Tweet
Hello all,
I thought I would take the time to present a scenario, that has partly, or in other forms, been adressed before. It concerns the three named suspects in the Memoranda. This is not a thread where the memoranda itself is questioned, but it's written meaning.
It is a "given", these days at least, that we can rule out Ostrog as a realistic suspect. We know, thanks to Philip Sugden, that the case against Ostrog is dead in the water. He was, in all essence, a common thief. Sadly, although a well known criminal of long standing with crimes both in England and on the continent, his whereabouts at the time of the Whitechapel murders is now known to have given him a perfect alibi. He was in prison. Did Sir MM know of this? I suspect it likely that he did know of it.
Of the other two suspects, I turn first to Aaron Kosminski. When considering the case against this man, Kosminski's own record must be looked into.
The only time he had been before a judge, that we know of, is for walking a dog without a muzzle. He is not seen or named or both by any person seen at the scene of any crime, nor named nor seen at the time by any policeman.
It is not until long after the murders that this man is presented to us as a suspect. Here, we are presented with the contention of his insanity, and his likely danger to others or not. We must therefore consider Kosminski's asylum records, and balance them against the type of person that may or may not have slaughtered up to 5 women. If it were not for an unamed Polish Jew suspected in Sir Robert Anderson's memoirs in 1910, we would still not be lead towards a back up theory for the 2nd of the MM '3'.
It is only when the Swanson Marginalia arrived in 1987, 99 years after the murders, that greater weight supporting this man's possible guilt is arrived at. However, it must be stressed here, that no written document has ever provided the much-needed proof that would be in any way admissible for anyone judging the case to lable Aaron Kosminsky as the Whitechapel murderer. Swanson saying that "Kosminski was his name" in written marginalia of Anderson's book without providing proof of this identification (the supposed Seaside Home identification is unsupported and unproven, and can infact apply to at least one other known suspect), is not anywhere near conclusive enough to lable this man a murderer of one person, let alone one who created the carnage of Whitechapel and district. In addition, given his asylum records as we know them, he gives little indication of being a multiple murderer of destitute women. Again, did Sir MM know of this? I suspect it likely that he did know of it.
We turn then to Montague Druitt, the 3rd of the MM '3'. We have no evidence that this man ever hurt any female. We have no evidence that he was, infact, insane. Only a suspicion that he himself feared he would go the same way as his mother, quoted by his brother at his inquest. We do not know his whereabouts on the nights of each of the murders, and no description given definitively matches Druitt. Continual comments from Sims, a well-reknowned journalist and friend of Sir MM, over a period of time backs the statement that a person died near the end of the year, found in the Thames on Dec 31st 1888, and that he was Jack the Ripper, mean absolutely nothing. A total lack of supported evidence against this man is apparent. Did Sir MM know of this? I suspect it very likely that he did know of it.
So why are we, the intereststed party 117 years after the memoranda, still wondering why was Sir MM even bothered to write of these 3 very weak suspects? It has been explained by various well known writers that the reason for him writing this paper, was in response to an expected internal question from the Home Office who may have felt pressured into talking more of the murders and the outcome of the investigation by a daily national newspaper, The Sun, who in turn had named yet another suspect, Cutbush. In the memoranda, Cutbush is very quickly dismissed as a suspect. Sir MM seemed likely to know much of this "suspect" too.
It seems clear to me that Macnaghten chose and exploited these three people for his own purposes, a harmless yet real figure called 'Kosminski', a.k.a. 'the Polish Jew suspect'. A Russian criminal called Ostrog who was in all essence a thief, and a barrister with personal problems who conveniently comitted suicide straight after the murders.
All three do have things in common. Known connection with the Whitechapel murders? None. Known resemblance to a multiple-murderer-type personality? None. Traceable, or in existance, at the time of writing the MM (1894) in response to the Sun's articles? None at all. No one could likely have traced them even if this memoranda HAD been released to the Sun.
It seems to me that all three 'suspects' are deliberate attempts to quell one simple solution in the eyes of the public...
Namely that the police had absolutely no idea who Jack the Ripper could have been or was, or whom the murderers could have been or were, and not in a million years did the police at the time ever want to be seen to have failed in capturing this maniac, or these killers. If there was a cover-up of sorts, then this is where the cover-up is most likely.
Some have suggested a cover-up to keep the spotlight away from Cutbush. Possible.. but then I would have expected the memoranda to have been sent to the Sun newspaper to quell and quash the rumour.
No. More likely a cover-up of shame. Shame of total ineptitude. A police force at odds with itself and in the higher ranks, at odds with their peers. Governed poorly, the bobbies on their beats were the real scapegoats.
And those who really suffered? The poor and the destitute, the ordinary men women and children who continued to live in utter fear of "Jack the Ripper", itself a name invented and cast upon them by those wishing to manipulate despicable murder in their midst.
It's a scenario that smacks of self-righteousness from some individuals upon other innocent individuals and even more innocent wafts of the East End population. Possible? Perhaps it is.
At least perhaps, something for us all to consider?
best wishes
Phil
I thought I would take the time to present a scenario, that has partly, or in other forms, been adressed before. It concerns the three named suspects in the Memoranda. This is not a thread where the memoranda itself is questioned, but it's written meaning.
It is a "given", these days at least, that we can rule out Ostrog as a realistic suspect. We know, thanks to Philip Sugden, that the case against Ostrog is dead in the water. He was, in all essence, a common thief. Sadly, although a well known criminal of long standing with crimes both in England and on the continent, his whereabouts at the time of the Whitechapel murders is now known to have given him a perfect alibi. He was in prison. Did Sir MM know of this? I suspect it likely that he did know of it.
Of the other two suspects, I turn first to Aaron Kosminski. When considering the case against this man, Kosminski's own record must be looked into.
The only time he had been before a judge, that we know of, is for walking a dog without a muzzle. He is not seen or named or both by any person seen at the scene of any crime, nor named nor seen at the time by any policeman.
It is not until long after the murders that this man is presented to us as a suspect. Here, we are presented with the contention of his insanity, and his likely danger to others or not. We must therefore consider Kosminski's asylum records, and balance them against the type of person that may or may not have slaughtered up to 5 women. If it were not for an unamed Polish Jew suspected in Sir Robert Anderson's memoirs in 1910, we would still not be lead towards a back up theory for the 2nd of the MM '3'.
It is only when the Swanson Marginalia arrived in 1987, 99 years after the murders, that greater weight supporting this man's possible guilt is arrived at. However, it must be stressed here, that no written document has ever provided the much-needed proof that would be in any way admissible for anyone judging the case to lable Aaron Kosminsky as the Whitechapel murderer. Swanson saying that "Kosminski was his name" in written marginalia of Anderson's book without providing proof of this identification (the supposed Seaside Home identification is unsupported and unproven, and can infact apply to at least one other known suspect), is not anywhere near conclusive enough to lable this man a murderer of one person, let alone one who created the carnage of Whitechapel and district. In addition, given his asylum records as we know them, he gives little indication of being a multiple murderer of destitute women. Again, did Sir MM know of this? I suspect it likely that he did know of it.
We turn then to Montague Druitt, the 3rd of the MM '3'. We have no evidence that this man ever hurt any female. We have no evidence that he was, infact, insane. Only a suspicion that he himself feared he would go the same way as his mother, quoted by his brother at his inquest. We do not know his whereabouts on the nights of each of the murders, and no description given definitively matches Druitt. Continual comments from Sims, a well-reknowned journalist and friend of Sir MM, over a period of time backs the statement that a person died near the end of the year, found in the Thames on Dec 31st 1888, and that he was Jack the Ripper, mean absolutely nothing. A total lack of supported evidence against this man is apparent. Did Sir MM know of this? I suspect it very likely that he did know of it.
So why are we, the intereststed party 117 years after the memoranda, still wondering why was Sir MM even bothered to write of these 3 very weak suspects? It has been explained by various well known writers that the reason for him writing this paper, was in response to an expected internal question from the Home Office who may have felt pressured into talking more of the murders and the outcome of the investigation by a daily national newspaper, The Sun, who in turn had named yet another suspect, Cutbush. In the memoranda, Cutbush is very quickly dismissed as a suspect. Sir MM seemed likely to know much of this "suspect" too.
It seems clear to me that Macnaghten chose and exploited these three people for his own purposes, a harmless yet real figure called 'Kosminski', a.k.a. 'the Polish Jew suspect'. A Russian criminal called Ostrog who was in all essence a thief, and a barrister with personal problems who conveniently comitted suicide straight after the murders.
All three do have things in common. Known connection with the Whitechapel murders? None. Known resemblance to a multiple-murderer-type personality? None. Traceable, or in existance, at the time of writing the MM (1894) in response to the Sun's articles? None at all. No one could likely have traced them even if this memoranda HAD been released to the Sun.
It seems to me that all three 'suspects' are deliberate attempts to quell one simple solution in the eyes of the public...
Namely that the police had absolutely no idea who Jack the Ripper could have been or was, or whom the murderers could have been or were, and not in a million years did the police at the time ever want to be seen to have failed in capturing this maniac, or these killers. If there was a cover-up of sorts, then this is where the cover-up is most likely.
Some have suggested a cover-up to keep the spotlight away from Cutbush. Possible.. but then I would have expected the memoranda to have been sent to the Sun newspaper to quell and quash the rumour.
No. More likely a cover-up of shame. Shame of total ineptitude. A police force at odds with itself and in the higher ranks, at odds with their peers. Governed poorly, the bobbies on their beats were the real scapegoats.
And those who really suffered? The poor and the destitute, the ordinary men women and children who continued to live in utter fear of "Jack the Ripper", itself a name invented and cast upon them by those wishing to manipulate despicable murder in their midst.
It's a scenario that smacks of self-righteousness from some individuals upon other innocent individuals and even more innocent wafts of the East End population. Possible? Perhaps it is.
At least perhaps, something for us all to consider?
best wishes
Phil
Comment