Talk:Jack the Ripper suspects

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jack the Ripper suspects article.
Article policies

The main Jack the Ripper page is getting so long I thought these suspects might be better served on a separate page. Anon, 6 Nov2004.

I like how the people advanced as suspects is now it's own article, although I think maybe the main one deserves a little text. I've moved over discussion from the main page that seems more appropriate on the suspect page. DreamGuy 22:49, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Conflicting detail

Chapman: 'he murdered his three wives with poison, and it is uncommon for a murderer to make such a drastic change in modus operandi. '

From Main page: Martha Tabram '. . . The main difficulty with including Tabram is that the killer used a somewhat different modus operandi (stabbing, rather than slashing the throat and then cutting), but it is now accepted that a killer's modus operandi often changes, sometimes quite dramatically. '

Is there any sort of consensus on this? 134.225.1.162 09:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many suspects you could name Donald Duck as one

We need to look at the case again....rule out people and never mention them again..... I heard on a doco American Tumblety is the top suspect.he was there in England at the time..when the murders ended he was in America..where he later died...he too was said to say that he was the ripper..... The rest of the suspects i will leave up to you....but for mine its Tumblety .....The movies with Michael Cain in the 80s and Johnny Deep recently make the story live on which what makes this story fasinating to all even afer all these years. I guess we will never know but would we want to know who it was, after all the mystery is what keeps the story interesting. Can we just rule out most and narrow down to top 3. Jack The Ripper.......i wander if someone has ever been told they were jack in another life... Where was CSI when we needed them .........???? ...we can't no. The police could, historical opinion could, then we can alter the list based on that. SGGH speak! 21:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetical order -- Prince Albert Victor

Most of the entries are in alphabetical order of surname, but Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence is under "V", even though Victor was has middle name; his surname was Saxe-Coburg. Perhaps we should list him by his official Ducal title, i.e. "C" for Clarence. Any thoughts? P Ingerson 22:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Or S for Saxe-Coburg--Rhydd Meddwl 13:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Title?

The title of the page doesn't quite sound right. I know previously there was one called something like "Jack the Ripper Suspects" which sounded a little better. Was it just that calling some of these people suspects stretches the definition of that word? DreamGuy 22:49, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Promoting suspects to their own pages

I also liked how information on Sickert, Lewiss Carroll, Prince Eddy were summarized here and then moved to the articles specifically about those individuals. I think that makes this essay more readable and the other articles more interesting.

I think some of the others listed here might be able to be promoted out too. Dr. Cream was fairly interesting (and is already mentioned on some serial killer pages) and a known murderer in his own right, plus I've seen several newspaper articles recently cover his case, so he's not as obscure as some of these others. Tumblety, too, has been in a number of news articles and was actually famous long before the Ripper murders. It's conceivable others might be worth their own articles too. DreamGuy 22:49, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis Carroll & Prince Albert being killers

Please explain why Lewis Carroll & Prince Albert are seriously considered as killers. Currently, there is absolutely no explanation, other than the mere presence of these two names in the list. -- User:Menchi, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

They're not "SERIOUSLY" considered suspects (and our article points out that some of the listed suspects cannot be taken seriously), but some nut-jobs have nonetheless published entire books devoted to proving they committed the murders. For Prince Albert, see his Wikipedia article, or here; for Lewis Carroll, see here. -- Someone else 05:24, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Do we really have to have Lewis Carroll here? The author of the book attacking him lists as his qualification "twenty-five years in the data processing field" (ref [1]). Sounds a lot to me like someone self-publishing a pile of tripe. If I published a book claiming that Queen Elizabeth II was actually Ramses II, returned from the planet Nepton, would that rate it a mention in the Queen's article? I guess I'd advocate deleting Carroll from the list. Jwrosenzweig 01:04, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
He's listed because he's been seriously advanced as a suspect. Your (gladly hypothetical<G>) book would merit a mention in an (as yet hypothetical) "conspiracy theories about QE II" article, rather than in hers, just as Lewis Carrol's "suspect" status belongs here and not in his article: unfortunately most theories about Jack the Ripper are basically nuts, so I think it's reasonable to list them here while making that clear. -- Someone else 01:09, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It also rates mention in the wikipedia article about the planet Nepton itself, which is still pretty much of a stub.
Fair enough, Someone. :) I'll let it be, then...must get back to that book; I've found startling new evidence that Prince Charles is Attila the Hun. ;) Jwrosenzweig 01:19, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Well, if you publish it, it will have to compete with the theory that the Prince of Wales is in fact the Antichrist, (the incriminating dragon on his escutcheon appears to be the clinching proof).... Seriously, nutso theories are (to me anyway) intrinsically interesting: the challenge here is to include them without appearing to endorse them! Recommended reading: "The AntiChrist and a Cup of Tea" by Tim Cohen <G> --Someone else 01:27, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A statement from the article is somewhat dubious :
Boarding a ship in New York on March 12, 1880 he arrived in Liverpool six days later.
I don't think it was possible at that time. Maybe six weeks rather ? Kpjas

Depends on the ship. As a point of compariston, the first vessel built of steel (in 1881) was the Servia, a merchant steamer which crossed the Atlantic in 7 days. Steampowered ocean crossings had been routine for decades by that time.. But it's more likely to be off by a day than by weeks. A ship leaving 12 Mar 1880 and arriving 18 Mar 1880 could have had 7 days travel, but if you do the math by subtraction (18-12) you'll get 6 days. -- Someone else 02:57, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)


[edit] Nothing about Sickert at all?

I gather that the earliest versions of this article over-emphasized the Cornwell theory, but I do think the present lay-out over-corrects that. To leave just a blank after Sickert's name on the list of suspects, even assuming that some of your readers will follow the link to the article about him ... is a bit POV, is it not?

The Sickert theory is certainly more serious and respectable than "Lewis Carroll did it"! Unless the Mad Hatter and the White Rabbit were in on the conspiracy, too.- (unsigned)

  • The assumption is that they will keep reading until the end of the article. -- Nunh-huh 04:25, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Still, I've added a little bit where the name first appears, including an encouragement that they keep reading for more.

It's important we do not bias towards her to much, as an article on the BBC today [2] states that experts usually dismiss her theory. There are certainly some better ideas out there Grunners 15:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From what's said, I found the appreciatiion of Cornwell's theory a bit harsh. She calls him a master of disguise, suggests he returns secretly, & has calligraphic or artistic skills resembling those in the Ripper letters. She also has said there's DNA evidence to back her up (which I can't confirm, because I quit reading the boring damn book halfway through...) Trekphiler 07:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tumblety vs uteruses

Didn't I read someplace that, when he fled, Tumblety left behind him a number of gynecological specimens (obtained legitimately) in formaldehyde? The suggestion being that he had an unhealthy obsession in that regard. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:57, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, no. Tumblety didn't leave any uteri anywhere that has been proven. Tumblety had a number of enemies based upon forging discharge papers for soldiers, selling quack medicine, and being accused in a plot to kill Abraham Lincoln (he almost deserves a quirky article all on his own). When he was named in papers as having been arrested in London, along with the speculation that he might be linked to the Ripper murders, That's when suddenly one of his old enemies started telling papers that Tumblety used to collect uteri. And since the uterus was taken in two of the Ripper murders, it seems like a rather clumsy and transparent attempt to csat farther suspicion on Tumblety. Of course I suppose it's possible it really happened, but it's just hearsay from someone with a good reason to lie at this point. -DN Oct. 7, 2004

I believe that uteri and kidneys were found in a house in Pittsburgh where Tumblety had been performing illegal abortions and fled in the middle of the night.


The uteri story is the unsubstantiated gossip of a known liar with absolutely no evidence to back it upRevmagpie (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving information back to here

I think that the details about the various suspects should be moved back to this page, UNLESS their only notoriety is a connection to the Ripper. Therefore I propose the the information about Sickert and Price Eddy be moved out of theier respective articles and into this one. It seems wrong to me to unduly blacken these individuals' names because someone trying make a few quid linked a prominent person with Jack the Ripper. Regarding the Lewis Carroll theory, this is more than presposterous. So whilst I certainly don't think that his article should contain much in a way of a reference to this theory, I'm not even sure if it deserves mention on this page. IVoteTurkey 13:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have made this same suggestion on several other discussion pages and have had the reasonings why this is undesirable presented by several editors already. But, for the sake of this talk page, I'll just point out that:

  • This article is quite lengthy to begin with, adding multiple paragraphs of in-depth details would only make that worse.
  • It's not very balanced to provide very detailed coverage of only certain suspects and not others, so it's been agreed by several editors that this list should only have brief (one paragraph or less) mentions of each.
  • It's a major violation of NPOV policy to surpress objective discussion of notable aspects of peoples' fame just because you feel it "blackens" their names. To suggest that Lewis Carroll shouldn't even be mentioned here at all, let alone on his own page, shows an amazing amount of bias, especially since all mentions state right out .

For those reasons, and as explained to you by several different people elsewhere, consensus has already been reached to do just the opposite of what you are suggesting. DreamGuy 17:34, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Er... I'm not goin to stir up this debate again. I made the above comments over a week ago before we began discussing this issue in detail. I really don't think you need to bring this up again. 23:08, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) - p.s. I will just add one thin though regarding Lewis Carroll - my suggestion to remove him was only echoing User:Jwrosenzweig above. Yet again you mis-represent my position. IVoteTurkey
I'm not "bringing it up again", I am summarizing so that people who only read this talk page and not the several other ones you brought the exact same discussion up on will understand that it's not an active debate and that consensus was reached to do exactly the opposite of what you proposed (and was even before you made the suggestion on all these pages, as you apparently hoped running off to several diferent places and trying to pull people you knew in would somehow change the end result). DreamGuy 09:00, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

I added sections to better organize the data so it wasn't just one long, long list. We now have suspects as named by police (though doing this made me realize we are missing some biggies, like John "Leather Apron" Pizer), suspects mentioned by other contemporary sources (all journalists so far), suspects named by later authors, and other theories (which stuck out like a sore thumb on the main Jack the Ripper page so I moved here, plus it could probably be explanded too).

This also made me think that we really ought to list who named these people as suspects (for those we don't already do that on) instead of just tossing them out. Later on I'll work on putting that kind of info in. DreamGuy 17:34, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Miles

I removed the following from the main article's "Other contemporary suspects" section Here's a newly added section:

  • Frank Miles Another suspect is Frank Miles. He was a well-known painter in London. He would use streetwalkers as models for his paintings. Supposedly, the artist had died before the Whitechapel Murders, but it was discovered that he died in an asylum in 1891. A theory showed a link to Melville MacNaghten because Miles and his roomate, Oscar Wilde, lived on Tite Street near MacNaghten. Miles's cousin was an equerry to the Albert Victor, the Duke of Clarence, and the brother of Montague Druitt, another suspect, was in the same regiment that Miles had been in. The theory had been produced by a Thomas Toughill, but it never seems to have caught on, possibly because it was too weak. Frank Miles's candidature for the Jack the Ripper dishonors was pushed back in the 1970s.

OK, first up, this is not a comtemporary suspect. That much is clear even from the last sentence. Secondly, there's the line "Supposedly, the artist had died before the Whitechapel Murders, but it was discovered that he died in an asylum in 1891" -- Anything involving faked deaths is going to need a really solid reference and proof there. And really the rest of it seems all rather... well, nothing there. I think the original plan was to only list the most well known suspects, and this one certainly would not count. But then this being online I suppose we could list others too -- and since the total list of people named by someone or another as suspects is about 150 or so, this article could get pretty huge. I would suggest for the obscure suspects like this that every disputable statement be heavily cited. I haven't paid too much attention to this one myself as he's not really taken seriously by any of the sources I've read, so I don't know about the details but they definitely sound odd. References for it all is a necessity. DreamGuy 00:40, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

OK, looks like while I was writing that someone already moved it to a more appropriate section. The rest of my comments still hold. DreamGuy 00:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
I reverted some of the changes made by the editor who moved Frank Miles; the last edit was quite peculiar, breaking a bunch of Wikilinks. If I'd looked at that edit in isolation, I'd have called it vandalism, but maybe it was some sort of a technical problem on the part of the editor.
Atlant 11:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you were probably right to revert those, but I don't think it was intentional vandalism... it looks like trying to clean up but maybe not doing a so great job of it, and for the brackets maybe not knowing that they can go on the inside... they did fix the spelling on roommate, and I'll go check if that Russian word is right or not. DreamGuy 11:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A complaint from an antifreemason

By what right does 'Dreamguy' completely delete my entry on the Jack the Ripper suspect page, then lie about doing so, leave a threatening message to me, then delete completely my response?

The discussion will take place here and on the Freemasonry area because that is where you are engaging in your malicious activity.

What possible justification could you have for deleting the publishing and isbn reference to Stephen Knights book? How dare you. Just who the hell do you think you are?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freemasonry]

I deleted your entries as they are complete nonsense. Knight was proven to have lied in his book, is a famous anti-Freemason author, and is not a credible source of information on anything about Jack the Ripper. The Gull theory is already covered here, and it already has a link to a page with more infromation about the alleged royal/freemason conspiracy, where all of the information is covereed in great detail. Your edits show a clear disdain for the Neutral point of view policy that Wikipedia runs on, as you outright state your belief that Freemasons are liars, idiots and involved in conspiracies to control the world. You have no business adding your hate-filled propoganda and proven nonsense to this encyclopedia. DreamGuy 02:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
The theory that Freemasons were behind the Jack the Ripper Murders is complete nonsense? Why because a proven liar and masonic propagandist like yourself says so? It is obvious you are not a Jack the Ripper researcher at all. Your so-called references links to pages where people can read about the 'freemasonry' angle are nothing but hate filled rants by you against "anti-masons".
In your fourth, or was it your fifth, deletion of my entry in less than 24 hours you completely removed my listing of Salsbury and the Chief of the London Police. You deleted the new catagory I added of offsite links one to the freemasonry watch page on the ripper killings and another to an exellent illustratred review of the movie Murder by Decree which also covered the same material.
You provide no facts or references for any of your insane hate-filled garbage. You are a proven liar and a vandal. I shall work vigorously to have you permanently banned from this forum.
It is useful for everyone to see how Freemasons behave and why they can never be trusted.
Again, sparky, I am not a Mason, and I do happen to be a Jack the Ripper expert. OF COURSE I removed your claims that a high ranking police officials was a suspect in the murders, duh, as it's complete nonsense, and it's already covered in the royal conspiracy theory, which has a whole article devoted to it already. You are an admitted anti-Freemason. You called all Masons "liars and stupid" -- trying to turn things around and claim that I am a propogandist when I remove your propoganda is just ridiculous. Please go read up on our policies here on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not to try to get an idea of how this site operates. If you cannot follow those rules then you should not be here. DreamGuy 23:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
What's 'a Mason'? Nice try.
The "Jack the Ripper Royal Conspiracy" page devotes about two sentences to the high-ranking police official theory, and then about 3000 sentences to repeating all the reasons why Prince Albert couldn't possibly have been Jackie boy, over and over. There is nothing on that page devoted to any intelligent discussion of alternative theories, whoever wrote that page is a huge defender of Prince Albert and incapable of talking about anything else for ten consecutive seconds. There are several other high-ranking government officials of the time who have been accused besides Albert, and they get about one inch of the page. Then again, a complete list of anyone who's ever been considered a suspect would be about 9000 pages long. So, the solution is for someone to devote a little time to cleaning up the "Royal Conspiracy Theory" page, which I recommend based on numerous WP:NPOV and Undue Weight charges. Sylocat 03:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects Your last edit to the above article was a direct copy of Freemasonry Watch which means it was copyright material. CambridgeBayWeather 17:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually it isn't copyrighted material, but I respect Wikipedia's guidelines and policys. My purpose of posting that, my last 'act' of the night was to show 'dreamguy' how it feels like to have ones entire work deleted and replaced by someone else's, as he did to me five times over a 24 hour period. Initially all I had posted was an offsite link to a webpage about the freemsonry-jack the ripper theory. Dreamguy deleted this. I then modified one of the sections about suspects adding info about the 'freemasonry theory'. Dreamweaver deleted this as well. I then made an entry in the additional theory section about the same topic. Dreamguy deleted this as well. I then posted isbn and publisher info about Stephen Knights book. Dreamguy deleted this as well. I then made an entry about the Marquess of Salisbury the PM of England in the suspect area. Dreamguy deleted this. I then posted an offsite link about the Movie Murder by Decreee. Dreamguy deleted this also. I then in a moment of intemperance, albiet understandable, deleted Dreamguys 'work' on the 'Juwes' a slander against Stephen Knight as well as his 'work' on the suspects page, which he obviously views as his personal webpage, and replaced it with the excerpts from the FW site, before beddy bye.
It was not slander, it was an accurate and fair representation. Making false claims of legal violations is expressly prohibitted here. If you keep it up you will be on the fast track to getting banned. DreamGuy 23:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
It sure as hell was slander. You're an 'em@son' - a professional masonic net-nanny and pro-masonry propagandist. You had your weasely 'anti-mason' hack page on Stephen Knight up for a long time.
Stephen Knight is the Grand Boogeyman of Internet FREEmasons. Sorry to blow your cover, crawl back under your Masonic rock.
All I wanted was to post a link to an offsite page about the Freemasonry Suspect theory, a theory that has been made into two famous and popular Hollywood Movies. It is obvious to me, at least, that Dreamguy is very afraid, for some odd reason, of people reading, even in passing, about the exixtance of the 'Freemasonry Theory'. Readers will have to draw their own conclusions for the reason for that.
Again, as I have explained countless times (it'd be nice if you kept your arguments to one page instead of copying and pasting them all over kingdom come saying the same nonsense over and over), I am not against people reading about Jack the Ripper fiction or Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories etc. because I *made* those articles. If I were trying to hide information I would not have expanded the information from the main Jack the Ripper article into other articles. You are just making up whatever lame accusatons you can think up to try to force your anti-Freemason propoganda and wild, insane conspiracy theories into articles as if they were 100% true at the expense of objective coverage of these topics. DreamGuy 23:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
"because I *made* those articles" - Dreamguy. Huh huh, that seems to be the problem, move to the front of the coven. Tell me Oh Great Master Neutral Editor of the Universe(may his name be praised), why do you keep deleting the links to the Murder by Decree and From Hell websites, as well as the link to any other website that advocates the 'Freemasonry' Theory? What a weird interpretation of 'neutral' you have. Why is it you are so frantic about not allowing any NEUTRAL advocacy of the Freemasonry Theory'. And how is it you are so well versed in Masonry and "Anti-Masonry", hmmm? The only people who are OBSESSED with eradicating any mention of the Freemasonry Theory and Stephen Knight are FREEmasons. You're already shown your hand Darthevader.

[edit] General Interest

  • 'Murder by Decree', an illustrated article about the 1979 Anglo-Canadian two hour film 'Murder by Decree', starring Christopher Plummer and James Mason, which was about the Freemasonry-Royalist theory in the 'Jack the Ripper' killings.
And Plummer and Mason are Holmes and Watson, it should be added. Perhaps worth mentioning. john k 02:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Tell that to the self-appointed net nanney 'Dreamguy' who has deleted any mentioning of the Murder by Decree movie (three times at least). Maybe this page should be retitled List of Proposed Jack the Ripper suspects by Dreamguy. It would be a more accurate description.
It's a movie. It's fiction. As such it is mentioned on the Jack the Ripper fiction article. It obviously does not belong on a suspect page. DreamGuy 09:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Questioning the list

I would question the placement of some of these. To my knowledge the police never considered Druitt a suspect. Also I don't think Gull was considered a suspect until well after the murders. I also think the Kosminski entry should probably be updated to include information about him being potentially identified by the only witness to a Ripper crime. Someone could go through and greatly expand this list. (unsigned, but by anon User:24.63.27.10)

Regarding Druitt, Chief Constable Melvin Macnaghten named Druitt his prime suspect... so, yes, the police considered him a suspect. You are right that Gull wasn't considered until well after the murders, but that's why he's in the "named by later authors" section and not an earlier one. And you are free to expand the article, as I see you already did with the Kosminski entry. DreamGuy 09:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
MacNaghten was not a policeman at the time of the murders so from the fact that he suspected Druitt, we can not deduce that he was actually a suspect to the men investigating the cases. MacNaghten only mentions "private information" as the basis for his suspicion, and the fact that he got Druitt's occupation wrong suggests that it is quite possible that there was never an official investigation. In short it's gossip! (By 82.14.82.136 - please sign your comments)
The Whitechapel murders file was still active and under investigation when Macnaghten got his position. It's a common mistake to assume that just because the last murder commonly associated with the Ripper was over with that they were sitting on their hands not investigating anymore. Victrix 06:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah my bad. I misread where Gull was and had forgotten that Druitt was really a suspect. I did add Joseph Pizer. I'm not sure if this list is supposed to be people who are still "viable" suspects (Pizer definitely didn't murder one of the victims), but I think that the Pizer/Leather Apron incident is historically important to the case even if Pizer was almost certainly not the Ripper.

[edit] Remove 'proposed' from article title?

Isn't the word 'proposed' in the title of this article redundant? Or do not all of the people named qualify as suspects? WhiteCat 05:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think some of the names on here would be stretching things for being actual suspects... people in prison or out of the country (or both!) at the time have a pretty ironclad alibi, so to say that they are actual suspects is weird... but they have been proposed as such. It might be possible to come up witha better title though. DreamGuy 06:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Långrocken

In the main Jack the Ripper page, under See Also, there is a link to "Långrocken (mysterious 1893 Swedish attacker of women some thought was Jack the Ripper)". Shouldn't he be added to the list here? I would have done so but it is not clear from the Långrocken page which category he would fit into. S frankish 17:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I know this is an old comment, but... the guy was never identified, so can't really be considered a suspect. And frankly the case if so minor and unknown that just a see also on the main page is really more than is needed. Perhaps a see also here instead of there, but not a big deal either way. DreamGuy 19:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspect descriptions overly long for single paragra[h

Some of the suspect descriptions are turning into very large single blocks of text, making them hard to read. Either the list items should be converted to sub sections so the entires can be split into paragraphs, or they should be pruned... WhiteCat 07:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

...or lengthly suspect descriptions should be split out into separate articles. WhiteCat 07:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kosminski named in The Times

The Times of 14th July 2006 claims Aaron Kosminski has been "officially identified" in handwritten notes by Donald Swanson, in a book just handed over to Scotland Yard's crime museum. This is presented as news by the paper, although coming to this article it's already there. The Times also says Kosminski died shortly after being taken to the asylum, although our article claims he lived until 1919. Which is correct? --Thoughtcat 06:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The contents of Swanson's notes have been well known since the late 1980s, so they're not 'news' in that respect. Swanson (and hence the Times, it would appear) was also wrong about Kosminski dying shortly after entering the asylum - he did indeed live until 1919. This is part of the reason that some researchers have suggested that Swanson's suspect wasn't actually Aaron Kosminski after all. Guy Hatton 11:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Belgian news on RTBF also confirmed tonight that the Ripper had been identified as Kosminski. Mamour 20:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Officially identified" by Swanson? That's pushing it. According to the UK News, Swanson didn't even write those notes until several years after he retired, and even then all it had was the name "Kosminski" scrawled in the margin of a note saying that "the only person in a good position to get a good look at the Ripper" had identified him. Not to mention that the notes describe "Kosminski" dying in 1919, when Aaron Kosminski lived several years longer. Sylocat 03:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New Idea which might not be all that fesible

Perhaps the whole thing is a farce brought about by the police system in order to go along with the common "Oh, they never get anything done right" feeling and thus purposely never caught Jack because he was one of them. Now why, might you ask? Well, I'm sure that they weren't exactly pro-prostitution, so why not give the world something to talk about, give themselves a cover of insolence, lower the prostitution rate, and forge letters to make everyone THINK that they were making headway?

Makes perfect sense to me, but then again, I haven't really studied the whole situation deeply like some others here have.

Also, in light of the supposed "Official" information on who Jack was, perhaps either

  • 1) The man was framed.
  • 2) The writer of the information was unaware of the plot.
  • 3) He delibrately planted information to confound the later generations.

Agreatguy6 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lewis Carroll

I removed the Lewis Carroll reference from this article. The theory is to fringe to be taken seriously. Just because somebody has written a book about it does not merit it mention in the article. Somebody could write a book claiming that Bill Gates used a time machine to go back to 1888 and commit the Jack the Ripper murders, would we mention that in the article if such a book were written. The vast bulk of historical evidence does not support this theory. There is already an article about the stupid book that proposed this theory. If people care about this idea they can read that article. Prb4 03:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You're arguments violate the WP:NPOV policy. If you want to remove him you'll need reasons that are legitimate encyclopedic reasons. In fact the fact that there is an article about the book means we need to mention him here to drop the link so people can go find that article. When someone writes a book about Bill Gates and a time machine and it gets world wide publicity and so forth so that it gets its own article, then we can list it here too. Let's hope that never happens. 216.165.158.7 06:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Carroll has been re-added. I've deleted him. He's entirely off the radar screen for serious students of the case. Gull isn't taken seriously, but he's been shoehorned into a legion of books; neither is Sickert, but Patricia Cornwell's public hysterics need to be tempered by fact. So far as I can tell, the only person concerned with Carroll is Richard Wallace, author of 'Jack the Ripper: Light-Hearted Friend.' If Carroll is allowed to stay, then we must include Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, Ernest Dowson, Timothy Donovan, Thomas Cutbush, William Grant Grainger, John McCarthy, Dr John Sanders, Oswald Puckridge and Queen Victoria, to name but a few. All were contemporary suspects or proposed by later authors. We mustn't give credence to quacks. Let's stick with fact-based legitimate suspicion, or to putting widely-held myths in historical context. --Viledandy 04:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


May I also point out it took a month for anyone to notice Carroll was gone? --Viledandy 04:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Not everyone checks these pages on a regular basis. When we do we put him back, it's because his fame, the seriousness of the suggestion (at least in the author's mind) and the international coverage the accusation made in the news at the time makes him notable. None of the others you named rates as highly on that criteria (though at some point Donovan and Cutbush might rate mentions here, the first for Rumbelow pushing for him and the second for a whole book about him having been written at one point). 216.165.158.7 06:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Francis Thompson

There's nothing on why he's been advanced as a suspect, or who's done the accusing. Thompson's own page mentions nothing of it. Violent poetry isn't enough. --Viledandy 05:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Schwartz & Lawende's men

Is there a place here for the unknown men seen by Israel Schwartz, and later Joseph Lawende? Lipski saw a woman who was almost certainly Stride being attacked, and Lawende saw Eddowes talking to a man at the Duke's Place entrance to Mitre Square 15-20 minutes before her body was found. There is very strong circumstantial evidence for them having seen the murderer; of all witnesses, they were taken most seriously by the police. (According to Swanson, Lawende was later summoned to view Kosminski.) The page is a list of suspects, but we should perhaps include the little common ground we have - the rough physical descriptions provided by these men, which generally overlap. Thoughts?Viledandy 06:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea that they overlap is not proven and certainly disputed by many. And Swanson doesn't say Lawende was taken to view Kosminski (the identity of the alleged witness who allegedly identified Kosminski and then allegdly recanted upon learning he was a Jew is hotly debated), though we do know he went to try to identify Sadler and a later suspect.
Either way, though, I'd prefer the suspects page stick with suspects and not random witness statements. Descriptions on their own certainly aren't suspects. Perhaps some sort of update to the main Ripper article about allegd witnesses might be a good idea.
216.165.158.7 06:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Silver

An editor added sections to the main Ripper page and this one trying to sell one Joseph Silver as the most likely suspect, which is clearly against WP:NPOV policy. However on this article the entire section about him was removed. I'm not sure that was the best move, as there is certainly a major new book that does suggest him as a possibility. It's still too new to see how well the theory will be received, but if, as just one example, Sir John Williams can be listed here with one book only naming him as a suspect, then this Silver individual might qualify also. Williams made a lot of news coverage in the UK when it came out, though, whereas the publicity for this Silver book so far seems limited to South Africa. I'm not sure if ruling it out based upon that is fine because it's accurately acknowledging a lack of wide recognition (so far)or possibly a geographic bias. 216.165.158.7 06:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The news did spread later, so its listing in the article seems appropriate for now. DreamGuy 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Henry Bury

I want to create an entry for Bury on its own with a fuller account of himself and his life that is a redirect from his brief synopsis on the "suspects" page. I've tried and failed because I just can't figure out how to redirect the sub-heading that's already there. Can someone help? JSL595 12:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

First, you should edit the article so that it has actual content, rather than merely redirecting. Go to William Henry Bury. It will redirect to List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects, but will tell you just below the title that it is 'Redirected from William Henry Bury'. Click that link and you will end up at the actual William Henry Bury entry, which you can then edit in the normal manner. Remove the redirect first, then add your content. Then go back to the 'List of proposed JtR suspects' article and Wikilink as you were trying to do previously. (Note, however, that this is only really worth doing if you are going to provide substantially more information on Bury than is currently available on WP. I would advise against merely reproducing or moving the present synopsis).

HTH Guy Hatton 12:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that Guy. I want to leave the brief synopsis on the main page which I may edit a wee bit, but do a fuller account on Bury's own page. I may try that later when I've got more time.I'm supposed to be working! JSL595 12:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Guy. I've done my article on Bury. I also did a disambiguation from "William Berry" which is a common misspelling of his name (all 3 national census have him down as "Berry") and a redirection from "William Bury". Would you be so kind and have a quick look over for me and point out anything blatantly wrong. I'll gladly change it. Also I noticed a while back there was an image of Bury which I can't locate now. Has it been deleted due to copyright issues I wonder? I looked on the history but couldn't find it there either. Thanks JSL595

Looks fine to me, but then you seem to know more about Bury than I do anyway :-) I've added a link to the Casebook in the references section. Guy Hatton 08:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Guy. I've done quite a bit of research on Bury and I justed wanted to get it NPOV. I may tidy it up and add bits when my Australian colleague has a look. Hopefully new info too! JSL595 11:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straczynski's guess

J. Michael Straczynski is an amateur Ripperologist who used Jack in an episode of Babylon 5. Since then, in newsgroup posts, he's explained who he thinks the Ripper really was: Reverend Samuel Barnett. His evidence is impressive, if circumstantial; he claims that although Barnett is rarely mentioned as a suspect, the other enthusiasts he's shared this theory with have found it convincing. Worthy of inclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CZeke (talk • contribs)

Some 200+ people have been argued as being Jack the Ripper (that's not a made up number, that's an actual count). We certainly can't list them all. I would find it difficult to believe that something that so far has only been discussed on an author's mailing list would by at the level needed to be listed here.
And, as an aside, after reading what he wrote I'd say it is mere idle speculation and certainly not impressive evidence. In fact much of what he says is just wrong. There's no evidence Joseph Barnett was related to Rev. Barnett; the phrase "anything but your prayers" was colloquial, not religious, and spoken by someone a long time before the victim was killed and thus likely to be the wrong person entirely. And so forth and so on. His claims that other Ripperologists found the idea convincing are unverifiable and, frankly, doubtful based upon how infrequently anyone has ever talked about his theory. I suspect he may have talked to a few people who were polite in their responses but nothing more. DreamGuy 05:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just thought I'd ask, as I don't know enough about the subject to tell which theories are notable. ~ CZeke 10:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to Francis Tumblety

In a recent UK programme called 'Vic Reeves Ineestigates... Jack the Ripper', Vic suggested at the end that he is sure that Francis Tumblety was Jack the Ripper. Should this be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.117.155 (talk • contribs)

Doubtful. The opinion of a comedian isn't exactly noteworthy, especially one with bad info (claimed Tumblety collected wombs, etc.). I'd also hate to start going through and tagging each suspect by which famous person thinks what about what suspect. Just the facts, please. DreamGuy 00:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to help the various discussion-threads on Tumblety here, the programme that first highlighted him was in 1996, called Secret History: The Whitechapel Murders. I still have the tape, but it's badly mangled and almost entirely unwatchable. I keep looking out for it in shops, but no success so far. For my money, Tumblety is Jack...though possessed by Redjac at the time...though I'm sure you'll all laugh at me for that last bit [User: Stripey].

[edit] Patricia Cornwell

Didn't Patricia Cornwell do a non-fiction analysis of the ripper that she made into a book? Surprised it isn't here. 97.66.74.106 16:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)kitten b

It is already here. See Jack the Ripper suspects#Walter Sickert, as well as the links to the individual articles on Cornwell, Sickert and the book itself that are in that section. DreamGuy 19:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tumblety uteri claims

We get some claims, especially in local newspapers whose research began and ended by looking at a single book, that Tumblety had a collection of uteri and that this makes him a suspect. Unfortunately the only person to ever make this claim was a well known con man using a fake name and fake credentials (claiming to have been a Union army officer) saying he met Tumblety in his office at a location at which Tumblety did not actually have an office at the time. It also contained a number of other errors. It was written after Tumblety had already been named as a possible suspect and it was well known that the Ripper took the uterus of some victims. As such it is a baseless rumor from an extremely bad source trying to sell an article that would give people a reason to think Tumblety was the Ripper. For more on this, see "On the Trail of Tumblety" Ripper Notes #23, ISBN 0975912941 or Devil's Game by Carman Cumming ISBN 0252028902 -- DreamGuy (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So what would you think about adding just a quick sentence to the Tumblety section saying, "A false rumor exists that Tumblety kept a collection of human uteri, but the original claim was from a well-known con man posing as a Union officer, and there is no evidence to support this."
My original intention, actually, in adding that claim, was to address it and discredit it, but if it can be discredited even more harshly, that would definitely be a good thing, in my opinion. ---- Jaysweet (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, of course, the supporters of Tumblety as a suspect can say (and have said) that the claim might be true even if the person who said it was a known con man (and they try to find reasons why the errors in the accounts might not be errors). So saying outright that it's false is a POV, so that wouldn't work. There may be a way to write it up and source both arguments. -- DreamGuy (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It may have come up before

I wanted to note that this article appears to be fairly well-organized. After reading through the discussion, DreamGuy suggests that noting the accuser can provide some background into the accusation of the suspect. I think that's a pretty good idea, so long as we can source it. As well, I was wondering if we should add a few images to the article of the suspects. Lastly, should we divide the article into likely and unlikely suspects? Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of trying to put suspects into likely/unlikely but it is fraught with danger and arguement. I would certainly put suspects like Cream and Prince Eddy etc into a unlikely category and Kelly, Kosminsky, Bury etc into a likely category, but others will no doubt disagree. Cream was in prison in Chicago at the time and Eddy's royal appointments had him away from London at key dates, but that won't stop some people argueing that they are valid suspects. JSL595 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Most likely suspect?

Sooo...of all the people mentioned in this article, who is generally considered the most likely suspect? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)