Seaside Home?

[Jonathan H]

To Jeff

No, I meant that the police at the time thought that Coles was probably another Ripper victim and -- after some time -- maybe the final victim (though not Macnaghten after privately following up on Farquharson's blabbing).

I have no [historical] doubt that Montague Druitt was Jack the Ripper. The case was solved in 1891, partially-discreetly revealed to the public from 1898, and rebooted as an unsolved mystery in 1923.

To PaulB

We will not agree, and that's fair enough.

Historians, of which I am not one by training, have to try and join dots even if all the dots are not available, and probably never will be.

I would just say that, according to the conventional wisdom, Melville Macnaghten was potentially getting himself into very hot water indeed by his persistent and basic errors about all three suspects, all allegedly more likely than Cutbush who was demonstrably insane and a danger to young women, in his Report(s).

Glaring errors which anomalously fly in the face of all the other sources about Macnangten, as discreet, competent, and possessing an extraordinary memory?

Theese errors alone could have got him sacked. The howler about the 'well-known' retired Cutbush being the uncle of the lunatic was also professionally lethal ...?

Bit of luck Mac was never exposed as such a woeful, even inadvertently callous incomptetent.

That long-standing interpretation of the contradictory and fragmentary sources, while not impossible, is much less credible to me than that Mac knew what he was doing and was, indeed, suppressing information about a suspect who could never be arrested, from his vile superior.

Neither man mentions the other in their memoirs, while Mac pointedly does name colleagues he admires (including Swanson) but not Anderson ...

[lynn cates]

oo la la

Hello Jeff.

"As the only Parnell on these boards . . ."

Ah! So how's Mrs. O'Shea these days? (Heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[PaulB]

To Jeff

No, I meant that the police at the time thought that Coles was probably another Ripper victim and -- after some time -- maybe the final victim (though not Macnaghten after privately following up on Farquharson's blabbing).

I have no [historical] doubt that Montague Druitt was Jack the Ripper. The case was solved in 1891, partially-discreetly revealed to the public from 1898, and rebooted as an unsolved mystery in 1923.

To PaulB

We will not agree, and that's fair enough.

Historians, of which I am not one by training, have to try and join dots even if all the dots are not available, and probably never will be.

I would just say that, according to the conventional wisdom, Melville Macnaghten was potentially getting himself into very hot water indeed by his persistent and basic errors about all three suspects, all allegedly more likely than Cutbush who was demonstrably insane and a danger to young women, in his Report(s).

Glaring errors which anomalously fly in the face of all the other sources about Macnangten, as discreet, competent, and possessing an extraordinary memory?

Theese errors alone could have got him sacked. The howler about the 'well-known' retired Cutbush being the uncle of the lunatic was also professionally lethal ...?

Bit of luck Mac was never exposed as such a woeful, even inadvertently callous incomptetent.

That long-standing interpretation of the contradictory and fragmentary sources, while not impossible, is much less credible to me than that Mac knew what he was doing and was, indeed, suppressing information about a suspect who could never be arrested, from his vile superior.

Neither man mentions the other in their memoirs, while Mac pointedly does name colleagues he admires (including Swanson) but not Anderson ...

Jonathan,
I know that historians have to try to fit the dots, as you put it, but don't you think that has to be done within factual parameters, but which I mean that which is probable? I mean, to me anyway, it is highly unlikely that Macnaghten would have been well received if he dropped these broad hints to his superior officer: "Oh yes, and while I remember it, Jack the Ripper was a chap called Kosminski. We had him identified by an eye-witness and he's been banged away. I should have mentioned that we'd caught Jack the Ripper to you earlier, but you know, what with one thing and another, it slipped my mind". I imagine that had that happened then Anderson's anger would have been so incandescent it would have been seen from Ballham, the Gateway To The South.
Paul

[PaulB]

Ah! So how's Mrs. O'Shea these days? (Heh-heh)

Not as active as she used to be, I'm told.

[Jeff Leahy]

To Jeff

No, I meant that the police at the time thought that Coles was probably another Ripper victim and -- after some time -- maybe the final victim (though not Macnaghten after privately following up on Farquharson's blabbing).

I have no [historical] doubt that Montague Druitt was Jack the Ripper. The case was solved in 1891, partially-discreetly revealed to the public from 1898, and rebooted as an unsolved mystery in 1923.

...

Ah OK. Obviously I'd agree Druitt is a reasonable suspect.

PaulB pointed out that we 'Simply dont know what the private information McNaughten received was' therefore it seems reasonable to give McNaughten the benefit of the doubt anyway and assume he had good reason for his beliefs.

Thus I think most of the sensible objections for the Druitt as Jack theory has nothing to do with McNaughten but the Geography.

If Druitt was Jack then surely we would have had a kill spread with Cannon Street Station at its centre. There were plenty of potencial victims in Elephant and Castle and other closer areas than Whitechapel. Why would he only kill in one specific area, especially when police patrols were increased? Far easier for Druit to hunt else where?

Could Druitt have killed Annie Chapman and played cricket the same morning?

Having killed Eddows would Druitt have headed back into te Lions den when his lodgings were West?

But thanks for clarifying..I'm heading off direction from the Seaside Home

Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff.

"As the only Parnell on these boards . . ."

Ah! So how's Mrs. O'Shea these days? (Heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Yes I must admit I'm going back to the 1960's and my nan was a great age then (About a million years old). I did visit an Aunt in South Sea and was given a wooden rhino which I still possess. But no secret diaries in the attic I'm afraid j

[mklhawley]

Now, you have to admit, Jonathan does not propose this from a position of ignorance. It's clear he's extremely well read and brilliant. It matches the available facts amazingly well. Misconception is still a problem in ripperology, such as 'Littlechild was the only senior Scotland Yard official mentioning Tumblety in the context of being a ripper suspect' or 'Charles Dunham was a pathological liar'. Even though you saltier ripperologists may get frustrated by this, it can only help in clarifying ripper history.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Jeff Leahy]

'Saltier' ? I hope thats not another reference to Parnell's relationship to Mrs O'Shea?

[PaulB]

Now, you have to admit, Jonathan does not propose this from a position of ignorance. It's clear he's extremely well read and brilliant. It matches the available facts amazingly well. Misconception is still a problem in ripperology, such as 'Littlechild was the only senior Scotland Yard official mentioning Tumblety in the context of being a ripper suspect' or 'Charles Dunham was a pathological liar'. Even though you saltier ripperologists may get frustrated by this, it can only help in clarifying ripper history.

Sincerely,

Mike

Jonathan is indeed knowledgeable and well read, and is a stimulating sparring partner who provokes new avenues of inquiry more often than he imagines, which is all to the good. Whether or not his theorising clarifies Ripper history is another matter :-), but whilst I disagree with much of his Macnaghten theorising, Jonathan has managed to push Macnaghten to the forefront again, and rightly so.

[mklhawley]

'Saltier' ? I hope thats not another reference to Parnell's relationship to Mrs O'Shea?

No, and I should have thought of it (I retired as a Navy commander!).

[Stephen Thomas]

Nope. I have never said Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, nor do I believe that he was, nor are any reasonable arguments that he wasn't Jack the Ripper irrelevant. Why do you write that they are?

Sincere apologies, Paul. It was an impression that I'd had from your posts particularly since Jeff's film was shown and obviously a wrong one. I had no right to write what I did.

(I blame the amber nectar)

[Jeff Leahy]

Sincere apologies, Paul. It was an impression that I'd had from your posts particularly since Jeff's film was shown and obviously a wrong one. I had no right to write what I did.

(I blame the amber nectar)

A WRONG ONE???????????????????

CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT SITUATION

The Definative Story is and was the story of the Jack the Ripper autumn of terror..

The last 12 minutes of which deals with suspects...and is probably the only TV program in History that avioded being forced into naming someone as Jack the Ripper........No mean feat

So perhaps you would like to explain yourself??????????

Yours Jeff Leahy
Producer / Director

PS the Definitive Story was writen by Paul Begg and John Benett neither of whom think Kosminski was Jack the Ripper and two people in whom, despite I might disagree with them. I have untmost confidense and respect in their own personal opinions.....these guys are giants

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Mike

To Jeff

I think that's a very good point. Why would Druitt even leave Blackheath? T
o kill harlots, let alone keep returning to the East End -- actually to the even more narrow 'evil quarter mile'?

To PaulB

I agree that seems to be wild? I am not wedded to that aspect, of the 1895 timing. Perhaps Anderson found 'Kosminski' via Mac in 1891 and told Anderson then -- but certainly no earlier as bits of Anderson's memory in 1910 shows (the mag version about the suspect being identified while sectioned, and so on).

It is just that the alternative, Anderson's (and Swanson's?) implication in their accounts that the Polish Jew was taken care of by early 1889 is also untenable according to primary sources.

Anderson's 1892 interview strongly suggests that he had never heard of 'Kosminski' at that point, and that Mac's 'Report(s) remained unknown and unread.

Then suddenly in 1895 -- suddenly from the meagre extant record's pov -- both Anderson and swanson seemed to have locked onto the suspect they are committed to forver, in the very wake of an alleged positive identification by a Jewish witness of a ripper suspect (Grant). The very first thing out of Swanson's mouth, that the suspect is deceased, is wrong if he means 'Kossminski', and he may not.

Macnaghten knew something critical that they did not, and other sources suggest he was capable of deflective propagandizing -- and that he did not like Anderson.

Is it really so difficult, therefore, that between 1891 and 1895 Macnaghten could not have said that he had met with a family who claimed their deceased member was 'Jack'?

Nothing about a witness, by the way, that's Anderson's contribution in 1910.

That's quite a coinccidence that both Mac and Anderson have preferred Rippers who are both dead -- but only one actually is, yet both Jacks begin with Mac in the extant record, and we know he knows which is alive and which is really deceased?

[PaulB]

A WRONG ONE???????????????????

CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT SITUATION

The Definative Story is and was the story of the Jack the Ripper autumn of terror..

The last 12 minutes of which deals with suspects...and is probably the only TV program in History that avioded being forced into naming someone as Jack the Ripper........No mean feat

So perhaps you would like to explain yourself??????????

Yours Jeff Leahy
Producer / Director

PS the Definitive Story was writen by Paul Begg and John Benett neither of whom think Kosminski was Jack the Ripper and two people in whom, despite I might disagree with them. I have untmost confidense and respect in their own personal opinions.....these guys are giants

Jeff,
By "the wrong one" Stephen meant his conclusion that I believe Kosminski to be the Ripper, which was the wrong one, the wrong conclusion, and he has very graciously apologised for it. There's nothing for him to explain.
Paul

[PaulB]

Sincere apologies, Paul. It was an impression that I'd had from your posts particularly since Jeff's film was shown and obviously a wrong one. I had no right to write what I did.

(I blame the amber nectar)

Stephen,
My position has always been that I believe the sources make Kosminski the leading suspect for investigation, but I'm afraid that sometimes that comes across as if I believe Kosminski to have been the Ripper. I don't believe that at all, but I do firmly believe that the sources must be treated fairly, carefully and as objectively as possible, so I will defend the authenticity of the marginalia against conclusions based on faulty reasoning. But thanks for the apology, it's appreciated.
Paul