Bigwigs and witnesses

[DVV]

As we know, a major point that all theories must take into account is the fact that police officials expressed conflicting opinions as to the ripper identity or profile.
This has been much discussed.

Equally interesting, and possibly the cause (or the consequence ?) of this, is the fact that these bigwigs held different opinions as well regarding the witnesses.

Abberline (1903) : seems to think only Mrs Long has seen the ripper

Macnaghten (1894) : "no one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer"

Reid (1901) : "no one has ever seen the man except his victims"

Griffiths : only a "police constable in Mitre Court"

Anderson (1910): only one person "had ever had a good view of the murderer"

Three quick remarks, among many :

1: Lawende, generally considered the best witness, can only be referred to by Anderson.

2: Hutchinson and Cox are completely forgotten

3: no reference either to any of the various witnesses of the Stride case

4: no one saw the ripper according to Macnaghten and Reid, which is quite surprising.

[lynn cates]

Are we having satori yet?

Hello David. Now you're talking.

Come to any conclusions?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

You want this thread to be my testament, that's it ?

[lynn cates]

new testanment

Hello David. Well that wouldn't be too bad. I take it you've much to contribute here.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

I forgot Dew whose fav witness was Mary Ann Cox.

[DVV]

I really don't understand Macnaghten and Reid's opinion that there was no witness ever.

[lynn cates]

Mac

Hello David. Well, you're in good company. I don't understand his pronouncement that there were EXACTLY 5.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Reid and Macnaghten didn't share the same theory but were both of opinion that nobody saw the Ripper.

How would you explain this ?

[Wickerman]

I would put more faith in the opinions of police officials given at the time of the murders, not a decade or so later.

Any comments they made between Aug. 1888 until the end of 1891? or thereabouts, has value, nothing written later especially much later.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

Ol' 'Crusty

Hello David. I would explain it by their formulating a theory and trying to bend the facts to fit it. You are familiar with the bed of Procrustus?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

honesty

Hello Jon. I should say. When one looks through the memoranda of September and October, one is struck by the honesty and candour--from Warren all the way down to Abberline.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Hello David. I would explain it by their formulating a theory and trying to bend the facts to fit it.

Agreed and I think it's a very important point. I'll be back on it responding to Jon.

You are familiar with the bed of Procrustus?

How you dare ?

[DVV]

I would put more faith in the opinions of police officials given at the time of the murders, not a decade or so later.

Any comments they made between Aug. 1888 until the end of 1891? or thereabouts, has value, nothing written later especially much later.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon

that's the problem, or rather, that's not (!!!).
Actually, I agree with Lynn that their own theories prompted them (some of them, rather) to favour this or that suspect.

At the same time, you must feel, just as I do, that their memories were faulty, that none of them knew or remember much of the facts. Too much confusion, isn't it ?

And this tells me that their theories have not been been formed 10 years after the crimes but at the very time of the investigation. It is at that time, I believe, that most of them did espouse their theories and subsequently chose to favour a witness.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

that's the problem, or rather, that's not (!!!).
Actually, I agree with Lynn that their own theories prompted them (some of them, rather) to favour this or that suspect.

Unfortunately, as you know, we only have vague comments from the time of the murders and these are surely toned down. What we do not have is their private suspicions, which of course they were not permitted to voice to the press.
So at the time of the murders we have no idea who they suspected, if anyone.

At the same time, you must feel, just as I do, that their memories were faulty, that none of them knew or remember much of the facts. Too much confusion, isn't it ?

That is what I see as part of the problem, faulty memories and exagerated ego, or at least the feeling of being incumbent to have known more about the killer than they really did.
In other words, "he" may have beaten "us" from the legal perspective, but "he" did not beat "me", "I" had his number, etc.

It is at that time, I believe, that most of them did espouse their theories and subsequently chose to favour a witness.

If there was anything more than simple personal preference then I would expect there to have been more of a consensus among officials, several of them pointing the finger at one man.
Since that was not the case, then actual evidence was not the principal consideration, which means their 'after-the-fact' opinions count for little.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Unfortunately, as you know, we only have vague comments from the time of the murders and these are surely toned down. What we do not have is their private suspicions, which of course they were not permitted to voice to the press.
So at the time of the murders we have no idea who they suspected, if anyone.

No Jon, this I don't know. There is strong evidence, for example, that after the double event there were those who believe Jack was a Jew, and those who believe he was a gentile. And this is already a major fracture in trhe forming theories.