Your top 3 suspects?

[m_w_r]

Hi c.d.,

I suspect we're way off topic here, but I have been wondering the same things. There are also a number of other sudden absentees. So my top three suspects are:

1) Lynn Cates
2) Archaic
3) Sam Flynn

Regards,

Mark

[DVV]

CD, are you suggesting he's on the run in Canada ?

In fact, I've read one or two posts some days ago...if I'm not mistaken (which is possible...)

Amitiés,
David

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

In Days of My Years [1914] Macnaghten wrote, " . . . nor do I believe that he [the Whitechapel murderer] had ever been detained in an asylum . . ." and went on to state that "he [the Whitechapel murderer] committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888".

To contemporary readers with regular appetites for Victorian police memoirs this would have appeared to be nothing more than a repudiation of the insane Polish Jew theory in Anderson's The Lighter Side Of My Official Life [1910]. But what those same readers could not have known or ever imagined was that in 1894 Macnaghten had been the original source of the story he now no longer believed. Further, he also hadn't believed the Polish Jew story in 1894, for in a draft memorandum he was inclined to exonerate him [and Ostrog] in favour of a drowned 'doctor'. But in the final version of his memorandum [MEPO 3/141 fols. 177-83] Macnaghten dispensed with their exoneration and gave the three men ["any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders"] equal billing.

Thanks to Philip Sugden we now know that Ostrog had a cast-iron alibi for the murders, which on the face of things leaves us having to decide the culpability of either Kosminski or Druitt. But as there is no firm foundation in truth upon which to make that decision it is impossible to come down in favour of one policeman having got the facts right rather than the other.

Macnaghten being right equals Anderson being wrong [and vice-versa], leaving us in an ad infinitum circular argument. Both men could not have been right, but they most certainly could have been complicit in concealing the actual truth. Therefore in the absence of further evidence to support either prima facie case we are left with no real alternative but to dismiss both Druitt and Kosminski as Ripper suspects.

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Thats a little like saying, would Kosminski have been suspected if he wasnt barking mad...

Druitt is sort of package that leads us to suspect him.

Pirate

No Pirate,

Kosminski is a far more viable suspect, for reasons you very well know.

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

But what those same readers could not have known or ever imagined was that in 1894 Macnaghten had been the original source of the story he now no longer believed.

Very well put. I hadn't thought about it in those terms before.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Hi c.d.,

I suspect we're way off topic here, but I have been wondering the same things. There are also a number of other sudden absentees. So my top three suspects are:

1) Lynn Cates
2) Archaic
3) Sam Flynn

Regards,

Mark

Hi MWR

don't know for Lynn and Archaic, but Sam is currently coaching Martyn Williams and analyzing Dusautoir's videos.

Amitiés,
David

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi All,

In Days of My Years [1914] Macnaghten wrote, " . . . nor do I believe that he [the Whitechapel murderer] had ever been detained in an asylum . . ." and went on to state that "he [the Whitechapel murderer] committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888".

To contemporary readers with regular appetites for Victorian police memoirs this would have appeared to be nothing more than a repudiation of the insane Polish Jew theory in Anderson's The Lighter Side Of My Official Life [1910]. But what those same readers could not have known or ever imagined was that in 1894 Macnaghten had been the original source of the story he now no longer believed. Further, he also hadn't believed the Polish Jew story in 1894, for in a draft memorandum he was inclined to exonerate him [and Ostrog] in favour of a drowned 'doctor'. But in the final version of his memorandum [MEPO 3/141 fols. 177-83] Macnaghten dispensed with their exoneration and gave the three men ["any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders"] equal billing.

Thanks to Philip Sugden we now know that Ostrog had a cast-iron alibi for the murders, which on the face of things leaves us having to decide the culpability of either Kosminski or Druitt. But as there is no firm foundation in truth upon which to make that decision it is impossible to come down in favour of one policeman having got the facts right rather than the other.

Macnaghten being right equals Anderson being wrong [and vice-versa], leaving us in an ad infinitum circular argument. Both men could not have been right, but they most certainly could have been complicit in concealing the actual truth. Therefore in the absence of further evidence to support either prima facie case we are left with no real alternative but to dismiss both Druitt and Kosminski as Ripper suspects.

Regards, Simon

Or perhaps SWANSON stating "KOSMINSKI WAS THE NAME"?

[Tom_Wescott]

Don't want to flatter you, Tom, but I'm sure most of us here are eager to read your book.
Just stop posting and finish it!

LOL, you mean stop posting and START it! Thanks for that, DVV. I'm currently working my way through two essays, to be followed by a third on Le Grand, THEN I will start work in earnest on my book. The essays are helping me get into writing/researching mode. The first essay I have coming up will have some neat stuff in it, including evidence that Stride visited the Berner Street area shortly before the day she was murdered. Essays can be fun, but I'm positively dreading writing the book.

Which reminds me...what happened to Lynn Cates? I always valued his opinions although not always agreeing with them. He seems to have disappeared at the same time Michael (Perry Mason) left the boards.

Birds of a feather, and so forth.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hello Pirate,
Yes.......

If you believe that the style of writing on the end cover is NOT totally at odds with the rest of the marginalia....and
IF you believe that it wasn't a set up conveniently produced for the 100 year anniversary to keep the pot boiling.....
and
IF you believe it isn't a deliberate canard by someone with no sense of concience for the victims, the families, the residents, and the GOOD NAME of Kosminski himself...

then, yes... believe it was Swanson by all means.

I call that marginalia at the end of the book suspect and suspicious.


The Swanson marginalia has run it's course. More and more people are either starting to doubt it or DO doubt it... why???

Because the timing and the placement and the circumstances of how it was found and presented are way too convenient for it to be that "right". It is written in the wrong grammatical manner, and that in itself is enlightening.

I suspect these things. I am not the only one. I suspect a few people are laughing like crazy having this in the works. For some it is a joke. I call it bad taste.
Because Pirate, if it IS a false bit of info...it insults a whole generation of people who LIVED THROUGH that hell in the East End....and the name of the man himself. Any falsity does. Ask William Gull's family. Mud sticks.

That is something NO ONE can stand up to and be proud of throwing.
Unless it earns them money or keep the "game" going.

I dont have that agenda... I am not scrupulous. I am just doing this because of my family background and I SAW THE FEAR on my Grans face. I saw her shaking when she recalled it as she talked of the times...about how her MUM was too scared to walk out after 5 in the evening when it got dark in the winter. Not JUST 1888..but the next 40 years....

Some people need to be reminded. The world of the East End was NO JOKE to play with people about. It was horrible and painful.

So anyone "creating" evidence in all this, insults them. Tens of thousands of ordinary, normal people.

The least ANY person who makes up false "clues" can do is publically apologise for it. Then we can actually solve this riddle.

So IF this is the case with the Swanson end paper marginalia... I welcome a concience to come clean.

Nothing personal Pirate. You believe what you want. If you honestly think no one is behind the marginalia.. do so.
How would YOU then feel if it was THEN shown, by admission to be a false bit of "ripperisation"????

I know who reads these boards in anonimity... and I also know when info is transmitted back to others.

Time for a few conciences to wake up I say..including those who have the NICKED papers from the missing files from Kew.

As I said, nothing personal Jeff. I just have another agenda. Getting to the truth.

best wishes

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
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.
If not then I would go for Maxwells man[ unknown] seen talking to Mjk[ alleged] at 845am.
Druitt could not be overlooked. if Whites account was reliable also.
Regards Richard.

[Pontius2000]

Someone came forward to Anderson about suspecting a family member of theirs being the ripper. the family was a family with good social standing. 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.

It's very likely that the subject of this letter was Druitt and that's probably the origin of where McNaghton got his info.

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

either way, we know next to nothing about these subjects. but there IS a reason they came under suspicion.

I also respect Abberline's opinion. 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.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Phil

If you believe that the style of writing on the end cover is NOT totally at odds with the rest of the marginalia

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.

IF you believe that it wasn't a set up conveniently produced for the 100 year anniversary to keep the pot boiling.....

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.

IF you believe it isn't a deliberate canard by someone with no sense of concience for the victims, the families, the residents, and the GOOD NAME of Kosminski himself...

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.

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.

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?

Or perhaps you do. It takes all sorts. And please don’t try and say I have no compassion for Kosminski’s family, not that I’ve met them, but I do understand a little about the terrible illness that is Schizophrenia.

Unfortunately Suspect-Ripperology requires breaking eggs. It is unpleasant but necessary. At least I do not pretend not to involve myself like some more hypocritical posters.

Pirate

PS the letter you refer to Pontius is the Crawford letter and is an introduction by Crawford to Anderson by an unknown person. But more probably relates to Aarons sister Matilda than it does Druitt.

[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

[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

[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