UK UK - Jack the Ripper, London 1888, East End, in and around Whitechapel District UNSOLVED

[wfgodot]

I too love the "Royal involvement" angle, and the Masonic angle. But I just don't see them as solutions.

 

[kline]

If I had to go with any of the known suspects I would still pick Montague Druitt who many of contemporary investigators felt was the Ripper.
He loaded his pockets with rocks and took a long walk off a short pier straight into the Thames in late 1888 shortly after the horrific butchery of Mary Kelly.
But I wouldnt be at all surprised and suspect the Ripper was a nobody who is lost to history. Even though folks have lots of fun contemplating the 'High Profile ' suspects.

 

[STANDREID]

Monty was my top 20 years ago and is still in there with W. Hardiman, G. Chapman and W. Bury.

 

[HMSHood]

It's 120 years later and all parties are dead. Time to release the files.

 

[badhorsie]

I am no expert on JTR but I have always wondered about Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale.

It is said that he was not in London at the time of the murders but they would say that wouldn't they?

Also, in the UK, most documents over 100yrs old are in the public domain. I find it fascinating that they won't release these old documents. Something is up...

 

[Quiche]

I am no expert on JTR but I have always wondered about Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence and Avondale.

It is said that he was not in London at the time of the murders but they would say that wouldn't they?

Also, in the UK, most documents over 100yrs old are in the public domain. I find it fascinating that they won't release these old documents. Something is up...

We'll see is they're released when the Queen passes on... that's my suspicion. He would have been her grand uncle. I was unaware of the controversy surrounding him, but I immediately thought it was a royal who engendered the sensitivities of the Queen. jmo

 

[Cappuccino]

I'd love it to be revealed that Jack the Ripper was a royal, or some similarly scandalous person. Sadly, I think the two posters below have more likely explanations for why they won't release the files....

possibly if the case was solved, it would hurt tourism? i would imagine tours of whitechapel still make a bundle.
or...brits are very consious of privacy, i know, i married one LOL

ETA: Although there is the possibility that Scotland Yard is only protecting themselves, not wanting the world to see unknown amounts of screw-uppery...that's always possible. No one wants to be a laughing stock.

 

[RainyGirl]

I used to live in England (over a decade ago......extended ballet gigs in London)-----I can't believe the Ripper files are not available!!! ARRGH!!! Blimy!!

BTW---Did anyone else read Patricia Cornwell's book on the Ripper? She had made some good contacts there, but I got the distinct impression she was also somewhat shutout by the old-timers and such. I'm on the fence about her conclusions......but enjoyed the book nevertheless.

Those poor victims........my heart still hurts for them, as British society really cast them aside in favor of a sensational, money-making story about their killer.

 

[Cappuccino]

I've read Patricia Cornwell's book. I thought she made a good case for Walter Sickert being the author of some of the Ripper letters sent to Scotland Yard at the time. But she seemed to think that was the same as making a case for Sickert being the Ripper himself, which it isn't.

As anyone who is familiar with the case of the Yorkshire Ripper and Weirside Jack knows, someone who sends letters claiming to be the killer, even when they include details which sound like inside knowledge, is not necessarily the killer at all.

 

[wfgodot]

I read the Patricia Cornwell book. She did do some good by funding DNA testing of the saliva on envelopes and stamps, proving that technology exists to reach back into past centuries and have a scientific look-see, but she seems to have taken for granted that the Ripper letters were authentic when, actually, almost no Ripper expert thinks them so. And so it was a bit pointless.

Walter Sickert has been named before as a possible suspect, but one wouldn't know it from this book - the author's a bit thin when it comes to crediting sources; one might think that Cornwell originated the theory herself. And for some inexplicable reason Cornwell misspells the name of possible early victim - though not one of the canonical five - Martha Tabram thoughout the book, spelling her last name Tabran. Baffling. I could go on (and on and on) but these examples should serve.

At the very most, Cornwell proves Sickert to have been a bit odd. But that we knew. He was a bit of a caution, he did like to have his fun - but big surprise, he was an artist. And it's an insurmountable step, the attempt to prove that he was also a serial killer. There are no stairs there.

There are many excellent Ripper books to be found but - careful! It's truly an addictive case, this one. The next thing you know, you'll have 12-15 of those books, and be au courant with recent issues in Ripperology!

 

[Nova]

Interesting that they're still protective of the investigation-- it immediately makes me wonder if the perp was royalty of some kind. Who else would merit protection of their reputation 120+ years later?

You may well be right, but police investigations usually cover a wide array of people in addition to the actual perp.

It may be there is info in the files that is embarrassing to the department, the crown or the nobility, even if no one from those groups actually committed the crime.

But I agree the continued secrecy is very curious...

 

[BobbiKinkaid]

Well I find it hard to believe that anything in those files would embarrass anyone today. Who would care about the reputations of those mentioned in the police files from that long ago? However, considering how much the royals from Queen Elizabeth's generation practiced discretion about all things scandalous, it is possible that the reason the don't want to release the files because it would cast a shadow on the family tree.

I had a thought though...that the reason the don't want to let anyone at the files is because they don't have them or at least not all of them. 120 years is a long time for any police organization to keep track of evidence and reports.
Now that is something that could be embarrassing. We may never find out, but I hope, like the rest of those interested in the case, we do!

 

[kline]

I still dont beleive there is any real Royalty connection though its easy to see why some folks might find that idea intriuging.
As I said before my money is still on Monty Druitt but I still think its entirely likely the Ripper was a nobody who left no real tracks in this world(especially if he was part of that East End/Whitechapel milieu) and never even made the iconic suspects list.

 

[Trident]

I do wonder why the files aren't already released, but given the state of today's world, that may play a part - in my opinion only, of course.

I don't know if any of you have seen the case pictures, or even want to, because they are BEYOND horrifying, the worst pics I have EVER seen, and I go to some BAD places. WARNING - EXPLICIT, NOT FOR THE FAINT OF HEART OR CHILDREN.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...89897DF43CAA1AFC2972CBAD1&first=0&FORM=IDFRIR

 

[TheDuchess]

Anyone know of a good book on the case for someone who really knows nothing? Or a good movie?

 

[CarrieSis]

I recently saw a show (very unconvincing in its concept IMO) but for the first time I saw a forensic computer reconstruction done purportedly based on the autopsy reports of the body of Eddowes.

IF the reconstruction they did was correct, the facial damage immediately stood out to me (seeing the wounds right after washing at autopsy would be far easier to "see" details than the bloody crime scene photos in which they are obscured). It's like a replication of a theatre mask - two vertical slices from below the eyebrow down towards the cheek; one X upon both apples of the cheeks; and the flaying of the skin of the nose point (resembling a clown's nose w/the bloody tissue beneath exposed).

MJK had similar cuttings to the face but they were much more severely inflicted.

After reading up a bit on the theatre history of the Whitechapel area and London general, and then Paris as well, I wondered if any of the POI's had an interest or relationship with an actress who played "Pirouette" (apologies for misspellings) or a similar character with that distinct "Mask".

/I know, totally off the wall. But that is the only thing that stood out to me that was something I'd not seen before. I did take screenshots but even in cgi they are pretty graphic, and nude. Not sure should post them here.

 

[wfgodot]

Anyone know of a good book on the case for someone who really knows nothing? Or a good movie?

A good place to start might be Philip Sugden's "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper." Quite readable.

 

[Claudette]

I recently saw a show (very unconvincing in its concept IMO) but for the first time I saw a forensic computer reconstruction done purportedly based on the autopsy reports of the body of Eddowes.

IF the reconstruction they did was correct, the facial damage immediately stood out to me (seeing the wounds right after washing at autopsy would be far easier to "see" details than the bloody crime scene photos in which they are obscured). It's like a replication of a theatre mask - two vertical slices from below the eyebrow down towards the cheek; one X upon both apples of the cheeks; and the flaying of the skin of the nose point (resembling a clown's nose w/the bloody tissue beneath exposed).

MJK had similar cuttings to the face but they were much more severely inflicted.

After reading up a bit on the theatre history of the Whitechapel area and London general, and then Paris as well, I wondered if any of the POI's had an interest or relationship with an actress who played "Pirouette" (apologies for misspellings) or a similar character with that distinct "Mask".

/I know, totally off the wall. But that is the only thing that stood out to me that was something I'd not seen before. I did take screenshots but even in cgi they are pretty graphic, and nude. Not sure should post them here.

Interesting. Definitely did not know anything about that before. Also, thanks for not posting them lol

 

[Ambercat]

I really do think that they must be protecting someone, and I'm not often for the royal family conspiracy theories, but this time...it's a case well over a century old. Who would still need protection at this point in time? Not the Ripper himself certainly, but his family? very likely, in my eyes.

ETA: Although there is the possibility that Scotland Yard is only protecting themselves, not wanting the world to see unknown amounts of screw-uppery...that's always possible. No one wants to be a laughing stock.

I think that it is that Scotland Yard is protecting themselves, I know that they had changed some of the witness statements for the press (changing "Jewish looking" to "foreign looking" and I can only guess what else because they didn't want violence against Jewish people [if it was known that LE believed that he was]). I always wonder if their editing of the descriptions of the perpetrator prevented him from being apprehended.

I know that there are some people who suggest that the Duke of Clarence was Jack the Ripper even though he wasn't even in London on some of the nights that murders took place. Personally, I don't think the royal family was involved -- I think it was someone more local who was living in Whitechapel at the time (either Aaron Kosminski or David Cohen).

 

[legalmania]

My roommates grandmother was Queen Victoria's great granddaughter, her son was a historian Frank Fitzgerald Bush he claims through his research that Jack the Ripper was a member of the Royal Family. Since Uncle Franks death I have read through his paper work and I believe there is enough evidence that Jack the Ripper was a member of the Royal Family. Just my expert opinion.



http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL1928822A/Sir_Frank_S._FitzGerald-Bush