Do We Trust The Policework?

[Patrick S]

When it comes to identifying a realistic suspect - at least for me - that's the real question: Do we trust the policework? We can run down the list of contemporary suspects. Champman. Kosminski. Ostrog. Tumblety. Druitt. Et al. Ultimately, issues present themselves that may tend to disqualify each man from the list. In the end, I'm left pondering that one question. How much do I trust the work of Abberline, Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten, and the rest? And the answer is that I have no idea.

As we can only view this case through the prism of time, I'm inclined to trust those who were there, met the witnesses, followed the leads, visited the crime scenes, viewed the bodies. Still, each man seemingly had a different prime suspect, his own pet theory. I think we'd all be more comfortable if we had some consensus upon which to rely. We do not. It seems as if the investigators drew differing conclusions from the evidence. Why? Detectives that I've spoken to over the years have told me that a lack of agreement among investigators is usually an indictment of the quality of the evidence. So that leaves us, seemingly, nowhere. Grasping at straws. Which is, frankly, where the fun is.

Some food for thought, though. One thing that's been mentioned to me again and again by those in law enforcement is that - in cases of multiple murderers/serial killers - there is a better than average chance that the killer's name appears in the case files, likely as a witness. That is, the killer may have managed to allude arrest, even suspicion, but likely wasn't able to avoid some peripheral involvement due to his proximity to the crimes and/or a desire to simply be a part of what he'd authored.

So, if that's true, we are all familiar with the true name of Jack the Ripper. It's just that we have no idea who he was.

[pinkmoon]

When it comes to identifying a realistic suspect - at least for me - that's the real question: Do we trust the policework? We can run down the list of contemporary suspects. Champman. Kosminski. Ostrog. Tumblety. Druitt. Et al. Ultimately, issues present themselves that may tend to disqualify each man from the list. In the end, I'm left pondering that one question. How much do I trust the work of Abberline, Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten, and the rest? And the answer is that I have no idea.

As we can only view this case through the prism of time, I'm inclined to trust those who were there, met the witnesses, followed the leads, visited the crime scenes, viewed the bodies. Still, each man seemingly had a different prime suspect, his own pet theory. I think we'd all be more comfortable if we had some consensus upon which to rely. We do not. It seems as if the investigators drew differing conclusions from the evidence. Why? Detectives that I've spoken to over the years have told me that a lack of agreement among investigators is usually an indictment of the quality of the evidence. So that leaves us, seemingly, nowhere. Grasping at straws. Which is, frankly, where the fun is.

Some food for thought, though. One thing that's been mentioned to me again and again by those in law enforcement is that - in cases of multiple murderers/serial killers - there is a better than average chance that the killer's name appears in the case files, likely as a witness. That is, the killer may have managed to allude arrest, even suspicion, but likely wasn't able to avoid some peripheral involvement due to his proximity to the crimes and/or a desire to simply be a part of what he'd authored.

So, if that's true, we are all familiar with the true name of Jack the Ripper. It's just that we have no idea who he was.

Hi Patrick,all the suspects you've named in this post were really only looked at by the police because they were DESPERATE let's face it when you have no major suspects you are going to follow any leads no matter how slight.In all probability the only thing kosminski and druitt were guilty of was been mentally ill Chapman was a nasty piece of work tumblety was an odd ball ostrog a thief but as been jack the ripper you have to say hand on heart very unlikely.The police were under enourmous pressure to solve this case and all the senior police involved in this must have felt embarrassment at not been able to hence some exaggerating years after the event when biographies published.

[DRoy]

When it comes to identifying a realistic suspect - at least for me - that's the real question: Do we trust the policework? We can run down the list of contemporary suspects. Champman. Kosminski. Ostrog. Tumblety. Druitt. Et al. Ultimately, issues present themselves that may tend to disqualify each man from the list. In the end, I'm left pondering that one question. How much do I trust the work of Abberline, Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten, and the rest? And the answer is that I have no idea.

As we can only view this case through the prism of time, I'm inclined to trust those who were there, met the witnesses, followed the leads, visited the crime scenes, viewed the bodies. Still, each man seemingly had a different prime suspect, his own pet theory. I think we'd all be more comfortable if we had some consensus upon which to rely. We do not. It seems as if the investigators drew differing conclusions from the evidence. Why? Detectives that I've spoken to over the years have told me that a lack of agreement among investigators is usually an indictment of the quality of the evidence. So that leaves us, seemingly, nowhere. Grasping at straws. Which is, frankly, where the fun is.

Some food for thought, though. One thing that's been mentioned to me again and again by those in law enforcement is that - in cases of multiple murderers/serial killers - there is a better than average chance that the killer's name appears in the case files, likely as a witness. That is, the killer may have managed to allude arrest, even suspicion, but likely wasn't able to avoid some peripheral involvement due to his proximity to the crimes and/or a desire to simply be a part of what he'd authored.

So, if that's true, we are all familiar with the true name of Jack the Ripper. It's just that we have no idea who he was.

Patrick,

First off, welcome to the boards!

To answer your original question, yes I think we should trust the police work. They were doing everything they could to track down the murderer(s) however, they lacked many of the useful tools that currently help us now track down criminals.

The other thing to consider is that this may not have had anything to with the police, it may have to do with the ability of the killer(s) to avoid detection.

Many of us speculate whether 'Jack' has been questioned and named in a report as a witness, suspect, etc. You may find that half believe he has been named and the other half that he has never been named. I personally would like to think that he has been named before by the police at the time but that's my own personal wishful thinking.

Cheers
DRoy

[Patrick S]

Patrick,

First off, welcome to the boards!

To answer your original question, yes I think we should trust the police work. They were doing everything they could to track down the murderer(s) however, they lacked many of the useful tools that currently help us now track down criminals.

The other thing to consider is that this may not have had anything to with the police, it may have to do with the ability of the killer(s) to avoid detection.

Many of us speculate whether 'Jack' has been questioned and named in a report as a witness, suspect, etc. You may find that half believe he has been named and the other half that he has never been named. I personally would like to think that he has been named before by the police at the time but that's my own personal wishful thinking.

Cheers
DRoy

Thanks for the reply and for the welcome. If nothing else, this has always been a mentally stimulating subject for me over the years. I seem to keep returning to it, like a gorgeous girlfriend that I know drives me crazy but I just can't resist.

I'm inclined to agree with your point of view, wishful as it may be. As far as the police work goes, I agree. To explain a bit further, I think that we must factor in the technological limitations. My intent is not to cast doubt upon the abilities or intellect of the investigators, but rather to realistically view what was actually possible from a investigative perspective in 1888 and determine how much weight we give those contemporary suspects. To me at least, none really fit the bill. That said, these men were much closer to the facts than any of us offering conjecture 125 years on.

I seem to keep returning to names like Hyam Hyams, Charles Cross, Edward Buchan, and Joseph Barnett, a few others.

I look forward to ongoing discussion and debate!

[Paddy]

Identification

Hi Patrick, Welcome.

Whats your view on Andersons and Swansons claim that a man was identified?

Pat...............

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick, Welcome.

Whats your view on Andersons and Swansons claim that a man was identified?

Pat...............

It's certainly does not seem plausible - based upon what we know of their character - for men such as Anderson and Swanson to lie about such things. Anderson stated explicitly that the Ripper's identity was known and that he was a Polish Jew, locked in an asylum (we infer Kosminski). Swanson names Kosminski, a man - based again on what we know - does not fit any established profile for a violent criminal. Although, I've always personally believed that Aaron Kosminski may simply be the wrong man. ALL that said, if we do trust the contemporary police work, especially the statements of these two men, then it's case closed - Aaron Kosminksi was Jack the Ripper, and we have a new - and much less interesting - mystery to investigate: Why did this man deviate so violently from his previous and subsequent non-violent behavioral patterns?

[Damaso Marte]

I have said previously on this forum that the more I read about the various police memoirs, the less I understand about the Jack the Ripper case. This does not mean the police were inept: it could simply mean that they didn't have much information to go on or went senile in their old age.

It has been persuasively argued (to me, at least) on this forum that the story about the witness identification/seaside home/PC witness is most consistent with an urban legend arising among the police force, rather than with actual events.

[Patrick S]

Damaso - Unfortunately, I agree. While these men clearly achieved much in their professional lives, some of their comments with respect to JtR's identity tend to leave one scratching their head.

By the way, you were great with the Sox and Pirates (not so much with the Yankees).

[Damaso Marte]

By the way, you were great with the Sox and Pirates (not so much with the Yankees).

Jerry Manuel used me too much during the 2003 season, and it took years for me to recover.

[Tom_Wescott]

Jerry Manuel used me too much during the 2003 season, and it took years for me to recover.

Are you a baseball man, Damaso? My boss pitched for a bunch of teams in the 60's. The Mets come to mind.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Observer]

I have said previously on this forum that the more I read about the various police memoirs, the less I understand about the Jack the Ripper case. This does not mean the police were inept: it could simply mean that they didn't have much information to go on or went senile in their old age.

It has been persuasively argued (to me, at least) on this forum that the story about the witness identification/seaside home/PC witness is most consistent with an urban legend arising among the police force, rather than with actual events.

Hi Damaso

I know this is a silly question, however.

If you were constructing an urban myth with regard to a possible suspect for the Whitechapel murders, would you include the use of a seaside home where the suspect was taken in order for a witness to possibly identify him? You couldn't make it up. I believe it's suitably bizarre to be true.

Regards

Observer

[Damaso Marte]

Are you a baseball man, Damaso? My boss pitched for a bunch of teams in the 60's. The Mets come to mind.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I'm just a baseball fan with an excellent memory for relief pitchers and scrappy middle infielders.

[Damaso Marte]

Hi Damaso

I know this is a silly question, however.

If you were constructing an urban myth with regard to a possible suspect for the Whitechapel murders, would you include the use of a seaside home where the suspect was taken in order for a witness to possibly identify him? You couldn't make it up. I believe it's suitably bizarre to be true.

Regards

Observer

It's certainly strange. But placing the ID at a seaside home also conveniently explains why the storyteller and the story hearer doesn't have personal knowledge of it.

All it takes is one person either outright making the story up, or misremembering something, and everyone else who hears it through word of mouth can be an innocent dupe.

[Observer]

All it takes is one person either outright making the story up, or misremembering something, and everyone else who hears it through word of mouth can be an innocent dupe.

Hi again Damaso

But it was no ordinary copper who divulged the information relating to the Seaside Home, it was no less a personage than the officer in overall charge of the investigation Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, later Superintendent. Is it possible he was duped?

Many posts have been submitted regarding the marginalia, from "is it a fake," to "is it a garbled amalgamation of several stories circulating at the time". I personally do not believe it is a fake. I honestly believe that the marginalia portrays a genuine event, and that Kosminski was the suspect identified.

Regards

Observer

[Michael W Richards]

If you are dealing with the things said by some of the senior investigators who might have found themselves dealing with these murders both openly and clandestinely...since some Home Office/Special Branch believed the murders may have been linked with Irish Self Rule factions and therefore kept that information secret,....you might want to wonder whether you are reading the truth about all that was known.

Cheers