Anybody interested?

[Norman T. Field]

Are members interested in JTR? If so there are many more elements to the case i have not yet discussed. if interest exists I will post further evidence, urban legend and conjecture. I only ask as it is a large undertaking, and I don't fancy "Talking to myself"

Definitely still interested Stephen. Hope you're well

Thanks Adam, I really keep meaning to get around to updating these threads. next week, I promise.

I remain interested in JTR as well.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Are members interested in JTR? If so there are many more elements to the case i have not yet discussed. if interest exists I will post further evidence, urban legend and conjecture. I only ask as it is a large undertaking, and I don't fancy "Talking to myself"

Definitely still interested Stephen. Hope you're well

Thanks Adam, I really keep meaning to get around to updating these threads. next week, I promise.

I remain interested in JTR as well.

Hi Norman, lone time no see Buddy.

[Norman T. Field]

Did anyone see the recent History Channel program JTR in America? (I hope I have the title correct)

It claims JTW was an escaped mental patient who fled to the U.S and ripped his way throughout the country. While an iteresting program, it doesn't address all issues, such as: why did Scotland Yard lift all their coverage shortly after a mad butcher was institutionalized?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Did anyone see the recent History Channel program JTR in America? (I hope I have the title correct)

It claims JTW was an escaped mental patient who fled to the U.S and ripped his way throughout the country. While an iteresting program, it doesn't address all issues, such as: why did Scotland Yard lift all their coverage shortly after a mad butcher was institutionalized?

Hi Norman. It was on the Discovery Channel. I only saw a few minutes of it while channel surfing, the bit about James Kelly using an upholsterer's knife for the cutting; also seemed to suggest Kelly had made a written confession or had a diary at some point(?)

http://press.discovery.com/emea/wrld/progr...ripper-america/

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=105967

Kelly ended his days in broadmoor, an institution for the criminally insane. Nice avatar BTW Daniel.

[Gene Kelly]

Are members interested in JTR? If so there are many more elements to the case i have not yet discussed. if interest exists I will post further evidence, urban legend and conjecture. I only ask as it is a large undertaking, and I don't fancy "Talking to myself"

Hello Stephen:

I've recently taken an interest in the case, based on reading Patricia Cornwell's book. I realize that she's not generally regarded credible by Ripperologists, but she does in my opinion make a strong circumstantial case for Walter Sickert. I know you didn't like her persona and presentation, but - author aside - the details do point to him as a person of interest. His art in particular evokes controversy, and some of his traits (multiple Whitechapel studios or "rat-holes", wanderings, music hall fantasies, master of disguise, penchant to wear soldier uniforms, prolific letter writing, treatment of women) collectively bring him "into the frame". Ironically, while trying to link modern forensics to the scant/distant evidence (a notable effort in my view), she found compelling links between his stationary (i.e. watermarks) and artistic methods, and many of the Ripper letters. Not necessarily proof of murder, but hard to ignore once you appreciate the scope of her 'investigation'. Also, my instincts tell me that this murderer did not stop after 1888 - although I'm no criminal profiler - and kept killing perhaps in a different MO. I'm interested in your views of Sickert as suspect.

Best,

Gene Kelly

[Steve Duffy]

I never looked at this thread before, as it seemed dead in the water (see a Druitt reference....!)

I've had a major interest in The Ripper case, ever since I thumbed through an old paperback copy of Rumbelow's when I was about 12, and thought "How could do such brutality, and was hooked for many, many years.

I lost interest for a couple of reasons. As someone who loves a historical whodunit, It came to the point I knew we wouldn't know...

The suspects kept getting, well, sillier, and I moved into other areas of history.

I came back briefly this year, when I read Trow's "JTR Quest for a Killer" another stimulating "here it is folks", without a scintilla of factual evidence to back it up. I thought it was time to let this one go, though I still have most of the recent books on my Amazon wish list. Damn, sometimes I can't help but have a complete a library as I can.

If this thread continues, I'll be sure to pop in know and then, I'm eager to catch up.

Gene, just to respond with my IMHO, Cornwell was a massive disappointment. It was a reason why I switched off. She's an preeminent pathologist, but her case was so, so weak (excuse me if I make some errors, it has been a long time since I read it...)

Her suspect was in Paris, during some of the crimes?

It's only mitochondrial DNA that links him to some letters?

And my problem with the paintings, and this is hard to explain. Lets just say you were an Artist, and you butchered someone, in a small shack, with next to little light, for whatever reason, over a fairly lengthy period of time.

At of all that, miasma, of a scene to paint, why chose an angle, look, style etc, that so mimics the extant pics of Mary Kelly? It looks like a painting of the photograph, if you understand, rather than someone who was there in the room. It doesn't look like a painting of someone intimately involved in her murder, we see it's connection, or similarity, because it looks like a photograph we've seen. Does that make sense?

Also, I think he stopped, possibly after the murder of Alice McKenzie.

Anyway, Over 120 years, I think anything that can be learned can be found in 4-5 books.

If something earth shattering is revealed, I'm sure I'll be the first to jump back in. Just not another item of Kate Eddowes...maybe a diary? ha ha

[Don Jeffries]

I agree with Steve about Patricia Cornwell- what a mess of a book, imho. Her convoluted effort to blame the Ripper slayings on Walter Sickert was all pop-psychobabble, without any real evidence at all, imho. And worst of all, she never even credited the much maligned Stephen Knight for introducing Sickert into the drama in the first place, some 35 years ago.

Did any of you catch the special on the Science Channel last week- "Jack The Ripper: New Evidence?" In my view, this new "theory" is even less credible than Cornwell's. I think the guy was the same one Steve referred to- Trow. Anyhow, he was hell bent on making some heretofore unknown mortuary assistant, Robert Mann, into JTR. His "evidence" for this was the startling fact Mann lived in the general area where the murders too place, and because he was a familiar face, would have "blended into the crowd" without causing suspicion! Yeah, so would thousands of other people. Of course, he also made much of the fact that 2 or 3 (can't remember exact number) of the Ripper victims were brought to his mortuary. Wonder wny none of the coroners from the mortuaries where the victims were taken were considered suspect by this brilliant detective?

As some of you may know, my own conspiratorial mindset led me early on to believe that Knight was generally on the right track. I think there was some kind of Royal connection to the JTR killings. I understand it's a theory that has holes in it, and can't be proven at this juncture. However, what irks me is the fact that nearly every self proclaimed "Ripperologist" instantly derides any notion that the Royals could have been involved, but then trots out theories of their own, which are at least as ridiculous and also cannot be proven, as if they have great validity.

At this point, I think Jack The Ripper must remain a tantalizing mystery that will never be solved. And, to tell the truth, many of us would be disappointed if we ever did get a definitive solution.

[Steve Duffy]

Thanks for the reply, Don.

Yes it's Trow that names the mortuary assistant. The book was accompanied by the special. The book has a geographical solution to the crimes, as you say Mann lived in the...general...vicinity (explains why he was so timely to work, I suppose... And was a bit slow at the inquests....and that's about it. So, a menial labor guy, lived close, and worked at the mortuary were some of the victims lived. Hard to get excited.

I'm a conspiracy guy, but I, for whatever reason, can't get into the Royal, or any one, on the JTR murders. I think the truth would be seriously mundane (And I sort of hate that, but feel it with every fiber on this case)

I do have to thank Knight for an entertaining theory, or at least furthering what was "in the wind" about some of the early suspects. And for inspiring Alan Moore's From Hell, one of the greatest pieces of fiction I've read, so there's that.

When you get a moment, Don, tell us why you believe in the Royal theory, love to know.

Also, saw there's an upcoming book just listed on Amazon, all about Kosminski. That one I might pick up...

Steve.

[Don Jeffries]

Steve,

Sorry for the delayed response. Basically, I don't think that the murders of poor prostitutes in the East End of London would have been covered up, unless there were some powerful forces behind them. Of course, I can't prove the royals were involved, any more than anyone else can prove their pet theory at this point, but I do believe Knight's hypothesis was compelling.

What really is telling, in my view, is the knee jerk negative reaction, from all the best respected "ripperologists," to any talk of Prince Eddy, the Freemasons, or even Eddy's tutor, being involved. I will acknowledge that it is impossible to prove royal involvement, but the evidence tying Eddy to the crimes, or some sort of "From Hell"/Stephen Knight Freemason-tinged theory, is no more lacking, imho, than the evidence implicating Kosminski, Montague Druitt or any anonymous Polish Jew.

As I noted, at this stage Jack The Ripper must remain a tantalyzing, but probably forever unidentified figure.