What Would It Take To Convince You?

[Hunter]

...
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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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."

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=MsWeatherwax;426003]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

[Harry D]

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

Trevor, is it true that you accessed classified documents that listed several hitherto unknown suspects? Have you never thought to publish these findings?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, is it true that you accessed classified documents that listed several hitherto unknown suspects? Have you never thought to publish these findings?

Hi Harry
I did try to get made public a special branch register which the contents had not been made public. However that failed, but the police did release to me details of a number of entries which related to the Ripper investigation, and contained the names of persons named as suspects some of which had not been named before. However I do not believe these to have been other than persons of interest.

One of the entries related to Chief Insp Littlechild remember he later mentions Tumblety as a likely suspect .In the register his entry reads
“Suspect O`Brien & The Whitechapel Murders” So it seems that officers were not aversed to bandying names of suspects about.

As to who O`Brien is or was, it is unknown especially as it is a common irish name.

The full extent of this venture and its results can be found in my book
Jack the Ripper- The Real truth

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/jack-ripper-real-truth/

[DJA]

I do however agree that nothing is likely to turn up
Steve

Dunno,have a look at Henry Gawen Sutton.

Walked past Dr Phillips' house on his way to and from work most days and nights along Hanbury/Spital Square. London Hospital to Finsbury Square.
They were peers.
Certainly would have known of each other.

Sutton had the skills.
Also probably carrying chalk at the start of term.
Being renowned for his sense of touch,the dark would not have been an insurmountable problem.

There are links to all 5 CVs.
Have a look through my posts.

Odd the the return of RL Stevenson's novella as a stage play preceded the murders.
Sir William Gull and Sutton,circa mid 1860s onwards,seem to be the models for Jekyll and Hyde.
There are many clues in that 1885 novella. Gawen Carew says Hi,Simon.
Hyde had two dwellings.One seemed to have access to Jekyll's,the other in "Queer Street".

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/1859map/batemans_buildings1870.gif

If that Square was really Mitre Square,much changes.

Notice how quickly Sir Henry Smith arrived at that scene.
RL Stevenson's cousin.
RLS had a chronic chest disease.
Sutton a likely topic of conversation for various reasons.

Just like Abberline at Nichols' inquest.
He wasn't much good at this caper,see Cleveland Street Scandal.
More suited to Monte Carlo,if you get my drift.

And what of the statement that Mr Sutton, the senior surgeon, pledged his reputation that the kidney had been placed in spirits within hours of its removal from Eddowes' tortured remains? Henry Sutton was a senior surgeon at the London Hospital in 1888. He is not, however, mentioned in any of the surviving contemporary accounts of the investigation of the Lusk Kidney. Neither in any writings or remarks of Dr Brown B who supposedly asked to meet him in consultation B not by Swanson or McWilliams, nor even by the Gentlemen of the Press. We find Dr Sutton and his confident opinion only in the pages of Major Smith's memoirs. If he made any report on the kidney, it has not been found. Perhaps there was such a report; perhaps, too, his participation was a bit of dramatic license on the part of Smith. We do not know. We will not know unless independent proof of Sutton's pronouncements turns up, and until then he and Major Smith must be set aside.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=1699&page=2

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=10974

Son in law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Savage_(physician)

Fellow Vestry Board member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas..._(toxicologist)

Edward Hyde ......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hyde,_3rd_Earl_of_Clarendon

Dr Jekyll ...... Henry G Kill

It's past 1 am and my "quick post got lost",bit like my footy team
Well into my third can of Heineken,so I'll sign off.

PS. Sutton's Collected Works are free on Internet Archive.
His favourite philosopher,Baruch Spinoza,on Gutenberg.

[Harry D]

Hi Harry
I did try to get made public a special branch register which the contents had not been made public. However that failed, but the police did release to me details of a number of entries which related to the Ripper investigation, and contained the names of persons named as suspects some of which had not been named before. However I do not believe these to have been other than persons of interest.

One of the entries related to Chief Insp Littlechild remember he later mentions Tumblety as a likely suspect .In the register his entry reads
“Suspect O`Brien & The Whitechapel Murders” So it seems that officers were not aversed to bandying names of suspects about.

As to who O`Brien is or was, it is unknown especially as it is a common irish name.

The full extent of this venture and its results can be found in my book
Jack the Ripper- The Real truth

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/jack-ripper-real-truth/

Thanks, Trev.

Does that mean the names of those POIs are included in your book?

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks, Trev.

Does that mean the names of those POIs are included in your book?

Yes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

Is your latest book only available in Kindle form?

[Patrick S]

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?

As a follow on question, do any of you believe that any of the missing material/files/evidence is ever likely to resurface?

I don't think there's much we can find, at this point, to identity the man, definitively. There may be a chance, a very small one, that police files, fragments or otherwise, may be found. However, from what we know, based on what the men in charge said in various venues, there was no consensus. Thus, the police probably weren't very much the wiser than we are today. So, in my view, the ship - as they say - has sailed.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

Is your latest book only available in Kindle form?

Yes at this time

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[andy1867]

The diary of a Blackheath cricketer....

"Monty behaved oddly all through the late summer of '88
I remember asking him to field at fine leg....
"I love a fine leg " he replied then went on to say something about "Fava beans"

He also ran in for a seventh ball in one game....The umpire said...
"Its over Monty"
Monty broke down crying saying "Thank god its been weighing on my mi....."
Then suddenly realised ..snickered and walked to long on...................

[John Wheat]

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?

As a follow on question, do any of you believe that any of the missing material/files/evidence is ever likely to resurface?

To my mind Bury is the most obvious suspect. I hope some of the missing material/files/evidence does resurface but it won't make much difference people are too jaded.