Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Sam Flynn 24 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Trevor Marriott 2 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Trevor Marriott 2 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Trevor Marriott 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (67 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (9 posts)
Non-Fiction: Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017) - (3 posts)
Annie Chapman: Annie's scarf - (3 posts)
Fiction: Severin: A Tale of Jack the Ripper - (1 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-19-2017, 04:36 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,453
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
That is never going to happen because the police did not have any clues as to the real identity of the killer or killers. A number of senior police officers are quoted as confirming this fact years later, in either their memoirs or in newspaper interviews.

Unless of course if you believe that Anderson was honest, and could not possible tell lies, and that Donald Swanson penned all of the Swanson marginalia. Or that all the missing files and records did state who the killer or killers were.

Since studying all the above, I have started to beleive in fairy stories

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
I do however agree that nothing is likely to turn up Trevor


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-19-2017, 05:00 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Trevor,
Your view and you are entitled to it. However because some officers said they had no idea, it does not mean that was the actual position.
There were more than Anderson and Swanson who said the killer was probably known. Even if they did not supply a name.
Steve
Steve
Its not my view it is fact. You show me where there is any concrete evidence which would have led to anyone in 1888 being able to name what we now term as a prime suspect. I have no doubt names of possible offenders were being banded about then just as they are today without any foundation.

But the police officers in the more senior ranks are the ones who said they didnt know, and some even went as far as rejecting what the likes of Anderson had said in public.

If you rule out Andersons material in his book regarding the ID issue, it then raises as big question mark over the marginalia, because other than Anderson and Swanson no one else in the wide wide world of Ripperology can corroborate it

Do you not think that if any officers of senior rank had have known who this killer or killers were they would have gone public with the fact either at the time or in later years. I quote examples of the rejection theory

CHIEF INSP ABBERLINE – MARCH 1903
“We have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic, or anything of that kind”

“Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

James Monro following his resignation as Metropolitan Police Commissioner November 1890 wrote :

“The police had nothing positive in the way of clues about the identity of the Ripper”

Det Insp Reid February 4th 1912

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal ' Jack the Ripper, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr. Anderson., Dr. Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

Now lets throw one more in for good measures from none other than Anderson himself who up until his book was published had been telling the world and his brother that the police did not know the identity of the killer or killers, but lo and behold that changed in 1910 when his book was published

What does he say !

“But that five successive murders should have been committed, without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-19-2017, 05:04 AM
MsWeatherwax MsWeatherwax is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandora View Post
For me, if a small tin was found hidden for 130 years in the home of someone connected to the murders (suspect, witness, reporter etc) that contained the shrivelled up remains of human organs, that matched those removed by JtR, along with say newspaper clippings or something similar, then that would be circumstantial evidence enough for me. A couple of knives with human blood would also help. Especially if any DNA was discoverable from that blood, and possible to be linked to any of the victims ancestors.

That said, I would consider it a minor miracle if during a house renovation, someone actually found such a tin – but it’s not completely outside the realms of possibility.
It's funny you were the first to respond, and with this answer. This is pretty much the conversation that I had with my colleague - the possibility of a 'Tutenkhamun's Tomb' of evidence. The possibility is, of course, so remote it probably can't even be calculated but nevertheless it's an interesting notion.

I do wonder what happened to the organs, and to his knives. In all probability, they've been thrown away down the years by somebody who had no idea what their significance was (assuming he kept the organs preserved in some way).

The only thing that I can say for sure is that anything written would be highly unlikely to convince me.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-19-2017, 05:10 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
I do however agree that nothing is likely to turn up Trevor

Steve
If there was they would have turned up before now. But even the pilfered documents from the archives which are still in the hands of ripperologists may turn up in later years, but there is no smoking guns contained in them.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-19-2017, 05:23 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,453
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Steve
Its not my view it is fact. You show me where there is any concrete evidence which would have led to anyone in 1888 being able to name what we now term as a prime suspect. I have no doubt names of possible offenders were being banded about then just as they are today without any foundation.

Trevor I am not saying that I responded to your:

"because the police did not have any clues as to the real identity of the killer or killers"

And I believe that to be incorrect.
They may not have been right but a number did believe they had a very possible person.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
But the police officers in the more senior ranks are the ones who said they didnt know, and some even went as far as rejecting what the likes of Anderson had said in public.

If you rule out Andersons material in his book regarding the ID issue, it then raises as big question mark over the marginalia, because other than Anderson and Swanson no one else in the wide wide world of Ripperology can corroborate it
The big word there is IF Trevor.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Do you not think that if any officers of senior rank had have known who this killer or killers were they would have gone public with the fact either at the time or in later years. I quote examples of the rejection theory

CHIEF INSP ABBERLINE – MARCH 1903
“We have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic, or anything of that kind”

“Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

James Monro following his resignation as Metropolitan Police Commissioner November 1890 wrote :

“The police had nothing positive in the way of clues about the identity of the Ripper”

Det Insp Reid February 4th 1912

“I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal ' Jack the Ripper, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr. Anderson., Dr. Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong. I have answered many of them in print, and would only add here that I was on the scene and ought to know.”

Now lets throw one more in for good measures from none other than Anderson himself who up until his book was published had been telling the world and his brother that the police did not know the identity of the killer or killers, but lo and behold that changed in 1910 when his book was published

What does he say !

“But that five successive murders should have been committed, without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Anderson obviously changed his mind from that quote. And of course one needs to read it in the full context of the full text it is from.

And the rest while impressive are personal opinions, the same as Anderson and Swanson.

To get back to your first comment, it is not actual fact is it? It's your intreptation of the facts.
Those you quote are indeed factual, however we could quote some who disagree with those views could we not?
Some said they had no idea and some said they did.

Ultimately it makes no difference as no such documents are likely to have survived even if they did once exist.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-19-2017, 05:42 AM
Hunter Hunter is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,670
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
...
Now lets throw one more in for good measures from none other than Anderson himself who up until his book was published had been telling the world and his brother that the police did not know the identity of the killer or killers, but lo and behold that changed in 1910 when his book was published

What does he say !

“But that five successive murders should have been committed, without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.”
This was written by Anderson on Oct. 23, 1888, soon after his return from vacation and his father's funeral. It is a natural thing for him to say at that point, having just recently entered the investigation himself. Obviously, over time he began to draw his own conclusions about the crimes and the perpetrator.
__________________
Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________

When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-19-2017, 06:02 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
And the rest while impressive are personal opinions, the same as Anderson and Swanson.
Steve

At what point do regect one personal opinion, in favour of another. On balance all are credible witnesses, but they cant all be right.

The truth is out there, either you believe in Anderson and Swanson or you believe the rest, you cant sit on the fence.

You have to remember Reid and Abberline were at the forefront they were the workers, Anderson and Swanson sat behind desks giving orders.

Anything uncovered by Reid or Abberline or any of their subordinates would have gone through them and onto Swanson and Anderson. This is why this seaside home ID does not stand up to close scrutiny, because the only two who mention it are Anderson and Swanson, and if it did ever happen are we expected to believe that Anderson and Swanson orchestrated it all on their own, and that no one else knew about it. Did the two of them take Kosminski to the seaside home, no they didn't.

Not even The City Police who were supposed to have done the follow up after the ID mention anything about it. here is the proof of that.

Major Henry Smith City of London Police Commissioner in his memoirs published 1910 wrote

“The Ripper ..completely beat me and every Police officer in London." and that "...I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago."


www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-19-2017, 06:06 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter View Post
This was written by Anderson on Oct. 23, 1888, soon after his return from vacation and his father's funeral. It is a natural thing for him to say at that point, having just recently entered the investigation himself. Obviously, over time he began to draw his own conclusions about the crimes and the perpetrator.
That wasn't the only quote from him up until the book was published, there are others where he states, or infers they did not know the identity of the killer or killers.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-19-2017, 06:25 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,380
Default

[quote=MsWeatherwax;426003]

Quote:
Following on from a discussion I had with a colleague a couple of weeks ago, what evidence would you need to be convinced that 'Suspect X' was indeed the person (or persons) known as Jack The Ripper?
I would need at least these types of sources, the more the better, and all of these is the minimum criteria:

1. Sources very strongly indicating your X was at the murder sites.
2. Sources showing us he had a strong motive.
3. Sources showing us he was in London at the time.
4. Sources showing us he came there before it started and left when it stopped.
5. A source showing us he could kill or had killed something.
6. Sources showing us he was not law abiding.
7. Sources showing us he was a liar.
8. A source indicating he created a false alibi.
9. A source supporting that.
10. A source indicating he was known to the police.
11. Sources strongly indicating he gave a confession.
12. Sources from personal life explaining the unexplained problems in the case.
13. A source some years after the murders strongly indicating that he was the killer and remembered it.
14. Sources strongly explaining the choice of the dates.
15. Sources strongly explaining the choice of the murder sites.
16. Sources strongly explaining the signature.
17. Sources strongly explaining the victimology.
18. Sources strongly explaining the modus operandi.
19. Sources showing us there was a psychological personality problem (not very important but something must be there).
20. "Too many coincidences", i.e. "the impossible" coincidence source situation.

That is what I can think about right now. That would be enough to "convince" me.

Cheers, Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 08-19-2017 at 06:33 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-19-2017, 06:30 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 787
Default

I think that it's likeliest the the ripper has yet to be named but if I had to throw a name into the Ripper Lottery hat it would be Druitt. Yup, I know all the arguements against but I've always suspected that there might be something there. Perhaps it's just the air of mystery around him? Perhaps it was that he was the first suspect that I read about around 30 years ago? So I've always wondered about Macnaughten's 'private info' about the family believing him to be guilty. I've also always wondered about when people question MM's memory for getting facts wrong (Doctor aged 40 for eg) when those that knew him said that he had an exceptional memory? So I wish that MacNaughten hadn't destroyed his papers. What might they have revealed?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.