I bet someone could connect Winnie the Pooh to Jack the Ripper if we had to.
Well of course, especially since Winnie the Pooh “lived under the name of Mr. Saunders” according to the book. Mr. Saunders in this case being Mr. William Sedgwick Saunders, who was called as a material witness to the inquest of the second murder, that of Catherine Eddowes. He was also an Assistant Surgeon with the Royal Fusiliers. Perhaps Milne was intimating that Saunders was more than a witness , but was in fact the Ripper himself?
Milne, of course, also served in the Royal Fusiliers, during WW1.
I bet someone could connect Winnie the Pooh to Jack the Ripper if we had to.
Well of course, especially since Winnie the Pooh “lived under the name of Mr. Saunders” according to the book. Mr. Saunders in this case being Mr. William Sedgwick Saunders, who was called as a material witness to the inquest of the second murder, that of Catherine Eddowes. He was also an Assistant Surgeon with the Royal Fusiliers. Perhaps Milne was intimating that Saunders was more than a witness , but was in fact the Ripper himself?
Milne, of course, also served in the Royal Fusiliers, during WW1.
I bet someone could connect Winnie the Pooh to Jack the Ripper if we had to.
Well of course, especially since Winnie the Pooh “lived under the name of Mr. Saunders” according to the book. Mr. Saunders in this case being Mr. William Sedgwick Saunders, who was called as a material witness to the inquest of the second murder, that of Catherine Eddowes. He was also an Assistant Surgeon with the Royal Fusiliers. Perhaps Milne was intimating that Saunders was more than a witness , but was in fact the Ripper himself?
Milne, of course, also served in the Royal Fusiliers, during WW1.
Make love to me with your big beautiful brain!
I’m not sure the brain is the best part to be making love with…
Hi guys, Jonathon Menges of the Rippercast pointed me to this site and I think it right I chip in.
I became interested in the field of Ripperology as a direct result of being involved in the paranormal. I had always had an interest in the field and in 2006, diagnosed with a critical heart condition I was forced out of work. Rather than sit on my backside doing nothing, I decided that I would write a book on the paranormal, a task which drew my attnetion to the fact that several previously named Ripper Suspects had links to my hometown of Hull.
One of which was Robert D’Onston Stephenson, who in later years became known as Roslyn Donston.
Stephenson lived just minutes away from my house and his family were involved in the same industries my family are involved in now.
I decided to start collecting everything I could get my hands on which was Stephenson related and my attention was drawn to the Melvin Harris books as his earlier work covered Stephenson’s “Dead or Alive” story.
Harris came to the conclusion in 1987 that Stephenson was a “Fantasist” yet years later he named him as “Jack the Ripper”.
I love Harris’s work and nothing but respect for him, but these are the claims which need to be addressed.
What made him change his mind, as everything found since goes some way in proving Stephenson could not have committed the murders.
At the moment I am working on a book looking into the Ripper Suspects named “Jack the Ripper, From Hell, From Hull?” and a chapter looks at the story of “Dead or Alive”.
I’m sure your book will be very interesting, but how will you do anything more that insinuate X is the ripper? It is feasible that someone might be able to prove someone is not the ripper with some degree of confidence (by finding a documented alibi for him/her, for example), but proof positive of the ripper’s identity is impossible.
I’ve never quite understood, so perhaps you can explain, what really is the point of ‘ripperology’? (This is a genuine question BTW.)
I’m sure your book will be very interesting, but how will you do anything more that insinuate X is the ripper? It is feasible that someone might be able to prove someone is not the ripper with some degree of confidence (by finding a documented alibi for him/her, for example), but proof positive of the ripper’s identity is impossible.
I’ve never quite understood, so perhaps you can explain, what really is the point of ‘ripperology’? (This is a genuine question BTW.)
Hi David B. the title of my book is “Jack the Ripper, From Hell, From Hull?” and as you can see has the question mark which hangs over the heads of each candidate. In short, my aim was to present a well balanced factual account of their links to the city, not propose a candidate. The thing is all of them who had associations with the city had pretty cast iron alibi’s for the night’s in question.
Ripperology for many is not just the study of several dead prostitutes and an invisible killer, but a look back at victorian history, politics, crime, punishment, media and the social classes of eastend London during the period. Some of the best books in the case don’t name a suspect!
I’m sure your book will be very interesting, but how will you do anything more that insinuate X is the ripper? It is feasible that someone might be able to prove someone is not the ripper with some degree of confidence (by finding a documented alibi for him/her, for example), but proof positive of the ripper’s identity is impossible.
I’ve never quite understood, so perhaps you can explain, what really is the point of ‘ripperology’? (This is a genuine question BTW.)
Five Star:
Allow me to address your points above…and yeah,I’m that Howard Brown.
Eliminating all of the proposed suspects that a Ripperologist or interested civilian encounters in serious or superficial research ought to be a priority,but as we know,its not.
One “point” to Ripperology is the study of an event that forever changed several areas of life that we in 2008 take for granted. Another “point” is that its a community effort to “set history” straight, since virtually all Ripper-suspect books are written from the position that that individual (or individuals) are guilty of something. These negative hagiographies are incomplete histories of the many fascinating characters within the whole of the Case…and Robert Stephenson…a.k.a. Roslyn D’Onston…is no exception.
I can’t speak for Mike Covell, but for me the question to Stephenson at this point in time is not whether he was “Jack The Ripper”, or that he was a “suspect”...but WHY his candidature lasted so long without being corrected. Along with Mike and myself, several outstanding researchers have spent a few years now setting the record straight.
The entire edifice on which Stephenson’s candidacy was set upon was a series of “misinterpretations” of available documents and omitted facts. Its not a hoax in the sense that Cardiff Man or the Patterson BigFoot video were…but a calculated effort to avoid facts that were available and the hope that researchers down the proverbial road wouldn’t check too closely at what was being offered as “evidence” of the man’s role in the Whitechapel Murders.
(Psst. The five star is the posting/forum rank, not the user name. That would be David B, AKA Dave, or Her Royal Highness if he’s got the dress and tiara on)
