A Good Suspects List

[admin tim]

http://www.davidjschow.com/hid/hid_fromhell.html

[Stan Russo]

I'd have to disagree.

[How Brown]

Stosh:

Whom would you dismiss from the list ?

This guy,although probably a civilian...ain't too far from the truth about RDS.

RDS

One of the recent rash of modern "new" Ripper suspects, the only facts implicating Stephenson was his pronounced interest in the Ripper murders, and the fact that he lived in the East End. He apparently wrote numerous letters and articles concerning the case, but was not known to have been violent toward women.

I don't see anything out of order here. At least he didn't try to scam the community with the baseless notion that RDS was "faking neurasthenia".

[admin tim]

Yes, Stan, we'd be interested to learn of this list's shortcomings as perceived by you (and anyone else, for that matter).

[Stan Russo]

Well, there are two names on the list as suspects who have been fully exonerated.

In a 120 year old murder case, there is so little we can actually prove, yet this list has ignored the exoneration of two suspects. I'm not sure how this could be considered a good or solid list with people who are no longer suspects on it.

[Scott Nelson]

You know, I just don't understand why certain men around at the time who are really suspicious, like Henry DeFries, the sponge warehouseman at Gravel Lane, Spitalfields, aren't looked into more. And also not to mention Solomon De Costa, the provisional merchant on Little Alie Steet. These are just random examples of men who are much more likely to have been the killer than the ridiculous candidates poffered by the under-informed.

[How Brown]

Hear,hear, Mr. Nelson !!

[admin tim]

Well, make that a 'Good List of Suspects', not a 'List of Good Suspects'. 'A Good Suspects List' was ambivalent and misconstrued.

But if you want it done right, you gotta do it yourself. How about generating a List of Good Suspects in here? The obvious candidates would be included, no-goes like Lewis Carroll would be left off, and those such as RDS would have to be voted upon.

Does anyone here consider Sickert to be a viable suspect?

[Scott Nelson]

No, he isn't. But why not produce an updated suspects list and their proponents. I tried doing this a couple of years ago on the other forums site. Kind of a Charlie Clark effort - not a book length effort on some 100 or so suspects.

You know, start with somebody like the failed Barrister, William Francis Forrester Smith; proponent - John Carey

Etc.

[Stan Russo]

Here is what I still do not understand - tell me why Walter Sickert is not a good suspect, yet Montague John Druitt is.

Why does Druitt not fall under the same "bad theory" microscope that Sickert falls under?

If you ask me, Druitt is far less of a suspect than Sickert because the person who propsed him made so many errors that it is hard to believe he did any research at all on Druitt. Also, a person at that time had a serious advantage on the researchers and theorists now. If a theorist, policeman or not, couldn't create a theory that held under close scrutiny, being so close in time to the actual crimes, then why is that suspect even still considered?

I also still love how people dismiss a suspect, as Scott has just done, without providing a reason. Surely someone who labels themself a researcher has done some actual research on a suspect before so casually dismissing him as a suspect, at least I hope they would. I also hope that someone calling themself a researcher would not dismiss a suspect based on an arrogantly egomaniacal lesbian's awfully composed and unproved theory. That would be just silly.

In this nature, I would love to see this updated suspect list and even more so, would love to see why a suspect would be on it and why a suspect would be off this list.

[How Brown]

I also hope that someone calling themself a researcher would not dismiss a suspect based on an arrogantly egomaniacal lesbian's awfully composed and unproved theory. That would be just silly.--Stan

Well...I seem fit that description as I appear to be the only Ripperologist who has tried to demonstrate that Cremer's memoirs are simply implausible ( see elsewhere for details ) and that the only basis for Stephenson being a suspect in the crimes in our time,emanates from Harris. Not only once, but twice and under different criteria...neither of which are tenable.

Stephenson, in reality, ceased to exist as a suspect during the two day period of Dec. 24th 1888 to Dec. 26th 1888. No further known inquiries into his bizarre behavior by the police are known to have happened after the 26th and may never have occurred at all in the first place.

The resurrection of Stephenson as suspect that occurred in the 20th Century is akin to a coterie of individuals who would resurrect John Pizer-as-Ripper despite Pizer being cleared in 1888.

Until the day comes where someone can provide one example of Stephenson leaving the LH once...during his 134 day stay there...either in the day or night...he is no more a suspect than any other male patient in the LH with two arms,two legs,and two eyes.

Its amazing in a way...that the one suspect whose whereabouts for 4 and 1/2 months were verifiable even back then,let alone now.. was one of the 5 major figures in the 1988 Centennial program....and at that time,Harris,you must remember, did NOT promote the faked neurasthenia jive. That came afterwards. Of all "suspects" Stephenson's location...at the critical times... is solidly documented the longest.

As to any other basis for him being Jack The Ripper...there is none. You must "get" him out of the hospital to be a suspect, which cannot be done,unless you assume,as Harris did, that you know more than the doctors who examined him did at the LH in July of 1888. Once more, Marsh's statement was quickly dismissed in the followup report by Roots and may have never been enacted upon in the first place.

But...as it goes in our field...if some still wish to make Stephenson a suspect, there's no harm in that. Promoting his candidacy does attract people to the field...and I would be a hypocrite not to remember that I have been saying for 4 years now that I believe Mrs. Cornwell is actually good for the field, as she does attract newbies and those dangling on the periphery of Ripperology to the field...ensuring that our field will have a replenished stock of interested people.

[Stan Russo]

But How, you've proved my argument once again, because you, unlike most, do seem to get it.

I hear you saying Stephenson is not a valid suspect, but what I also hear is you providing a reason that holds up to scrutiny, whether or not people will debate it or not.

What I don't hear is you saying "Stephenson is not a suspect and that's all I have to say on the matter".

That, to me, is a wasted comment and a rampant ideal that permates the people who "study" this case.

What most people do not get is that the same rules should hold true for promoting a suspect that hold true for discounting a suspect. However, most "researchers" display a carefree approach to eliminating suspects without presenting what amounts to an even baseline case for their exclusion, while simultaneously railing against those who promote suspects and use the exact same approach. While I don't believe it is intentionally hypocritical I do believe it is just a lot easier than putting the full effort in.

[Scott Nelson]

I also still love how people dismiss a suspect, as Scott has just done, without providing a reason. Surely someone who labels themself a researcher has done some actual research on a suspect before so casually dismissing him as a suspect, at least I hope they would.


Well, I didn't give myself the title of "Researcher" on this site. It was bequeathed upon me by the owners/operators. And I didn't say that I totally dismiss Sickert as a viable suspect. It's just that circumstantial evidence outlined by Matthew Sturgis would tend to make Sickert's candidacy untenable - if, for example, he was in France at the time of the murders. In these instances where too much is riding against such suspects, I believe that you have to set them aside until better evidence -be it circumstantial or otherwise- surfaces.

In my particular area of interest of this case, or obsession, the Polish Jew suspect, I have never said that Kosminski or anyone similar definately was the Ripper. Indeed, I think that if it was Aaron that was suspected, it was only because he may have gotten inadvertently involved in some sort of mix-up at one of the crime scenes.

Wolf Vanderlinden put together a pretty good synapsis of the case against Sickert here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=59&page=11

[Stan Russo]

I find it interesting that when a researcher uses art to promote Sickert, they are grasping at straws or reaching for a connection that need not be there, but when someone uses art to hypothetically claim Sickert was possibly in France during the time when the murders were committed, they are labeled as presenting a "pretty good synopsis".

To believe that bias plays no role is to not understand the term bias.

Examining the letters, there is absolutely nothing that prohibits Sickert from moving from France to England as he wished. The closest letter, the Sept. 6th swimming letter from his mother, still does not proclude him from going to London and committing the Chapman murder.

In fact, vacationing with his family would provide the perfect alibi, if he were the murderer. I am sure that anyone who knows Sickert, including Matthew Sturgis, whose book I have read, knows that he was a man who came and went as he pleased, without such shackles as a curfew or accountability, especially accountability to his mother.

One could easily argue that the murderer, since he escaped detection on numerous nights, could have been a man who had not only his wits about him, minus the murdering of course, but also was one who had planned the murders along with quick escape routes so as to avoid detection. To address that possibility and then dismiss the concept of the murderer going further to provide himself with a possible alibi is to not understand investigative work.

With regards to the painting of Sickert during the time of the murders, I once again re-iterate that a researcher should be careful not to step on their own blunders, as they attack Cornwell, Knight, Fuller, et. al, due to their artwork suppositions while simultaneously discrediting Sickert's suspecthood based on the same issues that they have attacked others for.

I was not the person who first promoted Walter Sickert as a suspect and have not written a book that promotes a theory based on him having been the murderer, at least not yet. Therefore, it is not my place to prove his candidacy, as of yet. On the same note, to dismiss him as a suspect, which any one can do to a professional level of their own choosing, should be done with more responsibility, due to the fact that this field is permeated with individuals who take everything they read and believe it at face value without looking into it further. I guess the majority of the world is the same way, so why should the followers of this case be any different?

And the arguments put forth by Wolf Vanderlinden in his casebook post are not evidence of Sickert's innocence. Of course, he presents it in such a way as to fool the people for whom research is too tough and would rather go with the grain than research the matter themselves. It is much easier that way. I wonder how the case has progressed over the past 120 years using the "easy way"?

You tell me.

[SirRobertAnderson]

I also hope that someone calling themself a researcher would not dismiss a suspect based on an arrogantly egomaniacal lesbian's awfully composed and unproved theory.



A few quick comments. First, I'm not trying to be politically correct but Patricia's sexuality is irrelevant IMHO.

One comment you made to me over lunch one day has really stuck with me, and that's there's no better way to "ruin" a suspect from serious future consideration than to write a well publicized, poorly researched book on that suspect.

What I do admire about her approach is the contempt she holds the field in. Yes, there will be some 'reinventing the wheel' in her work and some mistakes made that could have been avoided by reading the "top" books out there. But in general I think of her as a third party candidate for President saying he's sick of the fools running the Democratic and Republican parties, and wanting to have nothing to do with either.

Given that her work is ongoing, I'm going to hold off on a Sickert up or down vote for now. Ditto Maybrick.

[How Brown]

Bob:

Ditto the statement on Cornwell's gender preference. If that was a factor, we could use more like her...IMHO.

I also know of Stan's position on the suspect-being-"ruined"-by-poor-theorization-concept.

Briefly, this is readily apparent in the two drastically different theorizations on Stephenson-as-Ripper. If, and this is a huge if...if I were to promote RDS based on the available data, I would have opted for developing a theory along the lines of a "religious bent" after digesting all the data over the course of three years prior to working against his suspectworthiness.

One caveat against a new list ( which I really hope DOES get developed here on the site or on Casebook,for that matter )to reevaluate might be that we are merely making matters worse by tossing up equally implausible individuals into the pile of similarly implausible individuals . I don't see it that way,but I think some might. It doesn't hurt to expand the parameters and I would welcome it,as I am sure most others would.

I think some people might be a little squeamish about mentioning people they think are worthy of inquiry. Thats natural,since many people like to sit back and observe rather than get criticized for any thoughts they might like to share. Don't be...do it !

Not for the perception that the ad hoc list might seem to be "stale" or devoid of any hope....but there is a fine line between being a suspect and being suspicious and should be expanded upon...a thread that I will establish this morning.

Dear Scott:

If you have others to mention,by any and all means,please do so.

[Stan Russo]

How,

I agree with you 100%. if someone has a suspect that has not been presented, by all means, do the research and see what transpires. I think that there is way too much political correctness out there and as a result, people have become afraid to even mention a new suspect, for fear of hurting someone's feelings.

I also agree with Bob that Cornwell's sexual proclivities have no bearing on an opinion of her work. The fact that she likes who she likes is of no bearing on my opinion of her work. Even if she was not a lesbian, i still think her work would be shoddy and I still believe this does not eliminate her suspect from suspicion.

In addition, and How knows this better than most, there are many people out there who blindly follow whatever they read or hear, specifically if it is endorsed by the majority and whether it is factual or subjective. This is commonly seen when a person reads their first book on the subject and automatically has a favorite suspect, until they read the next book and then has a new favorite suspect.

It is a productive and valuable researcher's duty to back up their opinions with properly researched work, rather than simply saying, "yes, he's a bad suspect because others say so". I think anyone who has a quality understanding of the case knows that this goes on way too much in the field and it is one of the main reasons why there has been limited progress.

[Scott Nelson]

You tell me.

Well, I wouldn't presume to try and tell you anything. We did have Joseph Gorman Sickert. Did he do anything to advance the subject of the Ripper investigations?

[Magpie]

Quick comment on Cornwell's sexual orientation: Granted that it bears no weight on the plausibility of her theory, but Cornwell herself has not been above injecting her sexuality into the debate--accusing her critics of dismissing her book because she's a lesbian (or woman/Amercan/famous whatever).

In that context and in the spirit of irony, I think Stan's comment had a certain validity.

[How Brown]

Mag:

Do you remember which article ( damned if I can at the moment ! ) that touches on what you just mentioned about Mrs. Cornwell ( "but Cornwell herself has not been above injecting her sexuality into the debate...") comes from ?

Thats like me complaining that no one backs up what I have posited about Stephenson because I'm so damned good looking.

Its an 'easy out' for her and one comment she ought to reconsider.

[Stan Russo]

How,

Try almost every article that quotes Cornwell. Her sexuality is an issue, because she brings it into the debate.

Scott,

Feel free to tell me anything. I am certainly not above hearing information from people. However, I do reserve the right to challenge the validity of the opinions and also feel the necessity to challenge people to expand upon their simple answers.

As far as Joseph Gorman (Sickert) is concerned, with regards to your specific question, I would answer yes and explain. Some people see the case as yes or no, when it is really multi faceted. In the case of many suspects, most notably Walter Sickert, the answer to whether Cornwell proved he was JTR is a definitive no, but that does not mean he was not JTR. The same holds true for Joseph Gorman's lies. The same also holds true for the Maybrick Diary - just because the diary appears to be a forgery, this does not automatically eliminate James Maybrick as a suspect. It does destroy the singular theory proposing him, but he still could have committed the murders.

This is where most people differ and where they are absolutely wrong, not in the fact that Maybrick was not JTR, but in their opinion that James Maybrick was not JTR because the diary is phony.

If this were the case, all one would have to do to eliminate a suspect from candidacy would be to create a bogus theory surrounding his/her involvement in the murders. Put forth your favored suspect right now and all I have to do eliminate him from suspicion, according to this line of logic, is to create a farcical theory that cannot be proved and is easily refutable. Poof - there goes your favorite suspect. Perhaps this will show you the lack of logic in following such a concept, yet the majority of people in this field follow it with all their might. They follow it because it is easy and this case is tough.

Going one step further, imagine someone actually knew who committed the murders and that person was just named as a suspect, creating a false and easily refutable theory would surely help destroy their suspect candidacy, at least in the eyes of those who follow blindly.

So once again, to answer your question about Joseph Gorman, an obvious liar and manipulator of the truth, if by some chance he did know information about Walter Sickert having been JTR, then what he did would be exactly the method a smart man would have used to destroy Sickert's suspect credibility.

Now, you tell me, if someone could present a theory that rationalized that concept and presented a boatload of facts to back it up, wouldn't you have to re-evaluate Joseph Gorman's advancement of the case, in being foiled at trying to hide the real killer under a web of lies?

[Instructor 173]

Trolls, like Cornwell, don't have a sexuality. They live under bridges and eat talking goats that pass by them.

[John Adcock]

Can anyone identify the suspect mentioned in this article? could it be Dr. Morgan Davies? From St. Paul Daily News Sept. 12, 1889.

[How Brown]

Dear John:

Thanks very much for this latest contribution to the site.

Allow me to add this in conjunction with this clip...

It certainly wasn't referring to the murder of Mary Kelly ( Nov. 9, 1888 )...so it evidently referred to Alice MacKenzie's murder on July 17th of 1889.

The only doctors I am aware of who were involved with this murder were Baxter ( Coroner ), Phillips and Bond. Bond,in case you may not be aware,felt this murder was akin to the previous "canonical murders".

Perhaps someone else around here knows of other doctors who may have been present...and felt the way the newspaper article claims. The only thing I do know for certain, John, is that Bond and Phillips disagreed as to whether or not this murder was part of the skein and Phillips said so on July 22nd.

As to it relating to Morgan Davies, I wouldn't think it would as no mention of an investigation into Davies is known to have occurred from the remaining police files....

Again, thanks John for the very interesting additions you've made here and elsewhere over the last 24 hours. They are much appreciated.

Does anyone else have something to add to the find that John provided?

[John Adcock]

Thanks How,
It may have been made up, I can find no similar stories in British newspapers for that precise date although another curious tale was related in two newspapers on September 12, 1889 (substantially the same) in the Cardiff, Wales Western Mail and the Leeds Mercury. According to this the murder was reported the day before it actually occured...

http://yesterdays-papers.blogspot.com/

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/charlySeptember2012201889cardiff20w.jpg

[Robert Linford]

Hi John

Thanks for your posts. This has come up before and as far as I can recall, the "suspect" physician has bever been identified.

Robert

[How Brown]

Once again, thanks John....as the clipping you provided ( on John Cleary ) appeared in a New York newspaper ( The New York Herald ) on September 11th and is virtually identical to the clip you have placed.

Permit me to place a timeline regarding this murder:

The Pinchin Street Torso murder occurred on September 10th,1889...which was a Tuesday.
The earlier of the two press reports...the NY Herald..is dated September 11th which was a Wednesday.
"John Cleary" ostensibly arrived at the Herald ( New York's branch office ) on Sunday,which was the 8th of September....at 1:05 A.M.
No sign of foul play materialized in the balance of the day of the 8th, nor on the 9th, a Monday....and the torso was discovered on Tuesday, the 10th, at 5:20 A.M.

This "John Cleary" was a man named John Arnold, a newsvendor. He claimed to have given the editors at the NY Herald office a false name because he did not want his wife to find out where he was living, as she would have apparently caused trouble for him with his landlord. He provided an elaborate deposition to the police on what appeared to be the 11th of September, one day after the discovery of the torso. He was known to the police and had spent 21 days in jail for deserting his wife....who was known as a loud and overbearing woman in her own right...as well as a boozehound.

But the mystery remains....Who was the.... "good looking...35 to 36 year old...fair complexioned...fair moustached...5 ft, 6 to 5 ft.. 7"....carrying a brown paper parcel about 6 to 8 inches long...dressed as a soldier ...in black uniform...black cord shoulder strap...lightish buttons cheese cutter cap with brass ornament which resembled a horn......who first approached Arnold?

This sounds remarkably like the elaborate description provided by George Hutchinson two or three days after he had seen Astrakhan Man....in its recall.

What do you folks think about this "mystery man" Arnold, a.k.a., Cleary/Leary, has described in relation to the Pinchin Street Torso?

[How Brown]

Would anybody care to discuss Joseph Isaacs or is he no longer a viable suspect?