Just Wondered

[smezenen]

[QUOTE=babybird67;97833] opprobrium QUOTE]

Jeez, Birdy you are always making me look up words. At least I learn something everytime I read your posts.

[Sam Flynn]

the only thing linking Druitt to the case is that he was named a suspect ... And Klosowski was a murderer.

Good post, M&P - I just picked out those particular snippets because they highlight two of the key reasons why these individuals feature so heavily in ripperology: they either made the headlines, and/or they made it into books. There were probably thousands potential Rippers around in 1888 (in London alone) whom we've never heard of, some of whom may indeed have killed, maimed or otherwise broken the law - some without ever getting caught, and without therefore making the papers. There might well have been far more plausible Rippers in their ranks than even the best of the named suspects at our disposal.

[Tom_Wescott]

There were probably thousands potential Rippers around in 1888 (in London alone) whom we've never heard of, some of whom may indeed have killed, maimed or otherwise broken the law - some without ever getting caught, and without therefore making the papers. There might well have been far more plausible Rippers in their ranks than even the best of the named suspects at our disposal.

Yep, like Charles Le Grand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Yep, like Charles Le Grand.

Indeed... or other apparently innocuous minor players involved in the case, Tom. Not that the roguish Le Grand was particularly innocuous, of course! I still have a slight problem when it comes to these bit-part players, though, in that they are just as likely to fall prey to the "I've heard of him, therefore he might have been the Ripper" syndrome as Barnett, Kidney and the rest. It seems to me that these characters occupy the grotty end of the same "celebrity spectrum" that passes through Klosowski and Maybrick en route to Barnardo and Prince Eddie.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Sam, I think I half understand what you mean. I just like Le Grand because he abused prostitutes, claimed to have killed one, was likely within spitting distance of Berner Street at the time of the Stride murder, looked like Pipeman, had BS Man-like people in his employ, and showed up the next day coaxing people to give false witness evidence. Not a lot of 'bit players' like our man from the Strand, Le Grand!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Hi Sam, I think I half understand what you mean. I just like Le Grand because he abused prostitutes, claimed to have killed one, was likely within spitting distance of Berner Street at the time of the Stride murder, looked like Pipeman, had BS Man-like people in his employ, and showed up the next day coaxing people to give false witness evidence. Not a lot of 'bit players' like our man from the Strand, Le Grand!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

He might be one of the suspects I was just speaking about on another thread, under our noses.... but categorized in other than the suspect files....

I think some Ripper killings have some good suspects, perhaps as you been looking into that Le Grand had something to do with one or more. Maybe Pizer did too...he had the rap...there are many others as we all know that fit into a potential murderous category....and that still makes none of them suspects.

Thats why the "clinician" has to be considered as unique....the barbarians were everywhere. Likely couldnt cut their own meat,... if they had any. But they could kill.....and Rip too.

Cheers Tom

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Perry. To my mind, Le Grand represents the ONE advantage we have over the original investigators. The advantage of hindsight and technology allowing a wider scope of investigation. As far as Anderson, Swanson, et al knew, Le Grand was just as he represented himself...a meddlesome private investigator, albeit one they figured out had lied to them. Had they known of his true criminal past, the outcome of their investigation may have been dramatically different.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott