was an actual Ripper victim.

Great thread
LD
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tumblety was arrested for gross indecency with a number of males on 7th November, 1888. He was bailed on 16th November. It is unlikely that he would have been released only to be re-arrested and bailed again. It is much more likely that he was in custody when Kelly was murdered. Also Tumbley was far too noticeable, as discussed before. He was far too tall, had a huge moustache and basically, stuck out like a sore thumb wherever he went. Moreover, there was no evidence of violence in his background, and while some contempories refer to his total hatred of women, others say he was incapable of the Ripper crimes. There is no evidence that Tumblety was in Whitechapel or even the East End at the time of the murders. Tumblety was certainly eccentric and an exhibitionist, but there was never any suggestion of mental instability. His personality does not match that of the Ripper.

Glad to see the thread resurrected. If you enjoy it, why not rate it?

Nobody seems to be considering Patricia Cornwell's evidence, I notice ;)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
What I don't understand about the Cormwell thing - why did she expect to find DNA in a painting? Artists in Sickert's time used just the normal painting materials available - oils, tempera, turps, rabbit gum etc. They certainly didn't use bodily fluids - their own or anybody else's. Bodily fluids don't make good painting mediums anyway. (Well, not in small, non-lethal quantities.)
 

ninja_cat

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
579
Maybe she was after hair that may have got into the paint or something? Still seems a long stretch of the imagination that you could extract DNA from it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think her theory was that Sickert had mixed blood with his paint, although I have no idea how she would have proved whose blood it was. There was no DNA evidence at the crime scenes, and they wouldn't have been looking for it anyway. I think she was going to compare it with DNA from the letters, but how she would have proved who wrote what letter, I still have no idea. And how the letters have been handled over the years, would there be any DNA anyway? In fact, would any letter have DNA evidence on it?

She bases her whole theory on the series of paintings Sickert did of another murder which she says look eerily similar to the scene of Kelly's murder. She doesn't seem to consider whether they resemble the scene of the murder it was supposed to be a painting of. That and the paper some of the Ripper letters were written on was of the same brand that Sickert (and half of London) used. It was a very common brand, not that that seems to deter Madame Cornwell for a second. And she's staked her reputation on it. Bad move, I reckon. Serves her right if it comes back to haunt her.

She spend something like $4 million over 6 months, to prove what she wanted to prove, and failed dismally. She must be pretty arrogant to believe people are going to accept her theory just because she says so. Either that or REALLY desperate for any kind of publicity.

And just to add further insult, it's not even a new suspect. And the original argument was far more convincing than hers (not that that's difficult). She should stick to writing fiction. I noticed she had a cookery book out over Christmas, with recipes from the kitchen of Kay Scarpetta, her fictional character from the Postmortem etc books. Look out - I reckon next year she'll have written the Ripper's cookbook with devilled kidneys, poached uterus, and braised heart in a gin sauce.
 

ninja_cat

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
579
And the really anoying thing is that she will probably make money from the book - it's had enough press publicity.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Helen said:
I think her theory was that Sickert had mixed blood with his paint,
Eh??? I know something about art and art history, and animal blood used to be an ingredient of some painting mediums - but I've never heard of any artist of Sickert's time using their own blood. Even if he did, he'd have needed to use quite a lot of blood, considering the size of his canvases.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm pretty sure it was actually Mary Kelly's blood she was looking for in the paint, reasoning that any puppy as sick as the Ripper would obviously be a puppy sick enough to mix paint with his victim's blood. I mean, come on, makes perfect sense, don't you think?;) (there doesn't appear to be an ironic smiley BTW. Do you think this would work?)

IIRC she wanted to exhume the victims to get DNA as well. Let's face it - she wanted EVERYTHING!

Yeah, and the sad thing is I might even buy her book just to find out what it is she's saying exactly, cus at the moment I don't think she's got enough evidence to cover the back of a box of matches.
 

carole

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 1, 2001
Messages
2,296
Just seen it advertised on ITV, there's a new series on serial killers beginning next Wed at 10.20 pm. The first program's about Jackie-boy.

Carole
 

ninja_cat

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
579
Maybe we should all wait to buy her book when it hits the remainders shelf down the local discount bookshop. - Or go to the Library and read it there. Don't want her to feel she needs to do a follow up.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Anyone see the docu last night on ITV?

Was good but more focused on the phenomenon and the profiling.

The sociological impact and the lasting imagery was well discussed.

Anyone?

LD
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Surprisingly good programme auctually, being ITV1 I expected the worst (snobbish I know!). I'm intrigued by the idea of the last murder being the work of a different killer. Also, the connection between the hoax letters and the yorkshire ripper hoax tape....

If you get the Discovery channel, on the 24th February at 8.30pm they are screening a tv trail with ripperologists, and descendants of suspects and victims. Viewers will have a chance to vote on the most likely suspect........
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thanks for the tip off about the Discovery Channel, Blueswidow. I'll look forward to that.

It was quite a good programme. Unbiased, fair. Very interesting way to spend an hour. I had to laugh to see Paul Britton on there, though.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tumblety

Hello people,

great thread, only just discovered it.

As a seasoned Ripper geek, I can't resist sticking my oar in.

Notice that loads of posters have a great deal of knowlodge about the murders, particularly Helen, but I thought I'd mention a couple of facts about Tumblety that have gone awry.

He was 5' 10" in height rather than 6 ft.

There aren't actually any photographs of him at all, let alone from the time of the murders. There is one "portrait" (it looks more like a line drawing), which does indeed feature the crazy tache, but there's no reason to believe he had this curious facial apparrel throughout his adult life.

The other thing is the greyhounds: apparently the mutts used to accompany him everywhere when he was in the US (St Louis I think) in the 1860s, so I see no reason to think he took them to Liverpool and then on to London, or indeed that these same animals would have been alive then.

There are also some references to him venturing out in clever disguises.

I think his candidacy is still very valid, although the one really big problem is his age: 55 at the time of the murders. This definitely doesn't tally with witness descriptions.

This is all from the Evan and Gainey book, although I confess I haven't read it in a while.

Think it's a good thing having this thread at the FT, since the message boards at casebook.org are just too vast and diverse now, so it's hard to get a coherent debate going.

P.S. - as mentioned above, Discovery channel tonight, 20:30 -"The Trial of Jack the Ripper".
 

harlequin2005

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
826
Having gone through the Ultimate Source book page by page, I confess that I am now mostly convinced that:-

a) the name of the perp is in the book
b) that it isnt one of the 'Usual Suspects'

Its very handy having all of the known primary sources in one place, but gods, it makes the selection of a real, named suspect very difficult. I'm now stuck with 'unsub, male, local' and that's as good as it gets :)

8¬)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hi Harlequin,

what makes you think the name is in the Sourcebook?

Do you think the perp was interviewed at one point to the police's satisfaction and then released?

Conners
 

harlequin2005

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
826
Not necessarily interviewed by the police as a suspect, but possibly as an inquest witness, quoted by the press, or, my personal favorite I confess, involved with the vigilance committee.

8¬)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tumblety's Tache

Amongst the plates in Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey's The Lodger/JtR First Americal Serial Killer, is a plate taken from Tumbley's booklet published in 1889, showing the offending article, the huge, bushy, waxed at both ends 'tache. It also has a sketch of Tumblety prior to his arrival in Britain, with his two greyhounds and the Tache (I think it deserves the capital due to the impressive size of it). Given the general character of the man, I would be very surprised if he would allow his booklet to appear with an out of date picture of himself.

For those of you without a copy of the book, the Moustache spreads from top lip to his chin, and extends beyong jawline/cheekbones. He looks like he's eating a badger. This is a moustache with attitude.

5 foot 10 was still unusually, and noticeably, tall for the East End in the 1800s. And Tumblety was still arrested on the 7th November and bailed on the 16th. Kelly was definitely murdered on the 8th November.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hi Helen,

yep, the old sticking point about the date of Tumblety's arrest does pose problems.

And I would never dream of arguing that Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim.

But as I remember Evan's argument, T was arrested on the 7th and bailed to appear on the 16th (14th?). There is no record of the bail on the 7th, but this is normal as the police didn't keep bail records, unlike magistrates courts. There would have no reason to hold T for over a week on comparatively minor charges. He then failed to appear to answer the charges.

I'm gonna have to bring the book into work tomorrow as otherwise I'm going by memory (so am happy to be corrected in the meantime).

Anyone see the Trial of JTR on Discovery last night? I was torn between that and the football, so only saw first 10 mins.

Conners
 

harlequin2005

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
826
Being agnostic when it comes to football (actually, not giving a stuff :) ) I watched the whole thing.

To be honest, the 4 'prime suspects' didnt do anything for me. Kosminski was the best fit, according to my bias, but to be honest, Angela Rippon couldn't pursuade me to take a drink if I was thirsty! Jeremy Beadle did the best prosecution, IMHO, on James Maybrick(!), and I don't feel he is a viable suspect, although there are a lot of unanswered questions around him, and the forensics on the diary (new fake, old fake stuff).

On the whole, disappointing, although the marriage photo of one of the vitims (purported) was something new.

If you're interested, heres the Discovery channel JtR Web Site

Enjoy :)

8¬)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
sounds quite interesting, H.

I'll catch it tonight.

How daft to have Gull and Maybrick in the line up though. What a waste of time.

I'd like to have seen Tumblety, William Bury, Kosminski and maybe Chapman just to flesh out the numbers.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I agree totally conners, having Maybrick and especially Gull was pointless. I got the feeling that Gull was in to provide a bit of royal related titillation.

I have this nagging impression in my head from somewhere that Maybricks movements during the killings could be accounted for, can somebody confirm this for me????
 

harlequin2005

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
826
One of the things that struck me was that the Tumblety evidence was as strong as that for James Kelly, who was

1) A known knife murderer (He ripped open his wife's throat in a made rage, while accusing her of being free with her favours)
2) A known prostitute hater (where he got something that sounds a lot like syphillis)
3) Going deaf by the last killing(Why he stopped, he was no longer safe doing the crimes)
4) Prone to violent episodes
5) Paranoid and delusional at times

Interesting to note, as a side remark, the two most savagely mutilated victims both went by the name of Kelly (MJK and the night she died Catherine Eddowes was going unde the name Mary Ann Kelly)

Kelly was about 5'6" and in the age range 30-40 at the times of the killings. He was working as an upholsterer and fled the country Nov 10th 1888

He holds the record as being on the run longest period of time (he gave himself up in 1927)

As good a suspect as Dr T :)

8¬)
 

carole

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 1, 2001
Messages
2,296
It was an interesting programme as far as it went, but the time constraints didn't help - maybe an extra half hour would have helped, because the questioning of people seemed rather sketchy.

Out of the 4 suspects, Tumbelty seemed the most likely, but there's still that nagging doubt - Helen's point about his Tache seems valid, for one thing.

It was interesting that the audience voted for Maybrick, but I can't believe he was the killer.

Carole
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Maybrick? Yeah, right. See that pig ...?

What more can be done to vindicate Maybrick than the fact Beadle (professional irritating oik) supports him so avidly? Case closed, I reckon.

They didn't spend enough time on each suspect, and the Court room set up was a farce ('And have you stopped beating your wife, Mr. Beadle? Answer yes or no'). And of all the suspects, why pick those four? And even those weren't covered very well. Tumblety wasn't over 6 foot, and he wasn't well off in 1888; Kosminski was a raving nutter, not the cold calculating type necessary; Maybrick (IIRC) would have had to get from Liverpool to London and back again in the space of about 12 hours to commit one of the murders (I can't remember which one, and nothing short of the hounds of hell would force me to read up on him again. The only interesting thing about him is his missus.) And Gull, to be frank, is a bit of a joke. If you want to push the Royal Conspiracy, there are much better candidates.

There's more on Sunday; some phone in thing and interactive stuff. I'll watch it, but I wouldn't dream of phoning up. Good advice from my grandfather - never argue with fools.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yeah, I was enormously disappointed with it.

Everything was done with such haste that there was no time for valid points to be properly considered.

And what happened to poor Paul Gainey? He was completely wrongfooted by some very simple questioning from Angela Rippon.

I read the Harrison book on the Maybrick diary, in which Shirley's very professionalism and objectivity serves to unravel her own case. I find it amazing anyone could complete the book believing Maybrick was the Ripper (stand up Colin Wilson).

The only interesting thing about the diary is that it may have been an old rather than modern hoax. (Perhaps the perpetrator waited for the right time to release his hoax to ensure maximum publicity and thus profit? It never came, and the diary was left to be rediscovered by his descendants. Just an idea)

There are probably as many as 30 facts that by themselves close the book on the veracity of the diary, but the single most telling for me is still the fact that the author repeats popularly believed errors about the murder of Kelly.

For whatever reason, it was widely understodd that the flesh piled up on the bedside table included Kelly's breasts, and "Maybrick" makes reference to that.

But scene of crime reports were rediscovered in the 1980s showing that the breasts were place under the head and feet respectively. The mass of flesh on the bedside table was that from her thighs. There are other errors of this kind in the account.

Note that the diary doesn't contain a single piece of information about the murders that couldn't have been obtained from contemporary press reports. Not one! So we are asked to believe that the killer's account of his crimes has not one single original piece of info to offer us about how he killed and how he escaped!

Purrrleeasse!!

Nevertheless, whoever did hoax the diary must have spent a long time reading up on the Ripper and Florence Mayrick cases to getting his stuff 'right'. I wouldn't say it's a great forgery, because its authenticity was pretty easily disproved, but it's a fair effort - better than the Hitler diaries for example.

I'm sure I couldn't do any better, but if anyone else fancies a go, perhaps they could......

- not choose a Victorian scrapbook that had already been used, so that the hoaxer had to tear out all the pages with text on them, thereby immediately raising suspicions
-not start the account just as the murders began and end it just as they finished
-try and include some info that is original, but hard to disprove, so it doesn't look like you just read all the press reports
-not try and ape the style of the Dear Boss letters....nobody thinks the killer wrote those for God's sake!
-choose a candidate that met eyewitness descriptions, rather than an ageing merchant who lived hundreds of miles away......maybe someone who was later hanged for a murder or had a conviction or something.
- and finally......don't go over the top with silly extras like the watch with the victime's initials scratched on.

I'll look forward to reading any efforts!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I've only just got the Ripper edition of FT, but why did the article neglect to mention that Tumblety was in custody during one of the murders (not for an unlicensed 'tache either).

There was also an interesting Irish link - I'll post on this later when I have the details in front of me.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tumblety was a Fenian; Littlechild was Chief of the Special Branch with particular interest in terrorist activities. It was widely held that Tumblety was in London with treasonous intent. Which, of course, is all the more reason to keep the guy under surveillance and arrest him at the slightest oppotunity for 'frightening the horses' shall we say?

Is that the Irish angle? Or is there another one?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think the Discovery program was absolute tosh. It wasn't long enough and didn't go into enough detail. It was I feel a rather cynical and ill thought out attempt to cash in the interactive TV craze thats doing the rounds. Whats more all the guests were simply there to plug there own work and further their own agendas.

It is possible to find out more about the JTR case from reading this discussion and a 15 minute search on the internet. And by doing so you would discover there are other people with as much or more claim to being JTR than the 4 in the program.

I did laugh when Max Clifford suggested that some other people were dodgy. After all he of course is a pillar of virtue. I also laughed when after the program they proudly claimed Maybrick to be JTR. :cross eye
 
Top