Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

SAME SUSPECT........DIFFERENT BASIS Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » General Discussion » SAME SUSPECT........DIFFERENT BASIS « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard

Post Number: 523
Registered: 7-2004
Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 8:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I've noticed that there are some people who have the same suspect in mind, but have different views on what the motivation was behind their shared suspect's actions.

As an example, lets use for the sole sake of an example, John Doe and Jack Doe.

John Doe believes that Stephenson was the Ripper, as does Jack.

John believes RDS' motive was to profane the cross and in doing so, attain some supernatural ability known only to him.

Jack doesn't buy that idea. He thinks Stephenson was conscious of his syphilis* and while using an archaic ritual, intended to find a remedy for this incurable [ in 1888 ] affliction.

Both John and Jane also differ on the subsequent affiliation with Victoria Woodhull.

John believes it was due to a religious conversion and perhaps an attempt to atone for his awful crimes.

Jack doesn't. He sees this "conversion" as just another way of latching on to a source of income.,,,and of course, since RDS displays all the signs of an entitled sponger off of others, who better than a woman? Thats what they are good for to him.

Does anyone else have some ideas to share here ? Are there people you know who have a similar suspect in mind, but for an entirely different reason?

Thanks for your time.


* unproven,yet used for the sake of a motive here.
HowBrown
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag

Post Number: 409
Registered: 4-2004
Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 8:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hey, How, is Jack a drag queen?

Anyway, my top three-as of this moment and subject to change without notice-- are ULG (Unknown Local Guy), Cutbush and Kosminski/Cohen.

AP has me so interested in THC and of course I suspect him for the same reasons as discussed on the various threads that AP's posted on so I don't have any variance with him. Yet.

Kosminski/Cohen is sort of a variation on ULG really. Of course I differ from at least one supporter of Kosminski in many areas (!!!).
Mags
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard

Post Number: 524
Registered: 7-2004
Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 8:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Where the heck did that "Jane" come from ? I meant Jack,Mags...sorry.

Yeah,thats the idea...For example,I know some people lend credence to the Sickert-as-Ripper theory, but differ from other Sickerites for several reasons.

There's a few other "same guy,different why" situations out there in Ripperland....hopefully these people will chip in.

Thanks for spotting that,Mags.
HowBrown
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe

Post Number: 601
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 10:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Howard,

John believes RDS' motive was to profane the cross and in doing so, attain some supernatural ability known only to him.

Jack doesn't buy that idea. He thinks Stephenson was conscious of his syphilis* and while using an archaic ritual, intended to find a remedy for this incurable [ in 1888 ] affliction.


Don doesn't believe RDS was JTR -- period!

Sorry Howie, I couldn't resist.

Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg

Post Number: 2507
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 11:07 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Like i was just reading in the WS1888J

about Sickertists and Cornwell etc?

Jenni
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil

Post Number: 626
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 2:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It seems to me that the differences you mention are largely about MOTIVE - and this is 9at our present state of knowledge) perceptual.

I would have thought that two Druittists, or two Sickertites, etc etc would agree on the evidence supporting that canidature.

phil
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg

Post Number: 2516
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 6:53 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Hey Phil,
It kind depends. Take Sickert - as far as I can remember (correct me if I'm wrong) Cornwell never mentions Joseph Gorman once as support for Walter as Jack. Meanwhile of course one has to note that Knight doesn't mention any dysfunction alleged to have been inflicted on Sickert because that would kind of blow a large hole in the idea that Joe was Walter's son. Equally Joe being Walter's would kind of blow a large hole in Cornwell's dysfunction theory.


But still what you say is quite correct. Motive is subjective anyway, can't really prove it now they're all dead I mean.

Jenni
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil

Post Number: 633
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

But Cornwell doesn't make a case AT ALL!!

And Knight's "evidence" has largely been discredited.

There seems to be a large measure of commonality though in all the stuff about Sickert's obsession with the case, etc.

Good point though, and well taken.

Phil
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg

Post Number: 2520
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 4:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Phil,

yes, I am not saying Sickert did it (in fact if I were feeling bold I might go as far as to say he didn't. However, I wouldn't want to get into trouble!)

Just thinking How's point was that we can have the same suspect for different reasons. Sickert's a pretty good example of that is all. D'onston too. To some extent it's kinda true with most suspects, but anyway

Cheers
Jenni

ps she must have made a case since it was closed!!

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

Use of these message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use. The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping. The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements. You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.