How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Jeff Leahy]

Much though Tom and I argue about anything

I always find it amusing how much we actually agree on most Rip related things...

Well said Tom!

I trust you all have a happy Easter

Pirate

[Jonathan H]

The comparison with the Green River Killer with the Anderson story is not apt.

Gray Ridgeway, a prime suspect for the 'Riverman', was not 'safely caged', was not positively identified by a witness, and did not give the game away in front of the police until the DNA results.

Had Aaron Kosminski really been positively identified before the Coles murder, Scotland Yard would have strenuously denied to the salivating tabloids that Sadler was in the frame for the Whitechapel murders -- just for the murder of Coles. They would have no need to bring in Lawende to identify Sadler if they already knew that Lawende had said 'yes' to Kosminski, despite refusing to co-operate with 'Gentile Justice' [nor would they be bringing back Lawende to 'confront' Grainger -- who said 'yes' to this Gentile suspect in 1895.]

Moreover, a positive witness identification unknown to Macnaghten, Abberline, Reid, Smith, et al, forever? [Actually the misinformation of the Polish Jewish suspect, sighted with a victim by a witness, begins with Macnaghten in 1898, not Anderson or Swanson].

A better modern example, one with genuine echoes of the Ripper mystery is the Anthrax murders of 2001. The FBI claim the killer was a scientist, Bruce E. Ivins, who then committed suicide as the net closed. Many felt uncomfortable at a suspect being named by authorities when he can never face due process.

Something like this dilemma faced Macnaghten over Druitt. Worse the Ripper was two years dead and had never been the subject of a fast-closing police dragnet, though he would disseminate through Sims just the opposite tale.

[robhouse]

Boy you really don't seem to understand anything.

the comparison with Ridgeway is on the following terms:

1. The head of the GRT (Reichart) believed that Ridgeway was the killer. This belief was based on a variety of factors which I am not going to bother going into. Reichart could not of course be 100% certain that Ridgeway was the GRK, but I think if you asked him candidly, he would have said "Yeah, it's Ridgeway."
2. The police did not have sufficient evidence to hold Ridgeway.
3. Other detectives on the GRT disagreed with Reichart's conclusions re: Ridgeway.
4. The investigations into the GR murders continued after Reichart left the Task Force... other suspects were looked into. The case remained unsolved for years, and Ridgeway remained the prime suspect for years.
5. Ridgeway actually stopped killing after it became clear that the police were getting too close to catching him.
5. Finally -- THEY NEVER WOULD HAVE CAUGHT HIM IF NOT FOR THE DNA EVIDENCE.


Now.. that is the extent of the comparison I am making. No Ridgeway was not identified (actually he was, scratch that). No Ridgeway was not caged in an asylum. No he was not Polish, or a Jew, nor was he from Russia, nor was he schizophrenic.

Now do you get it????????????

[Jonathan H]

Oh yes, Robhouse, I understand you very well.

[The Good Michael]

Jonathan,

Upon reading Rob's excellent post about the Green River killer, I immediately saw the comparisons to Ripper theories about police officials knowing things, but having lack insufficient legal evidence to arrest. It wasn't a Ridgeway/Kosminski comparison, but rather a case comparison that validates the possibility of a believed killer being allowed to roam the streets. Immediately you dismissed the argument as inappropriate for reasons that were only related to Kosminski. That tells me where your mind is. It is at the place of someone who believes in one suspect and not in another to the point of believing acceptance of anything, no matter the relationship, is to support a suspect that one already has set his mind against. You need to separate possibilities from your inane bias. You seem to believe you are open-minded, but having strange tangents doesn't mean open-mindedness in my book. It means oddness and nothing more.

Mike

[Jonathan H]

Let's see ...

Close-minded.

Odd.

Biased.

No, sorry, 'inanely' biased.

Anything else?

Let me make this clear -- inanely biased, close-minded oddball that I am -- your post is completely incoherent in its argument, just like Robhouse.

It's about Anderson but ... not Kosminski?

It's so bizarre it's rather like David Mamet's plays about aggressive, foul-mouthed, but quite fragile losers?

'Are we talking about Anderson's Suspect? No, we are definitely not talking about Anderson's Suspect. Well I am, but you're not, you close-minded freak' -- and round it goes ...


What is crystal clear is your bile.

Let me also tell you something about us inanely biased, close-minded oddballs.

We are legion.

I get supportive private email all the time, from people all over the world, who tell me to 'give em Hell'; don't back down, don't be intimidated by that lot!

They are, of course, referring to the bullying, mean-spirited rubbish that passes for debate on these Boards -- by a certain minority.

Unlike the majority who constructively disagree, who learn from each other, the outraged minority immediately pile on the abuse to prevent disagreement, or any challenges [and no, I don't mean you 'Pirate' whom I find fun, and cheeky, and positive] to the sacred paradigm of Anderson the Magnificent.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

So good to see you coming around to my way of thinking [Rip 109].

Make it February—April 1891 and Farquharson [Druitt], Cutbush, Sadler, Kosminski and Ostrog can all come out to play in the original cast production of the Most Memorably Memorable Melville Macnaghten Memorandum.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

Simon, we disagree significantly about what was happening in 1891 -- the year of the Ripper Grand Central.

Or as William Beadle called it: 'Monty Druitt's Flying Circus'

Yet, I completely respect your line of argument; that you create a plausible through-line which links all of our meager sources and thereby knock down each of the police suspects like nine pins.

.

[The Good Michael]

Let me make this clear -- inanely biased, close-minded oddball that I am -- your post is completely incoherent in its argument, just like Robhouse.

Sorry. I thought it was clear. If English isn't your first language, I apologize and will try it in German next time.

Mike

[Jonathan H]

Apology accepted.

[jason_c]

Hi Jonathan,

So good to see you coming around to my way of thinking [Rip 109].

Make it February—April 1891 and Farquharson [Druitt], Cutbush, Sadler, Kosminski and Ostrog can all come out to play in the original cast production of the Most Memorably Memorable Melville Macnaghten Memorandum.

Regards,

Simon

Soon he'll start believing in fluorescent pieces of Kelly's body hanging from Miller's Court and Catherine Eddowes lying in a boat.

[Jonathan H]

The Unmentionables

[Jeff Leahy]

Had Aaron Kosminski really been positively identified before the Coles murder, Scotland Yard would have strenuously denied to the salivating tabloids that Sadler was in the frame for the Whitechapel murders -- just for the murder of Coles. They would have no need to bring in Lawende to identify Sadler if they already knew that Lawende had said 'yes' to Kosminski, despite refusing to co-operate with 'Gentile Justice' [nor would they be bringing back Lawende to 'confront' Grainger -- who said 'yes' to this Gentile suspect in 1895.]

Yes, Yes, I quite agree. Lawende is a most unlikely witness. And by default the only other witness who seems to have had a good look at a possible killer is Schwartz.

However if Schwartz is the witness at the supposed ‘Seaside Home ID’ it throws all sorts of problems into the mixing pot.

Pro’s for Schwartz: Schwartz was probably closer to the incident he witnessed, than Lawende was to his. The fact that he witnessed an assault and was obviously frightened says to me that the incident was more likely to remain imprinted in his mind.

Against: He doesn’t appear to have been called to give evidence at the inquest. The two known accounts of the incident differ as to what happened.

Add to this there are a number of problems whether or not Stride was actually killed by Jack the Ripper.

Philips: “The wound was inflicted by drawing the knife along the throat. A short knife, such as a shoemaker’s well-ground knife would do the same thing”.

Brown on Eddows: "All the injuries were probably done in a hurry but could not have been inflicted in less than five minutes, and a sharp pointed knife at least six inches long had been used."

This might be explained by a different MO, as Doctor Blackwell believed that Strides had been seized by the shoulders and her throat cut from behind. This is consistent with the account given in the ‘Star’ of the attack witnessed by Schwartz.

However if Schwartz did witness an attack by Jack the Ripper then he probably used a different MO to the attacks on Nichols and Chapman who were most probably attacked from the front, both receiving two cuts to the throat.

It’s not certain however that Eddows was attacked in this way. Indeed its possible Eddows was attacked from the side, and like Stride had a single cut to the throat.

So I’m happy to except that there are problems with the supposed ID. That said, I don’t see why Jack the Rippers MO needs to be fixed. He was after all an opportunist.

And just linking back to the other conversation, about drawing comparisons with other crimes. There are no other crimes quiet like the Whitcahapel murders they are almost unique and I think it a fair question to ask why is this so?

And that’s what draws me back to schizophrenia and the assault witnessed by Schwartz. Because if Schwartz did witness Jack the Ripper at work then I think we need to re-think how the killer worked.

Trusting Easter cheer will keep the discussion cordial and everyone enjoys some chocolate.

Yours Pirate

P.S. I know Ripperologist’s moan about Suspect and theory driven Ripperology but it does keep the subject interesting, so for me we need the likes for Jonathon and Rob…Trevor and even Mei Trow for that matter. It helps re-examine our thoughts. Perhaps even change our positions.

Ps Ps Now late for meeting in London….better ‘blow off the doors’

[Jonathan H]

To Pirate

Yes, some good points there.

I think that you have to torture the sources to make Schwartz a major witness, at least from the contemporaneous police point of view. The witness used for Sadler and Grainger is almost certainly Lawende because of the 'Jack the Sailor' description.

But are Anderson and Swanson referring to the un-named Schwarz as their Supergrass who betrayed them? It's possible, but on the balance of probabilities I don't think so.

Listen, Pirate, Schwarz gave an interview, and his account there differs markedly from the version he gave the police. The latter source is stronger being official, no question, but that does not mean it was the better translation, or the more accurate account.

For one thing, the story Schawrz told the authorities put him in a more sympathetic light; being threatened by the potential murderer who sounds like he was not a Hebrew, and then chased by a huge man with a pipe.

What is this? The Ripper and his helpful assistant?

Whereas the less self-flattering story in 'The Star' is that the burlier man with Stride [if it was Stride, and so on?] was suddenly threatened by a slim, Gentile-featured, man with a moustache -- carrying a knife -- and Schwarz bolted, leaving the woman AND THE MAN to their fate. In other words a more cowardly story than the hot pursuit he described to the police, with the 'Lipski' detail, which deflected away from a suspect being Jewish, dropped.

The second man is a generic fit -- and only that -- for the man Lawende saw chatting with Eddowes.

[robhouse]

Jonathan,

What exactly is incoherent in what I posted? I think what I am saying is quite simple... certainly much more simple than what you are proposing.

I am not trying to be offensive but it simply seems you did not even understand the point I was making.

Rob H