What criteria should a suspect meet?

[The Good Michael]

As for Druitt, the reason I'm inclined to dismiss him is that our one official supporter of his, Macnaghten, clearly received utterly wrong information about Druitt, and as Macnaghten saw a medical hand in the murders, the primary reason he suspect Druitt in the first place was his reputed medical skill.

While I agree with that, I have to add that there was the suicide (alone meaning nothing) and the anecdote where he said that the family believed Druitt to be the murderer. We know lawyers and school teachers can be nasty folks too. I teach, for example, and you should see my slicing and dicing on the Toppy Hutchinson threads.

Cheers,

Mike

[Rubyretro]

and you should see my slicing and dicing

We don't need to know about your 'Delia' fixation here..

[Tom_Wescott]

While I agree with that, I have to add that there was the suicide (alone meaning nothing) and the anecdote where he said that the family believed Druitt to be the murderer.

But he also made it clear that he believed the suicide occurred much closer to the time of the murder that it actually did, and Macnaghten changed 'family' to (or from) 'friends' and was clear that he did not received this information firsthand from the family or friends. Also, I believe these alleged associates of Druitts held suspicions as opposed to 'believed' him to have been the murder. I apologize, but as always I'm at work and rushed and have not consulted the two versions of the memoranda as I probably should have in writing this response.

I feel that the dates of the JTR murders, and the sudden end of the series holds a key to JTR’s identity. These compulsive acts occurred on specific times of the month and certain days of the week. It is hard for me to believe that the compulsion to kill overtook JTR on a schedule. The timing (schedule) of the murders most probably had to do with opportunity. It seems to me that another schedule was at work here (such as employment that removed the killer from the East End or otherwise occupied the killer).

Good post. I too agree and believe that researchers these days are far to quick to accept far too much 'coincidence' in their investigation of the Ripper crimes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Good Michael]

Tom,

Here's what the Memorandum said: (1) A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

That's close to saying that his family believed him to be the murderer. That combined with the suicide and the family history of mental illness keeps Druitt alive for me though I think the cricketeering puts a huge crimp in the case. I have no books with me in Kazakhstan, but I have Casebook

Cheers,

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks for that, Mike, although we should always consider BOTH versions of the memoranda together. Nevertheless, his inclusion of the phrase 'I have little doubt' tells us he did not get the information directly from the family as does the phrase 'said to be a doctor'. So Mac was working from second hand information at best, the majority of which we know to be inaccurate. The question we must ask then is if Mac had found all this info to be inaccurate, would he still have entertained such suspicions against Druitt? I would say no, he wouldn't have. And without Mac's support, Druitt ceases to exist as a Ripper suspect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Man Flex]

So I guess my question is, does one apply modern standards? Do you say "it is almost impossible for them to find the Ripper without either physical evidence or catching him in the act, so therefor they could not have known."? Do you assume that despite questionable logic they came to the correct conclusions? Why do you trust the judgement of the Victorian police?

Exactlly. Today, police rely so much on CCTV and DNA. Many criminals have been arrested years after the crimes because the samples they gave then were only analyzed when technology had caught up. In other words these criminals, some of them serial murderers, would have remained at large just like JTR.

The Victorian police basically had to catch him in the act. Peter Sutcliffe was caught this way after many years and after he killed 13 women. Who is to say that JTR would'nt have gone on and on until caught?

Swanson, Abberline and Reid were all hoping to have someone turn him in due to some evidence they had or suspicions. I believe that this was probably the case for Druitt and Kosminski. They would never have been suspects had their friends or family not expressed concerns.

I think because each senior officer has their own pet theory about who did these crimes, right under their noses, proves that the Victorian police were very much in the dark as to what they were dealing with.

The chances are that none of the "suspects" are viable because they/we are always looking in the wrong place.

[The Good Michael]

What if another intangible was added to the euqation? Going with Tom's concept of having to have been a contemporary suspect, but also leaving in Druitt and adding Kelly (who seems to have been suspected after he escaped Broadmoor), who is someone that, after enough evidence has been uncovered, y you might say, "Yeah. That makes sense. I can see it now."?

I would say Kelly, LeGrand, and Kosminski could do that for me. Druitt would take a ton of work. Maybe at the fore would be Kelly and LeGrand because of criminal records and violence.

Cheers.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

What if another intangible was added to the euqation? Going with Tom's concept of having to have been a contemporary suspect, but also leaving in Druitt and adding Kelly (who seems to have been suspected after he escaped Broadmoor), who is someone that, after enough evidence has been uncovered, y you might say, "Yeah. That makes sense. I can see it now."?

I would say Kelly, LeGrand, and Kosminski could do that for me. Druitt would take a ton of work. Maybe at the fore would be Kelly and LeGrand because of criminal records and violence.

Cheers.

Mike

Agree with you on Kelly-I am surprised there isn't more talked about him. he escaped an asylum after escaping the death penalty for murdering his wife via knife. He was crazy allright-like a fox.
He was a very elusive and slippery fellow.
Probably had major mommy issues
Known murderer
was aperson of interest
murders started shortly after his escape
Fit the witness descriptions
was experienced with the knife
on the "warpath"
probably knew and frequented prostitutes
was local,knew area

[Tom_Wescott]

James Kelly

Hi all,

Kelly was more of a 'person of interest' than a suspect. I'm not sure of any contemporary investigator who thought he was responsible for the murders, although please correct me if I'm wrong on that. Also, most spouse killers don't repeat, and this was known then as now. So his level of violence would be considerably different than Le Grand, who habitually abused women, namely prostitutes, and was the focus of specific police suspicion. The fact that Kelly was essentially non-violent, and clearly went out of his way to keep to himself and below the radar, makes him a less likely suspect. More along the lines of a Bury.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Errata]

This is beginning to feel like writing a novel. We have a basic premise. Prostitutes are murdered in a gruesome fashion. Out of about 15 women who were murdered in a 5 year span, we have to choose the ones that will be the victims of a single killer. There is an accepted 5, but it could be 3, it could be 10. So we nail down how many. Lets say 5. Now we have to look at the way they were killed in order to try and identify some connection. Some theme. They are all prostitutes, they were all killed with a knife, they all had their throats cut. Not all had organs taken. So then we have to either change the victim criteria, or come up with a solution to that problem. Lets say we theorize he had a learning curve. So we have our victims.

Now we look at the killer. We don't have a unique weapon, so we cannot use that for identification. We need to narrow down the entire population of London. Well, half because we assume the killer is male. Well, the killer had to be in London on those four dates. And not be noticeably otherwise engaged. So lets say thats half the men of London. Of those men, they had to physically capable of the crime. Let's take another half off for the elderly, invalids, and children. So from about 6.5 million we are down to about 800,000. That takes care of means and opportunity. As for motive, it is completely incalculable. It could literally be anything, so we can't rule out anyone based on motive.

Beyond that there are the thousand little questions. Does he need medical experience? If yes that narrows it down quite a bit. Could he be a butcher? if so that narrows it down. Did the police know who it was? Well that makes it one of three people. Did the police have the exact wrong criteria for finding a suspect, and therefore anyone they mention is out of the running? Then you have 800,000 - 9 maybe. Did he have to be visibly mad? Thats not that common. Can he absolutely not be visibly mad? Well, that means most people are still in...

It's like a Choose Your Own Adventure book. Which is fine, and perfectly valid in a research environment, but can this ever actually be solved?

[Abby Normal]

Hi all,

Kelly was more of a 'person of interest' than a suspect. I'm not sure of any contemporary investigator who thought he was responsible for the murders, although please correct me if I'm wrong on that. Also, most spouse killers don't repeat, and this was known then as now. So his level of violence would be considerably different than Le Grand, who habitually abused women, namely prostitutes, and was the focus of specific police suspicion. The fact that Kelly was essentially non-violent, and clearly went out of his way to keep to himself and below the radar, makes him a less likely suspect. More along the lines of a Bury.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom
How can you say he was essentially non violent? He murdered his wife with a knife for cripes sake! Which shows he was a man capable of murder, unlike Le Grand.

"and clearly went out of his way to keep to himself and below the radar, makes him a less likely suspect."

As did JtR.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Abby, I thought I was pretty clear in what I was saying. Kelly was a spouse murderer, like Chris Peterson (of Lexi fame) is reputed to be. If we let Chris out of prison today, should we expect him to mastermind a murder series and get away with it? No, because wife killers are generally not serial killers. As for 'Unlike Le Grand', you seem to be suggesting he wasn't capable of murder, which is news to me as it would be to literally every individual who knew him personally.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

How can we discuss Le Grand, Tom ?
We need to read your book first.

[Tom_Wescott]

That's a good point, Dave. I hope you're around to remind people of that when I publish it. Nevertheless, assuming Abby has read my Casebook Examiner essay on the Grand one, she should have an idea of how dangerous he was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

I've been far from the Ripper world for months, I didn't know about this essay.
I'm thus completely ignorant on the subject.

I've always had the (vague) feeling that, if the murderer had been suspected by the police, they would have convicted him, or at least, the man would have been in serious trouble.

Was it the case with Le Grand ?