Macnaughten Memorandum

[FISHY1118]

If you mean that we must divest ourselves of the notion that the killer killed exactly 5 women, no more and no less, I agree. I think that he could have had as few as 3 victims, but most likely had at least 6.

Somehow i think its not a matter of how many or how few victims Simon is alluding to .

[Abby Normal]

Cohen is one of my favorite suspects too. Right now, I guess I'd put him at #4, right after Bury, Chapman, and Levy. He does seem to fit Anderson and Swanson's description better than Aaron Kosminsky does, but I wouldn't dismiss Aaron K. He might have been capable of the murders in 1888 even if he wasn't a few years later. His capabilities may have declined during that period. You might be aware that Martin Fido, the man that originally theorized that Nathan K. and Cohen were the same person, later discarded that idea, though Cohen continued to be his top suspect.

Macnaughten also spoke about unspecified private information that led him to suspect Druitt. I do think that being Mac's top suspect is enough to make Druitt a viable suspect, though he's not among my top suspects, because I think that so much of the case against him depends on taking Mac's word for it. I think that counts for something, but not a lot.

Which people that that we're aware of would you consider "actual detectives in the streets" and have named suspects?

only abberline, who suspected chapman. and theres nothing that connects cohen to the case, who was a later researcher suspect...the crazy jew theory of anderson extended, unfortunately a wild goose chase that continues to this day.

[Fiver]

Hi Fishy,

"There was a killer who killed and mutilated 5 women."

We must divest ourselves of this notion if we are ever going to stand a chance of solving the mystery.

Simon

We have no chance of solving this mystery. We don't have a clear victim list, let alone enough information to confirm a suspect and the Ripper persona was probably created by the press and does not reflect the actual killer's personality.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fiver,

Start with this victim list.

Of the C5 there are zero murders which can be attributed to the serial killer popularly known as JtR.

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Simon,

I take it that you mean "Kosminski", because I don't think there's any question that Druitt and Ostrog existed. We don't know for sure whom Macnaughten was referring to by "Kosminski", but that doesn't mean that he didn't exist. Ostrog, however, was in jail at the time of the murders, so he's the only one of Macnaughten's suspects that I would call a joke.

I see this time & again, criticizing Macnaghten while not adequately interpreting, or understanding what he was saying.
As an example, Mac. never said Ostrog was a serious suspect. He was pointing out how ridiculous it was to suggest Cutbush was a serious suspect. And, by way of example he lists three men who were more likely than Cutbush to be the murderer, without any of them being true and legitimate suspects in their own right.

Ostrog for example is credited with having the right antecedents, but his whereabouts were unknown, at the time of the murders.
Which means Mac. is not saying Ostrog was a suspect.
Likewise with Druitt, the police had no cause to regard him as a suspect, even though his own family may have had their own reason's.
Finally, Kozminski, him having a hatred of women, especially prostitutes, made him a strong 'suspect', but not an official suspect. This is what is meant by placing the verb in quotes (check the original), Mac. is saying 'not in the normal use of the word'.
None of these three were official suspects, yet, and the intention is expressed with sarcasm, any one of them would be more likely to have been the murderer than Cutbush.

There's nothing wrong with Mac.'s memorandum when read correctly.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

Your post let's Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog off the hook [not that they were ever on it], and absolves them of any guilt in the Whitechapel murders. So why are people working their nuts off to incriminate either Druitt or Kosminski?

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

Your post let's Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog off the hook [not that they were ever on it], and absolves them of any guilt in the Whitechapel murders. So why are people working their nuts off to incriminate either Druitt or Kosminski?

Simon

There never was any official guilt borne by either of them.
Ostrog was never seriously viable, and Kozminski was nothing more than an afterthought by officials.
Druitt stands alone due to the suggested circumstantial rumors among friends & relatives. Whether there was any factual substance to these rumors may never be known for sure. That is beside the point, the fact of the memorandum was to identify three long-shot names that were never true suspects, yet were still better qualified than Cutbush to be the murderer in the eyes of Macnaghten.

[Fiver]

Hi Fiver,

Start with this victim list.

Of the C5 there are zero murders which can be attributed to the serial killer popularly known as JtR.

Simon

Do you mean that Jack the Ripper was a fictional persona created to sell newspapers? I agree.

Do you mean none of the C5 were killed by the same person? I disagree - there are too many similarities between the Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes murders.

Do you mean something else? If so, please explain instead of just hinting.

[Lewis C]

only abberline, who suspected chapman. and theres nothing that connects cohen to the case, who was a later researcher suspect...the crazy jew theory of anderson extended, unfortunately a wild goose chase that continues to this day.

Cohen's connection to the case is the same as Aaron Kosminski's: both of them might be the Anderson/Swanson suspect. Apparently you strongly believe that Aaron Kosminski is much more likely Cohen to be their suspect. I'm certainly open to that possibility, but I think Cohen is more likely to be their suspect. Or their suspect could be someone that neither of us has ever heard of.

[Lewis C]

I see this time & again, criticizing Macnaghten while not adequately interpreting, or understanding what he was saying.
As an example, Mac. never said Ostrog was a serious suspect. He was pointing out how ridiculous it was to suggest Cutbush was a serious suspect. And, by way of example he lists three men who were more likely than Cutbush to be the murderer, without any of them being true and legitimate suspects in their own right.

Ostrog for example is credited with having the right antecedents, but his whereabouts were unknown, at the time of the murders.
Which means Mac. is not saying Ostrog was a suspect.
Likewise with Druitt, the police had no cause to regard him as a suspect, even though his own family may have had their own reason's.
Finally, Kozminski, him having a hatred of women, especially prostitutes, made him a strong 'suspect', but not an official suspect. This is what is meant by placing the verb in quotes (check the original), Mac. is saying 'not in the normal use of the word'.
None of these three were official suspects, yet, and the intention is expressed with sarcasm, any one of them would be more likely to have been the murderer than Cutbush.

There's nothing wrong with Mac.'s memorandum when read correctly.

Nothing wrong with the Memorandum? Would you at least grant that it contains factual errors? And if he really was using sarcasm in the memo, that would strike me as being rather unprofessional. However, I believe that there's evidence apart from the memorandum that he really did view at least Druitt as a real suspect.