Evidence to prove a suspect valid

[GUT]

McNaughten knew Jack

[Jonathan H]

The name is a Scottish-Irish hybrid, and is spelt M A C N A G H T E N.

It is not a conspiracy if only a single person in an organization is misleading other members.

Consider that Anderson and Swanson thought 'Kosminski' had died soon after being sectioned, George Kebbell thought that William Grant had died in prison, Littlechild wrote that it was 'believed' (by somebody) that Dr. Tumblety may have taken his own life in France and Abberline--arguably--thinks that John Sanders drowned himself.

None of them were dead at the time their champions--of varying degrees--said they were.

Whereas Macnaghten knew that Kosminski was alive, that Grant was alive, and that Tumblety had not killed himself.

Tom Divall claimed in his 1930 memoir that Macnaghten had once told him that the Ripper fled to the States and died there in an asylum.

The Ripper suspect who actually was deceased soon after the Kelly murder was Druitt (the timing of his suicide was wrong, as it could not include Mylett, McKenzie and Coles but the Chief Constable believed that the evidence was overwhelming).

Macnaghten can be traced as the likely deceiver of the other figures mentioned above.

If you have a primary source who can be shown to be more accurately briefed than other contemporaneous primary sources in the same organization, then why not go with it?

[GUT]

G'Day Jonathan

Yea I realised I'd spelt it wrong after it was too late to edit. ....

[The Good Michael]

Tom,

From the Evening News on Oct 1st,.... from Eagle..."I frequent the club. I went into it about 12.40 on this night that you are asking me about, which was about 20 minutes before the body was discovered."

From Lave, "I was in the yard of the club this morning about twenty minutes to one. At half-past twelve I had come out into the street to get a breath of fresh air. There was nothing unusual in the street."

As I said before, seems to me they state they were both in the yard at the same time, yet neither sees each other, and Eagle couldnt remember seeing anyone.

Mike,

I just want to touch on these 3 points if I may. The first two both use the word "about" when referring to time. And if either was leaving and not standing about, it would be more unusual if they ran into each other than not. If they said they had gone out and stood on the street for a long time, I might be swayed in your direction.

Also, Eagle didn't say he didn't see anyone. He was asked if he had met anyone, and he said, "Not that I recall." Maybe meeting and seeing meant the same thing back then, but it certainly doesn't now. And by saying he didn't recall, he's kind of covered for errors anyway.

Cheers,

Mike

[Lechmere]

Jonathan - you have drawn a tight definition of conspiracy - Macnaghten's co-conspirators if your theory is true - are the Druitt family, the vicar, the school, the Tory MP, Sims and Griffiths.
Quite a conspiracy of silence and to mislead - with Macnaghten dropping heavy hints for some mischievous reason.

[Jonathan H]

Tight? I am just being specific as I am not guilty of what I am sometimes accused of; that I am proposing an institutional conspiracy involving Scotland Yard.

That's the opposite of my theory.

Druitt as 'Jack' emerges from outside Scotland Yard among his people in Dorset and picked up by the local MP, who was the first to semi-fictionalize the tale.

The 'North Country Vicar' was not entirely silent, as he also engaged in mixing fact and fiction, though openly in 1899. Sims also did this, on Mac's behalf, covertly.

While at the Yard Macnaghten played world against world, and I presume he had a wonderful time.

If people think that is immoral then he received his posthumous comeuppance, in terms of posterity, because 'Ripperology' took his deceitful games literally -- and banished him to the fringe of the story as a forgetful, ignorant, callous plod.

At his 1913 press conference and in his 1914 memoir, Macnaghten tried, up to a point, to come clean. eg. That the un-named Druitt was the only suspect worth mentioning, the Ripper was not a caged lunatic-Jew, that there was no witness who refused to testify, that the real 'Jack' was not known until years after the 1888 murders, that he was not necessarily a medical man, or middle-aged, or an asylum veteran and most definitely was not so destroyed by Miller's Court that he could not function and get away from the crime scene. He compresses Druitt's places of work and living abode into living with family; that they are, by implication, his informers (the need for a go-between is dropped) and their 'certain facts' led to this 'conclusion'.

It has been very gratifying to read Sims' crony Guy Logan's "The True History of Jack the Ripper" (1905) which Edwardian readers knew was [yet another] mixture of impenetrable fact and fiction about the un-named Montague Druitt. To protect the innocent he is called Mortemer Slade and is relocated to Yorkshire, as is Farquharson ('up north' where the 1899 Vicar is supposedly from) but he remains an Oxonian and an athlete.

That the Ripper was an accomplished, amateur athlete exists in no primary sources between 1888 and 1965 (when Druitt's full identity was publicly revealed by cullen) except Logan.

Much of what I have been arguing for some years has been vindicated by this previously undiscovered source.

[Michael W Richards]

Mike,

I just want to touch on these 3 points if I may. The first two both use the word "about" when referring to time. And if either was leaving and not standing about, it would be more unusual if they ran into each other than not. If they said they had gone out and stood on the street for a long time, I might be swayed in your direction.

Also, Eagle didn't say he didn't see anyone. He was asked if he had met anyone, and he said, "Not that I recall." Maybe meeting and seeing meant the same thing back then, but it certainly doesn't now. And by saying he didn't recall, he's kind of covered for errors anyway.

Cheers,

Mike

When I used the records on what the two said Mike it was because Lave said he did go out as far as the street during that period, and because Eagle hedged his statement with your bold line above. He said he stayed to the club side of the passageway when he entered it, he would have known if someone was in the passage or on the street just in front of the gates.

Cheers

[Barnaby]

I'm not quite sure what the original poster means by valid. I think it is being used in a common sense way to indicate which evidence, if it existed, would make a person of interest an extremely viable suspect.

Is there any advantage to using logical terms like necessary and sufficient? While there is probably not sufficient evidence (something like being caught red-handed but escaped at the Chapman scene only to be recaptured in Kelly's bedroom...) available this late in the game, what are the conditions necessary to label someone as Jack the Ripper? Unfortunately, I can name very few that most of us agree on. Perhaps you can think of more:

1. He is a male (close enough to necessary for me).
2. He cannot be placed outside of the greater London area on more than two nights of the canonical killings (if Jack didn't kill at least three of these, then I'd argue there was no Jack.)
3. He is between the ages of 18 and 40 (should we narrow or expand this range given the criteria is necessary and not just probably?) and is of medium height (same question?).
4. He possessed a knife.

This list is embarrassing. Number 4 might be the only criterion that really is necessary. And it would exclude...no one. I give up. But the idea is to generate criteria that the Ripper would necessarily meet. That way, they can be used (at least maybe someday as more info comes to light) to exclude suspects.

[caz]

And responding to Caz's point...."On the question of witness timings on and around Berner St that night, I never cease to be amazed by all the piffle talked (not by you I hasten to add). Firstly, it was nigh on impossible to think back and pinpoint a time exactly, when one was just minding one's own business and not expecting to be asked later when they were doing it. Secondly, most witnesses seem to have approximated to the nearest five minutes when estimating the time; others to the nearest quarter of an hour; some to the nearest half hour, depending on their individual circumstances.".....I can state that 2 witnesses from inside the club, where one used a clock to determine his arrival time back at the club (Kozebrodski), stated within 1 hour of the murder that "at approximately 12:40", and "about 10 minutes after half past twelve" respectively, that they were alerted to the body by Louis. Louis says he used a clock on the way home, thats why he could be sure he arrived at 1am. Yet Fanny Mortimer was at her door at 1am and saw or heard no-one, no cart...no Louis, arrive at that time. The street was empty, except for the young couple.

Oddly enough the members timings correspond almost exactly to the timing provided by Spooner...who by his account of his activities since leaving the pub, was by the body before 12:45am.

Seems to me the witnesses who gave times and had no timepiece to use just before doing so were club witnesses and Israel Schwartz, and funny enough, none of them have any corroberation. Eagle says he was inside the passage at 12:40, Lave says he was there at 12:40...and they apparently didnt see each other. No-one saw Louis arrive. No-one saw or heard a BSM or a Pipeman. We do have witnesses who can be corroborated...its just that Caz prefers to question everyones ability to tell time and accepts the uncorroborated accounts as the ones that are actually valid.

Piffle indeed.

Cheers

Hi Mike,

Which uncorroborated accounts have I 'accepted', based solely on the timings given? Fanny Mortimer went indoors and reported hearing a horse-drawn cart about four minutes later, which coincides nearly enough with the time Diemshitz said he arrived to amount to a corroborated account, regardless of whether you think she lied or was mistaken.

But in any case, you are the one relying on accurate times being given by certain witnesses, so you can carry on speculating that certain other witnesses lied about the timing. Don't you think the police would have noticed a twenty minute discrepancy and sought to reconcile Diemshitz's 1am with these club members who were saying he had alerted them as early as 12.40? Don't you think it would have dawned on Diemshitz that a cover story, attempting to put his discovery back to 1am, would instantly be blown if the other witnesses were not in on it and simply told the truth?

Once you bring lies into the equation, and foolishly transparent ones at that, which are meant to serve some rather unlikely purpose imagined by yourself, the onus is on you to provide evidence of who was lying about the time, based on who was being truthful as well as deadly accurate.

Good luck with that one.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

Caz: Which uncorroborated accounts have I 'accepted', based solely on the timings given? Fanny Mortimer went indoors and reported hearing a horse-drawn cart about four minutes later, which coincides nearly enough with the time Diemshitz said he arrived to amount to a corroborated account, regardless of whether you think she lied or was mistaken.


I dont think she lies at all, Diemshitz said he arrived promptly at 1am...when Fanny was at the door steadily from 12:50 until 1am and didnt even see him let alone hear him. So whos lying again?

Caz:But in any case, you are the one relying on accurate times being given by certain witnesses, so you can carry on speculating that certain other witnesses lied about the timing.

The witnesses I spoke of came from inside the club and had access to timepieces in there....Issac said he arrived back at the club at half past 12 and "about 10 minutes later" was summoned to the passageway....by Louis. So did another member. Who is lying?

Caz:Don't you think the police would have noticed a twenty minute discrepancy and sought to reconcile Diemshitz's 1am with these club members who were saying he had alerted them as early as 12.40? Don't you think it would have dawned on Diemshitz that a cover story, attempting to put his discovery back to 1am, would instantly be blown if the other witnesses were not in on it and simply told the truth?

Inconsistencies dont make anyone a liar, I suppose if they had those suspicions they would have had to prove it. And Louis didnt have any time to speak with those other witnesses about what time they might say he arrived, only Eagle and his missus. Thats why on the night of the murder within 1 hour of finding the body you have Issac and another member and Spooner disagreeing with the times given by Louis. Might explain why Issac didnt appear at the Inquest, or Schwartz.

Caz:Once you bring lies into the equation, and foolishly transparent ones at that, which are meant to serve some rather unlikely purpose imagined by yourself, the onus is on you to provide evidence of who was lying about the time, based on who was being truthful as well as deadly accurate.

Good luck with that one.

I cant believe that its oblivious to you that their reputation, livelihood and the clubs future rested upon how this murder was perceived,..men who would attack the police with clubs 6 months later, members of what the Police described as an anarchists club. Men who fit the ripper profile to that point to a T, as described by Anderson.

Of course people would never lie to protect their money or their freedom to gather at their club.....geez.

Good luck making saints out of anarchists....let me know how that comes out.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Ok, I was a little harsh with caz yesterday, my defense is that we seem to be having some denial issues or intentional blindness. There are indeed several accounts by members inside the club that were taken within 1 hour of the body being discovered. Issac K left alone for help before 1am, at Louis's instructions, Eagle went for help, then Louis with someone named Issac(s). If those accounts, and Spooners, by his accounting for his time, indicates a time of approximately 12:45 when he sees the 2 men from the club.

That directly contradicts the statements of Eagle, Lave, Schwartz and Louis. 2 of which were principally involved in that nights meeting...one as the steward..albeit absent, and 1 as the speaker.

I have said....so what about these accounts? And as a rebuttal I get that we have no reason to distrust the only men at the scene who would have a reason to want this murder to be perceived as an "outsider" murder.

From Issac Kozebrodski: "I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening. About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was. When we had got outside he struck a match, and when we looked down on the ground we could see a long stream of blood. It was running down the gutter from the direction of the gate, and reached to the back door of the club. I should think there was blood in the gutter for a distance of five or six yards. I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers. The officers did not touch the body, but sent for a doctor. A doctor came, and an inspector arrived just afterwards. While the doctor was examining the body, I noticed that she had some grapes in her right hand and some sweets in her left. I saw a little bunch of flowers stuck above her right bosom"

Edward Spooner: "Stated that between 12.30am and 1.00am, 30th September 1888, he was standing with a young woman outside the Beehive public house on the corner of Christian Street and Fairclough Street. After talking for about 25 minutes, he saw two Jewish men running up the street shouting 'murder' and 'police'. He saw them run as far as Grove Street and then turn back. When he asked them what was the matter, they explained that a woman had been murdered, so he accompanied them back the Dutfield's Yard. He saw the body of Stride in the yard and estimated that there was about fifteen people standing around it."

Fanny Mortimer:"I was standing at the door of my house nearly the whole time between half-past twelve and one o'clock this (Sunday) morning, and did not notice anything unusual. I had just gone indoors, and was preparing to go to bed, when I heard a commotion outside, and immediately ran out, thinking that there was another row at the Socialists' Club close by. I went to see what was the matter, and was informed that another dreadful murder had been committed in the yard adjoining the club-house, and on going inside I saw the body of a woman lying huddled up just inside the yard with her throat cut from ear to ear. A man touched her face, and said it was quite warm, so that the deed must have been done while I was standing at the door of my house. There was certainly no noise made, and I did not observe any one enter the gates. It was soon after one o'clock when I went out, and the only man whom I had seen pass through the street previously was a young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School.

I was told that the manager or steward of the club had discovered the woman on his return home in his pony cart. He drove through the gates, and my opinion is that he interrupted the murderer, who must have made his escape immediately under cover of the cart. If a man had come out of the yard before one o'clock I must have seen him. It was almost incredible to me that the thing could have been done without the steward's wife hearing a noise, for she was sitting in the kitchen, from which a window opens four yards from the spot where the woman was found. The body was lying slightly on one side, with the legs a little drawn up as if in pain, the clothes being slightly disarranged, so that the legs were partly visible. The woman appeared to me to be respectable, judging by her clothes, and in her hand were found a bunch of grapes and some sweets. A young man and his sweetheart were standing at the corner of the street, about twenty yards away, before and after the time the woman must have been murdered, but they told me they did not hear a sound."[1]

These are not fictional, they are reported versions of the people themselves. This isnt second hand speculation, like whether or not a particular woman was actively soliciting on any particular night.

I read all the accounts, and when a bunch agree with each other, and none of them agree with another bunch who have every reason to cadge their comments for self preservation,...well, you gotta address that. Not ignore it.

Cheers

[GUT]

G'Day

I just reread:

From Issac Kozebrodski: "I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening. About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was. When we had got outside he struck a match, and when we looked down on the ground we could see a long stream of blood. It was running down the gutter from the direction of the gate, and reached to the back door of the club. I should think there was blood in the gutter for a distance of five or six yards. I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers. The officers did not touch the body, but sent for a doctor. A doctor came, and an inspector arrived just afterwards. While the doctor was examining the body, I noticed that she had some grapes in her right hand and some sweets in her left. I saw a little bunch of flowers stuck above her right bosom"

If the part I have highlighted is to believed doesn't that support Packers claim to have sold Liz grapes?

[Wickerman]

Packer's claim came after that statement appeared in the press.

Although the grapes are typically associated with Packer, and naturally as Packer was dismissed common thinking dictates therefore that the grapes also be dismissed.
However, the issue of the grapes preceded Packer's rise and fall.
Which means, any debate on the grapes should be independent of Packer.

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

My point was though that here we have another report of grapes she must have got them somewhere.

[Wickerman]

G'Day Jon

My point was though that here we have another report of grapes she must have got them somewhere.

Ok, but I was trying to show that Packer may have just jumped on the grapes as a way of drawing attention to himself, he may not have been telling the truth in other words.

Where I am a little cautious about rejecting Packer altogether is the time he initially gave for placing Stride & her man directly opposite Dutfields Yard. It was at 12:30, consistent with the time given by PC Smith.
Sadly, the attire attributed to the man differs, but Packer at 58? may quite honestly have had poor eyesight.

The existence of the grapes is a really contentious issue and whether we accept them or not does not really advance the case in any positive way.