What evidence would it take?

[Fiver]

Anyone who claims that it was Eagle or Kosminski who shouted 'Lipski' as a man of Jewish appearance passed by is implying that they were anti-Semitic.

So people that exist only in your mind.

Schwartz was reported to have said that BS Man was drunk.

Lewis C already dealt with this.

There is no reason to disbelieve that report and every reason to believe it.

Why do you consider a claim that only appeared in a single newspaper account that contained some very improbable claims to be be the only reliable account?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

So people that exist only in your mind.


That is a ridiculous comment.

It has been suggested by some people that BS Man was Kosminski or Eagle.

I did not imagine that.


Lewis C already dealt with this.


Lewis made a perfectly reasonable point about the source being a newspaper report and not a police report.

I already knew that and acknowledged it in reply to him.

You are now bringing up his comment as though I had never replied to it.


Why do you consider a claim that only appeared in a single newspaper account that contained some very improbable claims to be be the only reliable account?


I do not.

I cited both the police report - that the man was broad-shouldered - and the newspaper report - that he was stout.

There is no conflict between the two descriptions.

There is nothing improbable about the man having been stout or drunk.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe there was nothing in the files about Druitt and THAT is why Macnaghten did such a sloppy job.

He mentioned sexual insanity - hardly likely to have been mentioned in the files - and private information, which could not have come from the files.

As for his comments on Kosminski, if there had been anything more substantial than circumstantial evidence in the files, why would Macnaghten not have made use of it?

Maybe he did look at the files in between writing the two memoranda and that is why he made an alteration in favour of Kosminski.

So do you think that in 1894 the Chief Constable of the Met, looking for scapegoats to add to his ‘likelier ripper than Cutbush’ list, had a flash of inspiration and remembered a random suicide that occurred six years earlier and before he’d actually joined the Met and which had caused barely a ripple in the Press so that, along with a criminal and a ‘lunatic,’ he could add a respectable upper class Barrister and Schoolteacher with no history of violence or criminality. Do you really believe that with all of the resources that he had he couldn’t have found a better fall guy? He could have left it at just Kosminski and Ostrog or it could simply have been said that the police had investigated Cutbush fully and exonerated him. There was no requirement to add a third scapegoat least of all one as apparently unlikely as Druitt, especially in a document that wasn’t intended for public scrutiny.

Another worthwhile question might be - why, when others were suggesting Mackenzie as a possible victim (Tabram and Coles too for that matter) was MacNaghten so adamant that the ripper had only 5 victims? Was he shaping his opinion to match Druitt (seems more than a little unlikely to me) or was it because he genuinely believed that there could have been no victims after Kelly….pointing to a genuine belief that Druitt was the man?

And if MacNaghten hadn’t simply ‘remembered’ the Druitt suicide then he must have done some research to have found his ‘likely scapegoat’ and to have made him into a ‘suspect’ in the first place (or else he tasked some subordinate for the job?)…..and if such research had been done how could he have got his age and profession wrong? These errors point to someone relying on a memory which perhaps wasn’t as good as he thought it was. So I’d suggest that if it’s unlikely that he just remembered him as a convenient suicide (and decided to use his name) then he must have felt that he had good reason for naming him in his memorandum.

I’d say that if MacNaghten was simply looking for a ‘name’ to throw under the bus by adding him to the ‘likelier ripper than Cutbush list,’ Montague John Druitt would have been the very last person that he’d have selected unless he believed that he had good reason for doing so (rightly or wrongly) It should also be remembered that a full three years before he wrote the memorandum Henry Farquaharsen (a West Dorset MP, the area where the Druitt family lived, and a man who had an estate near to where Druitt had played cricket on August 30th) had been telling anyone that would listen that the ripper was the son of a surgeon who had committed suicide after the Kelly murder - sound familiar? Again….a full three years before MacNaghten’s Memorandum.


So in my opinion it’s a case of….


MacNaghten lied - unlikely in the extreme in my opinion (reasons stated above).

The Druitt family tried to frame Monty - unlikely in the extreme in my opinion.

Someone else tried to frame Druitt - possible but perhaps unlikely in my opinion.

The information was believed genuine but was misleading and Druitt wasn’t actually guilty - possible in my opinion.

The information was genuine and Druitt was the ripper - possible in my opinion.

This pretty much leaves us an A vs B choice. Yet some think that we should simply dismiss one in favour of the other. And to counter claims of bias (which always get made no matter what I say or however many times I say it) I’d suggest that if we applied a tick box assessment to all suspects, listing various suggested criteria, then William Henry Bury would have to come out on top of the list.


In a case riddled with feeble suspects it beats me why some posters will go to any lengths to try and dismiss the only named suspects with anything going for them as opposed to the majority of suspects who have been chosen at random and shoehorned into ‘suspecthood?’

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think anyone is expecting to find proof after so much time and I don't know what would be considered to be proof, either.

I do know that the only witness description of someone seen with a victim that can reasonably be considered to have been of her murderer was the one provided by Joseph Lawende.

Elizabeth Long's 40-plus Jew, seen talking to Annie Chapman at a time when she was already dead, Israel Schwartz's exhibitionist woman-beater seen with Stride about 10-15 minutes before she was found with her throat cut, and the 30-plus Jew seen with Mary Kelly and wearing such expensive attire that he could not reasonably have expected to leave Dorset Street intact himself, do not come anywhere near to being feasible suspects, but the man seen chatting with Eddowes nine minutes before her mutilated body was found in a nearby square is a strong suspect.

The 30-odd man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor is most likely to have been the Whitechapel Murderer, yet the affirmation of this fact has attracted a degree of ridicule here which none of the other witnesses' suspects has ever attracted.

Where did Long call the man a Jew?


If you give little credence to BS man as a killer because he attacked Stride in the street in front of a witness (a reasonable point imo) why don’t you apply similar criteria to Lawende’s man who stood under a street lamp talking to his victim seen by three men who passed on the opposite side of the road a few feet away? He’d been seen with his intended victim after all and he’d have known that he’d been seen. Surely you don’t think that different criteria should be applied to different witnesses?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Where did Long call the man a Jew?

'Foreigner' was a euphemism for 'Jew' and it is reported that the police replaced the word 'Jew' in witness descriptions of suspects with the word 'foreigner'.


If you give little credence to BS man as a killer because he attacked Stride in the street in front of a witness (a reasonable point imo) why don’t you apply similar criteria to Lawende’s man who stood under a street lamp talking to his victim seen by three men who passed on the opposite side of the road a few feet away? He’d been seen with his intended victim after all and he’d have known that he’d been seen. Surely you don’t think that different criteria should be applied to different witnesses?



Lawende's suspect did not know that the three men were going to pass by while he was talking to Eddowes.

Nor did he have any control over where the negotiations would take place.

He may have negotiated with Nichols in Whitechapel Road, with Chapman in Hanbury Street, with Stride in Berner Street, and with Kelly in Dorset Street or the main road nearby, and had the good luck not to have been noticed by anyone else.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies below.

It might have been the case that ‘foreigner’ was used as a euphemism but that still doesn’t prove that Long actually meant that the man that she saw was Jewish. Jews were numerous in that area. Long was a local. Why wouldn’t she have just said ‘Jewish?’ I think that we should be wary of making assumptions.

And how would BS man have known that Schwartz was going to show up?

In a way it was a more dangerous situation for Lawende’s man because BS man had only one man to potentially ID him (and that witness could have been challenged in court) Lawende’s man had three witnesses who might all have been able to have identified him.

If either BS man or Lawende’s man were the ripper they both had the opportunity of walking away after they had been seen in the company of the witnesses.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And how would BS man have known that Schwartz was going to show up?

He did not know, but the Whitechapel Murderer would not have attacked a woman in the open, knowing that the attack might be witnessed by a passer-by or policeman.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He did not know, but the Whitechapel Murderer would not have attacked a woman in the open, knowing that the attack might be witnessed by a passer-by or policeman.

I have my doubts too but I don’t think that we can call it a certainty.

[JeffHamm]

He did not know, but the Whitechapel Murderer would not have attacked a woman in the open, knowing that the attack might be witnessed by a passer-by or policeman.

How did he know that nobody would come along Buck's Row when he attacked Nichols? Or that nobody would look out the window/over the fence when he attacked Chapman? Or that nobody would enter Mitre Square when he attacked Eddowes? Eddowes' and Nichols' murder locations are out in the open just as much as Stride's. Chapman's could be said to be as well, but I can see an argument for "in a backyard is not in the street", but the other two are no more concealed than Stride.

We also do not know for certain that JtR accompanied Nichols to Buck's Row or Eddowes to Mitre Square (it's generally assumed that is what happened and there are good arguments to support that assumptions, but assumptions are not always correct and good arguments not proof). For all we know, it may be that he met both in passing and he suddenly attacked both of them, as B.S. did Stride. If so, then Chapman and Kelly may be the slightly less common (2 vs 3) cases where he accompanies the victim to a location, and the sudden assault described by Schwartz may be why the other victims are out in the street area.

Basically, whether or not he accompanied the victims to the crime scenes (which I tend to think he did, but I also recognize that is only an interpretation and other possibilities exist), JtR clearly would attack a woman out in the open where it is possible someone may come along as Nichols and Eddowes clearly show. Moreover, it seems like in both of those cases someone may very well have come along during his attack (Cross/Lechmere could very well have entered Buck's Row causing JtR to leave; and PC Harvey's patrol took him to the edge of Mitre Square and probably caused JtR to flee).

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How did he know that nobody would come along Buck's Row when he attacked Nichols? Or that nobody would look out the window/over the fence when he attacked Chapman? Or that nobody would enter Mitre Square when he attacked Eddowes? Eddowes' and Nichols' murder locations are out in the open just as much as Stride's. Chapman's could be said to be as well, but I can see an argument for "in a backyard is not in the street", but the other two are no more concealed than Stride.

We also do not know for certain that JtR accompanied Nichols to Buck's Row or Eddowes to Mitre Square (it's generally assumed that is what happened and there are good arguments to support that assumptions, but assumptions are not always correct and good arguments not proof). For all we know, it may be that he met both in passing and he suddenly attacked both of them, as B.S. did Stride. If so, then Chapman and Kelly may be the slightly less common (2 vs 3) cases where he accompanies the victim to a location, and the sudden assault described by Schwartz may be why the other victims are out in the street area.

Basically, whether or not he accompanied the victims to the crime scenes (which I tend to think he did, but I also recognize that is only an interpretation and other possibilities exist), JtR clearly would attack a woman out in the open where it is possible someone may come along as Nichols and Eddowes clearly show. Moreover, it seems like in both of those cases someone may very well have come along during his attack (Cross/Lechmere could very well have entered Buck's Row causing JtR to leave; and PC Harvey's patrol took him to the edge of Mitre Square and probably caused JtR to flee).

- Jeff

Lechmere did not see the murderer escape from Buck's Row because it was too dark.

Diemschutz did not see the murderer in Dutfield's Yard because it was too dark.

Someone here argued that Chapman could not have been murdered at a very early hour of the morning because it would have been too dark for him to see what he was doing.

That is the way the murderer operated - not the way the man seen by Schwartz behaved.

[JeffHamm]

Lechmere did not see the murderer escape from Buck's Row because it was too dark.

Diemschutz did not see the murderer in Dutfield's Yard because it was too dark.

Someone here argued that Chapman could not have been murdered at a very early hour of the morning because it would have been too dark for him to see what he was doing.

That is the way the murderer operated - not the way the man seen by Schwartz behaved.

But if B.S. is JtR, then getting Stride into a location that was "too dark" is entirely consistent with Nichols and Chapman. Also, given we do not know as a certainty that JtR accompanied Nichols into Buck's Row, we cannot say with certainty that he didn't just attack her in the street, similar to Stride. Same goes with Eddowes.

It is the general view, of course, that JtR posed as a customer and went with the victims in most cases, but really we can only be sure about that in the cases of Chapman and Kelly (although I think some have argued that JtR could have reached through the window and unlocked her door while she was asleep - so maybe I should reduce that to just Chapman). And because we have no other witnesses to the assaults on any of the other victims, how can we be sure that what Schwartz reports was somehow different from what happened with Nichols and Eddowes? We can't, we simply presume that it is different because those murder locations appear to be locations a prostitute might take a customer. Also, because we have a potential sighting of Eddowes with a man shortly before she's found dead, that too suggests the above. But that identification is tentative, and if it is wrong or the man she's seen with is not JtR, then our presumption based upon that is based upon incorrect information.

What I'm getting at is that we should not be overly confident that what Schwartz reports is actually unusual. It might very well describe what happened in other cases.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But if B.S. is JtR, then getting Stride into a location that was "too dark" is entirely consistent with Nichols and Chapman.

If JTR wanted to get Stride to a very dark location where he could murder and mutilate her, then assaulting her in the street, as BS did, seems to be the wrong way to go about it.

[JeffHamm]

If JTR wanted to get Stride to a very dark location where he could murder and mutilate her, then assaulting her in the street, as BS did, seems to be the wrong way to go about it.

If B.S. was her killer then clearly he did get her to a dark place that was right next to her, so how can you say it was the wrong way to do it when it worked?

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If B.S. was her killer then clearly he did get her to a dark place that was right next to her, so how can you say it was the wrong way to do it when it worked?

- Jeff

By the 'dark place', I meant Dutfield's Yard.

I suggest that Stride would not have gone there with her killer if he had just assaulted her in the street, and that he would not have assaulted her because in doing so he would have lost the element of surprise on which he counted.

[JeffHamm]

By the 'dark place', I meant Dutfield's Yard.

I suggest that Stride would not have gone there with her killer if he had just assaulted her in the street, and that he would not have assaulted her because in doing so he would have lost the element of surprise on which he counted.

Sure, but given Deimshitz had to light a match to recognize it was a body, where she was found was dark as well.

I didn't say nor imply she went with him willingly. For all we know, after Schwartz left and stopped looking, B.S. could have went on to manhandle her into the alley and killed her where she was found, leaving after cutting her throat because he heard too much noise in the building at that point. While some argue the cachous in her hand speak against that, I find it hard to imagine any type of assault by B.S. or anyone else that can explain their presence, so they appear to be one of those weird hard to explain events that sometimes happen. For all we know, her killer put them there for some reason known only to themselves.

As for the element of surprise, B.S.'s sudden attack probably did surprise Stride, and if he suddenly assaulted Nichols in the same way, she too was probably surprised by it. In other words, a sudden attack may be his use of that very element of surprise you feel he relied upon.

- Jeff