The Jack the Ripper Case - SOLVED (apparently)

[vicarious wolf]

Doubt cast on the new 'Eddowes shawl' evidence:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...been-revealed-using-dna-evidence-9717036.html

The scientist who performed this remarkable feat [of DNA matching]... has not so far published his study in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, so it is impossible to verify his claims or analyse his methodology.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

The problem is that no-one has any proof, just suppositions based on circumstantial evidence.

And I am not too convinced about this supposed shawl DNA match up.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Nah - this DNA evidence smells wrong to me....A shawl that has been left around like that is bound to get a lot of corrupting evidence on it.

The crimes will never be solved. Not completely. Some ace theories out there which I love though.

The letters intrigue me at times. Nobody seems to have destroyed the "From Hell" letter, but weren't "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jack" traced to journalistic fakes?

 

[vicarious wolf]

I will briefly explain why I believe that Tumblety could have been the Ripper.

Firstly he disliked women generally, and had a hatred for prostitues, hardly proof of him being a serial killer I know, but he found out his wife had been a prostitute at one time. Tumblety was also in London on the dates the women were murdered, and is believed to be the Batty Street lodger who was staying in very close proximity to the murder locations. He also had medical knowledge, and apart from the butchering of Mary Kelly, it is clear whoever did it had some medical knowledge. The murders also ceased after he fled London, going via France and using a number of aliases. Why would he have done that unless he had great need to avoid being caught by the Police. Scotland Yard contacted New York police for a sample of Tumblety's handwriting, this would have been after the fake ripper letter.

So to my mind there are several things that point to Tumblety being the ripper, but the two main reasons are:

The Littlechild Letter and after his death, the authorities found in Tumblety's possession two cheap, imitation rings. All his other jewellery was expensive, so why have two cheap rings which were identical to ones owned by Annie Chapman.

But Littlechild didn't think Tumblety was the Ripper.

In his three-page letter, which covered a number of Ripper-related subjects, Littlechild only mentions Tumblety in response to something raised by his correspondent: has he heard of a 'Dr D' in relation to Ripper suspects?

No, writes Littlechild, but there was a 'Dr T' who was a 'likely' suspect. However, the ex-chief inspector goes on to say that although Tumblety was a 'sycopathia sexualis' subject, he was not a sadist - which he, Littlechild, believes the Ripper was.

Littlechild also mistakenly indicates that Tumblety disappeared after the killings. Not true. In fact, Tumblety took advantage of a move in his court date to skip bail and escape gross indecency charges (for homosexual acts); and he then went to ground in New York, probably confident that he couldn't be extradited on such minor charges.

So Littlechild, while agreeing that Tumblety was a suspect, evidently wasn't sufficiently interested in him to investigate what happened to him after he left London.

Tumblety was a nasty piece of work, by all accounts, but he sounds too flamboyant and easily recognisable to be the Ripper. And I know it's an established fact that he made no secret of disliking prostitutes and hating women, but he was gay, after all, so it's difficult to imagine him being *that* bothered that his wife was a former prostitute. It's quite possible that all his misogyny was just talk.

I'm interested in the 'two cheap, imitation rings' that you describe, though. Whereabouts are they mentioned?

 

[darlowolf64]

I'm interested in the 'two cheap, imitation rings' that you describe, though. Whereabouts are they mentioned?

http://www.searchingfortruthwithabrokenflashlight.com/uploads/Rip_Tumbletys_Rings.pdf

 

[FrankMunro-371]

But Littlechild didn't think Tumblety was the Ripper.

In his three-page letter, which covered a number of Ripper-related subjects, Littlechild only mentions Tumblety in response to something raised by his correspondent: has he heard of a 'Dr D' in relation to Ripper suspects?

No, writes Littlechild, but there was a 'Dr T' who was a 'likely' suspect. However, the ex-chief inspector goes on to say that although Tumblety was a 'sycopathia sexualis' subject, he was not a sadist - which he, Littlechild, believes the Ripper was.

Littlechild also mistakenly indicates that Tumblety disappeared after the killings. Not true. In fact, Tumblety took advantage of a move in his court date to skip bail and escape gross indecency charges (for homosexual acts); and he then went to ground in New York, probably confident that he couldn't be extradited on such minor charges.

So Littlechild, while agreeing that Tumblety was a suspect, evidently wasn't sufficiently interested in him to investigate what happened to him after he left London.

Tumblety was a nasty piece of work, by all accounts, but he sounds too flamboyant and easily recognisable to be the Ripper. And I know it's an established fact that he made no secret of disliking prostitutes and hating women, but he was gay, after all, so it's difficult to imagine him being *that* bothered that his wife was a former prostitute. It's quite possible that all his misogyny was just talk.

I'm interested in the 'two cheap, imitation rings' that you describe, though. Whereabouts are they mentioned?

Littlechild mentions Tumblety as a possible suspect, and ends his letter by saying that the murders stopped after Tumblety left England.

Regarding the rings it was written by Scott Hanniford in " A theory on Francis Tumblety."


"There are numerous things pointing to Tumblety, apart from his possibly being the Batty Street Lodger. The most enticing point is that an inventory of personal belongings was taking on his death, and as well as some extremely expensive jewellry , $1000 in bonds and over $430 in cash, he also had TWO CHEAP IMITATION RINGS value $2-3, exactly the same as those missing from Annie Chapman! A serial killer's trophy?"

 

[lemonjelly]

I will briefly explain why I believe that Tumblety could have been the Ripper.

Firstly he disliked women generally, and had a hatred for prostitues, hardly proof of him being a serial killer I know, but he found out his wife had been a prostitute at one time. Tumblety was also in London on the dates the women were murdered, and is believed to be the Batty Street lodger who was staying in very close proximity to the murder locations. He also had medical knowledge, and apart from the butchering of Mary Kelly, it is clear whoever did it had some medical knowledge. The murders also ceased after he fled London, going via France and using a number of aliases. Why would he have done that unless he had great need to avoid being caught by the Police. Scotland Yard contacted New York police for a sample of Tumblety's handwriting, this would have been after the fake ripper letter.

So to my mind there are several things that point to Tumblety being the ripper, but the two main reasons are:

The Littlechild Letter and after his death, the authorities found in Tumblety's possession two cheap, imitation rings. All his other jewellery was expensive, so why have two cheap rings which were identical to ones owned by Annie Chapman.

I rest my case your honour, and eagerly await Mr Jelly's response.

The stories of Tumblety's hatred of women/prostitutes has been shown (I think by Stewart Evans, who was the finder of the Littlechild letter) to have been made up by some boasting socialite.

Scotland Yard had arrested Tumblety for gross indecency just before the Kelly murder. It was probably homosexuality, but that file appears lost. However evidence does exist of his arrest, & incarceration in November 1888, as bail was initially refused.
He fled the charges/prosecution. Scotland Yard did actually follow him, & an Inspector monitored him in the states, but there was no extradition agreement at the time, & competition between american police & scotland yard meant there was little co-operation.

Tumbelty was over 6 foot tall, & wildly extrvagant in chatracter & dress, yet not one of the victims was seen with such a person. Indeed the witnesses report varying from 5'4" to 5'11". Tumbelty would have stood out a mile, especially when the entire populace is on the lookout, yet wasn't seen.

Doubt cast on the new 'Eddowes shawl' evidence:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...been-revealed-using-dna-evidence-9717036.html

The shawl isn't new. Andy & Sue Parlour have had it for decades. But it's providence has never been verified.
I believe it is the first time DNA evidence has been obtained from it though.

Nah - this DNA evidence smells wrong to me....A shawl that has been left around like that is bound to get a lot of corrupting evidence on it.

The crimes will never be solved. Not completely. Some ace theories out there which I love though.

The letters intrigue me at times. Nobody seems to have destroyed the "From Hell" letter, but weren't "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jack" traced to journalistic fakes?

Bullen I think.
The From Hell letter was clearly a different hand. I often wonder if it & the Openshaw letter are by the same hand.

 

[lemonjelly]

I will briefly explain why I believe that Tumblety could have been the Ripper.

Firstly he disliked women generally, and had a hatred for prostitues, hardly proof of him being a serial killer I know, but he found out his wife had been a prostitute at one time. Tumblety was also in London on the dates the women were murdered, and is believed to be the Batty Street lodger who was staying in very close proximity to the murder locations. He also had medical knowledge, and apart from the butchering of Mary Kelly, it is clear whoever did it had some medical knowledge. The murders also ceased after he fled London, going via France and using a number of aliases. Why would he have done that unless he had great need to avoid being caught by the Police. Scotland Yard contacted New York police for a sample of Tumblety's handwriting, this would have been after the fake ripper letter.

So to my mind there are several things that point to Tumblety being the ripper, but the two main reasons are:

The Littlechild Letter and after his death, the authorities found in Tumblety's possession two cheap, imitation rings. All his other jewellery was expensive, so why have two cheap rings which were identical to ones owned by Annie Chapman.

I rest my case your honour, and eagerly await Mr Jelly's response.

The stories of Tumblety's hatred of women/prostitutes has been shown (I think by Stewart Evans, who was the finder of the Littlechild letter) to have been made up by some boasting socialite.

Scotland Yard had arrested Tumblety for gross indecency just before the Kelly murder. It was probably homosexuality, but that file appears lost. However evidence does exist of his arrest, & incarceration in November 1888, as bail was initially refused.
He fled the charges/prosecution. Scotland Yard did actually follow him, & an Inspector monitored him in the states, but there was no extradition agreement at the time, & competition between american police & scotland yard meant there was little co-operation.

Tumbelty was over 6 foot tall, & wildly extrvagant in chatracter & dress, yet not one of the victims was seen with such a person. Indeed the witnesses report varying from 5'4" to 5'11". Tumbelty would have stood out a mile, especially when the entire populace is on the lookout, yet wasn't seen.

Doubt cast on the new 'Eddowes shawl' evidence:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...been-revealed-using-dna-evidence-9717036.html

The shawl isn't new. Andy & Sue Parlour have had it for decades. But it's providence has never been verified.
I believe it is the first time DNA evidence has been obtained from it though.

Nah - this DNA evidence smells wrong to me....A shawl that has been left around like that is bound to get a lot of corrupting evidence on it.

The crimes will never be solved. Not completely. Some ace theories out there which I love though.

The letters intrigue me at times. Nobody seems to have destroyed the "From Hell" letter, but weren't "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jack" traced to journalistic fakes?

Bullen I think.
The From Hell letter was clearly a different hand. I often wonder if it & the Openshaw letter are by the same hand.

 

[lemonjelly]

Littlechild mentions Tumblety as a possible suspect, and ends his letter by saying that the murders stopped after Tumblety left England.

Regarding the rings it was written by Scott Hanniford in " A theory on Francis Tumblety."


"There are numerous things pointing to Tumblety, apart from his possibly being the Batty Street Lodger. The most enticing point is that an inventory of personal belongings was taking on his death, and as well as some extremely expensive jewellry , $1000 in bonds and over $430 in cash, he also had TWO CHEAP IMITATION RINGS value $2-3, exactly the same as those missing from Annie Chapman! A serial killer's trophy?"

No-one knows if they are annie chapmans rings though. There appeared to be ring marks on chapmans fingers, but I'm not sure that it has ever been confirmed the 2 rings were stolen - she could have pawned them?
There's also nothing linking the 2 rings Tumbelty allegedley had with chapman either. They could have been his mothers for example.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

LJ and myself have previously discussed the Ripper murders, and I have full respect for LJ whose knowledge of this subject far outweighs mine. Like many other people who have read various books, I became attached to the view that Tumblety was the Ripper. I have no evidence to back this up, but there were too many coincidences for him not to be a prime suspect.

We will probably never know the tue identity of the Ripper, but in my opinion if Tumblety was not the murderer, then it could have been Aaron Kosminski, though to me it is too easy to lay the blame at his door. Kosminski was a Polish Jew, and was eventually locked away in an asylum, but at the time of the Whitechapel murders was not a suspect, and did not actually show signs of mental illness until 1891.
Thomas Cutbush is another possibility, but there is serious doubt as to any possible involvement by Cutbush. There is little evidence to support A.P. Woolf's belief that Cutbush was the Ripper, but Peter Hodgson does put a good case forward, but again everything is circumstantial.

Now a dark outsider, Frederick Deeming, who claimed to be the Ripper, but this was dismissed. Yet is there a possibility that he was the man. His timeline shows he was in the Whitechapel area, he had a history of violence and indeed did murder his wife and children, all their throats being cut.

Though it may well be that the Ripper was some-one who has not been mentioned publicly, though I remain sure that the authorities knew the identity of this man.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

An interesting list of suspects:

http://www.historybytheyard.co.uk/jack_the_ripper.htm

 

[lemonjelly]

LJ and myself have previously discussed the Ripper murders, and I have full respect for LJ whose knowledge of this subject far outweighs mine. Like many other people who have read various books, I became attached to the view that Tumblety was the Ripper. I have no evidence to back this up, but there were too many coincidences for him not to be a prime suspect.

I wouldn't say I necessarily know more frank!
Like yourself, one book will seem to be very compelling. Until other evidence/perspectives come to light.

I genuinely don't have a prime suspect. Indeed, researchers & historians don't even agree on how many actual ripper victims there were. Philip Sugdens excellent book states (paraphrasing here) at least 3, probably 4-6, maybe as many as 11 were killed by the ripper.

I've read 30+ ripper books. I have over 20 books still to read, and a list of books to buy at some point!
It is certainly a fascinating subject.

 

[PPB]

For someone who has never read a book on the Jack The Ripper case, which would you reccomend to start with ? . I've obviously read bits and watched programmes about it, but never read an actual book on it.

 

[FrankMunro-371]

For someone who has never read a book on the Jack The Ripper case, which would you reccomend to start with ? . I've obviously read bits and watched programmes about it, but never read an actual book on it.

I would recommend The Complete History of Jack the Ripper by Philip Sugden. It gives a detailed account of not just the merders and the suspects, but also of life in the East End of London in Victorian times. There are many more, so you would be spoilt for choice.

 

[Kenny]

For someone who has never read a book on the Jack The Ripper case, which would you reccomend to start with ? . I've obviously read bits and watched programmes about it, but never read an actual book on it.

Quite clearly you need to read Mr Edwards (of Barnet) book. That way you only need to read 1 as he has solved the whole case. The rest will be just be a massive work of fiction and a waste of your time (unless you turn out to be an evil non believer)

 

[PPB]

I would recommend The Complete History of Jack the Ripper by Philip Sugden. It gives a detailed account of not just the merders and the suspects, but also of life in the East End of London in Victorian times. There are many more, so you would be spoilt for choice.

Cheers Frankie. Just purchased on me Kindle. A bargain at $4.97.

I am doing a 'read one book a week ' challenge. This will be next weeks read.

 

[PPB]

Quite clearly you need to read Mr Edwards (of Barnet) book. That way you only need to read 1 as he has solved the whole case.

But what if he's got it all wrong..

 

[Kenny]

HE HASN'T....

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

He has...

 

[Kenny]

Don't be doubting Mr Edwards (of Barnet) you massive non believer you