Talk:Jack the Ripper suspects/Archive 1

Archive 1

Separate Page

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 its 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

I observe that firstly in an article about a 100 wacky suspicions , one against freemasons is quite acceptable, secondly i note that "dreamguys' influence and assumed authority on the subject and article is very big , with such a huge input on a subject by one person, pov is the first thing to happen, altho that doesnt need to say bias or ill intend. Also there is no way to "edit wiki-history" then by dominating wikipedia edits.24.132.170.97 (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lewis Carroll

I removed the Lewis Carroll reference from this article. The theory is too 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)

We've just had another person remove Carroll and edit war to keep him off. While he is ot taken seriously as a suspect, there was a full book published by a mainstream press about the theory and it's well known. The book also ha its own whole article. There's absolutely no justification for not listing it here. Unless there is a newly demonstrated consensus to keep it off based upon Wikipedia policies I will put it back per the longstanding consensus. DreamGuy (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

One revert is an "edit war"??? Sheesh! The "source" is not intended as any actual claim about Dodgson, and is sold as an entertainment, not as a serious book on the Ripper. Nor does the author (who would like money from a movie) cited as seriously proposing Dodgson as a suspect. None of the reviews states it is anything more than an entertainment. Either this list should be serious about the topic, or we should open the floodgates to every single person ever named. My opinion is that such would make the "list" deletable under WP standards. The book is not a "reliable source" unless you wish to use every book by Cayce as a :reliable source" <g>. Doyle was also named as a suspect, so were a half dozen or more other impossible choices. Standards on WP now are different from those in 2007, and I would suggest current standards would not allow this silly interpolation of Dodgson as a suspected Ripper. Let's see if there is a consensus for making this list a gentle mockery of WP standards <g>. Collect (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see the list expanded to include other suspects as yet missing from the page. The page should either be a comprehensive list, or a more generally worded article explaining how perceptions of who the killer could have been changed over time. Of the two alternatives, I think the easier one is the comprehensive list. DrKiernan (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And a ludicrous entry does not help make an encyclopedia article. WP is not supposed to be a list of ludicrous fictions, it is supposed to deal, as best it can, with factual articles. Collect (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact that the book was published. It is fact that it is not taken seriously. The paragraph only contains facts, and is not a ludicrous fiction. Just because A Midsummer Night's Dream is a ludicrous fiction, does not mean that mention of it should be excluded from wikipedia. Similarly, although Jack the Ripper: Lighthearted Friend is a ludicrous fiction, that does not mean that mention of it should be excluded. It should be mentioned and analysed in an appropriate way. DrKiernan (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, three reverts would count as an edit war, and four as a breach of policy WP:3RR. DrKiernan (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The point here is that, yes, the idea is ludicrous, but it's NOTABLE, and has not only the book itself but a large number of other books and references that are reliable mentioning the fact that he was named by a modern author as a suspect. It's interesting, and removing it would make anyone who knows the standard list of famous people named as suspects scratch their heads at the omission. I think because it's so ludicrous bu because it received press attention around the world (was in newspapers around the globe at the time) that we need it to be here because readers need to know that it's ludicrous and need the link at this very appropriate location to see the full article on the topic. Removing the mention here and making people have a difficult time finding the article means anyone who heard about it and is looking for info on it here can be mislead into thinking it's not been discussed and might have merit. Removing it serves no purpose other than for someone to act on a peevish POV-based snit. DreamGuy (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not taken seriously be anyone. Not regarded as a serious position in any RS. About as utile as the books proving Sherlock Holmes was real. UNDUE as it applies to a specific person who was not in any way connected to the Ripper. As valid as using Dan Brown's "non fiction" to prove the "Priory of Sion." detritus in a WP article at best. Collect (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

But clearly Dan Brown should be mentioned and analysed in any article regarding the Priory of Sion, to point out that it is fiction and to explore its impact on popular culture. That is what this article should do, expose the fictions, point out their flaws and explore their impact on popular culture. DrKiernan (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Collect, apparently as a way to ignore consensus here, posted here hoping to get people to declare the book unreliable. Anyone who commented here may also want to comment there. DreamGuy (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Posting on noticeboards when the "consensus" here was two years old at best is the proper procedure on WP. The principle is that fresh eyes in a backwater article will help. Collect (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Also something to consider is personal biases: as a militant athiest, its perhaps not a huge surprise Staczynski picks a man of the cloth as his Jack the Ripper suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.250.175 (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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].

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)

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)

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)

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)

Looks like its probably a jewish person, an immigrant, or a foreigner of some kind. Is there even an English person on the list? Well a few anyway.Cillmore (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would stake my house on it being Tumblety. There is such a confused picture from all the chequebook journalism that went on at the time though, it is difficult to ascertain details to guide the article one way or another, I suggest you look at The Whitechapel Murders article for assistance with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 13:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC) --Cymbelmineer (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Kosminski

Noting the recent {{cn}} tag. He was admitted to the Stepney workhouse from his brother's house - in Whitechapel. Previously he had been admitted to the Mile End Old Town workhouse - which still exists slightly to the east of Mile End tube station. That suggests he actually lived a bit further east than Whitechapel; therefore the claim is probably at the border of 1 mile for the City of London victim. Although, the extract (below) suggests he may have been itinerant

Details of his psychotic symptomatology were recorded as follows: "He declares that he is guided and his movements altogether controlled by an

instinct that informs his mind, he says that he knows the movements of all mankind, he refuses food from others because he is told to do so, and he eats out of the gutter for the same reason. Jacob Cohen ... says that he goes about the streets and picks up bits of bread out of the gutter and eats them, he drinks water from the tap and he refuses food at the hands of others. He took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister. He is very dirty and will not be washed. He

has not attempted any kind of work for years."

(from Sketches from the history of psychiatry: The case of Aaron Kosminski: was he Jack the Ripper? Psychiatric Bulletin (1992), 16, 786-788} - hopefully that's accessible from your location. Altogether an interesting case history.) HTH Kbthompson (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Frederick Bailey Deeming: a lion among men

The Ripper stalked his victims much like a predatory animal. Seeking out the most incapacitated the easy kill. The lack of empathy for his victims is animal like in that he kills to satisfy his needs, his only concern being that the kill be clean enough to maximise his time with the victim once dead feeding his need (what ever that was). This killing method is not reflected in the slaughter of animals for domestic purposes or for hunting purposes. The strangulation to incapacitate and kill quickly reminds me strongly of the killing method of lions. They grab the throat of prey and close the windpipe suffocating them, which then allows the lion to feed easily by opening the viscera and eating their fill of the soft organs and then working their way through the rest of the carcass if not disturbed by other animals. When this struck me I went through the suspect profiles to see if any had been in Africa and as such would have some knowledge of the behaviour of lions, not something that would have been common knowledge in Britain in the 19th Century. The story of Frederick Bailey Deeming shows a period of time in South Africa during which he was unaccounted for and this time follows on to the time of the Ripper murders. Very interesting. He also is known to have committed 6 murders by cutting the throat, 5 of which were “sleeping” and thus incapacitated. He is profiled to be somewhat approachable with women as at least some of his victims were known to have gone with him voluntarily. He is also profiled to be able to have short term relationships with women without exhibiting the behaviour that characterised the Ripper attacks. He had a wife and 4 children a long term relationship sustained perhaps by his being a sailor and not at home for long periods of time. His experiences in Africa may have been the catalyst that triggered the gross behaviour in Whitechappel. Applying his new knowledge obtained from this trip, how to incapacitate quickly. His later behaviour would explain why the Whitechappel murders ceased abruptly just when they seemed to be escalating. His “real” life was impinging on his “other life” as he was known to his creditors and it was their hounding that moved him on. That he was criminally insane is evidenced by the murders he was convicted for. Further investigation into his experiences in Africa and as a sailor may yield interesting results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowerin (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What about Walter Dew as a suspect?

I just watched a documentary on the Crippen murder conviction of 1910. Walter Dew, the main investigator, probably, planted bloody evidence on Crippen to convict him of his wife's murder in 1910, according to the documentary. Years before this, Walter Dew was one of the investigating police officers in the Jack the Ripper case. Also, he bragged like he knew many of the prostitutes in his writings of his books, and bragged again by being the first one to find some of the mutilated bodies in the Ripper case. This might add a little new direction, something different to think about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinozoid (talk • contribs) 01:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Th idea that Dew planted evidence against Crippen is a nonsensical attack on the character of a well respected police figure by some scientists who set out to prove Crippen innocent and are manufacturing evidence to try to prove it. It's completely irreponsible, and I don't know any crime historian who takes their ideas seriously. Crippen did it, and he evidence is conclusive.

Be that as it may (off topic), the idea that Dew could be a suspect is what's called original research: you thought it up, and there are no notabel experts making the claim. As an encyclopedia we cover what the experts think. DreamGuy (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Aaron Kosminsky

This is really good article, but I was under the impression that Aaron Kosminksy was a cobbler, not a hairdresser. I wouldn't think that a hairdresser would be an acceptable occupation for a Jewish male in the 1800s.-Shawn Crapo 14:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be thinking of a different suspect - Kaminsky - which isn't listed in this article..(my spelling may be off but there are multiple persons of interest with like names). As for the hairdresser bit, it was perfectly acceptable...at least one of the other suspects, George Chapman (aka Severin Klosowski), was also a male hairdresser and of Jewish origin though he appears not to have practiced Judaism and at times claimed catholicism for marriage purposes. Fwiw,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You are probably talking about Nathan Kaminsky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 11:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole letter DNA thing

I really think that's getting off topic for this article, especially as it involves explaining that most authoities don't think any of he letters came from the killer, explaining contamination, etc. But since a coupe of editors seem to want it there I tried to reword it to make it understandable to an average person without a background on it already. I'm not tied to the specific wording, but the components listed there (except perhaps the From Hell letter link) should be present if the topic is mentioned on this page. DreamGuy (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it says in the article how most "authorities" consider it such. Were such the case, there wouldn't have been need for DNA testing in 2006. That said, the problem with the reworking is that it mentions that the "authorities" don't believe it not once but twice; doing so is more of a case of undue weight than not. It even makes statements about the validity of the letters that has no citation whatsoever. The previous version notes the test, that most don't believe it, and moves on. Perhaps an article on the letters could go into greater detail. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne you can't just undo all my edit with a response here that doesn't even have anything to do with mos of the edit, and the part which does is only your opinion. I know that's always been your game plan on Jack the Ripper, but that kind of bad faith editing will not fly here. We either need to explain it so people understand it or we can't have it here. Rewording it wa compromise, I'm also fine with completely deleting it if you would prefer. I'm also fine with you making a suggested rewoding, or even rewording my rewording but completely undoing my edit (including changes to other parts of the article) just to get it back to the version you had is not how things work here. DreamGuy (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the previous wording was better. Of both parts. It succinctly described both the DNA testing and the reasoning why it was likely going to be inconclusive. We note one side, and then we note the other. That's what we call neutrality. Additionally, I've removed the bit about Victorian butcher shops around London, as it is uncited. It isn't about undoing your edit - its about improving the article. Demonstrate good faith, please.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Gull

The Pearce reference is a short biography of Gull which describes his career in medicine and says "There was a crazed but popular rumour that Sir William Gull was the notorious serial killer Jack the Ripper...Based partly on a discredited book (The Final Solution by Stephen Knight), a highly successful television film emerged in 1988 [with] Michael Caine as Chief Inspector Frederick Abberline. There is scant evidence to support this far-fetched tale and most historians have dismissed it." I was just using it as a reference for the entire section. DrKiernan (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, alright. I see. Sounded like a reference for specific medical expertise or something. I have no objection to using it as a source, but it shouldn't be tacked at the end of the fiction usage sentence just for clarity sake, as it doesn't discuss movie adaptations and whatnot. One of the sentences before that should do it. DreamGuy (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it off for the minute. We can probably come up with a better ref in due time. DrKiernan (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Chapman

Hi DG, in response to your comment in the edit summary, "odd that he's highest on their list but lowest on so many others;..."

Sugden wasn't affected by the now-obsolete law enforcement theory that serial killers do not change their modus operandi...too many others either did believe it (or still do) leading them to dismiss some suspects too quickly. More poignantly, Sugden based much on the amalgam of witness testimony (especially Israel Schwartz) regarding the physical descriptions. Chapman scores high marks there. I don't recall the name of the documentary where I first saw the physical model workup of the Ripper based on eyewitness accounts but it can be seen here. I've not heard anyone else suggest that it looks like Chapman but that is what I have thought about it ever since. Looks like either Chapman or Freddie Mercury. 8^D
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not one of the people who think killers can't change methods, but even allowing for the possibility there's very little reason to think Chapman had anything to do with the Ripper murders. As far as descriptions go, Schwartz said he didn't get a good look at the face of the person he saw and explicitly said he could not identify him if he saw him again. Other alleged witness descriptions gave wildly varying details, and police said time and time again that nobody got a good look at the killer. The PHOTO-FIT image used in that documentary was not based upon any solid criteria (no witnesses alive to question to see which part of the image looked right, etc.), so it might as well be random. DreamGuy (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What about Robert Mann?

Recently the subject of a Discovery channel piece, and seemingly credible.

Discovery Channel

Daily Telegraph

Daily Mail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.63.53 (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Connan Doyle

The so called sources (a blog) is just too silly for words. Find a half decent source for this.Slatersteven (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Formating

What is wrong with the text size?Slatersteven (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

http://probaway.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/jack-the-ripper-was-arthur-conan-doyle/

Its pretty clear if you think about it, but there needs to be a reliable source, any finds it please tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Something12356789101 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There always has to be RS that’s how wikipedia works. You are aware that only one story feature Holmes in a deerstalker and Inverness cape, and that that motife in fact come from the Basil, Rathbone movies. Two Conan Doyle did not write nay of the material that has made Saucy Jack famous. Your source also does not seen to know that a conning tower is something you find on a ship, not an airport. Conan Doyle was not an ophthalmologist. The French word for Eye is oeil Not Doyle It just rhymes with it). J and I are not (as far as I am aware) interchangeable I the English language, in fact it's G thats interchangable with J (as in a ballad of reading Gaol). In fact Ian is the Scots Gallic form of John (thus is in fact a different language). I shan’t go on. The evidence from this blog looks like it’s meant to be a joke. So yes we would need some RS for this. Something, mmm unknown, unqauntified. Well Saucey jack was unknown, your user name contains the number 89, the year after the killings. Theres the number 5 there, the number of victimes Its beging to look like you might be Saucey Jack.Slatersteven (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No one who is serious about studying the Ripper would give any credence to a Doyle theory so I doubt that a reliable source is to be found.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

But we shouod look, by the wat one error above, Holmes is illustrated wearing a deer Stalker in two stores (Silver Blaze and Bocombe down). But never an Inverness cape. He seems to be a suspect [[3]] But its not a lot. It seems another random accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it was a sarcastic article, it makes some sense, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle sure might have wanted to be found out one day that he did this, knew London very well, like saucy jack, had an intense dislike of prostitutes, studied medicine very well, and had an unusual literally "licensed to kill mommy" attitude to death. --Something12356789101 (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thats may bew true (but is in fact debatable in all most all of the points). But we still need something a bit more reliable then a dodgey blog that carries out lazy research.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lord Randolph Churchill

There is a documentary (very bad film) that claims Jack the Ripper was a conspiracy tu punish Kelly and her friends perpetrated by the royal family in collaboration with Lord Spencer Churchill (father of Winston Churchill). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JotpOqr85Lg (is a part of a more extended documentary) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.164.52.89 (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Neill Cream

Under the Cream article:

"Dr Thomas Neill Cream (27 May 1850 – 15 November 1892) was a doctor secretly specialising in abortions... In 1881 he was found guilty of the fatal poisoning of his mistress's husband... He moved to London, where he resumed killing and was soon arrested."

He resumed killing what? It appears that he had only kileld his mistresses' husband in the past, unless the killing refers to the illegal abortions, in which case, couldn't it say "resumed performing illegal abortions"? I can't tell what the context here is,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.128.53 (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Some new information

Was browsing the web today and this came up in the Telegraph: thought that a more learned Wiki editor might like to update with this info. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9512928/Was-Jack-the-Ripper-a-cart-driver-from-Bethnal-Green.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.78.174 (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

H. H. Holmes

There have recently been some rumors that Chicago`s famous serial killer H. H. Holmes could have been Jack the Ripper. This theory is outlined in Jeff Mudgett's book "Bloodstains". It is suggested that Holmes travelled to London from August to late fall 1888, before starting his killing spree in Chicago. There are also some striking similarities between both persons. Following the theories of the book, there has also been a comparison of the "Dear Boss" and "From Hell"-letters with Holme's handwriting. They seem to bee the same. Could this, after some research of course, be included to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MovieScreen (talk • contribs) 13:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Until it gains acceptance, it is a fringe theory. Are there other reliable sources which advance this theory?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

An expert concluded that it was written by the same hand and a computer program estimated a match of 97.95% according to this article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241334/Was-Chicago-doctor-serial-killer-Londons-Jack-Ripper-Descendant-American-murderer-investigates-links-notorious-criminals.html JohnEmilList (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Found Jeff Mudgett's homepage http://www.bloodstainsthebook.com/ JohnEmilList (talk) 10:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Jacob Levy

An England-born Jewish butcher 5'3 tall from Whitechapel sent to a lunatic asylum in 1890, died there of syphilis a year later, "His wife also revealed that he was formerly a shrewd businessman and that "he does not sleep at nights and wanders around aimlessly for hours". Circumstantial evidence (as with all others), but one of the strongest contenders IMHO. He lived and worked near Joseph Hyam Levy, an Eddowes murder suspect. http://www.casebook.org/suspects/jacoblevy.html . Also used as a solution for the mystery in the game Sherlock Holmes Vs Jack the Ripper http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvElxpBbhMI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.201.130 (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

James Kelly

If the police sought out James Kelly as a suspect, doesn't his entry belong under "contemperaneous police opinion?"69.235.22.185 (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The police never said he was a suspect. That they were searching for him because he was a suspect rather than an escaped madman is an assumption made by modern commentators. DrKiernan (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Bailey Deeming

This article dogmatically states that "he was either imprisoned[62] or in South Africa[63] at the time of the Ripper murders". This is not consistent with the Frederick Bailey Deeming article, which states that "Deeming's movements at many stages of his career are obscure, but it appears he may have been in England in late 1888, the time of the Whitechapel murders". While I don't know which article is correct, I strongly mistrust the current article; if it isn't known which of two radically different possibilities is correct, how can additional possibilities be safely excluded? Nevertheless, I feel that someone with better knowledge than me ought to tidy this up. Brian Hardy 54 (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Why Have Pages on Jack the Ripper Suspects

Why can't we just describe their involvement with the Jack the Ripper case and just do away with the descriptions of their lives? Most of them were not notable except for their being named as suspects in these crimes.Interarefraction (talk) 07:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons that giving details is useful relates to their status as suspects. In order to see whether they are credible suspects "Ripperologists" have attempted to detail their lives to determine how likely it was they could have committed the murders. Over the years several suspects have been effectively eliminated because the facts of their lives simply don't fit either the motives for the crimes, known details of the crimes, or even the suspects proximity at the time. One of the most famous of the "suspects" was Prince Eddy. A simple bit of research into his life came to the not very surprising conclusion that he could not possibly have committed any of the murders. Research into the lives of the murder victims themselves has also revealed interesting details about their circumstances at the time of their deaths. Other suspects such as George Chapman, whilst not being regarded by a lot of "Ripperologists" as having been a strong suspect does attract attention for his subsequent life as a convicted serial murderer. His promixmity to the area at the time is also an interesting fact, thought not conclusive evidence of involvement or guilt. So I would personally disagree that none of the suspects were notable. Which brings me back to the question I posed above about what happened to Mr Hutchinson whose role as a witness in the last murder of Mary Jane Kelly has always struck me as strange, that is was he a liar or was there something else he really did know? Freedom1968 (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

DNA evidence not peer reviewed

I found in here that the research hasn't been peer-reviewed yet.

http://news.yahoo.com/jack-ripper-identified-dna-traces-sleuth-024421946.html "The research has not been published a a peer-reviewed scientific journal, meaning the claims cannot be independently verified or the methodology scrutinised. Professor Alec Jeffreys, who invented the DNA fingerprinting technique 30 years ago this week, called for further verification. "

Personally, I believe a mention that DNA evidence in 2014 seems to link to Kosminski but has not been peer reviewed yet should be there cited with the right links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apavlides24 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The addition of a sentence "The claims have not been independently verified." or similar is fine by me. DrKiernan (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it now the duty of this article to report on every unverified claim? Shii (tock) 07:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If it is notable. We should avoid making extensive changes to the article until this has been peer-reviewed, but (possibly) should make some note of the claim of identification. We should not, however, say that he actually was Jack the Ripper for the time being. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest changing the article to read,

In September 2014, author Russell Edwards claimed to have exposed the serial killer's true identity using DNA evidence. His book and DNA evidence which have not yet been peer reviewed purport Jack the Ripper to be 23-year-old Polish immigrant Aaron Kosminski.

Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The DNA evidence is a significant part of the story and cannot be ignored. The conclusion should be left entirely open a Proxima Centauri has it but we need to note the existence of the claim itself. This story will develop over time and WP can reflect that at leisure as it unfolds. As it stands, this article now conflicts with the Aaron Kosminski article, which reports the DNA evidence, so, whatever we do we need to reconcile the two articles. Ex nihil ^(talk) 09:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no conflict. DrKiernan (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's now been shown that the shawl was in the same room as two of Eddowes' descendants in 2007 [4] so the shawl is obviously going to have their DNA on it. Donald Rumbelow (a Ripper expert) and Peter Gill, who is the mitochondrial DNA expert who identified the Romanov bodies and disproved Anna Anderson, both now say the shawl is of dubious provenance and that it is known to have been handled multiple times by people who could have shared the DNA profiles. DrKiernan (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As I have said before, this is not the first time a "bulletproof" theory has been proposed and it is not even the first time mitochrondrial DNA evidence has been used. This claim does not belong on the page at all. There is nothing especially noteworthy about it except that it happened recently. Shii (tock) 16:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I copied this from Talk:Jack the Ripper as it's also relevant here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Jacob Levy

Why is there no mention of Jacob Levy as a suspect? I find this unacceptable, considering that the article mentions friggin' Lewis Carroll as a suspect. Br. Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.87.45 (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I invite you to be bold and write it since you have realized this importance. Make sure to use good sources and cite them.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll think about it. But I'd rather have it done by a "qualified ripperologist" who is also a native English speaker (writer). I am neither. There is a plethora of public information on the subject. -Andy 89.27.87.45 (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy, if you can use the word 'plethora', you are more than qualified to contribute to English Wikipedia :-) Onanoff (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The butcher Jacob Levy is covered by the first paragraph in the first chapter of the article, a la "the alibis of local butchers and slaughterers were investigated, with the result being that they were eliminated from the inquiry." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corkiebuchek (talk • contribs) 12:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

George Hutchinson

Does anyone know what became of George Hutchinson, very few books seem to mention his fate? Freedom1968 (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

According to casebook.org he was registered as an insurance collector in 1901, and died of a heart attack in 1938.--Corkiebuchek (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The case against 'royalty involved'

Quite apart from it being somewhat unlikely that any royal (or upper class male) would go round Whitechapel looking for females there would have been no need for any cover-ups. Any working class prostitute stating she had been with a royal would have been treated as 'suffering from alcoholic delusions, GPI or some related illness' and dealt with by the local authorities accordingly without any recourse to higher officialdom.

Comments anyone? Jackiespeel (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

George Hutchinson assumptions

I think we do not know whether Hutchinson went to the London police to make his statement. He may have been brought there by police on account of his suspicious behaviour, or for any other reason. After all, it took 3 days for him to consider making his statement, so it may be more likely that he was brought in involuntarily. Another point I had an issue with was the phrase "to make a statement claiming that on 9 November 1888 he watched the room that Mary Jane Kelly lived in". The word claiming implies that he shouldn't be believed and plants a wrong impression in the reader's mind. Let's keep it neutral. Akld guy (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Article is ridiculously POV

I have just watched a documentary, from 1988, about Jack the Ripper. And in that program they name a few suspects who are just not mentioned in this article. And yet, according to that program, some of these people were suspected at the time. Why are the names of people like Dunstan(?) not mentioned in this article?

Similarily, as far as I can see, the live-in lover/partner of the 5th victim is not mentioned as a suspect in this article. He was suspected at the time. He has been listed as a suspect in this article in the past, but now doesn't seem to be mentioned.

Some serious editing is needed to this article - preferably by a Wiki editor with long experience of writing for Wikipedia but no real/previous interest in this subject matter. 213.114.9.93 (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The 'live-in lover/partner' of the 5th victim was Joseph Barnett. He is still present on the page. And it is OR but needs to be said that the so-called 'partners' of some of these women were probably their pimps, or perhaps their 'minders' (used in the British sense of 'bodyguard'). Akld guy (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Donston is also in the article, in the "Contemporaneous press and public opinion" section. DrKay (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Collective noun

What would the collective noun be for 'a group of (usually mutually exclusive) suspects - here and the JFK equivalents etc? 193.132.104.10 (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

As the use would be so specialised, and likely restricted to extreme and unusual circumstances like those herein detailed, your own elliptical phrase,"a group of (usually mutually exclusive) suspects", would serve perfectly well, as far as it would ever be likely to be made us of. Nuttyskin (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Michael Maybrick?

Bruce Robinson published an 800 page book in 2015 claiming Michael Maybrick (brother of James) was Jack. I have just read through all the reviews on Amazon.co.uk, some of which are by people who have studied the case and consider Robinson's theory credible. So shouldn't this Maybrick be listed as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.33.20.85 (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack the Ripper suspects. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091217165503/http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH35/haggard1.html to http://etext.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH35/haggard1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Lechmere

So, Lechmere is the latest in a long line of dead certs (these journalists know they are onto a money-spinner). But the Holmgren docu forgot to ask the question, "Why did the killings stop?" But it seems we may be in for a second installment, answering that question, just as soon as Holmgren can work out how to include the Embankment in the geography that was so crucial for the Lechmere identification [/cynicism] Vince Calegon 18:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vince Calegon (talk • contribs)

Charles Allen Lechmere's family, birth and death data

According to https://www.ancestry.ca/genealogy/records/charles-allen-lechmere_49489616 and https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=15665&page=3 Charles Allen Lechmere was born on 5 October 1849, at 28 Church Street, Strand, St. Anne, Westminster, London, Middlesex, England, to John Allen Lechmere (1820-?) and Maria Louisa Rowlstone (1825-?). He had a junior sister Emily Charlotte Lechmere (1859-?). He married Elizabeth Bostock (1849-1940). According to documentary Jack the Ripper: The Missing Evidence the couple had 12 children. He died on 23 December 1920 in Bow, London, England.--Orlando F (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Kosminski

For the claims made by the Daily Mail related to Kosminski, see Talk:Aaron Kosminski#Dailymail is not a suitable source. It should not be added to these articles.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Alois Szemeredy

Don't know if this individual (presumably the correct surname spelling is Szemeredy) should be added to this list?--Kieronoldham (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)