The 120 year old trail is freezing

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hello again,

Thanks Sasha and Glenn for the support, its appreciated.

I do think AP might well have something in his conjecture though, ...the only reason we believe the cases werent solved is because the investigation formally closed in 1992 If I recall correctly, and without a named suspect or prisoner.

[...]

What was more important as an investigator....believing you have stopped the killer from further crimes, or telling everyone that you had?

Best regards all

Hi Michael,

Actually no, the main reason for believeing that the case wasn't solved is because several officers said so. And the rest of them mentioned totally different names - in retrospect. Needless to say, if there was a uniformed view on that the case were solkved, we wouldn't have Abberline suggesting Klosowski and Littlechild saying Tumblety, not to mention Macnaghten favouring Druitt and Anderson speaking of a Polish Jew.
And as I said, some officers (major Smith for example - who appeared to have been a boaster otherwise) actually admitted that they 'had failed' to identify and catch Jack the Ripper. It really can't get any clearer than that, unless one believes in one big conspiracy WITHIN the force. And I certainly don't.

Further note: because of the major political impact the crimes had, the police force would have wanted nothing more than to loudly declare that they had catched and identified Jack the Ripper, since they were contantly mocked by the press and the general public for their failures. That would have been their main priority. It would be nonsense to say anything else. The fact that people like Anderson in retrospect tried to make themselves important by claiming to 'know' who the Ripper was also illustrates this need for trying to make themselves look good in spite of the fact that they probably cocked it up.

All the best

[Cap'n Jack]

Just as long as they didn't mention the name of the suspect, because he or she had been HMP'd, and were innocent, according to the law of the land.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

There would be no reason for the police to spread out their suspect hunt and theorize in so many directions as they did if this was the case, which is quite obvious for anyone who's reading the internal files. They not only fail to name a suspect they agree on, there is not even a hint of any uniform knowledge in these directions in those files. Again - internal - not to mention classified - files would most certainly bear traces of this. But they don't.

It is quite clear from those police files that they didn't know. Period.

All the best

[Natalie Severn]

That is my view too Glenn. However,I am not sure the police would have been terribly keen to have the public thinking, say, that the Sun"s suspect ,Thomas Cutbush , was the ripper. Especially if it wasnt official but still only hearsay. To have Cutbush as the Ripper would have meant tainting the police to some degree because Supt. Charles Cutbush,a relative ,was ,after all ,a very senior police chief- a man who had been on the Ripper case from early on, now discovered to actually be a relative of the man being claimed, but importantly not "named" ,by the Sun newspaper in 1894,to be Jack the Ripper.
The police were already being blamed for not catching the ripper and to have it thought, that the ripper was actually a relative of a policeman ,and a very senior one at that,would probably have been more than they could cope with.Added to which the torso of a murdered person had been flung over a wall in Scotland Yard---[-or was it in the basement of one of their buildings---something like that.]...which might have been because someone was trying to implicate Scotland Yard in some way.
The Cutbush case is very strange,especially as he was banged up in an asylum immediately after Frances Coles was found dead in February 1891---Cutbush was sectioned in March 1891.After the death of Frances Coles and the incarceration of Thomas Cutbush the Police Files on the Whitechapel Murders were closed.Now that is a queer coincidence!Kosminski remember,by contrast , was incarcerated BEFORE the death of Frances Coles-and BEFORE the Police Files were closed.
Best

[Chris]

Just a comment about the New York Times article (20 March 1910), which is available here:

http://tinyurl.com/47cqet

I can't see any indication in the article that the author had interviewed Anderson, or that Anderson was in America for a conference (the article mentions a conference in Washington, which was to be attended by Sir Evelyn Ruggles-Brise and Sir Edward Henry). The sources mentioned are Anderson's article in "one of the leading London reviews" and a letter by him in the London Times - the latter hasn't been traced, as far as I know. But if the reference to Broadmoor is the author's own assumption, it seems odd that he should date the supposed detention of the Ripper there to "five or six years ago".

[perrymason]

Hi again,

AP you're most welcome, I do see your premise as one of a few still viable answers.

It was the Cutbush type profile that I was referring to Nats, someone perhaps with "domino" repercussions if believed or proven guilty. Its certainly not as fanciful as a Royal Conspiracy, thats for certain. But it would impact society at "Senior" levels.

By the way Nats, I thought of you today and your paintings....working on anything recently?

Glenn, I also see your point. Particularly using The Polish Jew premise, ...which is initially offered to us by a man who was out of the country when events occurred, and interviews took place. Reading the reports is one thing, but...."I merely state an accertained fact"...was that the correct quote?...is another.

But something potentially of a breakthrough nature did occur with a suspect, or suspects, if we take any of those accounts as a basis for the real story.

But hey...Im a guy that thinks the Canonical Ripper series was committed by three different killers, so what do I know?

Best regards all.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glenn, I also see your point. Particularly using The Polish Jew premise, ...which is initially offered to us by a man who was out of the country when events occurred, and interviews took place. Reading the reports is one thing, but...."I merely state an accertained fact"...was that the correct quote?...is another.

And then we have Macnaghten who wasn't even involved in the case during the five so called 'canonicals'.

But something potentially of a breakthrough nature did occur with a suspect, or suspects, if we take any of those accounts as a basis for the real story.

Well, I am not so sure there was a breakthrough - or ONE particular breakthrough. There were most likely hundreds of suspects (Isenschmidt, Ludwig etc), many of them Jewish, and many of them could have been subjected to identification similar to the one Anderson and Swanson describes.
And we also know that Sadler - at one point a Ripper suspect - was subject to such identification, with Lawende being the key witness.
Of course, in addition, we also have Abberline who totally disputes the whole idea being brought forward by Anderson.

Judging from the actual original police files at the time of the murders, there is no real sign of any such breakthrough in particular - only several suspects being investigated.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

However,I am not sure the police would have been terribly keen to have the public thinking, say, that the Sun"s suspect ,Thomas Cutbush , was the ripper. Especially if it wasnt official but still only hearsay. To have Cutbush as the Ripper would have meant tainting the police to some degree because Supt. Charles Cutbush,a relative ,was ,after all ,a very senior police chief- a man who had been on the Ripper case from early on, now discovered to actually be a relative of the man being claimed, but importantly not "named" ,by the Sun newspaper in 1894,to be Jack the Ripper.
The police were already being blamed for not catching the ripper and to have it thought, that the ripper was actually a relative of a policeman ,and a very senior one at that,would probably have been more than they could cope with.Added to which the torso of a murdered person had been flung over a wall in Scotland Yard---[-or was it in the basement of one of their buildings---something like that.]...which might have been because someone was trying to implicate Scotland Yard in some way.
The Cutbush case is very strange,especially as he was banged up in an asylum immediately after Frances Coles was found dead in February 1891---Cutbush was sectioned in March 1891.After the death of Frances Coles and the incarceration of Thomas Cutbush the Police Files on the Whitechapel Murders were closed.Now that is a queer coincidence!Kosminski remember,by contrast , was incarcerated BEFORE the death of Frances Coles-and BEFORE the Police Files were closed.
Best

True, Nats, but then again, it could just as well be a coincidence.
The point is, that even if someone like Cutbush would have been a sensitive issue to reveal for the general public, there would be no reason for why their belief in Cutbush as the Ripper and the Ripper's incarceration in Broadmoor wouldn't be discussed in internal classified police files. As I said before, cover-ups in order to keep things from the press and the public is one thing, but that doesn't explain why no such information is visible in internal documents on high levels.
On the contrary, the files clearly reveal that the police were working in amny different directions and apparently had no unanimous clue of the Ripper's identity.

All the best

[MrRippel]

Take for example his height; it is possible to establish a height range that would exclude a number of suspects. All of the women, with the exception of Kelly were between 60 and 65 inches tall, Kelly being 67 inches. Margolis has given a realistic deduction that with the exception of Kelly, who suffered a frontal attack, all other victims were attacked from behind. This requires JtR to bring his arm over the shoulder of the woman. To do this he would have to be at least 2 –3 inches taller than his victim. If you are 65 inches tall it is almost impossible to put your arm around the neck of someone who is 72 inches tall. It’s all about anthropometrics, the dimensions and movements of body and limbs. The arc of the arm is limited depending on the height of the shoulder so that a knife wound to the neck, beginning higher on the left than the right has an angle determined by the difference in shoulder height. With a cooperative friend, you can copy the dynamics of the attack to replicate the neck injuries of the victims. Alternatively, set up a dummy and control factors such as relative heights, knife hold and angle of attack. When some results come out, I think you will be able to place “pipeman” in the “improbable” basket as the killer of Stride. Hell! That would close a few forum threads!.

Hi, just a question about this; Someone know approximently how high the pavement were above the streets that time? And I belive it was some stairs at least nearbye two of the murdersites. Could this knock away that theory about JTRs height?

[Cap'n Jack]

I fear that some posters here may have a gross misunderstanding of my purpose and motive on this thread, especially when they use terms like 'cover up' or 'conspriracy'; for what I discuss here are the legal aspects of an exceptional legal situation, that of Her Majesty's Pleasure; and the unique situation that a killer could commit such horrendous murders but be 'pardoned' from guilt, and proven innocent of the crimes by the Pleasure of Her Majesty.
Such privy knowledge could not, and would not be discussed in either police or court documents, as the suspect was proven 'not guilty'.
I think anyone on this site who has a basic grounding in English law will be able to tell you that it is not possible to accuse, or prosecute someone for a crime for which they have already been declared not guilty of, by the highest judicial power in the realm.
The queen.
God bless her.

[Chris]

... what I discuss here are the legal aspects of an exceptional legal situation, that of Her Majesty's Pleasure; and the unique situation that a killer could commit such horrendous murders but be 'pardoned' from guilt, and proven innocent of the crimes by the Pleasure of Her Majesty.
Such privy knowledge could not, and would not be discussed in either police or court documents, as the suspect was proven 'not guilty'.
I think anyone on this site who has a basic grounding in English law will be able to tell you that it is not possible to accuse, or prosecute someone for a crime for which they have already been declared not guilty of, by the highest judicial power in the realm.
The queen.

I'm not an expert on this, and I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think - and the article we're discussing bears this out - "guilty but insane", rather than "not guilty by reason of insanity", was the norm at the time of the Whitechapel Murders and in the decades thereafter.

"His/her majesty's pleasure" was a legal device to allow indefinite detention. I don't believe for a moment that all the people so detained would by default be released when the monarch died.

[Sasha]

Stock-take

Given the split views on this thread, perhaps this would be a good time to do a stock-take (poll) on where we all stand on who we think the killer is? This might contain a list of the major suspects (say top 5 or so) plus the option of "don't know" and "more than one killer" (with possible options?)? I'd set this up myself but am technically challenged (among other things)!

Just a thought.
Sasha

[Flagg]

I don't know who the killer was. I don't have a leading suspect either.

[Cap'n Jack]

Chris
I'm afraid I'm correct in this regard.
Any prisoner HMP'd under Victoria would have automatically been released upon her death unless the new monarch had signed the section.
As a gesture the new king did in fact not sign some of the sections and allowed them to be released.

[Sasha]

I don't know who the killer was. I don't have a leading suspect either.

I kinda meant a tick a box kinda poll - that would be without attribution ie anonymous. Not sure how to set up such a poll - so would be grateful to any willing person who has the technical ability to do so (assuming of course others are interested in such a poll!).