How do Suspects compare?

[Sally]

Hi Sally,

At first sight yes but, for me, it would depend on whether both statements were being made by the same individual. We all measure by our own criteria- Heinrich and I, for example, are poles apart.

To my mind it's the thinking of the individual which has to be consistent because, realistically, we're probably never going to agree a set of hard & fast rules. Even if the majority agreed, it would still be like the Geneva Convention - some would sign up; others would refuse - as they would be entitled to do.

Regards, Bridewell

Hi Bridewell

Of course you are right - there can never be total consensus; which is why even apparently established facts are overturned from time to time I suppose.

[Sally]

Hi Wickerman

I wouldn't include Druitt, nor Kosminski. Yes they did live in the vicinity at the time of the murders (Kosminski is assumed to have), but they are not contemporary suspects.
Tumblety even though in London about the time was not suspected either. If I recall correctly, the first insinuation we have came from his own mouth. Tumblety was a 'wannabe', he only claimed to have been suspected, it is not established that this was true.
Chapman (Klosowski), so far as we know only Abberline reflected back that he might have been invloved. Once again, no contemporary mention of him in the case.

You mean by 'contemporary' strictly contemporary I take it? So all the above are suspects suggested after the fact? I suppose then you might argue for the benefit of hindsight.

The only true contemporary suspects were all cleared, like Pizer, Sadler. So thats a deadend from our point of view. And I would also include anyone investigated in connection with the murders, like Barnett and Hutchinson.

So you think that if there had been any suspicion attached to them the police would have picked it up at the time?

We should not draw conclusions from conjecture, but that is commonly done here. Conjecture/speculation is to open up questions both for and against a mans culpability. Only if those questions can be answered do we have cause to draw conclusions from those answers.

Yes, I agree.

Yes, but we start by compiling the theory from the available facts. That might sound like I'm being pedantic, but I just want to head off the idea that the theory comes first, it doesn't. The theory is what we are left with once we have determined all the facts.

No, I didn't mean that the theory comes first. I agree that that theory always has to fit the facts, and not the other way round. We start with a premise, which is fine, but I think it's following that premise that things can get confused. You are right - a hypothesis should be tested against all the available data; if it fits entirely, it's correct; if it fits almost entirely, then there are pieces of the puzzle missing, but its still quite likely to be correct; if several pieces have to be made to fit, the theory doesn't work and should be discarded.

It's tricky territory, however, and very difficult not to interpret the facts with personal bias - maybe its impossible.

I don't have any faith in modern profiling being applied to a 19th century murder case, this is apples and oranges.
Profiling might have its uses today, but not with JtR.

Why's that? I don't know much about criminal profiling, so I'm curious.

Everything must be taken into account, no matter how seemingly irrelevent. A jigsaw puzzle has more obscure pieces than key pieces.

Yes, I totally agree with you here. It's very hard to see the picture though sometimes, isn't it?

[Ben]

And I would also include anyone investigated in connection with the murders, like Barnett and Hutchinson.

There is no evidence that Hutchinson was "investigated in connection with the murders", Jon.

[Wickerman]

You mean by 'contemporary' strictly contemporary I take it?

Yes, like in Druitt's case there would need to be a suspicion before his suicide, not people making suggestive comments after-the-fact.

Why's that? I don't know much about criminal profiling, so I'm curious.

Just accept that as my bias I have discussed it before but the short story is I don't accept the methodology can be successfully applied to a different era, to a killer or killers, who had an unknown number of victims.

Yes, I totally agree with you here. It's very hard to see the picture though sometimes, isn't it?

Very!

There is no evidence that Hutchinson was "investigated in connection with the murders", Jon.

Hi, what took you so long!

We do have some examples, but mostly no evidence that the police investigated any witness statements given voluntarily, even though it was their job to do so. But do it they would.
No-one volunteering information that they were the last person to see the victim alive will go uninvestigated, of that we can be sure.
Hutchinson, by coming forward like he did made himself automatically suspect #1.

Believe what you want Ben, but the police knew their job and we would have to come up with the most bizarre set of circumstances if we try to suggest that neither Barnett nor Hutchinson were not investigated.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hutchinson, by coming forward like he did made himself automatically suspect #1.

Absolutely no way, Jon.

There was no precedent in 1888 for killers injecting themselves into police investigations as witnesses, and the police would not for one moment have countenanced the possibility of the most wanted man in London waltzing into the police station requesting an interview, and yet this is precisely what subsequent serial killers have done. We have actual evidence that Barnett was considered a suspect, but nothing in Hutchinson's case. Emanuel Violenia, like Hutchinson, provided a discredited "witness" statement to the effect that he was the last person to see Chapman alive on the night of her death. Is there any evidence that he was considered a possible murderer? No. Or what about Matthew Packer in the Stride case?

You can believe what you want, but Hutchinson was not investigated as a suspect.

Regards,
Ben

[Jonathan H]

To Wickerman

Re: Druitt -- pre or post suspicion?

Yes, I guess I see what you are saying: the family, or brother finds maybe blood-stained clothes, and they knew Montie had some unsavoury penchant for rough trade and so -- in some kind of hysterial snap after he was found in the Thames -- believed that their tragic member was 'Jack the Ripper'.

And in their acute, delusional grief, went on believeing it despite subsequent harlot murders in the East End, plus well-publicized police assertions to be pursuing other prime suspects (eg. various anomic bods being watched; Tom Sadler)

Whereas, if their belief begins when Druitt is alive then that must be based on some kind of cool-headed assessment of incriminating evdience, free from grief-induced hysteria.

In the veiled version of this story in George Sims, William Druitt (eg. the 'friends') are desperate to find Montie (eg. the 'demented doctor') not just because they are alarmed at his disappearance but becauswe they suspect he is the Ripper/

Why?

Because the 'doctor' has been sectioned due to a maniacal desire to kill harlots.

If this [abridged source] is about Druitt, and it may not be, then belief in his culpability preceded his demise and in fact originated with the mrderer himself is further confirmed:

'Western Mail'
19 January 1899

'WHITECHAPEL MURDERS
DID "JACK THE RIPPER" MAKE A CONFESSION?

We have received (says the Daily Mail) from a clergyman of the Church of England, now a North Country vicar ... "I received information in professional confidence, with directions to publish the facts after ten years, and then with such alterations as might defeat identification.
The murderer was a man of good position and otherwise unblemished character, who suffered from epileptic mania, and is long since deceased.
I must ask you not to give my name, as it might lead to identification"
... The vicar enclosed a narrative, which he called "The Whitechurch [sic] Murders - Solution of a London Mystery." This he described as "substantial truth under fictitious form." ... The murderer died, the vicar states, very shortly after committing the last murder. The vicar obtained his information from a brother clergyman, to whom a confession was made ... the murderer was a man who at one time was engaged in rescue work among the depraved woman of the East End - eventually his victims; and that the assassin was at one time a surgeon.'

If this is not about Montague Druitt then we have an amazing coincidence, but then that is in the nature of coincidences -- to be seemingly impossible.

On the other hand, despite Sims' denunciation of this rival source, knowing that his account is also a mixture of fact and fiction, the confession to doctors in a madhouse, a year before the murders, is arguably a fictional redaction of Druitt's confession to a priest after the murders -- and just before he took his own life.

For the core of the tale remains the same: culpability convincing the family/friends comes from the murderer's own lips.

[caz]

Christ, I thought we were meant to be discussing the criteria we as individuals use to decide who makes a reasonable suspect and who doesn't, and whether our thinking is consistent as individuals, when considering characters such as Cross and Hutchinson, who on the face of it were witnesses only, and who on the face of it only did what anyone else might have done, given the same circumstances.

Can we rescue it, Sally, before it descends into another Jonathan marathon or Benchinson saga?

For example, Jonathan's isn't even arguing for Druitt on the basis of what he knows about the man, compared with other suspects, but on Macnaghten's unique treatment of the man. So he is not really looking for a 'type' who fits his own personal bill for Jack and therefore has nothing to be consistent or inconsistent about.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jonathan H]

To Caz

A number of people are trying to be polite and positive with each other, to disagree without being disagreeable.

When you are rude like that, even though my post was to respond directly to another poster, you are being unhelpful and directing the thread towards unwelcome paths.

[Sally]

Christ, I thought we were meant to be discussing the criteria we as individuals use to decide who makes a reasonable suspect and who doesn't, and whether our thinking is consistent as individuals, when considering characters such as Cross and Hutchinson, who on the face of it were witnesses only, and who on the face of it only did what anyone else might have done, given the same circumstances.

Can we rescue it, Sally, before it descends into another Jonathan marathon or Benchinson saga?

Hi Caz

I think a discussion of our respective criteria can be interesting and useful - I'd like to have it, anyway! I think it's perfectly plausible to propose a suspect for the Ripper mantle, even at this late date; with the proviso that the factual evidence (such as it may be) doesn't contradict the theory. I personally think that any theory worth its salt will be supported by the facts; stand up to scrutiny and not have to justify itself due to holes in its internal logic.

But maybe that's a bit ambitious - a hoped for theory rather than anything probable to occur. So I suppose one question would be; if we can plausibly construct a theory in which some of the pieces don't fit; to what extent is that plausible? How much pure conjecture is reasonable before we enter the realms of the untenable?

Everybodys mileage will vary on this, but it'd be interesting to see what people thought.

I'm hoping for a general discussion here - there are specific suspect threads aplenty as it is.

[Lechmere]

Sally
I will try to address your question about the differences or similarities between Toppy (whose clean record is deemed by some to clear Hutchinson) and Cross within the bounds of this thread's topic.

Outwardly or superficailly there may seem similarities.
They both lived longer and quiet lives and raised families.
However Lechmere was about 17 years older when the attacks occurred and died about the same number of years before Toppy. I am speaking roughly as I haven't checked the dates, but this is broadly correct.
We know that Toppy lived a slightly disorganised life. He didn't really settle down until he was nearly 40. Before that he lived as a lodger and in some of the worst addresses in London. He seems to have been a bit of a raconteur and certainly had a twinkle in his eye. His family often shacked up and didn't marry. He wasn't very dutiful in signing on to the electoral register.
By contrast Lechmere's children were all baptised and all married properly. His mother married properly three times (ahem - even though her first husband was still alive) - which was quite rare. He was always on the electoral register despite several address changes. He saved enough as a carman to start a grocer store business. He was the main householder in his own dwelling from when he was in his early 20s. He had a grim countenance.
I should say that what we know of Toppy's life tends away from him being a serial killer and what we know of Lechmere's lend's itself towards the idea. Obviously I am basing these conclusions on less than detailed knowledge of either of their lives. But it goes to show how a simplistic 'family man' lable can hide a multitude of differences.

I am not certain that this point is best made here or not, but some people think that evidence of some mental instability is a useful indicator for a potential Ripper suspect.
This sort of thinking lies behind the culprit status of Kosminsky, Joseph Fleming (Evans version) and Isenschmid for example.
I would however suggest that blatent 'nutters' who are effectively picked up off the street as a result of their aberrant behaviour are very unlikley to be serial killers. This was the sort of thinking that prevailed in 1888. We should now know that a serial killer of the sort we are dealing with here is likely to be a psychopath who can successfully mimic or mirror normal behaviour and would pass largely unnoticed in normal society. Although his family would doubtless know that he was not all sweetness amd light, which is not to say that even they would suspect that he could be capable of being a serial killer.

[caz]

Hi Caz

I think a discussion of our respective criteria can be interesting and useful - I'd like to have it, anyway! I think it's perfectly plausible to propose a suspect for the Ripper mantle, even at this late date; with the proviso that the factual evidence (such as it may be) doesn't contradict the theory. I personally think that any theory worth its salt will be supported by the facts; stand up to scrutiny and not have to justify itself due to holes in its internal logic.

But maybe that's a bit ambitious - a hoped for theory rather than anything probable to occur. So I suppose one question would be; if we can plausibly construct a theory in which some of the pieces don't fit; to what extent is that plausible? How much pure conjecture is reasonable before we enter the realms of the untenable?

Everybodys mileage will vary on this, but it'd be interesting to see what people thought.

I'm hoping for a general discussion here - there are specific suspect threads aplenty as it is.

I appreciate what you are saying, Sally, especially your final sentence.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

To Caz

A number of people are trying to be polite and positive with each other, to disagree without being disagreeable.

When you are rude like that, even though my post was to respond directly to another poster, you are being unhelpful and directing the thread towards unwelcome paths.

Hi Jonathan,

I'm sorry, that was a wee bit rude of me and I will try to mend my ways. I have nothing against your speculation, I just couldn't see its relevance on this particular thread. Too many threads seem to become clogged with identical arguments for a favourite theory, and I didn't think that was either useful or appropriate here.

Love,

Caz
X

[mklhawley]

Tumblety even though in London about the time was not suspected either. If I recall correctly, the first insinuation we have came from his own mouth. Tumblety was a 'wannabe', he only claimed to have been suspected, it is not established that this was true.

The problem is Jon, your recollections are inaccurate. Him ‘admitting’ he was a suspect occurred in Jan/Feb 1889, while not only newspapers were commenting on his suspect status in November 1888, but Asst Commissioner Anderson also discussed him as a suspect in that same month. If you’re serious about historical accuracy then you’d better brush up on the Tumblety issue and read what Roger Palmer stated about a series of communications between Anderson and two US Chiefs of Police at the end of November 1888. The subject of the communication was none other than Francis Tumblety in connection with the Whitechapel murders investigation. I wrote this on another thread but it clearly shows Tumblety was not only a suspect in the eyes of Anderson, but a significant suspect:

Palmer points out that The San Francisco Chronicle on November 23, 1888, insinuated (not directly claiming) Chief Crowley initiated contact with Anderson. It stated, “When the news of Tumblety's arrest reached this city, Chief of Police Crowley recollected that the suspected man formerly lived here, and he took the necessary steps to learn all about his career in this city...”, while The San Francisco Examiner in a more detailed article on the very same day stated directly that Scotland Yard contacted Crowley,

“The London Detectives ask Chief Crowley about him [Tumblety]…there has been considerable correspondence telegraphed between the Police Departments of San Francisco and London...When the Chief of Police learned these facts, and that the bank still had several letters written by Tumblety, he telegraphed to the Superintendent of Police in London that he could, if desired, furnish specimens of Tumblety’s handwriting. The dispatch was sent on the 19th instant, and yesterday [November 22 –three days later] this answer was received: P. Crowley, Chief of Police, San Francisco, Cal.: Thanks. Send handwriting and all details you can of Tumblety. Anderson. Scotland Yard.”


Those that believe Tumblety was never considered a suspect or a serious suspect by Scotland Yard must take the position that Chief Crowley contacted with Assistant Commissioner Anderson. Anderson contacting Crowley is an unacceptable possibility, because this would clearly refute the minimalist position. The Assistant Commissioner of Scotland Yard –Head of the detective division- PERSONALLY contacting the top law enforcement official in a US city about a ripper suspect can only mean he is a suspect and is important (not merely ‘one amongst many’).

If we assume that the Chronicle’s ‘news of Tumblety’s arrest’ was a US newspaper report and not a correspondence from Scotland Yard, then one of the newspapers certainly got the fact of who initiated the correspondence wrong. Palmer points out a huge temporal problem with the minimalist’s position. The first news of ‘Tumblety’ ever being in San Francisco in order for Crowley to make any connection with his city was The Examiner dated November 19, 1888 (the November 18 article said ‘Kumblety’ not ‘Tumblety’ with no mention of him ever operating out of San Francisco), which is on the SAME day that Crowley sent a telegram to Anderson with the results of a completed nineteenth century style investigation by his second in command Captain Isaiah W. Lees. Here’s the Chronicle’s November 19 article taken from the New York Herald, which would have been the only US newspaper report Crowley could have read prior to his November 19 telegram to Anderson,

An odd character is the New Yorker Dr. Francis Tumblety, who, according to a cable dispatch, was arrested in London on suspicion of being concerned in the Whitechapel murders and held on another charge for trial under the special law passed after the "Modern Babylon" exposures.

Dr. Tumblety, who has resided in this city off and on for about twenty-five or thirty years, is a Canadian. He is about fifty-five years old, tall and rather heavy, and looks as if he painted his cheeks and dyed his hair, heavy mustache and side whiskers. He had an office in this city some years ago, and went abroad last summer. He is well off and peculiar, and is the inventor of a preparation for the cure of pimples.

Dr. Tumblety always attracted attention in the street. Some years ago he used to go about wearing jack boots, accompanied by a greyhound and followed by a manservant, who also rode after his master when he took exercise on horseback. The Doctor had offices at various times in Jersey City, Pittsburg and San Francisco.

During the war he was arrested in Washington...

So, we are to believe that Crowley read the paper in the morning, saw the article and remembered Tumblety, contacted his second in command and told him to drop everything and immediately start a nineteenth century investigation by figuring out which bank Tumblety might still have or had money in, waiting for the band to check to see if Tumblety has or had an account there and then see if there are any handwriting samples, going back to Crowley to discuss his findings, and then Crowley drafting the message to Scotland Yard, and finally having it actually be sent on the same day before the telegraph station closes. Now, that’s a stretch. Why would he direct the second in command to rush it?

…Or the Chronicle’s ‘news of Tumblety’s arrest’ was earlier correspondence from Scotland Yard, which conforms not only to Scotland Yard initiating contact (prior to November 19) but also to the statement, ‘there has been considerable correspondence telegraphed between the Police Departments of San Francisco and London’ . Note what the Evening Post stated, “When Dr. Francis Tumblety, the eccentric physician, was arrested in London, some days ago, on suspicion of being the Whitechapel murderer, it was telegraphed out here that he had lived in this city for years…”

This argument has actually been resolved. Roger Palmer discovered that at nearly the same time Anderson was in correspondence with Crowley (prior to Tumblety’s escape from England) he had initiated contact with another Chief of Police of a major US city that Francis Tumblety was associated with, Brooklyn’s Chief Patrick Campbell. Note what The Brooklyn Citizen stated on November 23, 1888,

Superintendent Campbell Asked by the London Police to Hunt Up the Record of Francis Tumblety — Captain Eason Supplies the Information and It Is Interesting. Police Superintendent Campbell received a cable dispatch yesterday [November 22] from Mr. Anderson, the deputy chief of the London Police, asking him to make some inquiries about Francis Tumblety, who is under arrest in England on the charge of indecent assault.


Not only does this New York newspaper state that Anderson initiated contact with Campbell, but there were also no other New York newspaper accounts that conflict with this fact. Keep in mind; this took place at around the same time Anderson was in contact with Crowley. Rejecting the reality of Anderson initiating contact with US Chiefs of Police in two cities known to be connected to Francis Tumblety after reviewing Palmers discoveries must now be considered tenuous.

In short, Tumblety certainly was considered a serious suspect by Anderson, which conforms exactly with the Littlechild letter.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Wickerman]

Hello Mike.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but the police interest in Tumblety was in connection with his Fenian activities.

If, you grant Littlechild any credibility at all, you would realize that had Tumblety (his very likely suspect?), truly been arrested in connection with the Whitechapel murders, he would have made that very clear in no uncertain terms.

Regards, Jon S.

[mklhawley]

Hello Mike.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but the police interest in Tumblety was in connection with his Fenian activities.

If, you grant Littlechild any credibility at all, you would realize that had Tumblety (his very likely suspect?), truly been arrested in connection with the Whitechapel murders, he would have made that very clear in no uncertain terms.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

Check out my post again. Anderson's cable dispatch is a primary source, which had nothing to do with his Irish sympathies. Anderson's requests to the Chiefs of Police were about Tumblety with respect to the Whitechapel murders. I agree with you that Tumblety's extensive file from Special Branch began because of his Irish sympathies, but CID was interested in Tumblety because of the murders. Once the murders continued after Tumblety sneaked out the country (or so Scotland Yard authorities believed until MacNaghten reintroduced the idea Kelly was the last murder), then they focused their attention of others. After Tumblety, Littlechild was clearly not privy to continued investigations.

With respect to the Littlechild Letter, he wrote it to Simms, a man who approached him about another suspect. He went into detail not only about Tumblety, but what his motive to kill might have been. Littlechild was absolutely clear about his intenstions that Simms does not have the whole story and the source, most likely Anderson, only thought he knew:

I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.) He was an American quack named Tumblety and was at one time a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under the notice of police, there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard. Although a 'Sycopathia Sexualis' subject he was not known as a 'Sadist' (which the murderer unquestionably was) but his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record. Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street, remanded on bail, jumped his bail, and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards. It was believed he committed suicide but certain it is that from this time the 'Ripper' murders came to an end.

...It is very strange how those given to 'Contrary sexual instinct' and 'degenerates' are given to cruelty, even Wilde used to like to be punched about. It may interest you if I give you an example of this cruelty in the case of the man Harry Thaw and this is authentic as I have the boy's statement. Thaw was staying at the Carlton Hotel and one day laid out a lot of sovereigns on his dressing table, then rang for a call boy on pretence of sending out a telegram. He made some excuse and went out of the room and left the boy there and watched through the chink of the door. The unfortunate boy was tempted and took a sovereign from the pile and Thaw returning to the room charged him with stealing. The boy confessed when Thaw asked whether he should send for the police or whether he should punish him himself. The boy scared to death consented to take his punishment from Thaw who then made him undress, strapped him to the foot of the bedstead, and thrashed him with a cane, drawing blood. He then made the boy get into a bath in which he placed a quantity of salt. It seems incredible that such a thing could take place in any hotel but it is a fact. This was in 1906.

... He probably got his information from Anderson who only 'thought he knew'.

To say Tumblety was not considered a serious suspect is to accept convoluted logic. Anderson would not have approached the Chiefs of Police about Tumblety is he was a nobody.

Sincerely,

Mike