What criteria should a suspect meet?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I'm concerned to hear that there's a problem with ordering that issue. You can send me a PM with your e-mail address and I'll see what I can do.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thanks Tom
Will do! I am very interested in reading it and look forward to receiving it.

[mariab]

I've already addressed this in my post #77. I can only repeat myself:
For a reference to Basil Thompson's (alleged) opinion on Pedachenko as a suspect, see http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.fleet.html, the paragraph 4th before last (aka The Radio Times 1924).

PS.: Harry, Wolf Vanderlinden explained this to you as well in the Alice Monaghan thread.

[harry]

I believe it would help if Alice Monoghan could be found and asked how she came to the conclusion Thomson had the opinion Padechenko was the ripper.Her article has Padechenko returning to Russia.That her source was previously published material may be correct,but untill that is confirmed,one can only guess,and I thought posters here didn't go much on guesswork.

[mariab]

Wow! Le Grand became Ostrog, and Ostrog became Pedachenko in the mind of some people. Hail to pen pushers police officials and early Ripperologists for making this case almost unsolvable.

[Tom_Wescott]

Sir Basil Thomson

I didn't think this Thomson/Pedachenko thing would go on, but since it has, let's put a finish to it. Thomson did not think Pedachenko was the Ripper. J Hall Richardson reported that Thomson had said the Ripper was a Russian doctor who committed suicide in the Thames after the last Ripper murder. Clearly, Thomson had been exposed to the Macnaghten memoranda and either he, or Richardson in remembrance, confused the entries for Ostrog and Druitt. Unfortunately, there's no more to it than that. Later uninformed writers assumed Thomson's alleged Russian suspect must be Pedachenko.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Pedachenko vs. Vasiliev and Le Grand

Harry, I've asked around among the experienced Ripperologists about Alice Monaghan, and I expect that sooner or later someone who's heard of her will come forward. In which book did her article appear? From what you've said so far, it appears that her article is based on LeQueux and McCormick.
I'm afraid that Pedachenko is a dead lead, esp. since Lynn Cates recently discovered (through newspaper reports) that the so-called “Rasputin connection“ LeQueux raved about so enthusiastically pertains in reality to a female spy named Rasputina – who was NOT Rasputin's wife. ;-)

There is another, more plausible lead, pertaining to a Nikolai Vasiliev. This guy has been presented in the Russian and British Victorian press as an active anarchist and an alleged killer of prostitutes in Paris, yet there are NO records whatsoever pertaining to his alleged crimes, incarceration, and even existence. It appears that this was a campaign in the British Press orchestrated by the Okhrana. We are about to start researching this. Personally I'm interested to see if The Echo and The North Eastern Gazette participated at all in this Vasiliev campaign, because The Echo and The North Eastern Gazette are newspapers who printed stories planted by Charles Le Grand, to murk the waters in the Berner Street investigation. Lynn Cates and I are interested to see if the Okhrana might have had any interest in approaching Le Grand, as it was their MO to hire local, small detective agencies to pursue their agenda. We're still in the initial stage of researching this, but it appears that Le Grand stopped posting newspaper adds for his detective agency about a month after Okhrana member Pịtr Rachkovsky settled down in London, in the summer of 1888. (Still, the latter part of my last sentence can be proven wrong, since we haven't gone through all newspapers yet.)

[harry]

Mariab,
It was an article in a book,I believe I was clear on that when first posting on the subject.I know nothing about Alice Monaghan,and I posted hoping someone could supply information on the person.As for newbie,each to their own interpretation.

[mariab]

Harry,
it appears that Pedachenko/Konovalov/Luisovo is likely a garbling of different stories by William Le Queux (see Things I know, 1928). Lynn Cates, Debra Arif, and I are considering the possibility that the alleged “Rasputin connection“ in Le Queux was a mixup with the known (female) anarchist Rasputina. As for Donald McCormick's Identity of Jack the Ripper (1959), which pushes Pedachenko as the main suspect, it's reportedly one of the possibly worst publications in Ripperology, containing almost entirely fabricated/altered evidence. As for the Alice Monaghan book from 1981, I've looked around and asked around without any success so far, but I'm sure that other people than you have read it and might come forward. My guess is that Monaghan most probably regurgitates McCormick? Also, when you say that Monaghan “is hardly a newbie“, you probably refer to her book having been around for 30 years. Let me please remind you that the term “newbie“ refers to the inexperience and not to the age of the subject in question. ;-)
Significantly enough, I've just noticed that The Ultimate doesn't even mention Pedachenko.
For a reference to Basil Thompson's (alleged) opinion on Pedachenko as a suspect, see http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.fleet.html, the paragraph 4th before last (aka The Radio Times 1924).

PS.: Sorry. Is Monaghan an article, or a book? You've referred alternatively to both in your posts.

[harry]

Mariab,
The author is hardly a newbie.The book was published 1981,and revised 1988,quite a while before most Ripper books were published I think.I have previously posted the authors name.It was Alice Monaghan,should anyone be interested.

[mariab]

Agree with your point, Michael, many people won't accept even proof, but do these people count?
I had forgotten that Shakespeare's signature exists, I'm not even sure if it's an authentic one, but the point is, I have a super serious/super valid (SPE-like!) reference to ask about all things Shakespeare. I was referring to the autograph manuscripts of his plays, which have not survived. No clue if the signature you've mentioned was on any manuscript copies of his plays, and no time to look it up now, as I gotta run some errands before the shops close (which some of them do stressfully early in Germany)...

[The Good Michael]

Shakespeare most definitely was a real person,

My point was, you can't prove it to some people, so it can never be a 100% belief. By the way, Shakespear's signature does exist, but I assume you are referring to any signed copies of his plays.

Mike

[mariab]

That can be said about anything. Many people believe Shakespeare wasn't a real person.

Shakespeare most definitely was a real person, but he can be compared to the Ripper case forensically, as the autographs of his plays have not survived*, similarly to the non surviving Whitechapel Police reports pertaining to the Ripper investigation. I'm positive that, had Abberline's reports have survived, we might have had a clearer picture about some of the witnesses (particularly Schwartz, Lawende, and Hutchinson). I'm most curious to find out what are the other 2 names (besides “Mc Grath“) of “persons of interest“ listed in the Secret Branch's ledgers.

* My bosses wife is a collaborator in the critical edition of Shakespeare's works, although she's only done Pericles by herself.

[The Good Michael]

After so many years and with so much evidence missing, the Ripper crimes cannot ever be solved at 100%,

That can be said about anything. Many people believe Shakespeare wasn't a real person. Others can't fathom how ancient people could have built a pyramid. Still others believe in a God that can't be proved. As long as faith in something takes precedence over reason, nothing ever is 100%. These faith-filled folks (say that five times quickly), cling unshakeably to their beliefs no matter what amount of concrete evidence is thrown their way. I suggest that if we found photos of say... Kosminski posing with his victims, either they were photoshopped, or Hutchinson forced an imbecile to pose so that he could throw the coppers off his trail.

Mike

[mariab]

Harry,
I've fought elitism all my life. What I meant is that in Ripperology, like in all fields of research, a newbie with some promise will be duly noticed by their more experienced colleagues (who are always on the lookout for new talent). I can hardly imagine that some noteworthy publication has been out there without the Ripperologists having gotten wind of it. No comment in almost all cases means bad news.
Might I inquire the name of the author of the article in question? And I promise I'll look up Pedachenko more thoroughly in the next couple of days. Still, your author's inability to quote his sources pertaining to Basil Thompson's (alleged) opinion already hinders my taking him very seriously.

After so many years and with so much evidence missing, the Ripper crimes cannot ever be solved at 100%, even with the most optimistic approach. The best we can do is reasonably speculate, based upon the evidence. What's nice is that there's truly new, solid evidence still coming out.

[harry]

Mariab,
Perhaps that is why the Ripper crimes were not solved,because some information was not taken seriously.As to the author not being a known ripperologist,does it matter?