How do Suspects compare?

[Bridewell]

That was a stab in the dark, I wasn't sure it was you who had offered that, but I remembered someone binging it up.



Yes we do. And, given that Mrs Long also saw a man wearing the deerstalker, we have one common, albiet slender, point across two murders.

The fact PC Smith's suspect appeared to be only 28 years old, and Mrs Long's "over 40", must be tempered by a similar confusion spoken by both Diemschitz & Heshburg who estimated Stride's age as around 28, yet she was 45 years old.
Which only demonstrates how unreliable age estimates are, along with estimates of height, and "time" of day.

When you think about, what on earth is there to rely on?

Regards, Jon S.

I too agree that Smith's may be the most reliable description, but not that he was a club man. Smith would have known about the IWMEC and the Arbeter Fraint. I guess the AF bundle theory can't be discounted, but surely he would have recognised the publication for what it was and said as much in his evidence, wouldn't he? (Devil's Advocate: unless he was supposed to do something about it and turned a blind eye, but would his bosses have been fooled by such a pretence?).

What about Marshall's sighting. He says "middle-aged", but with a life-expectancy around the 50 mark, even for the well-off, what would "middle-aged" have meant in 1888? About 30? Not much more, I suspect, if late 40's was old.

Regards, Bridewell

[Bridewell]

Agreed

I wasn't thinking so much of someone bringing an action against the police as wrongful detention being being remarked on in court by a prisoner or his defence. Or whether statistics of any kind were produced when the law was changed. The trouble is that while we know or can safely surmise that the rules were broken, we need to know how often they were broken in order to say with any degree of certain that they were broken in a specific case.

Hi Paul,

That's fair comment.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

Smith's sighting

Hello Bridewell.

"Smith would have known about the IWMEC and the Arbeter Fraint."

At least vaguely. But perhaps a beat copper would not be familiar with the nuances?

"I guess the AF bundle theory can't be discounted, but surely he would have recognised the publication for what it was and said as much in his evidence, wouldn't he?'

Not sure whether he would have recognised it or not.

"What about Marshall's sighting."

My one and only problem with Marshall is that he saw no flower on Liz. Tom may be right, however, and his arm may have obstructed Marshall's view.

Cheers.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

What a strange world you live in, where people cannot even change their attire -- if it means Druitt might be 'Jack'.

In fact there was such a man about in the East End who came to Henry Birch's milkstand and changed clothes out of a black bag the night after the Nichols murder. The same night a woman was attacked near a music hall. (click here)

The quick change artist had a sunburn. Do you get a sunburn playing cricket I wonder?

Roy

[PaulB]

In fact there was such a man about in the East End who came to Henry Birch's milkstand and changed clothes out of a black bag the night after the Nichols murder. The same night a woman was attacked near a music hall. (click here)

The quick change artist had a sunburn. Do you get a sunburn playing cricket I wonder?

Roy

No. It always rains.

[ChrisGeorge]

In fact there was such a man about in the East End who came to Henry Birch's milkstand and changed clothes out of a black bag the night after the Nichols murder. The same night a woman was attacked near a music hall. (click here)

The quick change artist had a sunburn. Do you get a sunburn playing cricket I wonder?

Roy

I don't necessarily connect this man with Druitt but it might seem as if the police did miss an important clue in this incident. Of course the idea of the man having a sunburn might be misleading. His face might have been flushed either through excitement or drink.

Chris

[Cogidubnus]

Of course the idea of the man having a sunburn might be misleading. His face might have been flushed either through excitement or drink.

Or possibly just naturally blotchy?

Dave

[Roy Corduroy]

There's more. Credit Howard Brown for this scoop. "Mr Burch (sic) the milkman, his son and Packer reported a sighting again in the November 24 Echo.



Yes Mr Birch had sons. Here is the 1881 census household

[Stephen Thomas]

The quick change artist had a sunburn. Do you get a sunburn playing cricket I wonder?

Well I suppose so Roy, as demon Australian bowler Shane Warne played all his test matches with enough sunblock on his nose to make him look like Coco the Clown.

Don't know

[Robert]

If you're a good batsman, then you'll get sunburn, because you will be a long time at the crease and you won't get out. It's only bad batsmen who get out.

I'll s'thee!

[Wickerman]

That is why I think it more likely that Swanson is repeating what Anderson told him, in one sitting.

All case related information comes across Swanson's desk to Anderson not, from Anderson to Swanson.
Whatever Anderson knew from the street, Swanson was his source.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

I guess the AF bundle theory can't be discounted, but surely he would have recognised the publication for what it was and said as much in his evidence, wouldn't he?

Very possibly, and what was this guy doing with a bundle (parcel?) anyway, not delivering papers thats for sure, and the printing office was locked up. All those at the Club were interviewed, no-one had reason to hide the fact they may have spoken to Stride 30 mins before she was killed. It didn't bother Packer, nor Schwartz.

What about Marshall's sighting. He says "middle-aged", but with a life-expectancy around the 50 mark, even for the well-off, what would "middle-aged" have meant in 1888? About 30? Not much more, I suspect, if late 40's was old

We have one example..
"...The man was middle aged, perhaps 35 years;....."
Evening news, 4 Oct. 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Robert,

It may be worth mentioning here that Montague J Druitt was primarily a bowler.

Best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To the Wickerman

Quite by accident you have raised a vital aspect of how Anderson, when a chief, knew things.

Of course, it does not apply to the Swanson Marginalia because that is a source composed in retirement. Both Anderson and Swanson were at home, not at an office or a desk when the latter claimed -- for the first time in the extent record -- that the main evidence against 'Kosminski' was a witness, but one who refused to testify.

On the other hand, consider this:

Nobody noticed that Macnaghten seems to know that 'Kosminski' is alive in the madhouse. He knows this at the very least in 1894: see 'Aberconway'.

This is because the modern paradigm was so strong that Macnaghten has not been properly used by researchers on 'Kosminski' (unless you are 'stacking the deck' to make it seem to the lay reader that Mac agrees with his chief that the Polish Jew was at least a major suspect -- but only by including the sources which say this, and not the ones which do not.)

Yet Mac's chief, Anderson -- to whom Macnaghten was his deputy and confidential assistant -- does not know this and supposedly neither does Swanson (see his comments for 1895)?!

Sources by Macnaghten and on his behalf never claim that the Polish suspect is deceased.

But Swanson seems to do this in 1895, and Anderson's son alludes to his father sharing this mistaken belief in his biog. of 1947.

How?

How can Anderson think this if his immediate subordinate does not, and the latter is right?

For that matter how can Anderson (and Swanson?) think that 'Kosminski' was sectioned shortly after the final murder -- the un-named Kelly in the memoirs -- when his deputy knows that 'Kosminski' was out about on the streets for a very long time after that crime (Sims, 1907).

And then he supposedly and very conveniently died, when he was alive until after the First World War?! But convenient for whom?

Secondary sources have never factored in that Macnaghten knows that this suspect is alive, and knows that he was sectioned considerably after the Kelly murder (even in his dodgy Reports(s) what Griffiths will treat as shortly after Kelly is still four or five months!)

On both points Macnaghten is correct and Anderson (and Swanson?) is not.

Again, how?

And of course in 1913 and 1914, Macnaghten goes out of his way to deny the importance of the Polish suspect, or that the Ripper was a Hebrew, or that there was a witness whoc oculd possibly have affirmed in a 'confrontation'.

I think Anderson was always sincere and forthright in his Ripper opinions, and also self-serving and egocentric as sources often are.

To PaulB

We will, as ever, agree to disagree.

For one thing both Anderson and swanson do sahre the delusion that they never investigated w whitechapel murder as one by 'Jack' when they did: McKenzie and Coles, despite what they later came to believe.

For me, the lack of confirmation by other police is decisive that the event never happened (or rather it did, but with Lawende and Sadler). Swanson seeming to concur is, arguably, only repetition not confirmation.

We need another authoritative source, and instead we have Abberline and Reid and Macnaghten and Smith, in differing ways, not confirming it.

On the little we have, the Evans-Rumbelow theory is the best explanation to square the circle, in my opinion.

The new source you found on the MP claims that the police might agree that Sadler is not 'Jack' but not that the fiend is deceased.

Really?

Then when did Anderson decide that the Ripper was, in fact, deceased?

Was it a bit later in 1891?

For his 1892 interview suggests no such thing.

Was it in 1894, when 'Kosminski' first enters the extant record, but not one which was ever sent to the Home Office?

Or, was it in 1895, after Anderson was looking into Grant as the Ripper? What on earth for, if you already knew that 'Jack' was not only sectioned, but long deceased? Why set yourself up with the tabloids like that, if you already knew?

In fact, just after this event, Swanson and Anderson are saying they know.

What if Anderson only found about 'Kosminski' from your insufferably boyish (and cowardly) but dependably mediocre and honest subordinate just after Grant.

I mean, I loathe Mac and he loathes me, but he wouldn't deliberately mislead me, would he ...?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Roy, thank you for posting that Mr Birch/Packer piece. It's quite new to me. Would you take that article to mean Messrs Birch and Packer were personally acquainted?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott