Newcomer asks about the usual suspects

[MustKnow]

So I'm a newcomer, hello first of all.

Although I do have a certain knowledge of the Ripper case from books, documentaries, etc. I don't pretend to know as much as most of you. There are many theories I find fascinating and very convincing and can't make up my mind about a suspect. But I have some questions that are important to deepening my knowledge, perhaps to some of you very banal and obvious questions.

****************
1) Why can't Thomas Cutbush be the Ripper as described by the Sun?

2) Can we finally put an end to the Maybrick diary controversy, or is this issue forever inconclusive (a question related to Tom Mitchell's thread)?

3) Why can't our main suspects be the ones of contemporary detectives, such as Druitt, Kosminski, Chapman, Tumblety, having inside knowledge their view is certainly meaningful?

4) Would detectives be really confused about the identity of a Kosminski with a David Cohen/Kaminsky, wouldn't they really know the patient's name?

5) Why is it that some consider the case closed among contemporary detectives (ex. Druitt drowned in the Thames, Kosminski sent to asylum...) and others like Abberline in 1903 say "Scotland Yard is no closer than it was 15 years ago"?
*************

Okay, for now that's it.

[perrymason]

So I'm a newcomer, hello first of all.

Although I do have a certain knowledge of the Ripper case from books, documentaries, etc. I don't pretend to know as much as most of you. There are many theories I find fascinating and very convincing and can't make up my mind about a suspect. But I have some questions that are important to deepening my knowledge, perhaps to some of you very banal and obvious questions.

****************
1) Why can't Thomas Cutbush be the Ripper as described by the Sun?

2) Can we finally put an end to the Maybrick diary controversy, or is this issue forever inconclusive (a question related to Tom Mitchell's thread)?

3) Why can't our main suspects be the ones of contemporary detectives, such as Druitt, Kosminski, Chapman, Tumblety, having inside knowledge their view is certainly meaningful?

4) Would detectives be really confused about the identity of a Kosminski with a David Cohen/Kaminsky, wouldn't they really know the patient's name?

5) Why is it that some consider the case closed among contemporary detectives (ex. Druitt drowned in the Thames, Kosminski sent to asylum...) and others like Abberline in 1903 say "Scotland Yard is no closer than it was 15 years ago"?
*************

Okay, for now that's it.

Hi Must Know,

You'll get a bunch of different takes on the above, here's my short form answer list....;

1. There is no reason.
2. It should have been an issue retired.... long ago.
3. Druitt, Kosminsky and Ostrog were named as Suspects in the Macnaughten Memorandum...Tumblety is mentioned in the Littlechild Letter to G.R Sims. Taking only those opinions, you have to accept that Druitt is only named because of some family rumors passed on to a senior investigator, and supposition his suicide note related to his fears for his self control. Kosminski supposedly was identified as the Ripper by a witness, Tumblety was in custody on November the 7th and may not have been out on bail for Mary Kellys murder, but he does flee before a court appearance later that month and head home through Liverpool as Frank Townsend, ...Severin Klosowski or George Chapman was suspected after the murders of being a possible, he lived near the centre of the murder sites, and he is in 1903 convicted and executed for 2 murders by poisoning. You can go through every "suspect" here and elsewhere to get details...but there is not one man that has any tangible or physical link to one of the Canonical murders,....so, in essence, there are no real Suspects per se, but plenty of People of Suspicion.
4. Confusion is always a possibility here with all sorts of ethnicities and nationalities and unfamiliar surnames.
5. I would think that what you have are personal opinions that often are stated as facts...such as Anderson's comments, "...he had been safely caged in an Asylum." (Criminals and Crime, 1907), or his..."In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact." (The Lighter Side of My Official Life, 1910), or maybe this quote..
"...there was no doubt whatever as to the identity of the criminal..." (Police Encyclopedia, 1920).

What you need to believe in my opinion is that had the Police actually caught and canned the Ripper, it would not be a viable question still today. Theres no smoking gun in anyones hands, no asylum records that answer the questions, and no criminal of any specific ethnicity with any evidence pointing towards them as the guilty party.

Its 5 unsolved murders with enough speculation and opinionated investigators to keep you busy for years.

So, Welcome to the boards.

All the best.

[MustKnow]

Thank you perrymason

[babybird67]

hi MustKnow

just to say welcome to the boards!

I don't know enough myself to tackle all your questions but you are in the right place to ask them!

see you around

[MustKnow]

Thanks babybird