Just Wondered

[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

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 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

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[Mike Covell]

We already have such evidence, Maybrick's diary.

And GF Abberline's Diaries (whoever he is)

[jason_c]

I think even if I had a trunk with all the evidence one could hope for in the Ripper case, nobody would accept it, nobody wants this solved.
I think you could go back in time with a camera and film the fellow and people would never accept that. Does anyone really think any solution will be acceptable enough, when given ppl argue over the smallest facts ?

We already have such evidence, Maybrick's diary.

[Jeff Leahy]

I’m not certain on the exact number now but I believe that I once worked to a figure of 136 suspects. Based on the simple assumption that only one (possibly two) of them could have been Jack the Ripper it rather means that the rest are almost certainly innocent. At least of the Ripper crimes.

I therefore concluded that Ripperology was fundamentally an act of trying to prove the innocent guilty.

It wasn’t a claim that went down well with some posters but I still think it a reasonable suggestion.

But then unlike the rest of you I still believe that the identity of the killer was “a definitely ascertained FACT”

All the best

Pirate

[Sam Flynn]

There were tens of thousands of potential Rippers living in or around London at the time, and there are some who firmly believe that Jack the Ripper was one of a handful of obvious named individuals, usually because an agenda-promoting author has written a book making out that they've identified the killer. Whether that's optimism or sheer bloody-minded arrogance is hard to tell sometimes.

Those who take the broader view might sometimes be accused of being party-poopers, but even if that were true - and it isn't - it pales into insignificance compared to the naivete of those who can't see the blatant bias that plagues suspect-based literature, and the procrustean logic that goes with it.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

For me the only probable outcome of all this will be a narrowing of suspects.

I think (and hope) you're right. I'm not sure why most of the named suspects are even suspected to begin with. Take Druitt and Klosowski; the only thing linking Druitt to the case is that he was named a suspect by whose-name-I-can't-remember, and the reason being that he was 'sexually insane'. Well, in those days that could've meant anything from being gay to masturbating, which I think we can all agree that neither of those things are insane in the least. And Klosowski was a murderer, sure, but a completely different beast from whoever the Ripper was. I think the reason for people vying for their candidacy is more so to do with them looking like the architypeal Jack the Ripper; Druitt's the young educated version, who slummed it to rip up whores, and Klosowski looks like the classic Jewish suspect rumoured at the time of the murders themselves. They look good as the Ripper and so it's not hard to think that they could've been for that reason. But reading about them, there's nothing tangible that links them to any one of the Whitechapel murders.

I believe there are men within the suspect pool that committed some crimes that we study here, non-"Can" and "Can" alike, and I believe those crimes could someday be believably linked to one or more of them.

Although I definitely don't think either of them were killers (going again by what's known about them), I think if you wanted to go down the suspect route and choose to believe that any of them were in any way responsible for an alleged Ripper killing, then Cutbush could be seen as the clerk who cut Stride's throat after tussling with her, or Kozminski could've been the frenzied killer who stabbed Tabram to death. But those are just quick and on-the-spot theories for 'fun'. Personally, I don't think any of the named suspect had much to do with the assaults and/or murders that happened in 1888.

But back on topic, about not wanting the case to be solved, I don't 'mind' either way, but then I'm not and don't plan to be a Ripperologist . I'm only interested in Polly's, Annie's and Kate's murders, mostly because of how damn eerie they are and that they're the hallmark rippings. I don't think the Ripper's identity will ever be known, a lot of the evidence/facts lean towards the unknown local as being the killer, which, maybe I'm biased, but I think is true. So it's a bit moot for me.

[Jeff Leahy]

There is always revelation Michael.

For me the only probable outcome of all this will be a narrowing of suspects and the revelation of as yet unknown data.... as a result of the researchers efforts, not our discussions.

If we could start with a list of women that were killed in nearly identical circumstances, and a short list of men that have proven psychosis and recorded aggressive behavior towards Unfortunates or women in general, I believe then we'd be getting somewhere.

I believe there are men within the suspect pool that committed some crimes that we study here, non-"Can" and "Can" alike, and I believe those crimes could someday be believably linked to one or more of them.

Bury and Cutbush stabbed more people than is believed Im pretty sure, and I dont rule out that Leather Apron wasnt really John Pizer...(Pizer said he had never heard the name before).... so the real Leather Apron might be found, David Cohen might have done some harm, so might Sadler, Druitt may have had molestation issues but I see no reason to believe mutilation issues, The Barnetts may have some serious blood on their hands, and Grainger, and Ludwig, The Lodger is a real possibility in my opinion of some misdeeds, and Piggot, and so on, ad infinitum....But were any of these men Jack? Probably not.

Have we heard his name mentioned in any of the cumulative data? My bet is yes, but he was not where we thought to look for him.

Is there a magic trunk with all the missing pieces? Nope
Is there a bunch of trunks and binders all over the world that may hold clues we dont know about yet? Sure

I believe that with the Jack the Ripper legends, its all about perspective and context.

Will will ever know the solo nutbar that committed The Canonical Group murders? No, because one man did not kill the Canonical Group based only on the evidence before us...but we may learn of the man or other men who killed one or more of those 5 women, and some of the non-"Cans".

Best regards all.

[Jeff Leahy]

If the people who were in charge of the case and had more information than anybody couldn’t bring a prosecution how the F*** is anyone ever going to do so today?

Why do you think that so many miss guided fools cling to the comforting solution of a forged Diary? Because short of a confession with provenance nothing is going to solve it without doubt. Even then people today are still questioning the results of people found guilty in court under British justice…Dr Crippen for one

I’m one who believes a reasonable solution might be concluded. But a burden of proof…. never…couldn’t be done…that past us all bye a long time ago.

Pirate