.Clarence? Whos that?
Might I also add, that, it is a posibility that the infamous Jack the Ripper might have been a woman! If I can get a full name I will add it to my list of suspects. some of them sound like the killer yet, none seem to be. I wish i had more information about the murders from the autumn 1888, but I dont so I will need as much information as I can muster.
Oh, brother: Not the Illuminati/Pope/White House/Windsor/British Royalty conspiracy again! No, I don't buy it.
I suspect that the Ripper was somebody who we have never heard of.
The ripper was an American!
Not included on your list was Dr Francis J Tumblety. A UK Channel4 documentary made a convincing case for Tumblety, most of the evidence being presented by a member of Scotland Yard after new information had come to light in 1994.
There are some links about him here:
http://www.casebook.org/suspects/tumblety.html
http://www.prairieghosts.com/ripper.html
He gets my vote.
I don't think there's any evidence to indicate that Jack the Ripper was well-endowed.
I always thought (well, since I saw the long-aforementioned documentary) that Tumblety fits better than any other theory, simply because you don't need any conspiracy to explain him, other than the Metropolitan Police brushing him under the carpet once he was clearly off their beat after they missed the chance to nab him.Totally agree, the fact that he collected uterus's and used them to illustrate his after dinner lectures on the decadence of fallen women was the clincher for me.
no one seems to have heard of him, apart from Littlechild who messed up his chance to arrest him and then decided not to mention his existence to the public, can't think why
![]()
Killing prostitutes..
...targeting writing taunting letters to the police..
...possible rape...
Had he been caught at the time, he'd probably be discovered to be a creepy unshaved half literate working class slum dweller with 6 kids and a bad cold and the whole thing would be completely forgotten today.
Exactly. None of the proposed candidates are a perfect fit for the crime. Druitt is closest IMHO, but most experts think the Ripper was local to Whitechapel, but Druitt lived in Kent.
Why do you (and Larsen I see) think that Druitt is the most likely suspect (and I take your point that none are especially likely)? I can't see that there's any more circumstantial evidence against him - possibly less. If it weren't for MacNaghten, he wouldn't have even been on the Ripperologist's radar.
I'd agree with those saying or implying that none of the mooted suspects is likely to have been him. The whole field of Ripperology is, whilst fun, essentially a waste of time.