So......who do you think it was?

[GUT]

G'Day Tom

The idea that they never suspected the actual Ripper stems from our smug 21st attitude that the police of 1888 were incompetent.

Certainly not from me. I've posted over and over that the police in 1888 would have been no better and no worse than the police of today.

The only real difference is that today they have a lot more resources.

[Lechmere]

AndrewL
You missed Ostrog off your list of Police suspects.

[Tom_Wescott]

I still maintain it was not one but two persons, and closely related to Martha Tabram, who was the catalyst for the rest, at least the next four. It started out as a mugging, escalated to a frenzied murder, and the "high" from this initiated the others.

When you say 'closely related' do you mean familial? Are you the one who was here a couple years ago suggesting one of Tabram's kids killed her?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

G'Day Amanda

So what makes Kozminski and Levy any better as suspects than Druitt and Chapman. It is obvious that for whatever reason they all could be seen as suspects at or near the time of the murders, by police close to the investigation.

I agree 100% that

Hi Gut. Druitt's not a good suspect at all. I'm not sure there was even real suspicion against him. Chapman's extremely unlikely as well. The argument against Levy, if looked at closely, is too suggestive in my opinion. Kozminski is another matter. There seems to have been real suspicion against him, although we don't really know what or why.

I doubt Koz was the Ripper, but he may have killed somebody. Or maybe not. I think it's more likely that the killer or killer(s) names did become known to the police and are known to us than that they weren't. The police collectively and individually followed many leads and researched many theories. They simply didn't have the proof to convict anyone. The idea that they never suspected the actual Ripper stems from our smug 21st attitude that the police of 1888 were incompetent. While certainly flawed, I don't think the men on the street were incompetent. I think some of them may have gotten it right. Some may have known quite a bit but were corrupt.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[pinkmoon]

I still maintain it was not one but two persons, and closely related to Martha Tabram, who was the catalyst for the rest, at least the next four. It started out as a mugging, escalated to a frenzied murder, and the "high" from this initiated the others.

Hi woocus,no one has really examined the possibility (except from the royal theory) of two men one killer one lookout it would explain the killers reckless behaviour.

[woocus]

I still maintain it was not one but two persons, and closely related to Martha Tabram, who was the catalyst for the rest, at least the next four. It started out as a mugging, escalated to a frenzied murder, and the "high" from this initiated the others.

[Amanda Sumner]

Chapman was not even on the police radar until 1902, and certainly Abberline could only speculate the role that person may have had in the spate of murders in 1888. Certainly he was in the area working at the time, but so were thousands of others.
Druitt was at the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't believe, for a minute, that had a police officer received real information, stating that Druitt was the killer, that he would have kept quiet on such an important case of the murder and mutilation of several women.
Levy and Kozminski, however, were on the police radar and certainly the latter brought attention to himself. Both were very mentally unstable and their stories, in my opinion, are very compelling. Each had motive to be angry towards women and certainly Levy came from a line of butchers.
I don't know, just, to me, they seem the most interesting of the bunch.

[GUT]

G'Day Amanda

So what makes Kozminski and Levy any better as suspects than Druitt and Chapman. It is obvious that for whatever reason they all could be seen as suspects at or near the time of the murders, by police close to the investigation.

I agree 100% that

it's far more likely to have been someone completely unknown to us then, as now.

[Amanda Sumner]

John Pizer?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Druitt's a no-go. Kozminski still remains.

Poor Druitt. Here was a man with enough problems of his own, who took his own life because of them and the only reason anyone remembers him is because of the timing of his suicide! Had he killed himself at any other time no one would probably have heard of him. Police talked a lot of rubbish then, as they do now, and they had a habit of making statements with very little reason. What facts did Abberline have when deciding that they had caught the Ripper after Chapman was arrested all those years later?
Kozminski is an interesting fellow and so is Levy. Think they are my two favourites out of the whole bunch, but I still think it's far more likely to have been someone completely unknown to us then, as now.

[Tom_Wescott]

Somebody who owned a lot of hats

John Pizer?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Druitt's a no-go. Kozminski still remains.

[Damaso Marte]

Somebody who owned a lot of hats

[GUT]

G'Day Andrew

If you want to narrow it further, then I think Druitt and Kosminski must be top of the list because of the certainty expressed by Macnaghten and Anderson.

In my opinion, which probably isn't worth a lot, it is something that must be given a fair bit of weight.

[AndrewL]

My take:

I think many of us are subconsciously influenced by who we want the Ripper to be rather than the meagre evidence we have. In my case, I want it to be Druitt because I think an upper-class Ripper would be a psychologically interesting solution - much more interesting than a poor Polish Jew although I have to concede that the case for Kosminski is at least as strong.

I am often reminded of Colin Wilson's warning:
"It seems to me that identifying suspects who could have been Jack the Ripper is a waste of time, since London at the time must have been full of people who could have been the Ripper."
To me, this is a strong argument against Bury, Kelly, Stephenson and many others.

The only suspects with any real validity in my eyes are those actually named by policemen, since the police knew far more about the case than we ever will. Those suspects are Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety and Chapman.

If you want to narrow it further, then I think Druitt and Kosminski must be top of the list because of the certainty expressed by Macnaghten and Anderson. (Yes, I know Macnaghten wasn't absolutely certain but he sounded very confident.) I think there must have been concrete reasons for this. The two policemen may have been misguided, their evidence may have been no good, but there must have been something - and we can't be certain either way without knowing what that evidence was.

I would love to speculate further, but sadly that just isn't justified by the facts we have. It's like trying to solve a jigsaw where 90 per cent of the pieces are missing.

[GUT]

G'Day Amanda

I think it's possible that he watched and waited. I think the attacks were sudden and totally unexpected. I'm not saying that the women did not see him or exchanged words but I don't think he chatted openly on street corners or bought them drinks in pubs.

That's how I suspect it went down too, there was no need for him to engage them, just wait till he found some woman in the right place and GO.

[Amanda Sumner]

I've just taken possession of a diary a mate of mine who I used to drink with gave it me it contains a full confession to the ripper murders I'm not going to bother making its contents public because no one would believe it would they?

Certainly not Pinkmoon, unless, of course, it was written by a complete unknown
who we can trace, that he lived at the relevant time and place, and just happened to leave a will that we discover and, guess what? The writing matches perfectly!