"5 victims and 5 victims only"

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

This snippet from MM has me thinking. It may well have been discussed before, more than likely I'd say, but for the sake of newbies and oldbies alike..

"5 victims and 5 victims only"

Can someone kindly explain to me how MM could know this in 1894 when the case was unsolved?

In other words, why did DSS, the man in the centre of all this, write a list of more than 5 if the total was only 5?...for if the Ripper business was over between Kelly and McKenzie, as is suggested by MM, then Kosminski simply cannot have been the Ripper. Just because MM pointed towards Druitt?

If the case was unsolved in 1894, which officially, it was, how would MM know what all others didn't?

I welcome all answers.

best wishes

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Sorry Phil, but I don't quite get what you're trying to say...it seems a bit of a circular argument, but I may be misunderstanding...

Kosminski was admitted to the workhouse second time round (from whence he was discharged to Colney Hatch) on 4th February 1891...It follows, therefore, that he couldn't be responsible for Frances Coles (13th February 1891) but as for the rest who knows?

Perhaps, after all, it was Melville who only thought he knew!

All the best

Dave

[Jonathan H]

Did Druitt claim these five victims?

Considering the low regard that the Druitt-Farquharson-Macnaghten theory-candidacy has on this and the other site, by many, it is ironic that the generally accepted victims of Jack the Ripper are Druitt-centric.

In my opinion, the police in 1894 -- including Swanson and Anderson -- thought that McKenzie and certainly Coles were also by Jack.

Only one, Macnaghten, secretly believed or 'thought he knew' that there was only five victims by that murderer. That the real killer had stopped 'soon after' Kelly because he had taken his own life.

This knowledge or belief -- rightly or wrongly -- came from a private investigation he had made about the deceased Druitt in about 1891. In 1913 he would speak of it as 'secret information' which 'came to him' and therefore all documentation was his private property to 'destroy' as he saw fit (which, as usual, he dissembled about).

That it was just these five victims, and no others, I argue comes originally from testimony by Druitt himself -- or so Macnaghten was told and, rightly or wrongly, he accepted this as the truth.

In 1894 Macnaghten needed to lock in the five 'canonical' murders in case the Dorset story of the surgeon's son was dislodged by the Cutbush 'scoop'. It did not and this document was mothballed.

Then starting in 1898 Macnaghten orchestrated the [anonymous] dissemination of Ripper information, via Griffiths and Sims, to inform the public -- for the first time and with a semi-official status -- that the Ripper's victims were only five, and that Jack had stopped with Kelly, and not years later with Coles.

And, astonishingly, that the police were about to arrest the maniac?!

Just imagine what Anderson's ego could do with that fictitious notion? By the time of his 1910 memoirs, the police had arrested 'Jack' (if you believe that his having the confrontation take place after he was sectioned in the magazine version was an 'error' by Anderson which he corrected in the book version).

In other words if Macnaghten was mistaken, and the killer was really say Aaron Kosminski, then why could the latter not have killed McKenzie -- or other victims -- before being sectioned a few days before the Coles murder?

In my opinion, Anderson and Swanson by 1895 through to 1910 have absorbed as literal truth the propagandist-backdated notion of the 'autumn of terror'.

Backdated in the sense that police knew at the time it was over with Kelly, in my opinion severely limiting the reliability of both these sources.

If you only had those two sources you would never know that their chief suspect was not 'safely caged' until years after Miller's Ct.

Quite the opposite for the safely caging of this suspect 'soon after' that final murder -- Kelly not Coles -- was one of the reasons they believed it was the Polish Jew because the murders had ceased, or so they arguably misremembered it all.

[Phil Carter]

Sorry Phil, but I don't quite get what you're trying to say...it seems a bit of a circular argument, but I may be misunderstanding...

Kosminski was admitted to the workhouse second time round (from whence he was discharged to Colney Hatch) on 4th February 1891...It follows, therefore, that he couldn't be responsible for Frances Coles (13th February 1891) but as for the rest who knows?

Perhaps, after all, it was Melville who only thought he knew!

All the best

Dave

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

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Phil

In short, you're right - they can't (MM and DSS) both be correct...but did someone say they had to be?

All the best

Dave

[Stephen Thomas]

This snippet from MM has me thinking. It may well have been discussed before, more than likely I'd say, but for the sake of newbies and oldbies alike..

"5 victims and 5 victims only"

Can someone kindly explain to me how MM could know this in 1894 when the case was unsolved?

In other words, why did DSS, the man in the centre of all this, write a list of more than 5 if the total was only 5?...for if the Ripper business was over between Kelly and McKenzie, as is suggested by MM, then Kosminski simply cannot have been the Ripper. Just because MM pointed towards Druitt?

If the case was unsolved in 1894, which officially, it was, how would MM know what all others didn't?

Hi Phil

Yes, I asked the selfsame question here several years ago and got quite positive responses but the subject died a very quick death. I asked was there ever in all history an uncaught serial killer that had a finite number of victims. If JTR was never caught then how come MM in 1894 be so complacent?

And know who was or wasn't a victim?

Like you, Phil, I try to read between the lines.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil

In short, you're right - they can't (MM and DSS) both be correct...but did someone say they had to be?

All the best

Dave

Hello Dave,

Well...perhaps..because these two men and their statements are two of the founding stones of Ripperological history. Arguments for Kosminski, for example, have been promarily based on these two men's writings and the SRA comments.

If one of them is wrong... the game changes totally. Take MM out of the equation by questioning the reliability of his statements for example, then the case against Druitt has disolved. Thats why "5 victims and 5 victims only" is utterly important. MM knows that whoever killed who in 1895, when the case would still be ongoing.. it isnt Jack the Ripper. He knows that Coles isnt a victim, even though she is on DSS' list as a victim. But DSS claims that he knew the certain suspect responsible, mentioned by Anderson, was called Kosminski. Take DSS' reliability out of the equation by questioning his list of victims, then HIS certainty is then in trouble, hence the reliability of the Anderson comment is devalued considerably. Thats why they can't both be right...and "5 victims only" is a key comment.

How could MM KNOW there were 5 victims only whilst the case was stillongoing?


best wishes

Phil

[Wickerman]

Phil.

Excuse me if I misunderstand your point, but if you check the "Ultimate" p.481, you will see a report written by Swanson and dated, 10 Sept. 1889, where he identifies a series of Whitechapel murders which began in Bucks Row and ended in Millers Court. Swanson appears to exclude McKenzie.
It would seem that Swanson had already assumed there were five murders in the series by Sept. 1889.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil

Yes, I asked the selfsame question here several years ago and got quite positive responses but the subject died a very quick death. I asked was there ever in all history an uncaught serial killer that had a finite number of victims. If JTR was never caught then how come MM in 1894 be so complacent?

And know who was or wasn't a victim?

Like you, Phil, I try to read between the lines.

Hello Stephen,

Long time no chat! Hope you are well?

Thanks for the response..As you can see from my previous post, I am along the same line of thinking. Reading between the lines is indeed the name of the game. My apologies for being a little behind the times as I must have missed your postings on the matter.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Phil.

Excuse me if I misunderstand your point, but if you check the "Ultimate" p.481, you will see a report written by Swanson and dated, 10 Sept. 1889, where he identifies a series of Whitechapel murders which began in Bucks Row and ended in Millers Court. Swanson appears to exclude McKenzie.
It would seem that Swanson had already assumed there were five murders in the series by Sept. 1889.

Regards, Jon S.

Hello Jon,

I am referring to the copperplate one page list that I believe (I havent got a copy at hand, excuse me) that was reproduced in Scotland Yard Investigates, Evans and Rumbelow. I believe it is in the Swanson family collection.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jonathan,

That it was just these five victims, and no others, I argue comes originally from testimony by Druitt himself -- or so Macnaghten was told and, rightly or wrongly, he accepted this as the truth.

In 1894 Macnaghten needed to lock in the five 'canonical' murders in case the Dorset story of the surgeon's son was dislodged by the Cutbush 'scoop'. It did not and this document was mothballed.

Do you have any indication from anywhere that Druitt himself gave MM the information?

But I must admit I can see the viability of the second sentence.

best regards

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stephen,

I have given this some thought. You are quite correct. It isn't possible for an unsolved murder case to have a finite and stated number of victims.
Not without the murderer being known and the certainty of both the murderer's name and the number of his victim's is openly known by many, I'd wager. There is no room for variation between DSS and MM on the matter, nor between MM and anyone else. It MUST have been known throughout the force otherwise the case remains uncertain and open.

best wishes

Phil

[Stephen Thomas]

How could MM KNOW there were 5 victims only whilst the case was still ongoing?

Obviously because those in the know knew the case wasn't ongoing.

So if MM lied about this what else did he lie about?

[Phil Carter]

Obviously because those in the know knew the case wasn't ongoing.

So if MM lied about this what else did he lie about?

Hello Stephen,

But here we have a real problem.. if those in the know knew the case wasnt ongoing, then officially, Swanson wasn't in that loop, because he was part of the Sadler investigation, thinking provisionally I believe, that JTR had been caught, no?

So who WAS in the know?

At some point here, someone has to sift through this with a heavy rake instead of a table fork. Because between the prongs is where the answers lie.

best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Stephen

I think that Macnaghten lied about many things, because he felt forced to by unusual circumstances.

Until 1898, and Griffiths' big book, Coles was the final victim of the Ripper. Mac's belief -- rightly or wrongly -- changed this to Kelly.

To Phil C

I base my theory partly on this source found by Chris Scott:

Illustrated Police News
28 January 1899

IDENTITY OF "JACK THE RIPPER"
A SECRET OF THE CONFESSIONAL

To the long list of "solutions" of the great "Jack the Ripper" mystery, there is now added another - possibly the final one, possibly not.
It comes from a clergyman of the Church of England, a north country vicar, who claims to know with certainty the identity of the most
terrible figure in the the bloodstained annals of crime - the perpetrator of that horrible series of East end murders which ten years ago startled the whole civilised world.
The clergyman in question declines to divulge the name of the culprit, being unable to do so without violating the secrecy of the confessional. He states, however, that he obtained his information from a brother clergyman to whom the murderer made a full and complete confession.

It was this information-confession which was posthumously passed onto Macnaghten, in 1891, establishing for him and later for everybody (not Reid) the so-called conical five.