|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Latest whacky suspect
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
Latest whacky suspect
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 20 August 2002 - 11:19 pm |        | Well, since the Elephant Man now joins the list of famous people mentioned as a possible Ripper (not seriously, but, still), I figured I'd ask if anyone had suggested the following equally unlikely candidates:
Dr. William C. Minor - Certainly somebody must have raised the possibility that this famous schizophrenic was Jack? He has everything a book author would want as a Ripper: he was a surgeon, known to have killed a man, frequented prostitutes at one point of his life, had paranoid delusions about Irish revolutionaries, was quite intelligent (as he was a most valued contributer to the Oxford English Dictionary), was known to be in England at the time of the murders, and was later locked up in an asylum for being insane.
Of course, on the negative side the reason he was locked up later was that he was locked up during the murders as well. And he was off in Berkshire, not the hospital smack dab in Whitechapel. But a little thing like that shouldn't stop a determined Ripper author.
Minor sounds more plausible as the Whitechapel Fiend than Sickert, Gull, Lewis Carroll and Prince Eddy put together. Together that'd be the Royal Conspiracy, and that got a movie deal and everything else, so Minor must be free cash for the first person who wants to write it up. If some snobs demand real evidence, just tell the press that those people don't want the mystery solved and it's up to Minor's family to prove he didn't do it.
Or did someone already do this and I just haven't heard?
Dan |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 21 August 2002 - 07:09 am | | Hello Dan,
This Minor sounds like a previously unheard of major suspect.
I note your objections but let's take it a little further. Think of the famous letter, the one something along the lines of "what fools I even give you my name."
Wasn't that posted in the Minories?
Ah success finally beckons. In a few short months my life will be wine and women and song and women. (Shouldn't have watched The Producers last night!)
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: Ed Hearsey
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 05:40 am | | Dan,
Have you read "The Surgeon Of Crowthorne" by Simon Winchester about Minor? I'd recommend it. I think it pretty much precludes him from being JtR though. As you say, he was locked up at the time of the murders, but apart from that the MO was completely different. From memory I believe the murder weapon and style was quite different (he shot his victim for example). His madness seems to have been less psychopathic and more paranoid delusional as well, as can be seen from his fear of Fenians.
Interesting book though!
Ed |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 09:24 am | | Hi, Ed:
As with Neill Cream, being incarcerated at the time of the crimes should not eliminate Dr. William Minor as a suspect! Add him to the pile! 
All the best
Chris
P.S. Should we regard him as a Minor Suspect or a Major Suspect? Note that by this criterion, Major Robert D'O Stephenson would have to be regarded as a Major Suspect.  |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 10:11 am | | Dear Chris:
Which is followed by General Knowledge, and Corporal Punishment....
*smooch*
Divia |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 12:04 pm | | Ed,
No, I have not read that book. Sounds like something to add to my wish list though. I'd agree that the crimes are completely different, not that a silly thing like that ever stopped someone from claiming someone was a suspect. In fact, I expect someone will probably buy up a bunch of antique dictionaries and tear them open looking for clues.
Chris,
Minor is a major minor suspect, the Major is a minor major suspect, and, in short, in matters vegetable, animal and mineral, I am the the very model of a modern major general.
Divia,
Glad to see you are feeling better after the ear, head and assorted aches of yesterday.
Dan |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 12:19 pm | | Hi Dan:
The ailments still ail me, but I'm in a cheerier mood, at least. Thank you for the well wishes.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: judith stock
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 01:37 pm | | If we are going for MAJOR suspects in the growing pile, then I must opt for Major Major Major from Heller's CATCH-22. Now HE is a MAJOR suspect!
Sorry, I couldn't resist; Cornwell's rubbish has sent me off into the realm of the insane......but that does NOT mean I have given up on the Sooty/ Howdy Doody conspiracy. There is ample evidence that we are on the right track here, and with the graffiti found in Puccini's (sp?) underpants I think we may have a book in it, at least. Of course, someone will come along and prove that Sooty was in Aldershot on the days of the murders, but we have hope....we have hope.
May everyone have a brilliant weekend, with NO problems.
Judy |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 03:57 pm | | Private Parts
Then a
Major Production
--------------------------
warm olive oil followed by a plug of cotton wool, then bed!! |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 12:02 pm | | Here's a party-pooper comment.
The Ripper wasn't a surgeon, the medical evidence, as best, suggests he had some anatomical knowledge, not surgical knowledge, quite different.
Sorry for that boring comment
Regards, Jon |
Author: Dan Norder
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 05:48 pm | | Jon,
The level of anatomical or medical knowledge that was required for the ripper killings is highly disputable, so I don't think anyone can rule people out based solely upon having or lacking medical or anatomical experience. Dr. Minor is a completely ludicrous suspect without even having to try to bring that up.
But, with all the common misconceptions out there, most book authors writing about the latest whacky suspects try to explain how their man got medical experience. It is, of course, common knowledge that Jack was a doctor. Regardless of whether that was really true or not, people looking for fame and fortune by labeling an innocent person as Jack the Ripper would have an easier time of it starting with someone who was a known surgeon. After all, those books aren't aimed at people with any true knowledge of the crimes.
Dan |
Author: Jon
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 02:05 pm | | Dan
The level of knowledge was difficult to determine by the professionals, as you know all they could do was acknowledge that there was 'some' anatomical knowledge apparent.
Llewellyn & Phillips both mentioned this possibility but Phillips was very clear when he said that skill or knowledge "was only less apparent in consequence of haste".
Given that time was a factor & obviously the degree of light available in some cases, we cannot expect anyone to be able to determine any degree of knowledge with any accuracy.
The clue though, was with the removal of the kidney. Locating this fatty membrane and then slicing it open and removing the kidney without injuring it, in darkness, without seeing his hands, working blind due to the contents of the stomach covering the cavity, gave a strong indication to the medical authorities that this killer was no crazy lunatic, he knew what he was doing.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 02:40 pm | | Jon,
A doctor on the old (now archived) Medical/Forensics boards on this site explained that no anatomical knowledge would have been necessary to remove the kidney (and other parts) if the killer reached in, felt something, grabbed, sliced and yanked.
If you assume the killer was looking for certain organs (and for some strange reason wasn't consistent in what he took) you have to assume some level of anatomical knowledge. If you don't presuppose the motive then anatomical knowledge isn't a necessity, just a possibility.
And, frankly, it's rather tiring to see you post your opinions of the level of medical or anatomical knowledge assumed to have been possessed by the killer on every thread that so much as mentions the topic in passing. Surely you could limit yourself to the topics where it is relevant and not bother rehashing it everywhere else.
Dan |
Author: Jon
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 05:08 pm | | You leave us assuming that "grabbed, sliced & yanked" is your understanding of the medical report.
Your recollection of the good doctors comment was Dr Thomas Ind I believe, yes, what Thomas suggested would be true if it fit the medical testimony but his remark was only a general comment and in this case the fatty membrane was sliced through while still in the body and covered in warm intestines, liver and other abdominal organs moving around.
Slicing the thin membrane and removing the kidney with a sharp knife in the dark and with hands immersed in abdominal matter thereby going by sense of touch is an interesting accomplishment for your smash & grab artist.
Regards, Jon
(ex-butcher) |
Author: Caroline Morris
Tuesday, 17 September 2002 - 09:49 am | | Hi Jon,
You’re confusing me again. You were arguing only recently that the killer mutilated Eddowes' face to indicate to the medical authorities that he was a crazy lunatic, so they wouldn't suspect his motive was obtaining certain human organs. Yet you now write:
'The clue though, was with the removal of the kidney. Locating this fatty membrane and then slicing it open and removing the kidney without injuring it, in darkness...gave a strong indication to the medical authorities that this killer was no crazy lunatic, he knew what he was doing.'
Jack took a huge risk of being caught red-handed when he stayed to decorate the lady's face. The paradox is that I find it hard to believe anyone but a lunatic would think the risk of immediate capture was outweighed by some slim chance that the authorities were more likely to work out the true motive, and with it his identity, if he fled the scene asap with the required body parts but left her face untouched. My gut feeling keeps telling me there was more to Jack's art and to his madness than that.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Dan Norder
Tuesday, 17 September 2002 - 04:16 pm | | Jon,
No, the doctor's opinion about the grab and slash was NOT a general comment but intended specifically to cover the Eddowes incident. It was his opinion that it'd take no anatomical knowledge to feel and grab in the dark. In fact, considering the lack of light that you bring up to try to support your theory, grab and feel makes a lot more sense than someone trying to find a specific targeted organ (that was suspiciously not targeted in the other killings... so the whole intent to get that particular organ has to be seriously questioned). Go back and reread the thread.
In fact, this whole tired discussion has already happened about a hundred times on these boards. I can't see the point to yet another rehash, especially on this thread.
Dan |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 07:57 pm | | Caz.
This whole confusion seems to have eminated from my defence of an old theory.
My defence was in an attempt to support the 'logic' of that theory and in attempting to do that I made some suggestions as to how the scenario may have played out.
This was to counter the long-held opinion that Jack was a SSK, which, as you know, I hold to be debatable. I suggested that the mutilations only appeared after the 'theory', and its suggestion of a 'doctor being involved', made the press.
I then offered a solution as to why he may have mutilated the face.
But, it is not my theory and as I have mentioned more than once (I hope), "its not the only one" that has potential.
Caz, in your opinion, did the killer slice up her face 'before' or 'after' he opened up her abdomen?
What was the killer doing while he sliced up her face?, was he talking to her, even in his mind? calling her names? was he silent, just cutting her face devoid of emotion?
What was the point of doing that anyway, did she remind him of his wife, mistress, mother-in-law?
What do you think?
Removing the kidney from inside a membrane is not what a layman would normally do. That is 'if' he knew the lump of fat contained a kidney in the first place.
Dan.
Unfortunatly, in the 5+ yrs I have been here there have been countless rehashing of the same discussions, over and over again. Lets face it, there is precious little by way of new information to discuss in a static case such as this.
Now, Profiling is likely the most interesting fringe topic to have come up in recent times and as it is an evolving subject in its own right it holds potential for great future interest.
Always remember, you are not required to read any topic or poste that is written, if you are tired of a subject, skip it. Or, as I have done in the past, take a rest from the boards. I have left them for a couple of months at a time in the past. You may be surprised, but I agree with you.
Regards, Jon
P.S.
Incidently, you inadvertantly confirmed what I said "general remark", because as you then followed with "...It was his opinion that it'd take no anatomical knowledge to feel and grab in the dark.
The kidney was removed by knife. Any person putting their hands on a lump of fat would need some anatomical knowledge to know that this particular 'lump of fat' contained an organ.
However, we can let it rest.
Best wishes. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 08:04 am | | Hi Jon,
Briefly, I haven't got the foggiest why the killer chose to spend time on Eddowes' face. And whether he did it before or after opening up her abdomen makes no difference to the fact that the whole 'operation' presumably involved enormous risk of being caught red-handed - and sent straight to the gallows, no messing.
Every little thing Jack did after the initial attack made the rope dangle that bit closer. But once away from the scene, the risk in those days of being discovered and successfully convicted of murdering a complete stranger, would have diminished enormously.
I can't see Jack wasting one precious second of the brief time he had alone with a victim, doing extra stuff with the sole aim of putting the authorities off the scent - authorities he certainly didn't want sniffing about until he had safely made off with his trophies anyway.
As I've said before, I think we'll have to agree to disagree over whether this theory has any potential at all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Len White
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 05:50 pm | | Hi All
After what I have just read, I believe my suspect has a better reason to be in this slot than all the others, I believe it to be Henry VIII, (Hows that for a royal connection,) I am sure it is Henry, He was able to take a potion, that gave him eternal life, which had a strange side effect, he became invisible as well, between the hours of 10 o/c at night and 6 o/c in the morning, thereby avoiding detection, his reason for the killings was, he just hated names Like Annie,Elizabeth,Catherine or Jane his ex-wives, you see a friend of his called Cromwell, said that his wives were old whores, and they had given him the clap, so he thought he would get his own back over the years, to any whores with the same name, Mary Jane was unfortunate, Henry! over the years become a little deaf and did not hear the first name.
Len
P.S If you are out there Mr Spielberg, I'd want Bob Hoskins to play Henry, and Michael Caine playing Cromwell his catch phrase could be "Your only supposed to mark the bloody whores," (with apologies to the Italian Job.)
How did Cromwell know what happened in 1888, I hear you say? simple he bought a time machine, from Leonardo Da Vinci. |
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 06:47 pm | | And Leonardo Da Vinci will be played by Tom Baker, who else?
Cheers, Mark |
Author: Len White
Saturday, 01 February 2003 - 07:04 pm | | Hi Mark
No I was thinking of Christopher Lloyd, anyone that can make a Time Machine out of a De Lorian has got my vote.
Len
P.S
White hair is O.K but must have a beard(White also.) |
|
|
|
|
