Criteria for plausibility

[Bridewell]

For a suspect to be plausible it has to be demonstrated that he was in the right geographical area at the right time. Sadly it makes little difference to some. There are still those who pluck names (usually famous) from the pages of history and think that, if their views are shouted loud enough they will somehow mutate into evidence.

On that basis, by way of example, I can see how Cross (though I don't personally believe that he was anything other than what he claimed to be) can be viewed as plausible. Ditto Hutchinson. Van Gogh, Lautrec etc, by contrast, are simply laughable.

Regards, Bridewell

[Tel]

Not at all, the true identity of the Ripper is - Charles Dickens. The fact that he cunningly contrived to die 18 years beforehand only serves to show how deviously evil he really was!

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

My money is still on the Easter Bunny.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

And in Cross´case, he is - as far as I can tell - way ahead of for example Le Grand.

LOL...which begs the question, 'How far can Fisherman tell?'

You´re the doc when it comes to our Danish marauder, but I feel pretty sure that you cannot tie him to seven murder spots in the way Cross/Lechmere can be tied!

I can even tie Le Grand to spots where no murders are known to have been committed!

You can of course point to the fact that he changed names, but in all honesty, I think that by 1888, Le Grand would have forgotten what he was called in the first place

I've never understood the perception that someone changing their name or taking on an alias is an indicator of homicidal guilt. In Le Grand's case, it certainly benefitted his criminal career, but I've seen many, many people from that era go by different names who were not murderers.

You have more on him, I realize that, but is it of any real weight?

Well, his associates thought he was the Ripper, the policeman who knew him for years thought he was the Ripper, and he had that human kidney on him, did he not?

Finally, I do hope that you are not of the opinion that I have dubbed Lechmere the Ripper at this stage. I have not. I have just gone over the evidence and found something that may well point to guilt on his behalf, something that has not been picked up on before as far as I know.

I´m anxious to hear what you have to say about it. Maybe you will elevate Lechmere to suspect status even, who knows?

Anything is possible. I hadn't intended to talk about specific suspects on this thread, and my opinions as to what makes a suspect a 'suspect' haven't really changed. As for Cross, I really have nothing to say until I've read your article. And I'm not going to talk any more about Le Grand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"I haven't told you that Cross is a weak candidate."

Good. I wouldn´t have listened anyway, to be honest!

" I have said that there is an evidential link to one murder site only - as opposed to the six links claimed by yourself."

"Claimed"? I "claim" that there were two thoroughfares between Buck´s Row and Broad Street, and they would be Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street. The murders occured on, directly alongside or close to those streets. The Stride killing occured adjacent to his mother´s house. Nobody can state that he was there on the exact times the women died - but anybody can see that Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street were the two useful bids to choose from, going to Broad Street. That much I DO claim, and I also claim that this presents a potentially very useful lead to who the Ripper was.

"The use of more than one name is inconsequential."

The use of more than one name is suspicious, not least when what we have on record never mentions the name Cross, but instead Lechmere, over and over again. And using an alias was NOT the common man´s or woman´s pastime, by the looks of things. The ones we have on record using aliases are mainly people of a more questionable status, right?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Bridewell:

You know just as well as I do that when a suspect answers to this pattern, AND can be firmly tied to one of the murder sites at the pertinent time, then we have a case here that it would be malpractice not to investigate. Add to it that the guy in question used an alias, Bridewell, and THEN tell me that he is a weak candidate, looking at it from a police-investigation point of view!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish,

I haven't told you that Cross is a weak candidate. I have said that there is an evidential link to one murder site only - as opposed to the six links claimed by yourself.

The use of more than one name is inconsequential. Not everyone who uses an alias is a criminal, still less a serial killer.

Regards, Bridewell

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"That's odd, Fisherman. I distinctly recollect your recent assertion that you were just about to place a noose around Cross's neck."

Find it, copy it, paste it and we will talk about it, Garry. Promise!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"The evidence ties Cross/Lechmere to the place where Polly Nichols was found, because he found her. My recollection is that the links to the other sites amount to speculation based on the route he is likely to have taken to work etc. "

My recollection, Bridewell, is that you are an ex-copper yourself? Then you would know what parameters the police look for in cases like these, right? Evidential links? Fine, I´m all for them. But 124 years down the line, they may be hard to find, which is why the completely amazing fact that the murdersites were situated along the two main thoroughfares to Broad Street, counting from Buck´s Row is something that looks very useful. And the same goes for the Berner Street site, being situated very close to a place he arguably had verygood reason to visit on the weekends. And when does that murder occur? Oh yes - on a weekend.

You know just as well as I do that when a suspect answers to this pattern, AND can be firmly tied to one of the murder sites at the pertinent time, then we have a case here that it would be malpractice not to investigate. Add to it that the guy in question used an alias, Bridewell, and THEN tell me that he is a weak candidate, looking at it from a police-investigation point of view!

It is when somebody exhibits these things that we may hear the DSI in our favourite tv show say that "we have made a breakthrough". Then there are the unrealistic episodes where all these parameters only are coincidental and the real crook stays undetected in the longest. But those scripts belong mainly to Hollywood. I like the realistic stuff better, where clear indicators of lies and a pattern of movements, tallying with the deeds, give away the perpetrator.

And that is what we seemingly have here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

That's odd, Fisherman. I distinctly recollect your recent assertion that you were just about to place a noose around Cross's neck.

Hmm. Yes, I seem to recall that too. I'm waiting with baited breath for this repetitively promised revelation. Perhaps soon?

Contrary to a recent fascinating assertion, it is not "proven", or anywhere close to being so, that "Toppy" was the real George Hutchinson. He is a very unlikely candidate, and has always been considered so in the mainstream ever since his dubious appearance in the Ripper and the Royals

Really? And there I was thinking it was a done deal....

Alas for poor old Hutch, he's appears to be something of a threat to the Cross 'theory'. Will his troubles never end?

[Garry Wroe]

Finally, I do hope that you are not of the opinion that I have dubbed Lechmere the Ripper at this stage. I have not.

That's odd, Fisherman. I distinctly recollect your recent assertion that you were just about to place a noose around Cross's neck.

[Ben]

The difference is, there's a rather wide agreement in the field that Hutchinson was suspicious, to one degree or another, whereas there's an equal amount of agreement that Cross did not in any way behave suspiciously.

Exactly, Tom.

And despite amusing proclamations that this is "all about the change", I would put all my worldly goods that it will never change, ever. The Cross theory went down very badly indeed because his proponents tried to replicate what was done relatively successfully with Hutchinson. The latter is quite simply the more "popular" and more frequently discussed person of interest for very good reason, and no succession of long repetetive posts is about to change this (almost certainly permanent) state of affairs. Contrary to a recent fascinating assertion, it is not "proven", or anywhere close to being so, that "Toppy" was the real George Hutchinson. He is a very unlikely candidate, and has always been considered so in the mainstream ever since his dubious appearance in the Ripper and the Royals. It would be interesting to see if the Toppy-touters fancy picking that fight up again on this, quite unrelated, thread!

All the best,
Ben

[Bridewell]

I feel pretty sure that you cannot tie him to seven murder spots in the way Cross/Lechmere can be tied!

Hi Fisherman,

The evidence ties Cross/Lechmere to the place where Polly Nichols was found, because he found her. My recollection is that the links to the other sites amount to speculation based on the route he is likely to have taken to work etc.

My criteria would have to include evidential links to murders sites. Speculative links are not worthless, because they may lead to the discovery of evidence, but a speculative link should not be afforded the same value as an evidential one. There is an evidential link to only one murder site where Cross/Lechmere is concerned.

Regards, Bridewell.

[curious4]

To Wade

What I meant was that 'Aberconway', the nickname for the unofficial version of Mac's Report, or memo-- so named after Lady Christabel Aberconway, his daughter who preserved it -- was mostly, though not entirely published in 1965 by Tom Cullen in 'Autumn of Terror'.

It took until a recent issue of 'Ripperologist' magazine for the entire source to be published, though the relevant sections had been available for decades. Nevertheless, the full version contained bits and pieces which were also pertinent -- and arguably backed my 'case disguised' theory.

The filed, official version of Mac's Report, which is significantly different, first appeared in 1966 in Robin Odell's 'Jack the Ripper: In Fact and Fiction'. At least the relevant sections about the suspects.

In 1975, Don Rumbelow gained access to the complete version of this source and published it in 'The Complete Jack the Ripper', an excellent work -- which openly wondered in what order these two, non-identical twins were composed?

Part of the entrenched, arguably redundant, paradigm is the assumption that 'Aberconway' is a rejected draft and the official version is Mac's considered and definitive opinion. That the official version was known to other senior police figures.

There is no evidence for this assumption. It is a long-standing inference, not unreasonable, but which can be shown to be probably mistaken (eg. Littlechild has never heard of 'Dr D', Abberline says he knows but all of his information about the drowned suspect is wrong, Anderson makes no comment what-so-ever about Druitt yet believes in a parallel deceased suspect -- who isn't -- and so on).

More likely is that the official version was mothballed in 1894 and seen by nobody until 1966, while the unofficial version was composed in 1898 and is the definitive opinion for Macnaghten had that opinion disseminated to the public by credulous cronies (a politically bipartisan press offensive too, as Major Griffiths was a Tory and George Sims was a Liberal).

Macnaghten's chapter in his 1914 memoirs, 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper', is clearly his own adaptation of 'Aberconway' -- and therefore the de-facto third version of the same document. It is very instructive for what he leaves in and for what he leaves out, and for what he confirms and for what he debunks.

It is, in my opinion, Mac's definitive testimony about the case because, 1) it is his only public opinion under his own knighted name, and 2) because of the way it more accurately matches other primary sources than its twin predecessors regarding Scotland Yard's 1888 to 1891 Ripper investigation -- and about Montague Druitt.

Hello Jonathon,

The insanity in Druittś family seems to have been on the female side - and in women of "a certain age", so the likelihood of Druitt being affected by it seems small. Before the advent of modern medicines many women were seriously affected mentally by the menopause.

I do have my doubts about the Druitt story. If he killed himself after "a glut", why wait weeks to do it? Can we even be sure that the body pulled out of the Thames was Druitt at all. It was badly decomposed and identified only be the papers on it. And that is strange in itself - not that the body had papers on it, but that it still had a fair amount of money in the pockets after being pulled out of the river by a waterman. Any money on a corpse was generally considered a "perk of the job" - Dickens comments on the fact that anyone fished from the river generally had his pockets turned inside out. After the Princess Alice disaster, watermen were paid for every body recovered and were caught taking bodies from the beach and claiming for them a second time. Not very nice men on the whole.

Could Druitt have been a scapegoat? He seems to have been a particularly stable man. By the way, Jekyll and Hyde refers to alcoholics, not the mentally ill.

Best wishes,
C4.

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"Our exchanges have merely proven what we and everyone else already know. It's fair game when it comes to suspects!"

It is!

"As for this approach 'not working after 124 years', I'm not sure what you mean, unless all the police suspects have been proved innocent, ala Ostrog, and me none the wiser."

What I meant was actually something quite different: that nothing much has been dug up and presented adhering to any of the police suspects that really would make me raise an eyebrow. Simon Wood put it differently on another thread when he said that no contender had the upper edge on the Easter bunny so far ...

I would not go as far myself, but I WOULD state, one again, that going by your criteria would let Lechmere slip under the radar, and on HIM much has been dug up that is of very great practical applicability, as opposed to the rest of the bunch.

"I should also point out that Le Grand wasn't known to be a police suspect until I started looking at him and other researchers got on the chase, and this was very, very recent, proving there's more to learn about suspects out there."

I know that, Tom, and I agree - there IS much to learn about the people of that age and place.

"My point is NOT that people like Cross shouldn't be looked into...they most absolutely should be..."

You know I agree on that score.

"I think the question is should we call them a suspect, let alone dub them the Ripper, before the research is done? "

"People like Cross", you mean? But there are no other people like Cross - he is an individual, and each claim for suspect status must be treated individually and not as a matching against criteria like the two you suggest. And in Cross´case, he is - as far as I can tell - way ahead of for example Le Grand. You´re the doc when it comes to our Danish marauder, but I feel pretty sure that you cannot tie him to seven murder spots in the way Cross/Lechmere can be tied! Nor can you place him alone with one of the victims. You can of course point to the fact that he changed names, but in all honesty, I think that by 1888, Le Grand would have forgotten what he was called in the first place

I don´t know exactly what kind of interest the police took in Le Grand, but if you allow me to take a shot, my guess would be that they looked at his past, realized that he had been dealing with prostitutes and seemed willing enough to apply violence, and therefore the cops would have felt a need to look into him. Taken together with his masquerading as a private eye in the Ripper case, I´d say that was enough to raise suspicions.

You have more on him, I realize that, but is it of any real weight? We shall see! I am going to sponsor you by buying the book, so I feel at liberty to demand useful goods when it comes to Le Grand.

Finally, I do hope that you are not of the opinion that I have dubbed Lechmere the Ripper at this stage. I have not. I have just gone over the evidence and found something that may well point to guilt on his behalf, something that has not been picked up on before as far as I know.

I´m anxious to hear what you have to say about it. Maybe you will elevate Lechmere to suspect status even, who knows?

All the best, Tom!
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fish. Our exchanges have merely proven what we and everyone else already know. It's fair game when it comes to suspects! I was merely posting where I think one should start. As for this approach 'not working after 124 years', I'm not sure what you mean, unless all the police suspects have been proved innocent, ala Ostrog, and me none the wiser. I should also point out that Le Grand wasn't known to be a police suspect until I started looking at him and other researchers got on the chase, and this was very, very recent, proving there's more to learn about suspects out there. My point is NOT that people like Cross shouldn't be looked into...they most absolutely should be...I think the question is should we call them a suspect, let alone dub them the Ripper, before the research is done?

Hi Wade, good to meet you. And yes, you seem to know your stuff.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott