Suspect elimination

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Trevor,

You're quite right of course about arrest, then as now, often being the first step in the evidence gathering process. I'm less sure about the contention that



There is no record of their ever being arrested but there is always the very real possibility that one or more were arrested but the record of it no longer exists.

You got there first Colin.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Because the police codes of the day gave the police the power to arrest on suspicion, and having been arrested that person would have been interviewed and may have admitted the crimes, and while in custody the police could search that person's address in an attempt to obtain more evidence...

For example, if - as many here suspect - Lawende identified Kosminski, then upon coming under suspicion, Kosminski's home could have been searched and a pepper and salt jacket found among his possessions.

That would have set the scene for the identification.

But not only does neither Anderson nor Swanson mention any such breakthrough, but Anderson gives no reason to suppose that Kosminski became a suspect prior to his incarceration in an asylum.

Instead, he indicates that the identification took place after 'Kosminski' had been incarcerated.

It is hardly likely that in between his pepper and salt jacket or other incriminating evidence having been found and his identification, he was suddenly certified as insane.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Damaso Marte]

Is there explicit evidence that this surge of officers and detectives into Whitechapel was explicitly for Ripper-related work? Has anyone else here worked in a bureaucracy?

Reasons there might have been more police assigned to Whitechapel in late 1888 through 1890:

- the police had no idea who the Ripper was and wanted more resources to solve the case
- the police believed, correctly, that a given suspect was the Ripper and this suspect was on the loose until at least 1890 (or at that time they gave up on finding evidence substantial enough to make an arrest)
- the police believed, incorrectly, that a given suspect was the Ripper and this suspect was on the loose until at least 1890 (or at that time they gave up on finding evidence substantial enough to make an arrest)
- to police believed that the Ripper had been taken out somehow shortly after the Kelly murder but were not certain enough of this to scale down

or, the reason I asked the question above about anyone having worked in a bureaucracy:

- somebody exploited the Ripper murders as an excuse to increase the size of their personal bureaucratic fiefdom

In a bureaucracy, there is competition for resources between different managers. Sometimes a crisis in department x is exploited by the head of department x into a successful request for more money or more headcount for department x, even if the head of department x intends to use that for some other purpose (or even just for self-aggrandizement) instead of to respond to the crisis.

Suppose that you were a police official responsible for overseeing Whitechapel and you had spent years begging your superiors that you needed more money and more officers to fight, I don't know, Fennians or something. And then a murder spree happens in Whitechapel. Would you be above demanding more resources, even if you knew you were unlikely to find the killer?

I'd say that given the last possibility, the most that the document in the OP can prove is that in November 1888 it was not obvious to whoever made personnel assignment decisions that the Ripper had been neutralized.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

You're quite right of course about arrest, then as now, often being the first step in the evidence gathering process. I'm less sure about the contention that

There is no record of their ever being arrested but there is always the very real possibility that one or more were arrested but the record of it no longer exists.

And if they were regarded as prime suspects and ever arrested then someone would have disclosed that fact after all we see evidence of many of those connected to the investigation coming up with suspect names but none are mentioned as having ever been arrested and interviewed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Interesting topic for a thread, Trevor.

I'm wondering if some of the extra manpower in the wake of the murders could conceivably have had more to do with the fear of social unrest at the time, rather than with the hunt for the killer.

The East End was a tinderbox of antisemitism which had been stoked by all of the Leather Apron media coverage etc, and with all of the extra scrutiny on the area (and criticism of the police) I could imagine that measures would be taken to minimise the possibility of things seriously kicking off in the East end.

Had social rest occurred the police would have immediately brought in officers from other divisions to quell the unrest. Not keeping them in situ just in case of social unrest.

These officers had been brought in initially to assist in the ripper enquiry and to show the public they were taking the murders seriously.

The length of time they were kept on in Whitechapel clearly shows that the police had no clues as to the identity of the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And if they were regarded as prime suspects and ever arrested then someone would have disclosed that fact after all we see evidence of many of those connected to the investigation coming up with suspect names but none are mentioned as having ever been arrested and interviewed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Macnaghten could not have been clearer that whatever case there was against Kosminski was entirely circumstantial.

Anderson offers no indication that Kosminski became a suspect before he was certified.

The only circumstance in which Swanson describes what could have been an arrest is that of Kosminski being taken to a workhouse, not a police station!

As you point out, there is nothing from Macnaghten, Anderson or Swanson about Kosminski ever having been interviewed.

In such circumstances, how could the conviction of the suspect have hinged on eyewitness testimony?

[Paddy Goose]

Good evening Trevor,

...

Some researchers have used this theory to suggest that it was because the police knew the identity of the killer and that fact that he could not kill again. This could relate to the Druitt theory, or perhaps Tumblety fleeing the country or any other likely suspect for that matter.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor could you be more specific, please, and state which researcher(s) and book(s) suggested the theory in reference to Tumblety or Druitt. What page of what book are you referring to? Or is it a TV show? Or if you have examples of other suspect(s) in which this theory was used please enlighten us.

Also, did you use this theory yourself in your suspect book? I haven't read it but I did see your TV show.

Paddy

[erobitha]

If they had a strong suspect, they had two options- arrest on suspicion or keep constant observations on that suspect in the HO file there is no evidence of either to justify the extra cost and the extra manpower being needed and as can be seen senior officers raised concerns over the cost of the extra manpower. So I have to say again this tends to show that the police did not have any clues as to the identity of the killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Rare I would agree with Trevor on anything. I find myself doing so on this.

If the police genuinely had a strong suspect at the time, the course of the investigation would hone in on that suspect. It seems the remit was still quite broad in 1889.

[erobitha]

If they had a strong suspect, they had two options- arrest on suspicion or keep constant observations on that suspect in the HO file there is no evidence of either to justify the extra cost and the extra manpower being needed and as can be seen senior officers raised concerns over the cost of the extra manpower. So I have to say again, this tends to show that the police did not have any clues as to the identity of the killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again, in agreement. The cost of the police is always something the government have always been quite concerned about ever since the force was officially formed. Even Warren himself commented on the state of affairs of the boots the rank file officers because of lack of funding. The Ripper case was not an open chequebook. Accountants still had to be placated, and civil servants had jobs to do.

One of the first things they would do if they had a suspect would start to reduce the costs of running the case.

[Trevor Marriott]

Good evening Trevor,

Trevor could you be more specific, please, and state which researcher(s) and book(s) suggested the theory in reference to Tumblety or Druitt. What page of what book are you referring to? Or is it a TV show? Or if you have examples of other suspect(s) in which this theory was used please enlighten us.

Also, did you use this theory yourself in your suspect book? I haven't read it but I did see your TV show.

Paddy

Hi Paddy

I cannot be that specific due to the passage of time, but I can say that it is one of many theories regarding suspects that have formed part of the Ripper mystery for years. But of course, it is only a theory and one to which I do not subscribe to.

#1 post on this thread is an extract from my book "Jack the Ripper-The Real truth"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Bridewell]

And if they were regarded as prime suspects and ever arrested then someone would have disclosed that fact after all we see evidence of many of those connected to the investigation coming up with suspect names but none are mentioned as having ever been arrested and interviewed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The Littlechild letter mentions Tumblety as a contemporary suspect. Tumblety was arrested as I recall. He wasn't charged with anything relevant to this discussion but that doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't interviewed about it. In fact it would be astonishing if he wasn't.

[Trevor Marriott]

The Littlechild letter mentions Tumblety as a contemporary suspect. Tumblety was arrested as I recall. He wasn't charged with anything relevant to this discussion but that doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't interviewed about it. In fact it would be astonishing if he wasn't.

and give a good reason why you think Tumblety should have been interviewed about the murders when he was arrested for gross indecency with other males the two offences are worlds apart. There is no evidence anywhere to show he was ever suspected other than another wild speculative guess as to who the killer could have been by Littechild years later and who wasn't even involved in the investigation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Paddy Goose]

Hi Paddy

I cannot be that specific due to the passage of time, but I can say that it is one of many theories regarding suspects that have formed part of the Ripper mystery for years. ...

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks for the reply, but the only mystery I see here is the one you have begun, Trevor.

You don't know who or what you are arguing against.

Paddy

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for the reply, but the only mystery I see here is the one you have begun, Trevor.

And what mystery is that?

You don't know who or what you are arguing against.

But I am sure you are going to tell me

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Bridewell]

and give a good reason why you think Tumblety should have been interviewed about the murders when he was arrested for gross indecency with other males the two offences are worlds apart. There is no evidence anywhere to show he was ever suspected other than another wild speculative guess as to who the killer could have been by Littechild years later and who wasn't even involved in the investigation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"A wild speculative guess"? From a DCI who was serving at the relevant time and who would almost certainly have spoken to the likes of Abberline and Swanson at various times? We don't know what information they divulged to him so he may have had very good reason for suggesting Tumblety. Your claim of a wild speculative guess on his part is just a wild speculative guess on yours.