Most ridiculous suspect

[Herlock Sholmes]

maybe he got it from Feigenbaums lawyer? hes pretty reliable I hear.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But we dont know where Magnaghten got the information from, and how reliable it was. Just because he was senior police officer that doenst mean to say that his information was as good and more reliable than all the other information the police gathered in relation to other persons of interest, and all of that from an evidential perspective you can write on the back of a postage stamp.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And most (including myself) would agree that we can’t take any aspect of the case and simply assume that’s it’s true or valid, whether it comes from someone loafing on the street or witnesses like Richardson or Hutchinson or Paul or whether it comes from a Police Officer whether high ranking or not. But there’s nothing wrong with exploring the possibility that the information might have been valid. I see no reason to assume that MacNaughten lied and for me at least the choice of Druitt speaks against this imo. So the alternatives are perhaps, a) the information from the family was genuine given but they were mistaken about him being the ripper (possible), or b) the information came from someone (possibly close to the family) who might have sought to punish them in some way by ruining their reputation (possible), or c) that the information was correct (possible).

We have 3 possibilities so why simply dismiss one in favour of the other two when we cannot prove the truth of either? Anyone can call Druitt a weak suspect and that’s fine but the same could be said of every single suspect that we look at but the fact he was mentioned by MacNaughten alone is enough to make him worthy of consideration and certainly raises him above the majority of suspects. If we took any amount of JTR polls Druitt will always usually appear near the top so his appearance in this thread is not really worth wasting any thinking time on.

[Losmandris]

But we dont know where Magnaghten got the information from, and how reliable it was. Just because he was senior police officer that doenst mean to say that his information was as good and more reliable than all the other information the police gathered in relation to other persons of interest, and all of that from an evidential perspective you can write on the back of a postage stamp.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's the whole point. We don't know. It could be the gospel truth. He could have been given evidence that puts MJD 100% in the frame. There can't be an 'evidential perspective' 130 years later, everything is just speculation. Nothing more.

[Abby Normal]

But we dont know where Magnaghten got the information from, and how reliable it was. Just because he was senior police officer that doenst mean to say that his information was as good and more reliable than all the other information the police gathered in relation to other persons of interest, and all of that from an evidential perspective you can write on the back of a postage stamp.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

maybe he got it from Feigenbaums lawyer? hes pretty reliable I hear.

[Trevor Marriott]

At least that is something with a contemporary person at the time. Suspected by people that actually knew him, his family or from those who had access lots of information relating to the case we will, in all likelihood never see. I totally agree he is an unlikely suspect but considering all we have to go on, he is head and shoulders above so many others.

But we dont know where Magnaghten got the information from, and how reliable it was. Just because he was senior police officer that doenst mean to say that his information was as good and more reliable than all the other information the police gathered in relation to other persons of interest, and all of that from an evidential perspective you can write on the back of a postage stamp.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

Methinks some are being little mischievous and baiting others by labelling Lechmere and Maybrick the "most ridiculous". For what it's worth, I'm not impressed by either, and have argued often against them. Lechmere appears to have fallen victim to his own innocence. The carman had the chance to leave Buck's Row, never to be seen again, but he remained and hailed the first passer-by. We only have his name to put in the frame because he came forward to the inquest. These are either the actions of a man with nothing to hide, or a killer brazenly challenging the police. With no evidence to support the latter, I give Lechmere the benefit of the doubt. As for Maybrick, the diary is almost certainly a hoax. Someone wanted to take two cause célèbres of the time and weave them together, for fun or profit. It's at best a work of fiction, at worst a piece of fraud. The errors, the dodgy provenance, handwriting style etc. are well-documented, but remain a subject of debate. Obviously the standard of falsification is higher for a certain few than others.

At any rate, both of them still have circumstantial links to the case. Lechmere, in the form of a witness at the crime scene, and Maybrick in the form of an alleged confession. I can't bring myself in good faith to put them ahead of Lewis Carroll, Jill the Ripper, Prince Eddy etc. when it comes to the daffiest suspects.

[caz]

Looking for suspects is like chasing ghosts. In this sense JtR does not actually exist, he is not actually real as we don't know who he actually was. We can simply speculate on the type of person he may have been. He only exists in the consciousnesses of people who have a particular suspect in mind. Until something definitive comes to light, which IMHO will never happen, his identity is pure conjecture. So why get caught up on one particular person? Apart from the fun of it I suppose. That I don't mind, what I do have issue with is the sniping that goes on between us. At the end of the day we are all just dealing with theories. That I why I stay clear of nailing my colours to a particular mast. There is so much more, for me at least, of interest in the case that naming the culprit. If that is studying the game of chess without ever moving any of the pieces, then so be it.

At the end of the day the killer has already been identified. First name: Jack. Last name: the Ripper. People simply turn him into whatever or whoever they like. Everyone is right and everybody is wrong about him at the same time. That is probably the appeal!

Good post, Losmandris.

If anyone thinks this is akin to a game of chess, where the winner will have moved the pieces in the right way to identify the ripper, I suspect they are destined for disappointment.

I know my own limitations at chess, so I prefer to watch others moving the pieces and stay well away from the game myself.

Where the ripper's identity is concerned, any man alive and free in 1888 appears fair game to be moved into the centre of operations, and it's the known players in Whitechapel - victims, witnesses and policemen - who are all too often treated like pawns, to be moved around to fit one's personal hunches about the murderer in each case.

Now that's a no-win situation and it's getting no less 'stale, mate'.

If we insist on voicing our opinions here, we must expect them to be trashed. It's the nature of the beast.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

J. Maybrick- all questions about the history of the diary itself aside, without the diary how likely is he as a suspect?

He isn't a bonafide ripper suspect, with or without the diary.

But the watch makes him a curiosity in my view.

The diary was pretty much guaranteed to clear its supposed author of any possible suspicion, not being in the right person's handwriting.

If anyone wanted to protect a friend or relative from being implicated in a serious crime, a faked confessional diary in someone else's handwriting would appear to be a most effective way of doing so.

Love,

Caz
X

[Losmandris]

I'm curious, though. Doesn't that leave you studying the game of chess without ever moving any of the pieces?

The history of the murders can't be understood without looking at the suspects. How different would our understanding of the case be if the murderer was Cutbush as opposed to Kosminski?

Or Leary, Paul, Kidney, Barnett, and Sadler, as opposed to Levy?

Looking for suspects is like chasing ghosts. In this sense JtR does not actually exist, he is not actually real as we don't know who he actually was. We can simply speculate on the type of person he may have been. He only exists in the consciousnesses of people who have a particular suspect in mind. Until something definitive comes to light, which IMHO will never happen, his identity is pure conjecture. So why get caught up on one particular person? Apart from the fun of it I suppose. That I don't mind, what I do have issue with is the sniping that goes on between us. At the end of the day we are all just dealing with theories. That I why I stay clear of nailing my colours to a particular mast. There is so much more, for me at least, of interest in the case that naming the culprit. If that is studying the game of chess without ever moving any of the pieces, then so be it.

At the end of the day the killer has already been identified. First name: Jack. Last name: the Ripper. People simply turn him into whatever or whoever they like. Everyone is right and everybody is wrong about him at the same time. That is probably the appeal!

[Losmandris]

But the evidence used to place him as a suspect is hearsay e.g "somebody told me" or "I heard" "somebody said to me" "i was told"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

At least that is something with a contemporary person at the time. Suspected by people that actually knew him, his family or from those who had access lots of information relating to the case we will, in all likelihood never see. I totally agree he is an unlikely suspect but considering all we have to go on, he is head and shoulders above so many others.

[FISHY1118]

Crossthread insults now , wonders will never cease.

[FISHY1118]

I’m no longer interested with conversing with a dishonest poster who won’t admit he was wrong even when presented with cast iron proof. Absolutely pathetic.

Im done here.

ARE you sure this time , ? still the insults fly , Amazing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m no longer interested with conversing with a dishonest poster who won’t admit he was wrong even when presented with cast iron proof. Absolutely pathetic.

Im done here.

[FISHY1118]

Not insults…..facts. You made points against me based on something I didn’t say and then ignored it when I posted the exact quote in black and white.

You have a deficiency in integrity…..talk to someone else Fishy, I have no desire to waste further time or words on a poster like you.

.Sorry pal you butchered the Druitt topic and you know it , Good you do the same and well both be happy, suits me , and still in insults fly .

[Herlock Sholmes]

More insults , feel better now? ,

Not insults…..facts. You made points against me based on something I didn’t say and then ignored it when I posted the exact quote in black and white.

You have a deficiency in integrity…..talk to someone else Fishy, I have no desire to waste further time or words on a poster like you.