No known suspect pre 1895 was Jack the Ripper

[Heinrich]

Heinrich,

Writing a short paragraph or book-length essay based on your interpretation of testimony does not make it so. But since you do not understand that or don't care to appreciate that circumstance I see no point continuing the discussion. Enjoy.

Don.

I made a case for the prosecution of Joseph Barnett based on the evidence. It is consistent with what this network is for.
If issuing snide comments and being rude to members is your idea of a discussion, it is one I don't share.

[Jonathan H]

But is it comparatively quickly?

I would argue that not until Griffiths, in 1898, was it being authoritatively claimed that the two or three year investigation was really just the brief 'autumn of terror'; to make it look as though the police knew at the time that Kelly was the final victim.

Macnaghten concealed from the public, via Griffiths and Sims, that the inconvenient timing of Druitt's demise forced the reign of terror to be truncated. That the police were chasing a phantom. He saved that revelation for his memoirs which were ignored then and mostly now too.

Until 1898, Coles was the 'final' one and police were hauling in Lawende to give Grant the once-over as late as 1895 -- and he said yes!

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jonathan,

Thanks for the comments and the replies.
Yes, I do realise what you are saying of course. However, it could be argued that there are also indications because of comments that the Millers Court murder was the last one, comparatively quickly afterwards, of indication of a possible other known internal view. I personally may not agree with this possible view though.

kindly

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Monty

No I am saying that Anderson and/or Swanson left us a dog's breakfast but that Macnaghten is clear and accuratein his memoirs; the de-facto third version of his 'Report' -- and the only document about the case under his knighted name for public concumption.

In which Mac dropped the following mythical encrustations he had himself glued onto Druitt via Griffiths-Sims:

That the un-named Druitt was a doctor, that he was middle-aged, and that he killed himself definitely on Nov. 10th 1888 -- he hedges -- and that he was affluent, and that he had been in a lunatic asylum ('twice') and unable to work for years (Mac also cheekily juxtaposes championship cricket with the fiend, in the preface).

And that Druitt was a prime suspect being exhaustively and almost-successfully hunted by the police in 1888.

And that the un-named 'Kosminski' and Ostrog are not worth mentioning, even to dismiss.

All gone.

To Phil

The 'belief' in Druitt as the Ripper, whether correct or mistaken, begins in the extant record among the deceased's respectable, Tory circles in Dorset in 1891, not with the constabulary in 1894.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

What I tried to do was highlight the known comments from the policemen involved that have been issued to, through, or via the media. I used most of the examples that have already been shown in "Scotland Yard Investigates" simply because the book itself tries to show the view from the police side.
The more I read the book (and I admit to reading from it at least once every day), the more I see another way of looking at this. The book allows for such freedom of interpretation.

The additional examples I used were originally from the jtrforums website (the Monro comments) that Scott Nelson kindly brought up and reminded us all of on Casebook. It was from this I had the idea of highlighting an aspect of the case that may not have been (excuse me if it has) explored in full, separated from the rest of the police comments.

I also used the "A-Z" as a source to confirm comments and quotes, because let's face it, with or without the mistakes, it is an essential part of our understanding of the case, and will remain so for many years to come.

The Connell and Evans book, "The Man Who Hunted Jack The Ripper" has in my opinion grown into a little golden nugget, and I keep finding snippets of previously missed information that give greater clarity.

So all in all, although some would call the comments selective, they have a purpose. There seemed to be, 1888-1895, a general concensus of sorts, that the police didn't have a name to go on.

I would welcome a counter view, showing all press comments from the top policemen, giving other opinions, within this time frame 1888-1895.

kindly

Phil

[Phil Carter]

You present a case fine...

For the record, I do see Trevor and your stance on this and I fully understand why. Even more, on some points Im in agreement ...

Monty

PS, I also slept well.

Hello Neil,

I am pleased you slept well.

Thank you for the comment on presenting a "fine case".

It is also encouraging to see that you are in part agreement. For the record, as you yourself mentioned it, would you like to expand on what points you are in agreement with? That would be excellent.

Why? Because it would indeed be a balanced view to see those appear in detail as well as the fulcrom of disagreement from your worthy pen. I've seen the arguments against, now, kindly, expand on your own comments and post arguments for.

I have been selective on your comments here on purpose, as you can see.
I find no shame in highlighting positiveness.

Thank you for your interest in the thread.


kindly

Phil

[Monty]

To Monty

You keep saying that Macnaghten did not lay down major suspects [in the official version] of his 'Report', as if it is an established fact.

It is not. It is a theory.

I can understand why you take this line, but it is only an interpretation and arguably not a strong one.

Yes, it is an official document of state and it does state that M. J. Druitt, 'Kosminski' and Michael Ostrog are unlikely and yet are better suspects than Cutbush -- if that makes any sense?

On the other hand, Anderson and/or Swanson seem to have believed that 'Kosminski' was not a minor suspect at all, but almost certainly the fiend.

Mancaghten himself in the alternate version of the same document, disseminated to the public, claimed that the un-named Druitt was almost certainly the Ripper. He did the same in his 1914 memoirs where no other suspect is worth mentioning.

If it is a draft is that why he had to write it again? Because he had given the game away about Druitt? And then he returned to this truth, at least as he understood it, when he briefed his literary cronies a few years alter?

Consider that if you only had Mac's official version you would never realize that the reason Druitt was not arrested was not because he was perhaps a weak suspect -- but better than Cutbush and 'believed' by his own family and definitely a sexual maniac -- but because he was long deceased.

Thus Mac did something in his memoirs which he did not do in either version of his so-called 'Home Office Report'. He conceded that Druitt was a posthumous suspect and that the police had been, embarrassingly and excruciatingly, chasing a phantom. He goes against the expected bias of such a source, making it more reliable than what he write under political pressure twenty years before.

That is why I argue that the memoirs, the de-facto third version of his 'Report', despite memoirs being unreliably self-serving, trumps the official version -- a document, moreover, so obscure, I argue, that Doug Browne did not come across it when he finished 'The Rise of Scotland Yard' in 1956 (he misunderstood the import of the last lines of Mac's Ripper chapter; as a literal plot against a minister and has Macnaghten disagreeing with his successor that the fiend took his own life, when he did no such thing?)

In that memoir chapter, Macnaghten, the 'man of action', hurtles down to the East End to investigate the Pinchin Street murder in 1889. He meets with a prostitute and her pimp-partner over a meal of 'toasted bloaters'. A Disraeli-style, one-nation Tory he expresses compassion and sympathy for their economic and moral destitution. About the Ripper menace she says that she does not care if she lives or dies.

What Mac is getting at is that he could not reassure this poor wretch that at least she had nothing to fear from the likes of 'he' because, at that time and for 'some years after', nobody at the Met knew that the murderer was already nine months in his grave.

To Jonathan

I agree, Anderson in his book, and Swanson in his marginalia, are very clear in their views. I have no disagreement with that at all.

Macnaghten was was also clear in an article with his name on. This isnt third party reporting, therefore more credence should be held to his words and he states- I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders

He did not state the 3 were the top suspects and as it went out for public consumption, its only logical and fair to assume that this is his preferred version.

However, I do see your point and agree that nothing is certain. One reason I suspect, and as far as know it hasnt been mentioned here (apologies if it has), that Macnaghten stated a 'more likely' list rather than a 'top suspect' list is purely for legal reasons, the protection of family members.

Monty

[Monty]

But what you cant prove is that there ever was a specific file referering to Kosminski so in view of that it is wrong to say there may be or there ever was such a file for it to go missing

Trevor,

Heres your cornflake choker, you are right! I cant prove it.

However, you last few lines are utter piffle. For obvious reasons to all....apart from you apparently.

Oh, is it the rage to put everything in bold when shouting?

Monty

[Monty]

Well, we've had the old chestnut about files missing, and that applies both ways, for and against.

Yep

We've had the old chestnut that you can't rely on newspapers,, that works both ways too.

Yep

We've had the putting down of any person who misunderstands everything.

You forgot to mention consistantly, and with intention.

We've had the derision at the thought that anybody could possibly dare to think different than what we are supposed to accept.

No, the derision is at the hypocrasy.

We have the sarcasm about to enter the arena, and probably the mickey taking too.

Bought into the arena by whom? If you dont want it slinging back at you, dont hurl it in the first place.

Its like an old record. Scratched, worn out and in desperate need of a remake.

Golden oldies, a classic.

kindly, and amused by the predictability of the same methodology of some...

as the posts crossed..

Predictable..or what?

Oh the irony of that.....

We mustn't let FACTS like that come in the way of a theory... it spoils the oil in the wheels of the non-stop, must be kept going, ever-pushed Merry-go round.

Time for bed said Zeberdee! Boing!

You present a case fine, yet you are selective in your evidence and do not present a balanced overview. Now I do not know if this is intentional, to provoke debate, or if you are simply going against the grain of what you claim you are about in Ripperology, and that is present evidences for future researchers.

If the former, fine, however there will be a counter. If the latter then thats an issue. And that why I step in with my boring and predictable posts. Because what you are presenting is not all emcompassing. It is misleading and selective.

For the record, I do see Trevor and your stance on this and I fully understand why. Even more, on some points Im in agreement however it is in my nature not to 'toe the party line' as you suggest but take an open mind best I can which means all sides considered. Now that obviously frustrates you. Tough, deal with it. You can load an arguement however you wish Phil, but the boring dull old facts remain. And the old chestnuts you mention are there, thats where they are old, and they are there because they are valid points. You can belittle them all you wish, or try to divert attention, yet they are there and will be until true evidence either way is presented.

You keep asking me not to get personal, it works both ways.

Monty


PS, I also slept well.

[Supe]

Heinrich,

Writing a short paragraph or book-length essay based on your interpretation of testimony does not make it so. But since you do not understand that or don't care to appreciate that circumstance I see no point continuing the discussion. Enjoy.

Don.

[Heinrich]

Heinrich,

You do avoid answering questions on whatever thread you land. Robert asked you how you know Joe and Mary argued the night of her death and in answer you fill up a paragraph with blather. Barnett said he left on good terms and did not mention any quarrel, so how do you "know" they argued? The same way you "know" the police did not adequately vet Barnett as a suspect? Much as it may surprise you, your opinions are not facts.

Don.

I answered Robert's question by stating that Joseph Barnett admitted refusing money to Mary Kelly on the night of the murder. I wrote a short paragraph to establish the context of a series of arguments he had had with her over the same issue, arguments he himself admits to, and, because he was unable to give her money, how she incurred his disapproval of her prostituting herself and keeping the company of prostitutes. Refusing the money is pertinent to understanding his motive in killing Mary Kelly. It was a continuing stormy relationship characterized by arguments over money and her prostitution. He stated at the inquest that the subject arose again on the night of the murder. Naturally he claimed to have left Mary Kelly on good terms as an eye witness placed him at the scene of the crime as did his own testimony.
Furthermore, I wrote that we do not know what the police did and so we cannot have confidence that they vetted Joseph Barnett's alibi. Had he murdered Mary Kelly before going to his card game then he had no alibi. Similarly, had he returned sometime after midnight to comit the crime then the card game is not an alibi and who could testify that they watched him sleeping all night from 12:30?
Let's not get personal, Don; I answered any and all questions put to me on the two or three threads where I have posted. Clearly you did not like my answer but Robert does not need you to insult me on his behalf and if he wants to ask anything else about what I did write or make a comment, I would welcome that. Your claim that I did not answer the question is your opinion, Don, and not a fact.

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=Heinrich;185172]No one knows what they did, c.d.
There is only the record that they had Joseph Barnett in custody for 4 hours. There is no reason to believe that they even tried to corroborate his alibi that he was asleep from about midnight on the night of the murder, no note that they went to his lodging or checked people who knew he was there for the entire time.

I find that extremely hard to believe...

Police: Say Joe, did you kill Mary?

Joe: No, I was asleep in a lodging house at the time.

Police: Ok. Well Joe, you seem like a swell guy. We'll take your word for it. What do you say we all go get a pint.

c.d.

[Jonathan H]

Though we fundamentally disagree on the 'second act' of the Jack the Ripper mystery -- or even if it is viable to call it a second act ' -- I agree with Rob on his previous post.

In fact, it can be demonstrated from the sources.

Macnaghten told the public, via Griffths and Sims, that the 'police' were hunting the 'doctor' suspect before he drowned himself in the Thames (which somewhat confused and perplexed Littlechild in 1913).

In his memoirs Mac admitted -- though without admitting that he was his cronies' source for this disinformation -- that this was not true. The un-named Druitt came to 'police' attention only 'some years after' he killed himself.

We can actually see the evolution of Druitt into a Dr Jekyllish or Tumbletyesque figure, in those sources which are Macnaghten sources by proxy.

Major Griffiths and George Sims told the public that the doctor's 'friends' knew, or suspected, that their lunatic pal was the fiend, and that they were in touch with the 'police' even before the body bobbed up in the river.

In fact, it was the suspect's blood relations, not platonic friends, who apparently 'believed', and if they were ever in touch with authorities it was over two years later -- and probably only with Macnaghten.

To be blunt what the Edwardian public was told was self-serving deceit.

I not think that Sir Robert Anderson ever engaged in these sort of shenanigans. However conceited and egocentric, he said what he sincerely believed to be the truth on this matter. Whether he was accurate, or even misled by his second-in-command, is quite another matter.

[Supe]

Heinrich,

You do avoid answering questions on whatever thread you land. Robert asked you how you know Joe and Mary argued the night of her death and in answer you fill up a paragraph with blather. Barnett said he left on good terms and did not mention any quarrel, so how do you "know" they argued? The same way you "know" the police did not adequately vet Barnett as a suspect? Much as it may surprise you, your opinions are not facts.

Don.

[robhouse]

In my opinion, the police probably issued false statements to the press.

RH