Naming Pierre's Suspect

[Craig H]

Seven months ago, Pierre claimed he had evidence identifying the Ripper.

While he would not name his suspect, Steve and I used the clues he provided to evaluate the potential suspects.

The only person that matched his clues is Sir Melville Macnaghten.

We need to emphasise neither Steve or I believe Macnaghten was the Ripper.

The purpose of this thread is to show how Macnaghten matches Pierre’s clues and seek feedback on whether others see it is a fit.

Firstly, Pierre said the person was a Police Official, as was Macnaghten.

His person had lived in several high status homes. Macnaghten came from a wealthy family and lived in large houses with servants at various points in his life.

Pierre’s suspect met Bowyer at Whitechapel. This means the person could not have been a Police official from outside London. It is unlikely a wealthy police official stayed at Bowyer’s residences. While they may have met informally, we would not know that 120 years later unless Pierre has personal written correspondence between them. The only way they could have met is through the Police interviewing Bowyer due to the murders.

Pierre said his suspect was not with Scotland Yard. Technically speaking, this applies to Macnaghten who joined Scotland Yard after the murders.

Pierre’s suspect was born before 1858, was well educated and lived outside Whitechapel – Macnaghten was born in 1853, studied at Eton and lived at Chelsea in 1888.

Pierre’s suspect had a strong reason to embarrass the Police establishment. Macnaghten was snubbed, overlooked and humiliated, if not publically at least in his social circle, by Warren who overturned the job offer from Monro. Warren and Monro (Macnaghten's friend) were in constant conflict.

Pierre said the murder dates are connected to JTR’s personal motive : the first murder (Nichols) occurred near Monro’s resignation; Kelly’s killing near Warren’s resignation. Macnaghten’s father died in December.

Pierre’s suspect had medical knowledge, but was not a doctor: Macnaghten was an active animal hunter in India, which involved cutting and skinning killed animals.

Pierre said the name “Jack” had a meaning to JTR: Macnaghten’s memoirs described hunting jackals in India – the pastime he called “catch a jack”.

Pierre highlighted that Monro knew the murderer and said he should have been caught : It would certainly have been a “hot potato” (as quoted by Monro’s son) if the Ripper was revealed as a leading Police Official who had received a royal medal (The King’s Police Medal).

Pierre said naming his suspect would embarrass British Institutions : Macnaghten was a senior Police Leader and had received awards from Royalty.

So just confirming, I don’t think Macnaghten was the Ripper. The question is does Macnaghten fit the “profile” of the clues provided by Pierre ?

If so, we believe this should finally put to rest the mystery of Pierre’s suspect.

[GUT]

Yep. Sure fits, but he denies it.

Personally not sure he has a suspect

[GUT]

You can make a case against Mac that is better than the case made against many.

Just doesn't work for me.

[Elamarna]

Good morning all

I was not online last night, so just catching up.

I feel the point Craig is trying to make is that we, the forum that is, have been given a list of clues/hints over the last 7-8 months.

Craig did a great deal of research, looking into the lives of many police officers both in the Met, the City police and even from some Forces outside of London.

I then helped him in applying a "scoring system", a simple 1 point for a match against the "hints".

We tried various systems, 5 matching points, 10, and finally finished at 17.

People such as Bruce scored around 55% hits Abberline around 45%; obviously these are not impressive matches.

However on ever system one man was scoring over 80% positive hits, with around another 10% being unknowns.

On the 17 point system, which Craig used for this post, although he has not mentioned all the points, Macnaughten scores a very impressive 88% fit.

The two areas where he did not match are:

1. Pierre said he had not seen a picture of this man, this gave many the impression that no photo existed, which does not fit Macnaughten. However it should be noted that Pierre actually said he believed a photo did exist, he had just not seen it.

2. The "suspect" had not been named before, at least not in a major way.
Author Sophie Herfort raised the subject of Macnaughten in her works published over the last 10 years. Indeed the English translation of the play was reissued last year.

Gut is right to say that the Name of Macnaughten has been presented to Pierre and he has denied it more than once.

However given he has said that it is wrong to name a suspect unless you can prove such, this is the response that we should expect is it not?
To admit it would reveal what he is trying to protect.


Craig and I had discussed the possibility of such a thread as this a few weeks ago, and after some contemplation Craig has obviously decided that he feels strong enough about the situation to post.

So the question Craig asked was does this person fit the "profile" , the simple answer is yes he does.

That however does not prove this is the person that Pierre has in mind, only he has the correct answer to that, and maybe we will never know who that person is?


Steve

[Harry D]

I have a question: Why do you even care?

[Elamarna]

I have a question: Why do you even care?

Hi Harry,

Originally out of curiosity I guess, at least that was the motive when both Craig and I started looking at this a very long time ago.

I came to the conclusion some time ago that the name would never be revealed.

Why post the thread?

Craig would be the one to answer that?

Why post a reply?

To provide support to Craig, only fair given I helped him with some of his research.

If no one else replies, so be it.

Steve

[Geddy2112]

Excellent deductions. Good read chaps.

I wonder what is 'solved' first, who the Ripper was or who Pierre thinks was the Ripper. One has over a 120 years head start but it could be close...

[Mayerling]

I may add that, while with Steve and Craig I can't swallow the idea that Sir Melville was "Jack", I managed at one point to join their point of view vis-ŕ-vis Pierre's suspect because of another thread concerning Catherine Eddowes. If you recall Mitre Square had that warehouse near-by that the constable stopped at. It was a tea warehouse, and it jarred a memory that I checked out on Wikipedia that Macnaughten's family owned a large tea plantation in India. I discussed this with Steve and he pointed out that warehouse had a site near another of the murders. As a result I put up a thread alluding in part to the tea warehouse and it's possible significance.

Jeff

[Elamarna]

Jeff,

yes the warehouse issue was interesting.
However it should be made clear that I spent an afternoon looking over records and maps, with Joshua here online and it seemed clear the warehouse in Bucks Row was not there in 1888; or at least not in the same spot, and not obvious on the maps of 1888.

So that possible connection feel by the way.

Steve

[Craig H]

I have a question: Why do you even care?

Hi Harry,

I care because this Forum allows for people to debate ideas, be clear and honest with each other, and respect others opinions.

For the last 7 months, Pierre has been highly critical of others opinions and has hid behind this wall of "I know who the killer is but will not tell you".

If Pierre will not say who his suspect is, I think we need to identify who it is.

By showing his suspect is Macnaghten, it brings closure to something which has dragged on for 7 months, and been a distraction to the great ideas being debated on this site.

Hope that makes sense

All the best
Craig

[Mayerling]

Hi Harry,

I care because this Forum allows for people to debate ideas, be clear and honest with each other, and respect others opinions.

For the last 7 months, Pierre has been highly critical of others opinions and has hid behind this wall of "I know who the killer is but will not tell you".

If Pierre will not say who his suspect is, I think we need to identify who it is.

By showing his suspect is Macnaghten, it brings closure to something which has dragged on for 7 months, and been a distraction to the great ideas being debated on this site.

Hope that makes sense

All the best
Craig

Hi Craig,

Your point makes excellent sense to me. Unfortunately I seriously question if it will have any effect at all on Pierre and his attitude problem with this board and most of the people on it. It strikes me he won't, and that it will be like the proverbial drips of water falling off the back of a duck. Don't mean to be gloomy about your effort (of which I approve), but he strikes me as just not being prepared to ever do what we wish he would seriously do.

Thanks again for your fine effort.

Jeff

[GUT]

Been thinking a bit more, nope no way it was Mac

[GUT]

Only one reason I care who Pierre's suspect is, because that will clear him immediately.

[MysterySinger]

Pierre's suspect for the murders is.....Jack The Ripper. That would be my guess too.

[Pierre]

Good morning all

I was not online last night, so just catching up.

I feel the point Craig is trying to make is that we, the forum that is, have been given a list of clues/hints over the last 7-8 months.

Craig did a great deal of research, looking into the lives of many police officers both in the Met, the City police and even from some Forces outside of London.

I then helped him in applying a "scoring system", a simple 1 point for a match against the "hints".

We tried various systems, 5 matching points, 10, and finally finished at 17.

People such as Bruce scored around 55% hits Abberline around 45%; obviously these are not impressive matches.

However on ever system one man was scoring over 80% positive hits, with around another 10% being unknowns.

On the 17 point system, which Craig used for this post, although he has not mentioned all the points, Macnaughten scores a very impressive 88% fit.

The two areas where he did not match are:

1. Pierre said he had not seen a picture of this man, this gave many the impression that no photo existed, which does not fit Macnaughten. However it should be noted that Pierre actually said he believed a photo did exist, he had just not seen it.

2. The "suspect" had not been named before, at least not in a major way.
Author Sophie Herfort raised the subject of Macnaughten in her works published over the last 10 years. Indeed the English translation of the play was reissued last year.

Gut is right to say that the Name of Macnaughten has been presented to Pierre and he has denied it more than once.

However given he has said that it is wrong to name a suspect unless you can prove such, this is the response that we should expect is it not?
To admit it would reveal what he is trying to protect.


Craig and I had discussed the possibility of such a thread as this a few weeks ago, and after some contemplation Craig has obviously decided that he feels strong enough about the situation to post.

So the question Craig asked was does this person fit the "profile" , the simple answer is yes he does.

That however does not prove this is the person that Pierre has in mind, only he has the correct answer to that, and maybe we will never know who that person is?

Steve

Hi Steve,

A few questions out of pure curiosity, and I prefere to ask you, since I know you often manage to come up with meaningful answers.

1) If Macnaghten was Jack the Ripper, what would have been his motive for killing and mutilating destitute women in Whitechapel?

I see that you have been thinking along the lines of Macnaghten having some problems with getting a job in the police force.

But what would that have to do with the victimology?

And would any motive connected to such a problem really be enough for such terrible murders?

Another question is how you look upon Macnaghtens job problem from the point of view of the periodization of the murders. He was denied a position in 1887.

2) What would the trigger have been that made him start to murder women as late as in August 1888?

Regards, Pierre