Only one suspect can be shown to have carried a knife.

[Richard Patterson]

Out of the hundreds of named suspects, only one can be shown to have even carried a knife in the area, during the time period. Can you guess who that was?

[Wickerman]

Hello Richard.

I am not too familiar with your theory, I did read your posts in the past, was it last year?
So, in reply to your question all I can say is that "being shown" to have carried a knife, and "claiming" to have carried a knife, are not the same thing.
In researching press articles I can verify that 'Gentlemen' were taken in for questioning where they were shown to carry more than one knife, and in a black bag.
To my way of thinking a man carrying a knife does not have the weight that you appear to attribute to it.

[Richard Patterson]

Hello Richard.

I am not too familiar with your theory, I did read your posts in the past, was it last year?
So, in reply to your question all I can say is that "being shown" to have carried a knife, and "claiming" to have carried a knife, are not the same thing.
In researching press articles I can verify that 'Gentlemen' were taken in for questioning where they were shown to carry more than one knife, and in a black bag.
To my way of thinking a man carrying a knife does not have the weight that you appear to attribute to it.

Hi. I agree. that claiming and being shown are two different things. To show, to me, needs some sort of evidence, claims can come from nothing. I agree that Gentlemen were taken in for questioning, but since no names are given it's hearsay and a mute point.

To my way of thinking carrying a knife is the most important if not the only perquisite. Beyond these forums of 'seasoned' experts and ripperology in general, people in the outside world think that a man who has a knife a big deal when looking for somebody who has killed with a knife. I think it has something to do with the fact that it is impossible to kill someone with a knife without one. If I remember correctly, this might be why airports screen passengers for them.

[Trevor Marriott]

Out of the hundreds of named suspects, only one can be shown to have even carried a knife in the area, during the time period. Can you guess who that was?

Your are wrong, suspect Carl Feigenbaum murdered a woman by cutting her throat using a long bladed knife. The police recovered the knife, and found a sheath which had been used by Feigenbaum to carry the knife about with him, along with a pummel stone he carried for keeping the knife sharp

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

Off the top of my head? Ostrog, Sadler, Tumblety, Cutbush, and, arguably, Klosowski and Kosminski. Probably others, though not necessarily "in the area" in all cases.

[Richard Patterson]

Your are wrong, suspect Carl Feigenbaum murdered a woman by cutting her throat using a long bladed knife. The police recovered the knife, and found a sheath which had been used by Feigenbaum to carry the knife about with him, along with a pummel stone he carried for keeping the knife sharp

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Feigenbaum had a knife, six years after the murders and 3,400 miles away in New York. This hardly shows that he was carrying a knife, in the area, during the time of the murders.

[Trevor Marriott]

Feigenbaum had a knife, six years after the murders and 3,400 miles away in New York. This hardly shows that he was carrying a knife, in the area, during the time of the murders.

But your statement was that no other suspects were known to carry knives in the area. If Feigenbaum was in London at the time of the murders, and committed one, some, or even all of the murders then he would have carried a knife, because a knife was used to murder the victims was it not?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Richard Patterson]

Off the top of my head? Ostrog, Sadler, Tumblety, Cutbush, and, arguably, Klosowski and Kosminski. Probably others, though not necessarily "in the area" in all cases.

Michael Ostrog was not shown to have a knife. The only basis is hearsay, written six years after the murders, by Macnaghten, a man not involved in the murder investigation.

Thomas James Sadler. Not shown to have a knife apart from an old blunt one that, when examined, was said to be unusable.

Francis Tumblety. Not shown to have had a knife. (Though you might, from the top of your head, be able to point me in the right direction.)

Thomas Cutbush was not shown to have a knife, apart from the one he purchased, more than two years after the murders.

Klosowski (aka George Chapman) not shown to have a had a knife, unless you count the one under his pillow found in New Jersey 3,400 miles away and 5 years after the murders.

Aaron Kosminski, of the famed Shawl DNA debacle. Not shown to have had a knife, as in carrying one. That he had a knife comes from a claim from either his sister or the sister of a witness. The provenance, like that of the shawl is, at best dubious hearsay.

[Richard Patterson]

But your statement was that no other suspects were known to carry knives in the area. If Feigenbaum was in London at the time of the murders, and committed one, some, or even all of the murders then he would have carried a knife, because a knife was used to murder the victims was it not?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Of course if he was in London and if he committed one or more murders, but that is not shown to have had a knife, that is speculation.

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course if he was in London and if he committed one or more murders, but that is not shown to have had a knife, that is speculation.

Its not because there is evidence that he was in London at the time of the murders, and was responsible for one some or perhaps all.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Out of the hundreds of named suspects, only one can be shown to have even carried a knife in the area, during the time period. Can you guess who that was?

I can think of two, John Richardson and William Grant.

[Richard Patterson]

Its not because there is evidence that he was in London at the time of the murders, and was responsible for one some or perhaps all.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor. I had great the pleasure in reading your fine book, ‘Jack the Ripper, the Secret Police Files.’ I was particularly interested in what you thought would make a Prime Suspect. In your book. you wrote.

‘The “suspect” lived in Whitechapel, the police believed the killer to live locally.’
Thompson lived in Spitalsfields, at the end of Dorset Street.

You wrote.
‘The “suspect” fits the description of the offender.’
Thompson fits the descriptions given by Schwartz, Hutchinson, and Sargent Stephen White.

You wrote,
‘The “suspect” was known to carry a knife,’
Thompson was known to carry a knife. How we know that is from Thompson himself who wrote that he did.

Your wrote,
‘The “suspect” associated with prostitutes.’
Thompson, just before the murders, had broken up with a prostitute that he had a yearlong relationship with.

You wrote,
‘The “suspect” having been spoken to’
The acclaimed historian, John Walsh, in his 1968 biography on Thompson, wrote that it is likely that the police may have questioned him on the Ripper murders. In addition, as my book details the ex-medical student with the history of mental illness that Major Henry Smith’s men questioned was probably Francis Thompson.

You wrote,
‘could not give a satisfactory account as to where he was or who he was with on the dates of the murders.’
Thompson account as to where he was on the Ripper murders was that he was in the East End, with the knife he said he carried, seeking out his prostitute who fled him. Not hardly satisfactory, but more specifically incriminatory.

Thank you for your assistance Trevor. I hope you can see how much I value the opinion of an ex-detective, assigned to murder cases, who was in the Special Branch.

[rjpalmer]

Thomas James Sadler. Not shown to have a knife apart from an old blunt one that, when examined, was said to be unusable.

I think I would rewrite that this way: Thomas Sadler, shown to have had a knife that, when examined, was blunt and thus said to be unusable.

I always rather imagined Terrible Tom scraped that knife as dull as War and Peace before he swiftly got rid of it.

Of course, like Ostrog, Terrible Tom was obviously not the murderer of 1888, but Mackenzie and Coles are officially listed as Whitechapel Murder victims and deserve some investigative consideration.

It's true that Kosminski, Klosowski, and Cutbush are expo facto reasoning, but it shows a behavioral pattern.

[Richard Patterson]

I can think of two, John Richardson and William Grant.

John Richardson? Can not be shown to have had a knife of any use. His blunt knife was only fit to cut carrots and it was quickly determined that it could not have been the murder weapon.

William Grant? Can not be shown to have had a knife, apart from 7 years after the murders. Grant cannot even be shown to have been in London during the murder period, and esd most probably 358 miles away in Ireland.

[tji]

I think any suspect who wasn't 'caught in the act' would be very careful NOT to be caught with a knife - a guilty conscience is a powerful motivator.

Tj