No known suspect pre 1895 was Jack the Ripper

[Monty]

"Hello Neil,

Agreed. They were just more likely than Cutbush. As it is, the police were still chasing Jack the Ripper in 1891 and 1895. therefore, any known suspect wasn't JTR in their eyes PRE 1895. They all said so themselves."

I think that is pretty obvious.

I'm trying to figure out the purpose of this thread. Are we saying any pre 1895 suspect is null and void? If so then I ensorse Chris's stance, its too sweeping.

As for Heinrichs comments, I'll put them down to ignorance of bothe the investigation and police procedure.

Monty

[Ally]

To Ally

For me the Green River killer comparison does not apply, because he was a contemporaneous suspect -- eventually caught via DNA.

Er...The premise of this thread is that no pre-95 suspect would be valid. Which includes contemporaneous suspects. So how is the comparison not valid?

The topic of the thread states that no pre-95 suspect could possibly be the Ripper. That is pure poppycock.

[Heinrich]

Which is why they took over 4 hours to go over his story, and presumably check it out before letting him go. If there had been any misgivings about Barnett's story the press would have been all over it, remember the fiasco over Pizer?
....

I do understand your expectation that the newspapers would have done the job for the police especially given the less regard they had for the professionals but, then, it was not their responsibility to gather evidence nor corroborate alibis, rather to report on the investigations and note police incompetence. In keeping with modern opinion of the current exemplary standards of the Metropolitan Police, Jon, you undoubtedly place far too much confidence in their professionalism at the time of the Whitechapel murders. Your presumption that the police so thoroughly checked Joseph Barnett's flimsy alibi that he was asleep and that they could definitely place him elsewhere (despite Barnett admission that he had been with Mary Kelly on the night of the murder), does not command credence.

[c.d.]

I think we need to address the question of what would make someone a suspect in the first place. Lacking forensic evidence the police were pretty much grasping at straws. It’s not like the suspects they interviewed had bloody organs in their pockets or objects taken from the victims. I would guess they were men known to be violent towards women or who had made statements to that effect. Men who had had previous run-ins with the law or who fit a certain witness description. Men who lived near the scene of a murder. Maybe men employed in a particular trade like butchers. Even if these suspects had flimsy alibis for the nights in question, what more could the police do but question them and let them go? The police might have had a strong feeling about them but that was not sufficient to charge them and bring them to trial. Certainly any suspect named or not could have been the Ripper.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Heinrich,

What do you believe the police should have done regarding Barnett that they did not do?

c.d.

[Jonathan H]

You're quite right, Ally, I was forgetting the thrust of the thread.

What Phil is getting at is that if the police made such a 'Ripper' effort with Grant, in 1895, then they cannot have had anybody much in the frame before that date, or they would not be wheeling out [probably] Lawende, again, and they would not be embarrassing themselves in front of the press and public, again.

I think this is a valid line of argument to ponder.

The same 'Pall Mall Gazette' 1895 article which alleges a key Ripper witness confronted Grant -- and allegedly affirmed -- also says that Swanson now says the best suspect is dead, matching on that point what he would write to himself in 1910, or thereabouts about 'Kosminski' (no other name, just as in the Mac Report(s)).

This is the first time that belief in Kosminski as the main suspect enters the extant public record, if that is to whom Swanson is referring? Griffiths writing as Alfred Aylmer will also mention that Anderson, later in 1895, was now saying he had a perfectly plausible theory -- somewhat out of the blue compared to earlier comments -- that the Ripper was a lunatic, on the prowl for a short time, before being permanently incarcerated.

Therefore one possible solution which tries to reconcile contradictory data is that Macnaghten, convinced that the fiend was the late Mr. Druitt -- rightly or wrongly -- kept quiet about this fellow, Tory gentleman's tragic identity whilst deploying what he had learned, or created, about 'Kosminski' to Swanson and/or Anderson in 1895.

For example, Swanson and/or Anderson seems to think 'Kosminski' is deceased soon after he was sectioned, whereas Mac in 'Aberconway' knows that he was actually still alive in 1894 (and/or 1898).

Therefore, 1895 is when Swanson and/or Anderson became convinced about 'Kosminski', whilst 1891 is when Macnaghten, perhaps mistakenly, became convinced of Druitt's guilt and subsequently told nobody at the Yard.

So far as I know the police did not chase anybody after that year as the fiend, did they?

[Wickerman]

I do understand your expectation that the newspapers would have done the job for the police especially given the less regard they had for the professionals but, then, it was not their responsibility to gather evidence nor corroborate alibis, rather to report on the investigations and note police incompetence...

There you go!..... "another police blunder, letting the principal suspect free on his own word, what buffoons the police are!" etc..etc.

No press reporter jumped at the opportunity to have another go at the police in this instance - which is not proof of anything in itself, but is at least consistent with an overall feeling that Barnett had been thoroughly investigated, even to the extent of checking his clothes for blood.

Your presumption that the police so thoroughly checked Joseph Barnett's flimsy alibi that he was asleep and that they could definitely place him elsewhere (despite Barnett admission that he had been with Mary Kelly on the night of the murder), does not command credence.

If, as he claimed, he was in a lodginghouse then presumably he had to "check-in" (signing/marking) and pay his 4d. If he left early it might have been noticed by his companions, but more to the point, if he had returned after 3:00am, he could have been turned away as it may have been closed by then.
Or, if open, he would have to pay again, unless the 'record' of his paying earlier was checked.
Therefore, there is plenty for the police to check-up on concerning his 'record' at staying there overnight as he claimed, or coming and going as would be necessary if he was the killer.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jonathan,

An excellent summary in my view. Thank you.
'
kindly

Phil

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I'm not a Barnett supporter by any means, but in terms of his "alibi", it would have been provided by his fellow whist players (if at all), and not by any lodging house ledger. Since there was no pracitce that involved lodgers checking in and out every time they entered and exited the building, the registers would not have given him an alibi.

All the best,
Ben

[Brenda]

.

My problem with the whole police business is that time after time the newspapers would state along the lines of "Mr. Whodunnit was taken in for police questioning, but showing himself to be a respectable man, was soon released." As if a "respectable" man could not commit such an atrocious crime!
Also, if there is one thing I have learned in my years of Rippering (not literally!) is that there is very little about this case that one can say is definite.

[Brenda]

.

Just wanted to add that the British have traditionally followed the "class" system. The better your class, the more immune you were from the consequences of the deeds you might commit. I have no doubt that there were many respectable men that raised hell at being questioned, and were promptly released. I am a firm believer that the class system had a lot to do with the bungling of this case. Just my humble opinion.

[Phil Carter]

15th September 1888

Sir Charles Warren writes to the acting Assistant Commissioner, Alexander Carmichael Bruce, who had been dealing, in his absence, with the paperwork side of Dr Anderson's work.

Quote:
... I feel therefore the utmost importance to be attached to putting the whole Central Office work in this case in the hands of one man who will have nothing else to concern himself with.Neither you or I or Mr Williamson can do this. I therefore put it in the hands of Chief Inspr. Swanson who must be acquainted with every detail. I look upon him for the time being as the eyes and ears of the Commr. in this particular case.
He must have a room to himself, & every paper, every document, every report every telegram must pass through his hands. He must be consulted on every subject. I would not send any directions anywhere on the subject of the murder without consulting him. I give him the whole responsibility. ...
Warren also said that all paperwork and plans relative to the case be kept in Swanson's office.

Chief Inspector Donald Swanson takes over all paperwork on 15th September, and keeps all papers with him.
That means this..Nothing, absolutely nothing, goes by this man.

Every suspect that gets stopped and talked to, interviewed, questioned, followed up, investigated, followed (physically), and any action against any person, involving any person, involving any policeman, at any time, ever, relating to the Whitechapel murders, is presented to Swanson. EVERY piece of paperwork.
In other words, no suspect is unknown to Swanson. So IF Kosminsky, Le Grande, Druitt, Cohen, Levy and Ostrog et al were in any way written about within these papers, if any action was taken by any policeman concerning any of these men, then Swanson was au fait with it.
He was the lynchpin.

That in turns means that if the police are STILL trying to find "the Ripper" after February 13th 1891, when Francis Coles is killed, the work on any person previous to this date has been deduced by Swanson and Co to have NOT led them to the Ripper. He is still at large.

Likewise in 1895, when Swanson tries, with others, to link Grainger after his attack on Alice Graham on 16th February 1895, to "the Ripper". He is still at large then, too.

In May 1895, in the Pall Mall Gazette, Swanson is quoted clearly stating that "The Ripper" is dead. (That's interesting in itself, see below)

[Phil Carter]

The obvious questions are easy to ask.

a) If the Ripper was unknown up to and including Alice McKenzie's death in 1889 (all paperwork went through Swanson, remember), then the police are not in the position of saying he was incarcerated, dead or locked away in a jail somewhere. He is still at large, is he not? If so, any paperwork relating to any suspect, Druitt and Cohen included, who are both dead, or any person detained in an insane asylum, would have been seen by Swanson.

b) Ditto Francis Coles, 13th February 1891. Kosminsky is in an asylum. Any paperwork on this man would have been seen by Swanson. Le Grande is in prison. Any paperwork on this man would have been seen by Swanson. The Ripper is still at large, is he not?

c) Ditto Alice Graham, 16th February 1895. Kosminsky is in an asylum, Le Grande is in jail, Druitt is dead, Cohen is dead.. and STILL , the Ripper is at large, is he not?

The answers to all three questions must simply be "yes" by dint of Swanson, the man in charge still trying to pin the label on someone in 1895. Also by dint of all the other officers saying that they had no idea who the ripper was either, and that the case was unsolved.

[Phil Carter]

Then comes the bouncer to end all bouncers.
In May 1895, in the Pall Mall Gazette, Swanson is quoted stating that "The Ripper" is dead.

Now theorists trying to fit up Druitt or Cohen are going to say that this was when Swanson was told about Druitt and Cohen. In Druitt's case, whomever kept the information back, managed to do it for the best part of 7 years, in Cohen's case the best part of 6 years. Or perhaps Swanson took over a year to read the memoranda that Melville MacNaughten had written in 1894?..

Err... hold back information on the REAL Jack the Ripper from the man in charge of the case for up to the best part of 7 years? Hardly believable.

Swanson not aware of the Memoranda before over a year had passed after it being written?.. the man being in charge of the Whitechapel murder Case?
Hardly believable either.

Forgive my incredulity.....


15th September 1888-16th February 1895 Swanson hasn't got Jack the Ripper. In May 1895, he is quoted as saying that the Ripper is dead. Err... if he says the Ripper is dead.. then.. how come he, many years later, claims that Kosminsky is the Ripper? Kosminsky wasn't dead in 1895.

So we have a man who has seen every paper there is on the murders.
Up to 1895, not a sniff of anybody being "The Ripper". This is backed up by many other officers, Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner included.
Then, same year, 1895, 3 months after the Alice Graham attack, the Ripper is apparently dead.
Sometime between 1910 and 1924, Swanson apparently writes that the suspect was Kosminsky and that Kosminsky died shortly after being identified at a Seaside Home, in Colney Hatch Asylum..

Everything in the Swanson Marginalia is retrospective and a key element is plainly untrue. The suspect named did not die "shortly afterwards".. and it means that the "identification" of the man at the Seaside Home MUST have occurred between February 1895 and May 1895. And it could not have been Kosminsky being identified either, for Swanson to say in May 1895 that the Ripper was dead.

It cannot have been Druitt, he died in 1888. It cannot have been Cohen, he died on 20th October 1889.

So..who was it between February 1895 and May 1895, who had been in Colney Hatch asylum and died there, shortly after apparently being "identified" at the "Seaside Home" between those dates?


Now I wonder who that could possibly be? Hmmm?



kindly

Phil

Ref:

The Complete JTR A-Z, Begg, Fido and Skinner
Scotland Yard Investigates, Evans and Rumbelow

[Monty]

This is an extremely misleading thread.

Where does Swanson 'pin a label' and what type of label is he pinning?

How is it deduced information has been held back?

Again the memoranda does not name favoured suspects, only those considered more likey than Cutbush.

Swanson named a suspect who was sent for identification, he doesn't allude to guilt.

Monty