|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Jack Is Not a Mention Suspect?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Jack Is Not a Mention Suspect?
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 05:23 pm |        | It is my impression that Jack the Ripper, as are most serial killers, was a non-descript loner as yet unidentified (and probably never will be).
In fact, I think it highly unlikely that ANY of the heretofore mentioned suspects could be Jack the Ripper. There are too many serious flaws in the the theories that propose any of these suspects.
Are Donald Rumbelow and I the only people who believe that Jack the Ripper is someone non-descript, unnamed, and likely to remain anonymous? |
Author: Jack Traisson
Monday, 15 April 2002 - 06:58 pm | | Hi Richard,
"...Jack the Ripper. I use this popular pseudonym because the real name of the midnight malefactor can never be known after all this lapse of years. Who or what he was must always remain a matter of conjecture....But we cannot hope that what was insoluble more than thirty years ago can be solved now."
'The Whitechapel Horrors:Being an Authentic Account of the Jack the Ripper Murders' by Tom Robinson.
This was a short book published around 1920, and thankfully reprinted by Andy Aliffe around seven or eight years ago.
These sage words were written long before you, Rumbelow, or myself and everyone on these boards were born. Also long before scores of names were added to the endless suspects list. These words were also written when Scotland Yard/Home Office files contained much more information -- including the now missing suspects file. Before the blitz destroyed the City of London records. So much more primary source information was still available at the time Robinson wrote these prophetic words, yet he still believed the case could not be solved!
Cheers,
John |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 02:49 pm | | Hi Jack,
Thank you for the reference - that is a work that I am unfamiliar with. My question is somewhat rhetorical - of course there are those who realize and understand the identity of this serial killer will never be known.
More common, though, is the tendency to espouse a theory. There at times seems to be confusion that because someone may be plausible doesnt make them likely.
Again, thanks for the reference. I will take a gander.
Rich |
|
|
|
|
