"5 victims and 5 victims only"

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor



Retired I assume you mean - Yes but MM joined the Met AFTER the JtR case went quiet...he knew nothing at all first-hand...so for his info he probably depended upon the written evidence then surviving, and the spoken views of the senior remaining cops active on the case...enter Swanson centre stage...



With respect, utter cobblers...it is entirely possible that senior policemen by late 1888 had at least an inkling of possible suspects, even if they were unable to articulate their feelings because of a lack of evidence...where would MM get this info...said remaining senior coppers.



So what? Sir MM was an articulate, self-publicising clubman, (vide the relationship with Sims for example), whilst Swanson was an unforthcoming, modest professional...Sir MM bragged where DS kept himself to himself, (until after his death). It is, therefore, entirely logical MM would get "into print" before DS.



This is such a bizarre allegation as to defy rational belief...it turns the whole thing on it's head...Since MM joined up after 1888, just where did MM get his behind-the-scenes knowledge in the first place Trevor? Old Moores Almanac or Donald Swanson?

I'm sorry Trevor, I'm not a copper, but I can't follow your particular brand of logic at all

Dave

If what you say is correct MM must have then gleamed his info about the case from Swanson. In which case the Swanson marginalia is tosh otherwise MM would have written about Kosminski what Swanson wrote in the marginalia about him and not eliminated him as he did in The Aberconway Version

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Trevor

But you must not forget that Macnaghten was Swanson`s overall boss. He retried in 1903

Retired I assume you mean - Yes but MM joined the Met AFTER the JtR case went quiet...he knew nothing at all first-hand...so for his info he probably depended upon the written evidence then surviving, and the spoken views of the senior remaining cops active on the case...enter Swanson centre stage...

So would Swanson be privvy to something Macnagthen wasnt? I doubt that very much.

With respect, utter cobblers...it is entirely possible that senior policemen by late 1888 had at least an inkling of possible suspects, even if they were unable to articulate their feelings because of a lack of evidence...where would MM get this info...said remaining senior coppers.

The MM mentions the name Kosminski in 1894 long before Swansons mention of the same name sometime between 1910-1924

So what? Sir MM was an articulate, self-publicising clubman, (vide the relationship with Sims for example), whilst Swanson was an unforthcoming, modest professional...Sir MM bragged where DS kept himself to himself, (until after his death). It is, therefore, entirely logical MM would get "into print" before DS.

If Swanson ever did write the name Kosminski in the annotations then it was as a result of what he gathered from The MM

This is such a bizarre allegation as to defy rational belief...it turns the whole thing on it's head...Since MM joined up after 1888, just where did MM get his behind-the-scenes knowledge in the first place Trevor? Old Moores Almanac or Donald Swanson?

I'm sorry Trevor, I'm not a copper, but I can't follow your particular brand of logic at all

Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Hatchett

Whilst at this distance who can really tell, I can't altogether disagree with the latter half of your second paragraph...it IS all a bit self-congratulatory isn't it?

And if it's wildly inaccurate in that Druitt wasn't a doctor and Ostrog was safely in France, who's to say how accurate it really was about Kosminski?

I'm probably sticking my neck out here, but I reckon it's only Swanson, a clearly respected professional, (as opposed to a well-connected clubman who joined later), who lends any real credibility to the Memorandum. The man who was really there, versus the man who wasn't....

All the best

Dave

But you must not forget that Macnaghten was Swanson`s overall boss. He retried in 1903

So would Swanson be privvy to something Macnagthen wasnt? I doubt that very much. If he ever was, then the Kosminski affair as described by Swanson must have taken place after 1903. Otherwise such an important event as described by Swanson in the annotations MM would know about

The MM mentions the name Kosminski in 1894 long before Swansons mention of the same name sometime between 1910-1924

If Swanson ever did write the name Kosminski in the annotations then it was as a result of what he gathered from The MM and as we know MM in the Aberconway version takes him of the suspect list. So why does everyone keep banging on about Kosminski being a prime suspect nothing fits with him

[Hatchett]

Hi,

Yes, I agree, Dave.

Best wishes.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Hatchett

Whilst at this distance who can really tell, I can't altogether disagree with the latter half of your second paragraph...it IS all a bit self-congratulatory isn't it?

And if it's wildly inaccurate in that Druitt wasn't a doctor and Ostrog was safely in France, who's to say how accurate it really was about Kosminski?

I'm probably sticking my neck out here, but I reckon it's only Swanson, a clearly respected professional, (as opposed to a well-connected clubman who joined later), who lends any real credibility to the Memorandum. The man who was really there, versus the man who wasn't....

All the best

Dave

[Hatchett]

Hi,

The other thing is the glaring mistakes that McNaughton makes about Druitt. He obviously hasnt looked into Druitt, and the information he has received couldnt possibly have come from Druitt's family.

The McNaughton memorandum really reads like a cross between an after dinner conversation over copious amounts of whisky, and a man who wasnt there trying to pursuade people that if he had been, he would have sorted things out.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

All of this is speculation. It has to be speculation because McNaughton didnt revealed who his sources were or what actually was the evidence. There must have been thousands of families at that time who believed that either someone related to them or someone they knew could be Jack the Ripper. It is all too convenient, not to say a little unethical for a Detective to say that he knows something but wont say what it is. It must be remembered that this was an internal memo, not a letter being sent to the press.

[GUT]

And what if the source of the Private Information was at the opposite end of the spectrum. Someone who Mac would be ridiculed for listening too, but who convinced Mac that it was the "Good Oil".

[spyglass]

Hello Dave,

What I am trying to get at is this.. explained poorly perhaps...

DSS had a list of more than 5 victims, McKenzie and Coles inclusive.
DSS wrote that Kosminski was the suspect. This suspect was, according to SRA, the Polish Jew. This same Jew was named Kosminski by MM.
Kosminski cannot have killed Coles, we know that. Yet Coles is on the list of DSS. Sagar said in 1905 the man was mad and locked away in an asylum.

MM stated there were 5 victims only. He disagrees with DSS.
MM favoured Druitt as more likely than Cutbush to be the Ripper, ahead of Kosminski, whom he mentioned and for the sake of argument, was "less likely"....Thereby disagreeing with DSS and SRA.

The case remained unsolved, according to others.

Now if the case was still ongoing in 1894, which it was, how could MM say there were 5 victims only if all victims after Kelly were included on the list by DSS? How did he KNOW there were 5 victims only BEFORE 1895? He cannot possibly know of who killed who after he wrote his Memorandum, for example. So how would he know JTR didnt kill anyone in 1895?

I am explaining this badly, I know... but both DSS and MM cannot both be right, because of timing of statements and sequence of events.

If MM is correct, the list of victims written by DSS is wrong. If DSS' list is wrong, then can he be reliably leant on for all else he said to be correct?
However if DSS is correct about the amount of victims, then MM must be wrong. If MM is wrong, and the Memoranda is incorrect in this crucial detail, then what more can we trust of the Memoranda?

How could MM KNOW that there were 5 victims and 5 victims only without knowing that those victims were all killed by the same man with certainty anyway? That isn't possible with what he wrote in the MM and with what we know even today. With certainty? He underlined it, did he not? MM states Kelly was the last victim. Ergo every murdered woman on DSS' list doesn't apply. How did he know this? On what basis is he dismissing McKenzie? Coles?

Yes Dave it is circular..but they can't both be correct.


best wishes

Phil

Hi,
Smoke screens, red herrings and mirrors.
Everyone involved in the case at all levels and interviewed years later, all have different views on who the murderer was and how many victims there were.
They all seem further apart rather than working from the same hyme sheet.
Conclusion....Confuse and decieve.

regards

[GUT]

Sir Melville must have checked out this information when it came into his possesion.

One would hope so, but he got so much else wrong you have to wonder. IE Montie's age and profession are two that really stand out.

[pinkmoon]

I know that the Catholic Church holds the confessional sacrisant.

I know that the Church of England does not have a confessional per se but that, to the best of my knowledge, all Churches have views on the sacristy of disclosures to Ministers but I also know that there are exceptions to this and I am currently looking into the situation in LVP.

Sir Melville must have checked out this information when it came into his possesion.

[GUT]

G'day Pinkmoon

A lot of people(including me)would find a priest betraying a confidence very distastefull I think a lot more people would find this a lot more distastefull over 125 years ago.

I know that the Catholic Church holds the confessional sacrisant.

I know that the Church of England does not have a confessional per se but that, to the best of my knowledge, all Churches have views on the sacristy of disclosures to Ministers but I also know that there are exceptions to this and I am currently looking into the situation in LVP.

[pinkmoon]

A priest certainly fits, just it is not the only option. Given the reports about a Norther Priest it is attractive.

I am however not sure that even a Priest would be frowned upon today given the circumstances.

A lot of people(including me)would find a priest betraying a confidence very distastefull I think a lot more people would find this a lot more distastefull over 125 years ago.

[GUT]

Hi gut,The mp would be viewed as doing society a favour by telling what he knew as would anyone else the only person who would be frowned upon would be a priest .

A priest certainly fits, just it is not the only option. Given the reports about a Norther Priest it is attractive.

I am however not sure that even a Priest would be frowned upon today given the circumstances.

[pinkmoon]

Or someone V E R Y well connected.

Would the MP be well enough connected to warrant this type of protection?

And we must remember that sometimes a person who on the face of it would not qualify for this type of support can have connections that rise them above the norm.

I recently cam across a person who was a Grade 3 clerk in 1850's and was invited to all the Governor's functions when his bosses 7 and 8 grades above him weren't we know that this person's father was on "stop and have a chat" terms with the King.

Now no one would expect that a lowly clerk would warrant any type of special treatment, but clearly he was extended preferential treatment because of his family.

Long story to say maybe that is why Mcnaghten kept his information private.

Hi gut,The mp would be viewed as doing society a favour by telling what he knew as would anyone else the only person who would be frowned upon would be a priest .