Your top 3 suspects?

[Jeff Leahy]

Pirate Jack, I've asked this of people before and can't seem to get a satisfactory answer- Why do you consider Druitt to be a reasonable suspect? The only reason I can see as to why the police considered him is because his family suspected he might have been the killer, and I've seen nothing written as to why they thought so. His suicide note said he was afraid of ending up with his mother's mental problems, but she was hardly a homicidal maniac.

`I'll leave speculation to everyone else. My interest is in the suspects put forward by those who had full knowledge of the facts and investigated the crimes, besides that is my remit :

MM

"In the Scotland Yard version he does not say which of the suspects he prefers but in the Aberconway version he writes "...but I have always held strong opinions regarding no1 and the more I think the matter over the stronger do these opinions become. No 1 Mr M J Druitt". Macnaghten confirmed his suspicions of Druitt in his memoirs "Days of My Years" in which he wrote "Although...the Whitechapel murderer, in all probability put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November 1888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in the possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer..." Macnaghten was also very certain about the number of victims "No the Whitechapel murderer had 5 victims- &5 victims only..." Although he did not join the Met until June 1889 Macnaghten worked with Monro, Anderson and Swanson and so was potentially very well informed about the case."

Just happened to be working on this when you mentioned it.

Pirate

[DVV]

Hi Pirate,

strange post...
Anderson and co did not incriminate Druitt...and considered Tabram a Ripper victim.

Amitiés,
David

[Pontius2000]

Pirate Jack, I've asked this of people before and can't seem to get a satisfactory answer- Why do you consider Druitt to be a reasonable suspect? The only reason I can see as to why the police considered him is because his family suspected he might have been the killer, and I've seen nothing written as to why they thought so. His suicide note said he was afraid of ending up with his mother's mental problems, but she was hardly a homicidal maniac.

without a doubt, the police knew more on Druitt (and Kosminski) than we know. The police were there, I wasn't, and there was obviously enough on him to draw some suspicion. He was of a good family and a higher class in society, so they obviously had SOME sort of reasonable suspicion to name him as a suspect. no one else of a higher class was ever named by the police that I know of.

[JTRSickert]

1. Unknown Local Man
2. Severin Kloslowski/George Chapman
3. Either Kosminski or David Cohen

Also, I have a soft spot for Wally (hence my namesake), not that I think he was JTR; but just because he seems like a very eccentric fellow, sorta like a 19th century Howard Hughes, though not nearly as weird as HH.

[DVV]

without a doubt, the police knew more on Druitt than we know.

Hi Pontius,

certainly not. So many inaccuracies in Macnaghten memo.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

without a doubt, the police knew more on Druitt (and Kosminski) than we know.

And yet Inspector Abberline, who claimed to know "all about" the theory stated that there was "absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him". That doesn't permit the inference that Abberline knew nothing else about Druitt besides the timing and nature of his death. What he's actually saying is that the only detail that could be construed as having "incriminating" value within his body of knowledge on the Druitt theory is "the fact that he was found at that time". For whatever reason, he didn't find any of the other attendant details incriminating.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Ben,

it's pleasant to observe so much deference toward the (conflicting) police views.
And yet, nobody votes Ostrog.

Amitiés,
David

[Pontius2000]

Hi Pontius,

certainly not. So many inaccuracies in Macnaghten memo.

Amitiés,
David

it was said that his family or friends suspected him, do you think that was completely made up? because if it was not, then family members were undoubtedly interviewed. which means that the police DID know more about Druitt than we know and will ever know.

all their other suspects were members of the lower class. and most reasonable people (not the quacks who think the prince was the killer, or Sickert, or Santa Claus) would also suspect someone of the lower class living in the vicinity of the killings. but here we have a barrister from a good family that's come out of left field. you think the police just pulled his name out of thin air? no, there was some kind of evidence, even if it was circumstantial. He was not the only suicide in the months following the Kelly murder, so I don't think they said, "here's a guy from a successful family whose committed suicide, he's the ripper".

no, there was some reason that Druitt came to the attention of the police. even if he was NOT the Ripper, there still was enough for him to be a reasonable suspect. just because we don't know what the evidence was doesn't mean that the police didn't.

[Jeff Leahy]

Frederick George Abberline
When interviewed in 1903 by the Pall Mall Gazette Abberline put forward the theory that George Chapman (S A Kolowski) was the Ripper. He said that "...I cannot help feeling that this was the man we struggled so hard to capture fifteen years ago." In another interview in the same year he responded to suggestions that the Ripper was dead "It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead." Abberline also appears to dismiss Kosminski and Druitt although they are of course not named. "I know...that it has been stated in several quarters that 'Jack the Ripper' was a man who died in a lunatic asylum a few years ago, but there is nothing at all of a tangible nature to support such a theory." and "Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at the time to incriminate him." The fact that he also he also said "...Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago" implies that there was no conclusive evidence against anybody and that it was merely Abberline's own personal opinion that Chapman was the Ripper.

True Ben, but Abberline also said all of the above.

I'm not saying Druitt was Jack the Ripper, I'm trying to explain why I feel he is one of the main suspects when considering the case and why I feel the five names I listed are the ones that sit head and shoulders above the rest.

Pirate

[Ben]

why I feel the five names I listed are the ones that sit head and shoulders above the rest.

I appreciate that, Pirate, but I just cannot agree with your reasoning that police interest alone is sufficient to place your five listed suspects "head and shoulders above the rest". You highlight Abberline's apparent dismissal of Druitt and Kosminski, but isn't that dismissal just as crucial as the comments from other police officials in favour of those suspects? Even if the killer was one of the five you listed, which I sincerely doubt, it naturally follows that the other four are completely innocent of the crimes, which, in turn, invites the inevitable conclusion that the theories levelled at those four just might have been less than "reasonable".

You even have Cutbush on the list, who is far better known for what a senior police official argued against his candidacy and for any pro-Cutbush sentiments expressed by police.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

it was said that his family or friends suspected him, do you think that was completely made up? because if it was not, then family members were undoubtedly interviewed. which means that the police DID know more about Druitt than we know and will ever know.

There are many similar stories and so-called family traditions, Pontius.

Amitiés,
David

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I apologise for this on beforehand.. but reactions here shown me that I have to write this...

THE WHOLE ISSUE of who is a reasonable suspect from that list of five, above, falls down on these things..

DRUITT... "From private info" "His family suspected him..."

1. There are very, very many people who have been suspected because their family thought.... (read the newspapers)(read the domestic court cases and the quotes there)
So that argument is poor. It doesnt make Druitt stand out at all.

2. The "Private info" statement is another "I know but can't tell/I'm not saying"..and does not hold water, either morally nor legally. It has no weight of proof to back it up. So DRUITT is a non starter..based on reasonable fact...and the reasonable fact is in MacNaughten's own words..

"...were not in the possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer..."

In other words, it isnt difficult to see that this "suspect" could be neatly placed as a named JTR, LONG AFTER the fact because it is a nice way of summing up something that was in Monro's words, a "hot potato".
Not difficult to find that name and place the story, UNVERIFIABLE, I might add, to him being JTR. It is all so damned convenient. NO PROOF whatsoever.

Dan Farson wrote a book about it(1972/73)... and, try as he might, got nowhere either.

Kensei...you missed out Ostrog. Am glad you did. He wasn't even there at the time. Which places MacNaughtens words on Druitt and a Polish Jew in even WORSE light.

A POLISH JEW. Err... proof please Mr. MacNaughten? None.

Anderson said... a "def ascertined fact" and provided NO PROOF..again.
Swanson APPARENTLY, write KOSMINSKI's name in a book that was only discovered in 1987. How convenient. The 100 year anniversary coming up, and voila! This all compassing side comment written in the back of a book turns up. SUPPOSEDLY to "prove" Anderson right.
I am sorry, but just about everything "NEW" that came about in 1987 is HIGHLY suspicious to me. The photo's, the Bond papers, and this "find" of the marginalia. All sent through or on to one source, then published in the newspapers, then sent on to the archives. One lot from a former policeman that had passed on, so he cant verify it, and the other with question marks against the style of writing, the difference of pencil and the sudden "find"...timing wise. Call me sceptic.. but I don't buy something that suspiciously smells of a set up...

It has caused so many arguments, it is starting to marry itself, reputation wise, with the Diary. And that should tell you exactly why I have great suspicion.

You see, there is a hell of a lot of underhanded stuiff going on in the "proof" to nail JTR in this case. The first to be past the post...Ego's galore. There have been people hell bent on making MONEY out of this. Not giving a damn for the feelings of the people who lived in utter FEAR of this apparent lunatic murderer in thier midst and had that fear ALL THEIR LIVES. No. I suspect, although not YET being able to prove, something very very wrong about the stuff from 1987. I think some people should have a damned long hard look at their conciences.

At least Fairclough had the stomach to retract his bluff.....

Moving on...

Tumblety? Near, but not near enough. Kensei, you wrote "at the time"..this came from a letter from 1913, that he was thought of as a possibility. Now...The British newspapers hardly printed his name, and only the US papers have labelled him as a direct suspect. We have NO documentary proof of his being a definitive suspect as yet, because the missing suspects file was nicked by someone thinking that it would be great to have it/ a.n.other reason...and the man who actually MENTIONED this name, Littlechild, was CID...and oh so conveniently all the CID papers are locked away in perpituity.
Tumblety was the nearest thing we have to a contemporary suspect. But there is nothing actually evidential enough to link him to the murder sites, on the murder dates, nor the murders themselves. What the Tumblety revelation DID do was change the way we ALL look at Ripperology, and set much higher standards. It helped to restrict more false suspects being named in more money making ventures. Because of Evans' and Gainey's dilligent work, we all look at the JTR case far more minutely.

Chapman was an afterthought of Abberline's. His comment Godley.. "you've got Jack at last" is pure assumation and speculative. Chapman was never suspected, as far as we know, at the time. Again, no proof.

Cutbush was discussed by the police. But as yet, there is no proof against this man either. Links have been made, but as yet, without PROOF.
So instead of thinking..WHO was Jack the Ripper... I think.. WHAT was Jack the Ripper. He(it) has been described as a "mystery" and a "myth".

In my mind, the mystery OF the myth... is the answer.

best wishes

Phil

[Ben]

it was said that his family or friends suspected him, do you think that was completely made up? because if it was not, then family members were undoubtedly interviewed

That doesn't follow at all.

Macnaghten was almost certainly informed (rightly or wrongly - we don't know) by a third party that Druitt was suspected of being the ripper. There's no evidence that this was ever confirmed by the family themselevs, and there's certainly no evidence that a family member made these suspicions known in a police interview, let alone told them more about Druitt than we know and will ever know. I'm in agreement with Philip Sugden when he observes: "Since 1959 he has inspired a great deal of research and today we probably know much more about him than the police did at the time".

That said, I'm rather uncomfortable with the "police" generalization. Macnaghten thought the evidence sufficient to elevate Druitt to a "reasonable" suspect, but then it's clear that Macnaghten's preference for Druitt was at least partially allied to his views concerning the cessation of the murders after 9th November. Abberline disagreed. Whatever the nature of the "private information", he did not consider it "incriminating", and the argument that Abberline would not have been privy to the same information is one that I consider extremely unconvincing.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

There are very, very many people who have been suspected because their family thought.... Phil

Hi Phil,

that's just what I was saying, and it's an "ascertained fact".
Some people want their grandad to be Jack.
Don't know why.

Amitiés,
David

[Jeff Leahy]

My inclusion of Cutbush is because he was a suspect considered at the time. And as I have commented before Suspect-Ripperology by its very nature is a process of considering the guilt of people who are almost certainly innocent.

I would agree that Cutbush is probably the weaker of the five. But I feel safer with him on the list than incurring the wroth of AP Wolf or Richard Jones.

But joking apart, I think these suspects would have been the main candidates considered by: Abberline , Anderson, Littlechilde, MacNaughten, Monro, Reid, Smith, Swanson, Arnold, Dew, Keaton, Leeson , sagar and Wensley

But I’d agree there was little agreement apart from the two guys in charge.

My interest are the witnesses and the police investigation, so these five are the ones as far as I see it.

Pirate

P.S. The Swanson Marginalia has been exmined by two home office experts. Neither of whom concluded that it was writen by anyone other than Donald Swanson. It is genuine. Enough said.