Your top 3 suspects?

[DVV]

Hi,
My top 3 suspects
1. Tumblety
2. Druitt
3. Kosminsky

Hi Brad,

must say I did not expect Druitt to be so popular in 2010...

Amitiés,
David

[kensei]

My thoughts on the Macnaghten Three:

Druitt- His family stated they believed he may be the Ripper, but no reason as to why they thought this has ever been stated. He was dismissed from his position for suspected (unconfirmed) offenses that have nothing in common with the kind of offense in the Ripper crimes. His suicide note states that he was afraid of ending up like his mother who had mental illness, but her illness was not involved with any violence. And he is known to have been playing in a cricket match in awfully close proximity to the Annie Chapman murder- cleaning up, coming down emotionally, and showing up on time to play would have been very unlikely. I think suicide was the only law Druitt ever broke.

Ostrog- He was a career con man and and a sneak thief, in and out of jail, caught more than once with weapons but never used them, no violent record whatsoever. This guy was a scumbag who refused to earn an honest living, and expended great energy in trying to lie, cheat, and steal his way to success, but a killer he was not. Yes, he would have been one of the more notorious criminals of the day, and he was once caught with some stolen surgical tools including knives (which I believe to be the source of the famous knife that came into the possession of Donald Rumbelow), but Ostrog's motivation was clearly greed, not lust or violence.

Kosminski- He is the best of the Macnaghten suspects, but let's face it, someone so mentally defective that he was known to wander the streets eating garbage he picked out of the gutters is not someone who could have charmed the women enough to get them to come away with him and not be afraid of him. And I really wish we had any kind of physical description of him, to see how it might match the witness descriptions of the Ripper. I remember a thread once debating how, as a Jew, he did or didn't have a beard. No one seemed to know. Early in my education as a Ripperologist I thought he was the man, but I have long since changed my mind.

Sorry, but I think the Macnaghten memoranda is wrong on all points.

[DVV]

Hi David.
I agree 5'7 would be the obvious height, and his weight would describe a man of that period as stout, especially at the weight of 11stone 10lb, which for a five foot seven man of any period is stocky.
In 1965 I was that weight [ what happened?] and I am 5'10, and i was by no means classed as slim.
Mr Broad shoulders may well have been him[ speculating] especially as that blitz style of attack may be the result of his increasing insanity.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

agreed again.

Amitiés,
David

[celee]

Hi,

My top 3 suspects

1. Tumblety

2. Druitt

3. Kosminsky

Take Care

[richardnunweek]

Hi David.
I agree 5'7 would be the obvious height, and his weight would describe a man of that period as stout, especially at the weight of 11stone 10lb, which for a five foot seven man of any period is stocky.
In 1965 I was that weight [ what happened?] and I am 5'10, and i was by no means classed as slim.
Mr Broad shoulders may well have been him[ speculating] especially as that blitz style of attack may be the result of his increasing insanity.
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

,
If I had to plump for a main suspect for being JTR, it would have to be Joseph Fleming, but I would like his height confimed.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

as you know, I agree (100 percent).
Don't worry about Joe's height, it was most probably 5'7, just as "160 years" was a mistake (Henrietta most probably said "150 years").
At 6'7, poor Joe would have been more famous than Elephant Man.
He would have been Giraffe Man, in fact.

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

Whether or not the marginalia is genuine, the Polish Jew suspect still seems to have been called 'Kosminski', per the Macnaghten memorandum. Personally, I don't see a reason to dismiss the marginalia, but even if we did, it would have absolutely no effect on Kosminski's status as a contemporary Ripper suspect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Pirate,

So now Stephen Ryder is living in a fantasy world? If you mean that living with Ally is YOUR fantasy, then you're spot on. But otherwise...You just don't know when to stop, do you.

Yours truly, Tom Wescott

I'm stating that I prefer the conclusions reached by other ripper authorities.

Pirate

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Phil

With respect Jeff, you yourself introduced Swanson into this thread as the reason for Anderson's comment about Kosminski being the Ripper to be correct... ergo, it IS what you believe or not believe to be true. It may well be based on your NEXT comment later "examined by experts", but it certainly is a question of your belief, otherwise you have no basis for that comment about Swanson in the first place.
Swanson's handwriting you say? Is that therefore a definately ascertained

I introduced Swanson because Andersons claims are clearly support by the marginalia. Which is GENUINE.

And there are other people, including eniment researchers and historians, who have gone over and over the point too. They disagree with Paul Begg. This lay person does too.
I am NOT creating a bizarre fantasy world Jeff, and I don't live in one either. I live in a world of REALITY. Where unscrupulous people exist. The world of Jack the Ripper has been shown to be, for MANY MANY years, an attraction to such people. There are people who have either decieved willingly, faked evidence, make false comments about people or downright LIED to us all. That isn't fantasy Jeff. It is reality. What is bizarre Jeff, is that it is allowed to carry on.

Yes . But Begg is correct, the others are not.

I didn't state the marginalia had been tampered with. I SUSPECTED that the end part of the marginalia is not what it purports to be. That isn't tampering with anything at all. It exists. Tampering is CHANGING existing things. Adding on is NOT tampering.
As for Swanson putting down one pencil and picking up another... really... honestly.. some of the reasons given to explain away something questioned leaves me speechless. That is PRESUMPTUOUS.

This is samantics, It is either genuine or it is not. There is no evidence that any part of the marginalia is not “written by Swanson”

Correct, the Davis report has NOT been published in full, yet a conclusion states the above. I wrote about the GRAMMATICAL differences, as has been well covered by others, including Stewart Evans, who, I believe, listed a good few reasons why the WAY in which the the piece was written is grammatically odd. THAT is what I was referring to.

SPE believes that the marginalia was PROBABLY written by Swanson. He merely raised the question that it appeared to him that there were differences that had not been noted before. In this he was correct. I have no problem with SPE’s position.

As Davis has not yet released his FULL report, NOBODY can say with any certainty that the marginalia is genuine.

Stalemate. best wishes Phil

You are making the prosumption that no one else has seen the report in full. We do not know that as FACT.

“And I couldn’t possibly comment”

Pirate

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jeff,

Thank you for your reply.

It’s not a question of what I believe or don’t believe. The marginalia has been examined by experts. Its what they concluded that is important. Ie it was Swanson’s handwriting.

With respect Jeff, you yourself introduced Swanson into this thread as the reason for Anderson's comment about Kosminski being the Ripper to be correct... ergo, it IS what you believe or not believe to be true. It may well be based on your NEXT comment later "examined by experts", but it certainly is a question of your belief, otherwise you have no basis for that comment about Swanson in the first place.
Swanson's handwriting you say? Is that therefore a definately ascertained fact?

This has been gone over and over by Paul Begg. The marginalia has an excellent provenance. If you wish to create a bizarre fantasy world about it, that is your choice. However the Marginalia PROVINANCE is excellent.

And there are other people, including eniment researchers and historians, who have gone over and over the point too. They disagree with Paul Begg. This lay person does too.
I am NOT creating a bizarre fantasy world Jeff, and I don't live in one either. I live in a world of REALITY. Where unscrupulous people exist. The world of Jack the Ripper has been shown to be, for MANY MANY years, an attraction to such people. There are people who have either decieved willingly, faked evidence, make false comments about people or downright LIED to us all. That isn't fantasy Jeff. It is reality. What is bizarre Jeff, is that it is allowed to carry on.

There is no evidence what so ever that the marginalia has been tampered with. Indeed it has recently been pointed out that the different colour (purplish) pencil is used both on the endnotes and in the margin notes. This is easily explained by Swanson putting down one pencil and picking up another.

I didn't state the marginalia had been tampered with. I SUSPECTED that the end part of the marginalia is not what it purports to be. That isn't tampering with anything at all. It exists. Tampering is CHANGING existing things. Adding on is NOT tampering.
As for Swanson putting down one pencil and picking up another... really... honestly.. some of the reasons given to explain away something questioned leaves me speechless. That is PRESUMPTUOUS.

Davis has claim that there are slight variations in hand writing that might be explained by Swanson getting older and writing at a later date. As his report has not been published in full it is impossible to know how he reached this conclusion. Rest assured it is something I hope to take up with him, should I get the opportunity.

Correct, the Davis report has NOT been published in full, yet a conclusion states the above. I wrote about the GRAMMATICAL differences, as has been well covered by others, including Stewart Evans, who, I believe, listed a good few reasons why the WAY in which the the piece was written is grammatically odd. THAT is what I was referring to.

But in the mean time No one has established any evidence that the Marginalia is not completely and totally GENUINE. When referring directly to Dr Davis report it seems to be wise to use the prefix PROBABLY genuine. Because that is what he states. However on balance and factoring in the opinions of Totty and Fido I do not hesitate in stating that the Marginalia is GENUINE. Why would anyone consider stating it’s probably genuine? One does not say ‘the Mona Lisa' PROBABLY painted by Leonardo Devinci?

As Davis has not yet released his FULL report, NOBODY can say with any certainty that the marginalia is genuine.

Stalemate.


best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Pirate,

So now Stephen Ryder is living in a fantasy world? If you mean that living with Ally is YOUR fantasy, then you're spot on. But otherwise...You just don't know when to stop, do you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks to some very astute research Stephen Ryder made a compelling if ultimately inconclusive case for connecting the Crawford letter to Druitt.

Wishful thinking aside, how have you divined that it more probably relates to Kosminski?

Regards,

Simon

http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=74

I just pay attention to what people are saying, instead of living in a fantasy world.

Pirate

[Chris]

Thanks to some some very astute research Stephen Ryder made a compelling if ultimately inconclusive case for connecting the Crawford letter to Druitt.

Unfortunately he later discovered the Emily Druitt who was associated with Bernard Quaritch was not a close relation of Montague Druitt, but a member of a different Druitt family, which rather undermines that case.

As for the argument that "the presentation letter held enough importance to Anderson that it was the ONLY ripper related letter out of hundreds of Anderson letters that were donated to Duke", in view of the following statement by his son, the letter's survival probably didn't owe anything to any special significance it held for Anderson:

"My father seems hardly ever to have destroyed a letter ; and after his death, when a five-storey house was being exchanged for a moderate-sized fiat, the family were confronted with a problem indeed. I got back to London from South Africa early in 1919 to find the available members wrestling with it ; the quotations given in this memoir are taken from only a few of the letters which were preserved."
http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.apmoore.4.html

[Ben]

But I also think it's pretty understandable that he may not have been privy to all the info that Anderson or Swanson knew. especially if it was info that was meant to be confidential ie Druitt.

I disagree, Pontius.

There was absolutely no reason to withhold information from Abberline, who was one of the senior investigating officers "on the ground" at the time of the murders. Abberline himself stated in an interview that he knew "all about" the Druitt theory and went on: "I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it".

I'm not so sure that Anderson himself thought that Kosminski was the ripper.

Well, he regarded the guilt of a Polish Jew to be a "definately ascetained fact", so he clearly didn't believe Druitt was responsible.

Best regards,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks to some very astute research Stephen Ryder made a compelling if ultimately inconclusive case for connecting the Crawford letter to Druitt.

Wishful thinking aside, how have you divined that it more probably relates to Kosminski?

Regards,

Simon