Favoured Suspect...

[Mortis]

I imagine I'm not alone in thinking this, but I have every confidence that had you been in Abberline's shoes in 1888, you'd have most definitely cracked the case, random guy on internet.

Hindsight is a wonderful tool, but it has no real use in this murder case for Abberline. Abberline was there, and so was Chapman, and what information he had on Chapman was obviously of interest to him, as it has been to countless researchers since.

We now have the benefit of being able to assess M.O. and signature, which Abberline didn't have. We have over a century of analysis to pluck from at the touch of a button, something Abberline could only hope to dream of.

Had any of us actually been living and breathing in 1888, who knows who we'd think the killer was. Frankly, Chapman isn't a bad suspect out of the ones we've got. Discounting him because of M.O. is naive at best, as killers such as Ramirez and Kurten had murders that the police were hesitant to link at first because they didn't immediately seem like they were by the same hand. People are obsessed with M.O.

As for language, the man obviously had enough ability to communicate to run a business and serve customers.

No offense, mate, but your argument is strange.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was Chapman, but that anyone thinking it could be, certainly back in 1888, could be forgiven. There are still people who believe that Chapman could have been the killer. Chapman, Kelly, Bury, those guys aren't bad suspects. I don't feel like he's been named, personally, but there you go.

Not really relevant. If I was put in Abberline shoes in 1888 I'd be an entirely different person. Unless my conscience, as it is now, was transported with me.

And I said I agreed absolutely that Abberline didn't have all the tools, but even plain investigative work was lacking. You might argue about M.O and such, but I think MO is nothing but a logical conclusion of what someone would do. It's a stretch to suggest that a killer poisoning women is going to be the one ripping open bellies and the like. It's not like JTR was the first killer in existence. You mentioned Ramirez and Kurten as examples of them having used a different MO, but I beg to differ - the MO wasn't different at all, it was just escalation. Same as Jack. Just because what he did to Nichols pales in comparison to what he did to Kelly doesn't mean the pattern of the killing and the post butchery was any different other than the superficial difference in location and the extremity of it.

There is nothing in Abberline's career that we know of that suggests he was a great detective, let alone an infallible one that we all must listen to like gospel because he was the one investigating JTR which is the only thing I took issue with. Promotions are not an indication of competency and quite often than not they are. After all, we're not talking about a highly organized killer like DeAngelo here who seldom left any evidence at all and constantly misdirected the police, we're talking about a killer who struck nonchalantly in very populated areas and who wasn't that particularly careful with his safety.

[Sunny Delight]

I imagine I'm not alone in thinking this, but I have every confidence that had you been in Abberline's shoes in 1888, you'd have most definitely cracked the case, random guy on internet.

Hindsight is a wonderful tool, but it has no real use in this murder case for Abberline. Abberline was there, and so was Chapman, and what information he had on Chapman was obviously of interest to him, as it has been to countless researchers since.

We now have the benefit of being able to assess M.O. and signature, which Abberline didn't have. We have over a century of analysis to pluck from at the touch of a button, something Abberline could only hope to dream of.

Had any of us actually been living and breathing in 1888, who knows who we'd think the killer was. Frankly, Chapman isn't a bad suspect out of the ones we've got. Discounting him because of M.O. is naive at best, as killers such as Ramirez and Kurten had murders that the police were hesitant to link at first because they didn't immediately seem like they were by the same hand. People are obsessed with M.O.

As for language, the man obviously had enough ability to communicate to run a business and serve customers.

No offense, mate, but your argument is strange.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was Chapman, but that anyone thinking it could be, certainly back in 1888, could be forgiven. There are still people who believe that Chapman could have been the killer. Chapman, Kelly, Bury, those guys aren't bad suspects. I don't feel like he's been named, personally, but there you go.

Put quite beautifully if I may say so. For the standards of the time Abberline ran a very thorough investigation- and we only have a snippet of what was uncovered. I wouldn't even suggest he was incompetent by modern standards. He appears to have directed his men to follow up any and every potential lead and this was done to the best of their abilities. The area was saturated with Police- both uniformed and plain clothes. After Kelly's murder they even thought of pioneering the use of sniffer dogs in order to track a potential killer(something underestimated as the reason why the Ripper may have stopped for a while- I think McKenzie and Coles were victims). They also pioneered the photographing of a victim in situ.

I think the Police did as well as they probably could. They were just overwhelmed with information and had only crude methods available to them scientifically. They didn't even have fingerprint technology yet and they had no idea whatsoever about MO and signature that serial killers use. That doesn't mean they were incompetent though.

[Fiver]

Perhaps Abberline was not attempting to capture Jack the Ripper but just the opposite.

Major Henry Smith knew who he was.

Not according to Henry Smith.

At the time, Smith had a suspect, a medical student, but "he proved an alibi without a shadow of a doubt". Smith does mention your suspect, Sutton, but only that Sutton was one of the people who examined the kidney. Sutton was never a suspect for Smith.

[Mike J. G.]

This point is moot. Of course he knew more about Whitechapel since he lived there at the time. All we have to go on is vague retellings and scattered documents. Him being familiar with the area should be the bare minimum and tells us nothing about his skills as a detective. We can base Abberline as incompetent because his track record is simply not up to par. His favored suspect was Chapman who is very far off the Ripper mark, imo. And should be logical to assume that a person whose MO is poisoning his wives isn't the kind of killer that would go violently mutilating women on the street. Furthermore the fact that he probably barely spoke English given he only migrated to the UK not even a year prior to the mruders and have a very distinctive appearance not mentioned by anyone. The other Ripper suspects that we have are all... ridiculous to say the least. The investigation concentrated on all sorts of wacky characters instead of down-to-earth, largely unassuming figure the real Jack probably was. And again I would stress that him believing and focusing on Hutchinson's wild fairy tale in favor of the absolute golden lead the detectives had with Mary Ann Cox was very, very bad police work to say the least. It should be absolute common logic to assume a person who can describe a man he saw in the early hours of the morning down to the tiniest detail is lying through his teeth, among the other massive problems with Hutchinson's tale. Maybe it was desperation on Abberline's fault, maybe it was him simply being too trusting. Either way it was a massive blunder. We can also talk about the crime scenes because I have a lot of critique there, as well.

Again, there are mitigating circumstances of course. Police work and methods were in its infancy and Jack was the first 'modern' serial killer. And of course the police didn't have the tech it does now. I accept all of that, but even with those nothing suggests to me that Abberline was all that good as a detective. At the very best he was an average one way over his head.

I imagine I'm not alone in thinking this, but I have every confidence that had you been in Abberline's shoes in 1888, you'd have most definitely cracked the case, random guy on internet.

Hindsight is a wonderful tool, but it has no real use in this murder case for Abberline. Abberline was there, and so was Chapman, and what information he had on Chapman was obviously of interest to him, as it has been to countless researchers since.

We now have the benefit of being able to assess M.O. and signature, which Abberline didn't have. We have over a century of analysis to pluck from at the touch of a button, something Abberline could only hope to dream of.

Had any of us actually been living and breathing in 1888, who knows who we'd think the killer was. Frankly, Chapman isn't a bad suspect out of the ones we've got. Discounting him because of M.O. is naive at best, as killers such as Ramirez and Kurten had murders that the police were hesitant to link at first because they didn't immediately seem like they were by the same hand. People are obsessed with M.O.

As for language, the man obviously had enough ability to communicate to run a business and serve customers.

No offense, mate, but your argument is strange.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was Chapman, but that anyone thinking it could be, certainly back in 1888, could be forgiven. There are still people who believe that Chapman could have been the killer. Chapman, Kelly, Bury, those guys aren't bad suspects. I don't feel like he's been named, personally, but there you go.

[Mortis]

I know one thing about Abberline and it is based on his commendations and peers view on him. He knew more about Whitechapel and the East end of London than all of us put together. Now of course he was human and none of us are infallible. However to try and paint Abberline as some incompetent is based on nothing other than the fact that he led the investigation- on the ground- that failed to catch a serial killer.

Even today with all out technology, DNA, fingerprinting, groprofiling and much more besides some top detectives struggle to pin down and capture a serial killer. To use that as a stick to neat Abberline with is utterly ridiculous to be quite honest.

This point is moot. Of course he knew more about Whitechapel since he lived there at the time. All we have to go on is vague retellings and scattered documents. Him being familiar with the area should be the bare minimum and tells us nothing about his skills as a detective. We can base Abberline as incompetent because his track record is simply not up to par. His favored suspect was Chapman who is very far off the Ripper mark, imo. And should be logical to assume that a person whose MO is poisoning his wives isn't the kind of killer that would go violently mutilating women on the street. Furthermore the fact that he probably barely spoke English given he only migrated to the UK not even a year prior to the mruders and have a very distinctive appearance not mentioned by anyone. The other Ripper suspects that we have are all... ridiculous to say the least. The investigation concentrated on all sorts of wacky characters instead of down-to-earth, largely unassuming figure the real Jack probably was. And again I would stress that him believing and focusing on Hutchinson's wild fairy tale in favor of the absolute golden lead the detectives had with Mary Ann Cox was very, very bad police work to say the least. It should be absolute common logic to assume a person who can describe a man he saw in the early hours of the morning down to the tiniest detail is lying through his teeth, among the other massive problems with Hutchinson's tale. Maybe it was desperation on Abberline's fault, maybe it was him simply being too trusting. Either way it was a massive blunder. We can also talk about the crime scenes because I have a lot of critique there, as well.

Again, there are mitigating circumstances of course. Police work and methods were in its infancy and Jack was the first 'modern' serial killer. And of course the police didn't have the tech it does now. I accept all of that, but even with those nothing suggests to me that Abberline was all that good as a detective. At the very best he was an average one way over his head.

[John Wheat]

What possible motive could this esteemed Police officer have had to not capture the serial killer?

None the idea is absurd.

[Sunny Delight]

Perhaps Abberline was not attempting to capture Jack the Ripper but just the opposite.

Major Henry Smith knew who he was.

What possible motive could this esteemed Police officer have had to not capture the serial killer?

[Sunny Delight]

Also just to add that Abberline began his career as a PC. He made Sergeant within two years. He operated in plain clothes for a while before being made Inspector in 1873. By 1878 he was Local Inspector for Whitechapel. He then joined Scotland Yard CID and made First class Inspector by 1888. He was then detailed back to Whitechapel after the murders began.

You don't achieve all that by being incompetent or being easily fooled.

[Sunny Delight]

All good points, Sunny and I agree. And why make Abberline solely responsible for the failure of everyone involved in the investigation?

c.d.

Well it certainly doesn't take away from his Police work which was held in the highest regard. This was no incompetent fool. This was a man held in the highest regard by peers and superiors alike. He was a man who was under the most immense pressure during the Ripper investigation, who by the standards of the time ran a very tight and in depth investigation.

Looking back I actually feel it was more likely to noy catch JTR than it was to catch him. So much was stacked against the Police of that time.

[c.d.]

All good points, Sunny and I agree. And why make Abberline solely responsible for the failure of everyone involved in the investigation?

c.d.

[Sunny Delight]

I don't understand the praise for Abberline. He spectacularly failed in the capture of the Ripper. And while we can all admit that police work was in its early stages there and they didn't really have the technology we have of today, even as investigative efforts there were huge mishaps. He botched probably the best lead the investigators had in Blotchy (given by Kelly's close neighbor and someone who knew her well) in order to follow Hutchinson's fanciful tale of the mysterious dapper don. While I absolutely agree that Macnaughten was a nepotism hire, to suggest that Abberline was some expert in anything is lacking in facts. Just because he had experience doesn't make him competent.

I know one thing about Abberline and it is based on his commendations and peers view on him. He knew more about Whitechapel and the East end of London than all of us put together. Now of course he was human and none of us are infallible. However to try and paint Abberline as some incompetent is based on nothing other than the fact that he led the investigation- on the ground- that failed to catch a serial killer.

Even today with all out technology, DNA, fingerprinting, groprofiling and much more besides some top detectives struggle to pin down and capture a serial killer. To use that as a stick to neat Abberline with is utterly ridiculous to be quite honest.

[DJA]

Perhaps Abberline was not attempting to capture Jack the Ripper but just the opposite.

Major Henry Smith knew who he was.

[Mortis]

I don't understand the praise for Abberline. He spectacularly failed in the capture of the Ripper. And while we can all admit that police work was in its early stages there and they didn't really have the technology we have of today, even as investigative efforts there were huge mishaps. He botched probably the best lead the investigators had in Blotchy (given by Kelly's close neighbor and someone who knew her well) in order to follow Hutchinson's fanciful tale of the mysterious dapper don. While I absolutely agree that Macnaughten was a nepotism hire, to suggest that Abberline was some expert in anything is lacking in facts. Just because he had experience doesn't make him competent.

[Lewis C]

Abberline was the bomb, yo!! Loved that guy! Michael Caine to the Max! (Jonny Depp not so much.)

I'm going to have to defer to Sugden for the opinions of the street detectives. I know he went into some detail on them, but I no longer have the book. If anyone else reading this can help, it would be appreciated.

You wrote: "We can't put their views above the views of Anderson, Swanson, and Macnaughton if we don't know what their views were." I would put my 11-year-old son's views over MacNaughton's! The inclusion of Ostrog and Druitt were, to me, made out of the whole cloth. (I think you fail to grasp how much I dislike this man! LOL!) Swanson was a real cop for 20 years before the murders, so I give him my respect. Anderson was a skilled intelligence officer and spent his early career tracking down members of the Fenian Movement. But he barely received his appointment to Scotland Yard before he buggered off to Switzerland. Hard to keep your ears to the street if the only thing your ears are listening to is yodeling! Back to Swanson....since there has been so much confusion about Aaron Kosminsky and the David Cohen/Kaminsky bloke, I'm inclined to believe that he was confusing the homeless lunatic Aaron for the similarly-named Other Guy, whom Sugden calls "an ugly character, indeed." This individual, IMHO, is a far better suspect than poor old Aaron, who at the time likely didn't even know who he was!

I must take a moment to address the nonsense spouted by both Anderson and Major Sir Henry Smith of the City of London Police....

For Anderson to say that the killer had been positively identified by an eyewitness but not prosecuted due to his religion, blah blah blah, is to admit to felony conspiracy and Obstruction of Governmental Process. This is Anderson trying to save face for not catching the murderer. Likewise, when Henry Smith said something like, "we were only a minute or two behind him, yadda yadda yadda..." I had to laugh, recognizing his braggadocio for what it was and is: he was butt-hurt that he lost out on an opportunity to catch the Ripper and one-up his Metropolitan Police rivals. We see it as arrant nonsense, but at the time of their writing, their statements were taken seriously, and only succeeded in further muddying the waters of an already complicated case. Hopefully, this will help further explain the disdain I have for administrators like these guys. End of rant and thank you for your patience!

On the statement of mine that you bolded, I just meant that regardless of how smart and how knowledgeable the street detectives were, if we don't have a record of who they suspected, then they're of no value to us in helping to identify suspects. I do have Sugden's book, so I'll see if I can find anything in there that addresses this.

Are you saying that if what Anderson and Swanson said is true, then the witness that refused to testify committed a crime by that refusal? I thought that witnesses being unwilling to testify wasn't especially unusual.

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

When you previously dismissed the views of upper level police, I thought you were including Abberline in that, so I appreciate this clarification that you believe Abberline's views do count for something.

I do still have the question that if actual detectives' views are the ones that we should give the highest consideration, then what were those views? We know that Chapman became Abberline's top suspect, but what about the others? We can't put their views above the views of Anderson, Swanson, and Macnaughton if we don't know what their views were.

Abberline was the bomb, yo!! Loved that guy! Michael Caine to the Max! (Jonny Depp not so much.)

I'm going to have to defer to Sugden for the opinions of the street detectives. I know he went into some detail on them, but I no longer have the book. If anyone else reading this can help, it would be appreciated.

You wrote: "We can't put their views above the views of Anderson, Swanson, and Macnaughton if we don't know what their views were." I would put my 11-year-old son's views over MacNaughton's! The inclusion of Ostrog and Druitt were, to me, made out of the whole cloth. (I think you fail to grasp how much I dislike this man! LOL!) Swanson was a real cop for 20 years before the murders, so I give him my respect. Anderson was a skilled intelligence officer and spent his early career tracking down members of the Fenian Movement. But he barely received his appointment to Scotland Yard before he buggered off to Switzerland. Hard to keep your ears to the street if the only thing your ears are listening to is yodeling! Back to Swanson....since there has been so much confusion about Aaron Kosminsky and the David Cohen/Kaminsky bloke, I'm inclined to believe that he was confusing the homeless lunatic Aaron for the similarly-named Other Guy, whom Sugden calls "an ugly character, indeed." This individual, IMHO, is a far better suspect than poor old Aaron, who at the time likely didn't even know who he was!

I must take a moment to address the nonsense spouted by both Anderson and Major Sir Henry Smith of the City of London Police....

For Anderson to say that the killer had been positively identified by an eyewitness but not prosecuted due to his religion, blah blah blah, is to admit to felony conspiracy and Obstruction of Governmental Process. This is Anderson trying to save face for not catching the murderer. Likewise, when Henry Smith said something like, "we were only a minute or two behind him, yadda yadda yadda..." I had to laugh, recognizing his braggadocio for what it was and is: he was butt-hurt that he lost out on an opportunity to catch the Ripper and one-up his Metropolitan Police rivals. We see it as arrant nonsense, but at the time of their writing, their statements were taken seriously, and only succeeded in further muddying the waters of an already complicated case. Hopefully, this will help further explain the disdain I have for administrators like these guys. End of rant and thank you for your patience!