The Unknown 100

[Mr Poster]

howdy

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23384112-663,00.html

The files show police had gathered 170 names as suspects, including the Duke of Clarence and prominent barrister Montague John Druitt, but the murders were never solved.

I could probably strecth to 50 if I used my imagination.

But doesn anyone have complete list of the 170?

p

[Magpie]

Hey Mr. P.

I'd suggest starting here:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/cjmorley/index.html

[Mr Poster]

Hi Magpie

never saw that list before! Thanks!

p

[Ash]

This is probably a reference to the Suspects File which has been missing since the late 70s or early 80s. We have some idea of what they contained from notes made by BBC researchers who saw them in the early 70s. But where they got the figure of 170 from I'm not sure. It seems like lazy journalism anyway, because I think one thing we can be absolutely sure of about this file is that the Duke of Clarence was not in it.

[Dan Norder]

Per the usual, it's just sloppy reporting at work. That total is a modern list of everyone ever accused by anyone, not a list "police had gathered." The inclusion of the Duke of Clarence there is a dead giveaway. (It's interesting to see how quickly "failed barrister" Druitt has become "prominent barrister," though... there never seems to be anything in between.)

Another odd bit about this one is that it suggests that the museum spokesperson thinks there were only five real victims and the rest were only ever mentioned because of tabloid journalism, while a previous report on the same exhibit suggested that the spokesperson said there were 11 and that the reason there were only five named by police was due to them trying to not let the public worry about the rest.

And they included that ridiculous EFIT image of what the Ripper supposedly looked like and claimed it had "no source" -- well if it has no source, what are you idiots using it for?

[Mr Poster]

Well I have to agre with DanNorder.

I just waded through the first 50 and even being generous and using that sample.......there could not be 170. Which is a apity.

But if anyone goes along and there is 170 I'd bbe grateful if they post them .

thanks

p

[Dan Norder]

There is another article by the same author in which he claims that a specific letter -- one actually dated Nov. 7, 1888 -- gave the world the "Jack the Ripper" name. It seems to just be an assumption on his part that that was the first letter to feature that name because that particular letter is on display at the museum.

[sdreid]

All those names and my guy didn't even make it.

At least his brother did though.

[sdreid]

Actually, 170-200 is a pretty puny list. If I recall, they had files on something like 15,000 "possibles" when they were looking for the Green River Killer.

[Graham]

Hang on a bit. In Mr P's first post, he repeats a claim that the 'police had over 170 names as suspects, including the Duke of Clarence and Montague Druitt'. As we all know, the only mention of Druitt is in the Macnaghten Memorandum, which although written by a police officer is palpably not a 'police file'. So is the author of that article suggesting that he has knowledge of Druitt being an OFFICIAL police suspect? If so, where's he obtained his information?

Or am I being overly pedantic here?

Cheers,

Graham

[Mr Poster]

hi ho

he repeats a claim that the 'police had over 170 names as suspects,

Hang about....I quoted a claim. Which doesnt imply I support it.

Repeating a claim does.

Just for clarity.

p

[Graham]

hi ho


Hang about....I quoted a claim. Which doesnt imply I support it.

Repeating a claim does.

Just for clarity.

p

Lars,

Apologies...bad choice of words. I should have said 'quote' and not 'repeat'.

Cheers,

Graham

[Mr Poster]

hi ho Graham

No problem at all. I knew what you meant but less things have come back to haunt me.

Crazy people stalk me. Lovers of exotic woods and old flutes with husbands who sort people out. Mostly.

p

[Dan Norder]

Hang on a bit. In Mr P's first post, he repeats a claim that the 'police had over 170 names as suspects, including the Duke of Clarence and Montague Druitt'.

And this claim by the reporter was certainly in error, as already mentioned, because the Duke of Clarence wasn't raised as a suspect until the second half of the 20th century.

As we all know, the only mention of Druitt is in the Macnaghten Memorandum, which although written by a police officer is palpably not a 'police file'.

How on earth is the Macnaghten Memorandum "palpably" not a police file? This – unlike, say, the Swanson Marginalia or the Littlechild Letter or Sir Robert Anderson's memoirs – was not written for private purposes by an inactive police figure. It was composed by a major police official while on active duty for official police business.

So is the author of that article suggesting that he has knowledge of Druitt being an OFFICIAL police suspect?

The author of that article clearly did not have any special knowledge, but then I am thoroughly confused about why you'd think he'd need any to make that statement.

[Ash]

Well the point is that we don't know who was or was not in the Suspects file, because it no longer exists. However, as Druitt had already been identified as a suspect by the early seventies, we can pretty safely say that if he was ever in that file, then all record of him had been removed from it by the time the BBC researchers were allowed to view it, otherwise they would surely have spotted the name and made notes about it. And if they didn't, then Don Rumbelow would have when he viewed the file in the mid seventies.