Jack the Ripper discussion

I am just curious as to why people are so sure it wasn't just some random fiend with no agenda except to kill and mutilate women.Since we can't understand how a serial killer thinks,maybe he had O.C.D and 5 was his number.Maybe he just wanted to achieve the degree of mutilation he got with Kelly and then he was satisfied.Maybe he was dying and wanted to go out with a bang.Or possibly he was a medical student doing research.Whatever he was,it's been 121 years,so in my opinion,one theory is as good as another.

I don't don't know why everyone's so hung up with the victim total of 5. I see no real reason at all to doubt that Martha Tabram was a Ripper victim. And possibly Alice MacKenzie and Frances Coles as well. Can we really be sure Jack (whoever he was) started and stopped with Nicholls and Kelly?

What makes Kosminski a better suspect than Maybrick or Sickert?

the maybrick "diary" is an outright fraud and there's no evidence that points to him otherwise. the whole sickert theory is likewise without a tinge of proof (and scant basis).

the argument for kosminski is pretty weak too, but his profile is at least in the ballpark of a potential suspect, unlike the other two.

Boots wrote: "the whole sickert theory is likewise without a tinge of proof (and scant basis).."

I actually found the Sickert case, as presented by
Portrait of a Killer: Jack The Ripper - Case Closed, was intriguing. Why do you think it's "without a tinge of proof"? I'm curious.

hi carla!

there's no hard evidence. cornwell speculates and theorizes, but her dna and suppositions about the paintings is 100% inconclusive. nothing actually ties sickert to the killings except that he had a possibly mean, eccentric personality (not unusual for an artist, frankly), lived in east London at the time (along with hundreds of thousands of others), and cavorted with the underclass (how bohemian of him).

in the game of "hunt the ripper" it's practically possible to make anyone a suspect if you try hard enough. that's why people have been doing it for more than 110 years. and if people want to entertain the idea that sickert could be jack the ripper (alongside the gallery of ripper potentials), have fun. but to declare the case closed is profoundly presumptuous and only slightly less disingenuous as maybrick's silly diary.

Boots wrote: "hi carla!

there's no hard evidence. cornwell speculates and theorizes, but her dna and suppositions about the paintings is 100% inconclusive. nothing actually ties sickert to the killings except t..."

Gotcha! Thanks for the clarification. It's been a while since I've read Cornwell's book, so I was puzzled. Thanks for clearing up your POV.

And hello, yourself. :)

Well, Sickert was out of the country for a few of the murders I believe, which makes it hard for me to consider him viable. Maybrick is a man of 50; in relation to the period that the murders took place, his age does become an issue. An entire lifetime of difference in turning 50 today, and turning 50 in 1888.

Sickert has pretty much been debunked.
Maybrick is made up rubbish and-
If Francis Coles was a Ripper victim then, Kosminski is out ofthe frame too as he was incarcerated.
Take a good look at folks like Nathan Kaminski. Better known as David Cohen (the name cohen is a John Doe).
Or
William Grant Grainger.
They both read very well.
Cheers
Tim.