Plausibility of Kosminski

[PaulB]

The credibilty of Swanson and Anderson amd Macnagten to start with as I said before take their contributions out of the equation and what evidence are you left with which points to any of their suspects.

You dont seem to grasp the fact that their is no corroboartion to what they say, what Littelchild says or in fact what any of the others say. So you are either going to treat them all the same or totally disregard them.

You keep saying we dont know what it was they all supposedly had evidence wise which led them to "suspect" whoever which is correct and on one point I do concur with you. What there is though is corroboration to the suggestion that they had no hard evidence which would have led to suspect any prime suspect in a way that these have been elevated to by some.

You can't take Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten out of the equation, Trevor, because they are the equation. And of course I grasp that there is no corroboration, it's what I have been saying here. And no, you don't treat them all the same: Anderson is saying that "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper, Macnaghten is conjecturing that Druitt was Jack the Ripper, and Littlechild is saying that Tumblety was strongly suspected, and Abberline was basing his opinion on statements made in the Chapman trial. A different emphasis or different weight is therefore given to their conclusions.

And the some who elevated those men to "prime suspect" status are the men themselves on the one hand and the research priority on the other.

[PaulB]

Hi Hunter this reply is intended for all and not aimed directly at your post.

Thank you for mentioning Insp Moore a good time and opportunity for me to mention this article on The Ripper murders published in The Police Review magazine in 1913. The article was centred around an interview with Chief Inspector Henry Moore who was as is documented directly involved in investigating the murders the relevant quote is "Well so far as I could make out he was a mad foreign sailor, who paid periodical visits to London on board ship. He committed the crimes and then went back to his ship, and remembered nothing about them"

Now where does Insp Moore figure in the shining light category, and do we have a sailor suspect who was mad and wait didnt a witness describe someone of sailor like appearence or have i been dreaming

What Insp. Moore said was:

"DETECTIVE YARNS Thirty Years' Service in Scotland Yard Thrilling Experiences of Henry Moore Chief Detective Inspector, Just Retired and His One Failure, in the Case of "Jack the Ripper."

After thirty years of bright, hard work, Henry Moore, chief detective inspector of Scotland Yard, has been retired. The story of his exploits and successes is almost a complete history of that famous home of England's Criminal InvestigationDepartment known to the public as Scotland Yard, and to the nest of detectives themselves as C.O. - Central office.

Most detectives have a speciality in criminal calendar, or, perhaps, more
than one, to which they devote themselves. and consequently do inferior work in lines outside their own, but Moore always did credit to himself in whatever work fell to his hands. He admits one failure, hoever, and that is that he did not catch Jack the Ripper. Still, there is some satisfaction to him in the thought that even of he didn't succeed in getting the fiend of Whitechapel, no one else did any better. "The police," says Moore, "were handicapped in their work. It was almost impossible to get anyting like a trustworthy statement while every crank in England was sending postcards or writing on walls. The class of woman we had to deal with have told any number of stories for a shilling, and it was impossible to believe any woman, owing tom the hysterical state of fear they get themselves into. If we had tried to keep under observation the persons we were told were "Jack the Ripper" we should have needed every soldier in the British army to have become a detective. We have in the East End foreigners from every
corner of the earth, and when they hate they will tell such lies as would make your hair stand on end. Of course, every one wants to know who Jack the Ripper was. Well, so far as i could make out, he was a mad foreign sailor, who paid periodical visits to London on board ship. He committed the crimes and then went back to his ship, and remembered nothing about them. The class of victim made the work of the police exceedingly difficult. Why, once I had occasion to stand near the arch of Pinchin street Whitechapel, and I remarked to another officer, 'This is just the place for Jack the Ripper,' and sure enough, some few months later a 'Ripper' body was found there in a sack. One of these days, now I have more leisure, I may go to work and before I die I might have the luck to see 'Jack the Ripper' standing in the door of the Old Bailey. It's the only failure I ever had but I'm not at all sure it is a failure yet."

The probability is that Moore was referring to E.K. Larkins story which had had some publicity in the previous years. The source, by the way, is the Bangor Daily Whig and Courier, 30 November 1899. Given the importance of Insp. Moore's statement to your theory, Trevor, I take it you checked the Police Review of 1913 and didn't rely on a secondary source. I think your secondary source made a mistake and I am very sure how. If you didn't and in the 1913 Police Review Moore made no comment about the case, what has to be answered, of course, is why.

[Trevor Marriott]

You can't take Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten out of the equation, Trevor, because they are the equation. And of course I grasp that there is no corroboration, it's what I have been saying here. And no, you don't treat them all the same: Anderson is saying that "Kosminski" was Jack the Ripper, Macnaghten is conjecturing that Druitt was Jack the Ripper, and Littlechild is saying that Tumblety was strongly suspected, and Abberline was basing his opinion on statements made in the Chapman trial. A different emphasis or different weight is therefore given to their conclusions.

And the some who elevated those men to "prime suspect" status are the men themselves on the one hand and the research priority on the other.

I notice that you havent chosen to comment on Insp Moores statement I referred to in an earlier post. This is very important because he was in charge of the investigation on the ground after Swanson had returned back to his office in Scotland yard and anything of importance or new devleopments would have come his way first as it would have been his responsibilty to bring any new developments to the notice of Swanson. Yet there is no mention of any major or significant breakthroughs in line with any of the three new suspects. Clearly he had no agenda.

Look at it another way if all we had was this from Moore and nothing else everyone over the years would have been running around like headless chickems trying to put a name to a mad sailor. Would you have stil been saying wel he was one of Scotland Yards finest so he must be correct of course you would.

So let me turn it around for you. Lets say Moore was correct because I am sure he just didnt come out with that remark off the top of his head they must have had some suspicion, and we explore the possibiltes and who do we come up with Feigenabum. I dont want to turn this therad into another feigenbaum dispute but to make a point in relation to the thread in question being discussed,

What is there which might connect Feigenbaum.
1. he was a known killer
2. the way he killed was consistent with the way some of the women were
murdered here in London
2. he carried a long bladed knife.
3. he was a merchant seaman
4. He was known to work for a merchant line which sailed boats between
Germany and The UK at the time of the murders
4. He was mad.
5. he was suspected by his lawyer following conversations with him and enquiries
he had caried out himself and is alleged to have admitted to being in
Whitechapel on rthe dates of the murders.

All of those put together are pretty good reasons for placing him high on the prime suspect list as being concerned in one, some or all of the murders. Although I do not subscribe to the theory that all of these murders were the work of the same person.

So really as far as your Kosminski Druit and Ostrog and Cutbush are concerned I think that they are burnt toast now in the bin

[Trevor Marriott]

What Insp. Moore said was:

"DETECTIVE YARNS Thirty Years' Service in Scotland Yard Thrilling Experiences of Henry Moore Chief Detective Inspector, Just Retired and His One Failure, in the Case of "Jack the Ripper."

After thirty years of bright, hard work, Henry Moore, chief detective inspector of Scotland Yard, has been retired. The story of his exploits and successes is almost a complete history of that famous home of England's Criminal InvestigationDepartment known to the public as Scotland Yard, and to the nest of detectives themselves as C.O. - Central office.

Most detectives have a speciality in criminal calendar, or, perhaps, more
than one, to which they devote themselves. and consequently do inferior work in lines outside their own, but Moore always did credit to himself in whatever work fell to his hands. He admits one failure, hoever, and that is that he did not catch Jack the Ripper. Still, there is some satisfaction to him in the thought that even of he didn't succeed in getting the fiend of Whitechapel, no one else did any better. "The police," says Moore, "were handicapped in their work. It was almost impossible to get anyting like a trustworthy statement while every crank in England was sending postcards or writing on walls. The class of woman we had to deal with have told any number of stories for a shilling, and it was impossible to believe any woman, owing tom the hysterical state of fear they get themselves into. If we had tried to keep under observation the persons we were told were "Jack the Ripper" we should have needed every soldier in the British army to have become a detective. We have in the East End foreigners from every
corner of the earth, and when they hate they will tell such lies as would make your hair stand on end. Of course, every one wants to know who Jack the Ripper was. Well, so far as i could make out, he was a mad foreign sailor, who paid periodical visits to London on board ship. He committed the crimes and then went back to his ship, and remembered nothing about them. The class of victim made the work of the police exceedingly difficult. Why, once I had occasion to stand near the arch of Pinchin street Whitechapel, and I remarked to another officer, 'This is just the place for Jack the Ripper,' and sure enough, some few months later a 'Ripper' body was found there in a sack. One of these days, now I have more leisure, I may go to work and before I die I might have the luck to see 'Jack the Ripper' standing in the door of the Old Bailey. It's the only failure I ever had but I'm not at all sure it is a failure yet."

The probability is that Moore was referring to E.K. Larkins story which had had some publicity in the previous years. The source, by the way, is the Bangor Daily Whig and Courier, 30 November 1899. Given the importance of Insp. Moore's statement to your theory, Trevor, I take it you checked the Police Review of 1913 and didn't rely on a secondary source. I think your secondary source made a mistake and I am very sure how. If you didn't and in the 1913 Police Review Moore made no comment about the case, what has to be answered, of course, is why.

You are ducking and diving now firmly on the back foot

[Limehouse]

[What is there which might connect Feigenbaum.
4. He was mad.
So really as far as your Kosminski Druit and Ostrog and Cutbush are concerned I think that they are burnt toast now in the bin[/B]

Sorry to chop your post up to such an extent but Ijust wanted to make two comments really.

1. - He was mad
That's not a very scientific term. Do you mean he was officially insane? How reliable were Victorian diagnosis of insanity, considering masturbators and homosexuals were considered 'sexually insane'?

2. Your final comment seems to contain some contradictions, for if you believe that Feigenbaum was probably the killer but not necessarily the killer of all the women, it makes your point number 4 somewhat pointless and leaves the possibility open for Kosminski, Druitt, Ostrog, Cutbush and any number of other suspects to have been the killer of the women you believe Feigenbaum did not kill.

It sounds to me like you are hedging your bets, leaving space for another 'theory' should your current one fall flat on its face.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Paul,

Thank you for the polite reply.

It is true that there is no evidence that any one of the Macnaghten 3 were killers. For all we know each and every one of them would never have hurt a fly.

Which is why we cannot count any of these three as a potential killer. And if one argues one cannot discount them either.. then on that basis you, me and Fred Bloggs are potential killers. How many parents have said they would rip a person to pieces if a pedophile touched one of their kids?.. Most parents have, or thought it. So we are all potentially murderers. But evidence that we DID kill someone.. that's a different matter.. and we ARE talking about three historical figures. They didn't kill anyone, and there is no tangible evidence to show they ever did.

But Macnaghten thought that Druitt was Jack the Ripper.

This is opinion. You yourself have said, opinion is worth diddly squat. I can think that Theakstons Old Peculier is the greatest beer ever produced. But that is opinion also. It means nothing.

Why?

Are you saying that there was no evidence to suggest that he could have been, nothing to connect him with the East End, there were no homicidal tendencies. Nothing. Are you saying that without any reason at all Macnaghten decided Druitt was Jack the Ripper?

Well, that's fine. If that is what you are saying we can dismiss Macnaghten as an utterly worthless source and dump Druitt in the waste bin.

Yes. I am suggesting we dump Druitt in the waste bin. Likewise Kosminski. Likewise Ostrog.

But if you are saying that then you need some proof.

The burden of proof is on those proving he had something to do with the East End, and the murders. People are presumed innocent until such burden of proof is shown. No evidence of being a potential murderer, no evidence of attempted murder. No evidence of woman-hating. No tangible evidence against any of the MM3. Ergo no proof. Waste bin.

...we may still dump Druitt in the waste bin, but unfortunately we can't do that just yet because we don't know what Macnaghten's reason was, or if he had a reason. We don't know.

This is based on assumption that Macnaghten had a reason. As we cannot establish this as fact. it becomes speculation. You want to present factual historical accuracy. That cannot be done using presumption and speculation based on unknown factors. Historians base their assessments on substantiated happenings. Macnaghten's comments are not substantiated by any known fact on any of these three people. It is his opinion...and that is not historically evidential fact. Ergo, it is, as opinion, as you said earlier, worthless. Waste bin.

So, which do you think makes the most sense: to suppose that Macnaghten plucked Druitt's name out of thin air and for no reason whatsoever said he was Jack the Ripper, or that Macnaghten had some sort of reason, good, bad or indifferent, for saying it? And that the same goes for Anderson and anyone else who volunteered a suspect?

If you think it likely that Macnaghten et al had a reason then you are conceding that there was “evidence”, not necessarily evidence that Druitt was the murderer, but evidence upon which Macnaghten based his conjecture that he was.

If you think it is reasonable to assume that Macnaghten based his conclusion on something, that he didn't simply stumble across Druitt's name and for no reason decide he was the murderer, then you cannot write that we should accept that the writings of Macnaghten “are not evidence against any one of the MM3 as being killers.” Because the writings of Macnaghten is “evidence”.

Now, as Stuart has frequently pointed out, because we don't know what the evidence was, or to put it another way, what Macnaghten's reasons were, analysis has turned to the man, to attempts to evaluate him, to assess his trustworthiness and reliability.

What I am saying Paul, is that these men were all without any known evidence, and their comments, and to use your words again here.."makes the most sense" in relation to covering their backsides about NOT catching the murderer(s) of these poor women that is probably still the greatest unsolved killing spree known to the police. THAT makes most sense to me. Its a covering excercise to show the police in a good light, and in Anderson and Swanson's case, their reputations. To me, and others, it is the most logical reasoning. Had they produced one iota of evidence against any of these men actually BEING a killer.. I, and others, would view it differently.

What you seem to be doing is thinking that people have accepted that there was evidence, that it was good evidence, and that Druitt (or Kosminski or whoever) was Jack the Ripper, and you rightly baulk at that and say there is no evidence for such a belief. I say the same thing. Exactly the same thing. I say, as I have said here time and time again, we do not know the evidence on which Macnaghten, Anderson, et al based their conclusion, therefore we can't evaluate it, therefore we can't even begin to assess the probability of one or other being right.

So therefore evidencially, being unable to assess and evaluate the comments themselves makes them unworthy of consideration. Ergo.. this is NOT evidence. It is uncorroberated opinion, and should be treated as such. As you said. Opinion matters not, historically speaking.

However, one can evaluate the source and conclude, say, that Anderson was informed and reliable and that he'd have known the evidence against all the “serious” suspects and that if he thought Kosminski was the best of the bunch that we ought to pay him heed. Even if Kosminski was a poor best of a bad bunch. Or we could conclude that Macnaghten would have known all about “Kosminski” and that his favouring of Druitt means that the evidence against Kosminski wasn't that great. And so on. And that's what some people have done.

Stewart has in part answered this already regarding the evaluation of the sources. I can only add that the feeling I have is that because the sources provide no evidence of any person actually having killed anyone, we cannot call the sources factually reliable based on un-corroberated opinions.

So, by all means go ahead and conclude that Anderson and Macnaghten didn't have any reasons for thinking the way they did, that they plucked Druitt and Kosminski out of thin air and for absolutely no reason accepted that they were murderers. But there is no evidence for that conclusion, and it is highly improbable because generally people do have reasons for reaching that sort of conclusion. Me, I leave the option open. Maybe they didn't have reasons, maybe they did, but we don't know, we can't conclude either way, but if they didn't have reasons then their thoughts on the matter amount to nought, and if they did have reasons then maybe those reasons were good and their suspects reasonable.

I know which approach I consider to be good logic, good reasoning, and likely to produce good history.

The point here is that as an historian, and as a respected author, your views and interpretations regarding Anderson in particular, have not been left open. You have previously championed Anderson's words vehemently.
These views have been challenged, by others. Leaving the door open, regarding Macnaughten, avoids the fact that AT PRESENT, there is no basis of proof in what he says to name any of his three as a killer. So what are you leaving the door open for? That's all well and good if you know of other pieces of evidence yet to come into the public eye from this man. But at present? Waste bin, I personally surmise.

Good logical reasoning says that without any further additions from the source, based upon what he has given us, it is opinion only. That is how I approach this so-called "evidence".

...there is a historical method, developed and honed over the decades, and taught.

Yes Paul. And it is here that I use some types of education as a barrier to expanded thought. I attended school in the 1960's and 1970's. In doing mathematical algebra, we were TOLD that one had a 5 line process to work out an equation. Some of us presented our work as a three line process. We were TOLD, by the maths "master", that was NOT how it was done, even though the result and answer was correct. We were TOLD that it had been done for centuries in this way.. and that was that. "Shut up and do as I say. I know best. How dare you question the methodology that has been used for many many years!!!"

To my complete astonishment, and just by chance, two years ago, the mathematical bods at Oxbridge had "decided" that the three line approach to solving such problems within algebra was now being "accepted". 40 years after we were told that if one used the approach, even though the answer was correct, we would receive no mark, it is now deemed "acceptable". The powers that be decided it. All hail the powers that be. Good for future pupils I say, poor sods.

Do forgive this little wander down memory lane. It tries to show a point. HOW we are taught to accept things, CAN be challenged, and it ISN'T always correct to follow the known accepted methods. In reference to YOUR way of approaching history, and mine, we use differing methodology. That doesn't make me an historian. It doesn't make your "taught" methods the ONLY way to see something either. Logical reasonance is, as I said before, based on two differing concepts.. small differences but important ones.

Positive logicalism and logical positivism. Two differing ways of approach.
The answers may end up different because of the difference in the approach. But here we enter the realms of philosophy.

And all this discussion about the methoidology does in any event, is keep the Merry-Go-Round turning. It gets the Plausibility of Kosminski, Druitt et al nowhere.. because the bottom line is...

After all the facts, sources and opinions are assessed.. there is no evidence against any of these men. Toast, waste bin, Dustmen picked it up, collected it, taken to processing plant, and dumped somewhere.. to be buried forever. NOT repackaged every once in a while. It is not bio-degradable either.

So logically... we move on.



kindly


Phil

[Scott Nelson]

Well, Scott, that would certainly put a new slant on Smith's castigation of Anderson for the latter's assertion that the killer had been positively identified as a low-clash Polish Jew.

I think Smith would have preferred not to say anything publically about the "failed" identification. That is, until he read Anderson's memoirs in Blackwood's Magazine, where the latter claimed that the identification was positive. The gist of this is that the city police would have had primary information of the event, whereas the MET would have been told of the affair, or given a brief written report. This assumes neither Anderson or Swanson were present, which I believe.

[Monty]

Hello Paul,

Thank you for the polite reply.



Which is why we cannot count any of these three as a potential killer. And if one argues one cannot discount them either.. then on that basis you, me and Fred Bloggs are potential killers. How many parents have said they would rip a person to pieces if a pedophile touched one of their kids?.. Most parents have, or thought it. So we are all potentially murderers. But evidence that we DID kill someone.. that's a different matter.. and we ARE talking about three historical figures. They didn't kill anyone, and there is no tangible evidence to show they ever did.



This is opinion. You yourself have said, opinion is worth diddly squat. I can think that Theakstons Old Peculier is the greatest beer ever produced. But that is opinion also. It means nothing.



Yes. I am suggesting we dump Druitt in the waste bin. Likewise Kosminski. Likewise Ostrog.



The burden of proof is on those proving he had something to do with the East End, and the murders. People are presumed innocent until such burden of proof is shown. No evidence of being a potential murderer, no evidence of attempted murder. No evidence of woman-hating. No tangible evidence against any of the MM3. Ergo no proof. Waste bin.



This is based on assumption that Macnaghten had a reason. As we cannot establish this as fact. it becomes speculation. You want to present factual historical accuracy. That cannot be done using presumption and speculation based on unknown factors. Historians base their assessments on substantiated happenings. Macnaghten's comments are not substantiated by any known fact on any of these three people. It is his opinion...and that is not historically evidential fact. Ergo, it is, as opinion, as you said earlier, worthless. Waste bin.



What I am saying Paul, is that these men were all without any known evidence, and their comments, and to use your words again here.."makes the most sense" in relation to covering their backsides about NOT catching the murderer(s) of these poor women that is probably still the greatest unsolved killing spree known to the police. THAT makes most sense to me. Its a covering excercise to show the police in a good light, and in Anderson and Swanson's case, their reputations. To me, and others, it is the most logical reasoning. Had they produced one iota of evidence against any of these men actually BEING a killer.. I, and others, would view it differently.



So therefore evidencially, being unable to assess and evaluate the comments themselves makes them unworthy of consideration. Ergo.. this is NOT evidence. It is uncorroberated opinion, and should be treated as such. As you said. Opinion matters not, historically speaking.



Stewart has in part answered this already regarding the evaluation of the sources. I can only add that the feeling I have is that because the sources provide no evidence of any person actually having killed anyone, we cannot call the sources factually reliable based on un-corroberated opinions.



The point here is that as an historian, and as a respected author, your views and interpretations regarding Anderson in particular, have not been left open. You have previously championed Anderson's words vehemently.
These views have been challenged, by others. Leaving the door open, regarding Macnaughten, avoids the fact that AT PRESENT, there is no basis of proof in what he says to name any of his three as a killer. So what are you leaving the door open for? That's all well and good if you know of other pieces of evidence yet to come into the public eye from this man. But at present? Waste bin, I personally surmise.

Good logical reasoning says that without any further additions from the source, based upon what he has given us, it is opinion only. That is how I approach this so-called "evidence".



Yes Paul. And it is here that I use some types of education as a barrier to expanded thought. I attended school in the 1960's and 1970's. In doing mathematical algebra, we were TOLD that one had a 5 line process to work out an equation. Some of us presented our work as a three line process. We were TOLD, by the maths "master", that was NOT how it was done, even though the result and answer was correct. We were TOLD that it had been done for centuries in this way.. and that was that. "Shut up and do as I say. I know best. How dare you question the methodology that has been used for many many years!!!"

To my complete astonishment, and just by chance, two years ago, the mathematical bods at Oxbridge had "decided" that the three line approach to solving such problems within algebra was now being "accepted". 40 years after we were told that if one used the approach, even though the answer was correct, we would receive no mark, it is now deemed "acceptable". The powers that be decided it. All hail the powers that be. Good for future pupils I say, poor sods.

Do forgive this little wander down memory lane. It tries to show a point. HOW we are taught to accept things, CAN be challenged, and it ISN'T always correct to follow the known accepted methods. In reference to YOUR way of approaching history, and mine, we use differing methodology. That doesn't make me an historian. It doesn't make your "taught" methods the ONLY way to see something either. Logical reasonance is, as I said before, based on two differing concepts.. small differences but important ones.

Positive logicalism and logical positivism. Two differing ways of approach.
The answers may end up different because of the difference in the approach. But here we enter the realms of philosophy.

And all this discussion about the methoidology does in any event, is keep the Merry-Go-Round turning. It gets the Plausibility of Kosminski, Druitt et al nowhere.. because the bottom line is...

After all the facts, sources and opinions are assessed.. there is no evidence against any of these men. Toast, waste bin, Dustmen picked it up, collected it, taken to processing plant, and dumped somewhere.. to be buried forever. NOT repackaged every once in a while. It is not bio-degradable either.

So logically... we move on.



kindly


Phil

Some people talk too much.

Monty

[Jonathan H]

To Garry Wroe

Oh yes, we are in disagreement.

As I understand your theory, Macnaghten was looking for a man who killed himself just after the Kelly murder and found Druitt. Hence Druitt must be the Ripper.

I believe that what really happened is that Druitt was never on police radar as a Ripper suspect, in fact was totally unknown to the constabulary in that context. That is until the Druitt family's ghastly 'belief' leaked in Dorset, in early 1891, amongst Tory Party constituency circles.

In the immediate aftermath of the Sadler debacle, Macnaghten made a thorough investigation of this tale of the surgeons son who had taken his own life years before. Despite all the compelling biases acting on Mac to exonerate Druitt (class, race, religion, timing, avoiding another ****-up) he was, rightly or wrongly, convinced.

"That remarkable man was one of the most fascinating of criminals. Of course, he was a maniac, but I have a very clear idea as to who he was and how he committed suicide, but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me." (1913)

Back in 1894 and the official version of his 'Home Office Report', Macnaghten gave the quite false impression that the 'police' had a pre-conceived theory that the murderer could not possibly function after his 'awful glut', and lo and behold here we have a suicide which took place within perhaps mere hours of the Millers Ct. atrocity!

In actuality, when he investigated this tale it was as 'Jack the Ripper' not a suggestive suicide.

Once Mac was convinced then Mary Kelly had to become the last victim.

To Phil Carter

All sources are important in historical analysis.

In the meagre extant record, strong belief in Druitt's guilt pre-dates Macnaghten's belief by several years.

The idea that families were queuing up to shaft members of their own by accusing them of being the fiend is an empty cliche. That the Druitt family 'believed' is extraordinary, as they would have no reason to unless the evidence left them no choice.

[Trevor Marriott]

To Garry Wroe

Oh yes, we are in disagreement.

As I understand your theory, Macnaghten was looking for a man who killed himself just after the Kelly murder and found Druitt. Hence Druitt must be the Ripper.

I believe that what really happened is that Druitt was never on police radar as a Ripper suspect, in fact was totally unknown to the constabulary in that context. That is until the Druitt family's ghastly 'belief' leaked in Dorset, in early 1891, amongst Tory Party constituency circles.

In the immediate aftermath of the Sadler debacle, Macnaghten made a thorough investigation of this tale of the surgeons son who had taken his own life years before. Despite all the compelling biases acting on Mac to exonerate Druitt (class, race, religion, timing, avoiding another ****-up) he was, rightly or wrongly, convinced.

"That remarkable man was one of the most fascinating of criminals. Of course, he was a maniac, but I have a very clear idea as to who he was and how he committed suicide, but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me." (1913)

Back in 1894 and the official version of his 'Home Office Report', Macnaghten gave the quite false impression that the 'police' had a pre-conceived theory that the murderer could not possibly function after his 'awful glut', and lo and behold here we have a suicide which took place within perhaps mere hours of the Millers Ct. atrocity!

In actuality, when he investigated this tale it was as 'Jack the Ripper' not a suggestive suicide.

Once Mac was convinced then Mary Kelly had to become the last victim.

To Phil Carter

All sources are important in historical analysis.

In the meagre extant record, strong belief in Druitt's guilt pre-dates Macnaghten's belief by several years.

The idea that families were queuing up to shaft members of their own by accusing them of being the fiend is an empty cliche. That the Druitt family 'believed' is extraordinary, as they would have no reason to unless the evidence left them no choice.

I know you are very passionate about Druits viability but you need to take a step back and take a deep breath.

If there ever was such information from a family member. Who from the family would have been in a postion to physically converse with Macnaghten. Again we get back to the Ripper investigation and the chain of command. No one just walks into Scotland yard and demands an audience with a high ranking offficer not then not now.

If it had gone through the chain of command then someone should have been aware of it and it would have been recorded somewhere. The only alternative option to consider is that someone from the family wrote a letter which would have perhaps eventually found its way to MM. Again no mention of that. So on that basis if a letter was sent who sent it from The Druitt family.

A speculative guess might have been the mother she was as mentally unstable was she not. Perhaps the sort of thing someome might do suffering from such a condition. If that were the case, then it should have been followed up and the outcome recorded. The same would have applied in any event if it were relayed to MM verbally.

Likewise enquiries should have been done at Druitts school at the time of his suicide that should have been evidence for the coroners court. There appears to be nothing available re the inquest hearing that might have shone a few lights. Perhaps the reason for his suicide may have been clear at that time thus taking away the later beleif that he committed suicide after killing Kelly.

Correct me if i am wrong but were his movements at the time of some of the murders checked out by researchers and it was found that it was almost impossible for him to have commited some of the murders and be where he was known to be later on ?

In any event this private information if it ever existed must have come to notice years after 1888 as you suggest 1891. No matter what form in came in verbally or writing could not have been anythting more than hearsay at best and not able to be corroborated as is still the case today.

So I think you are getting carried away and placing to much reliance on MM and his private information. Druitt like the others from the MM is not a prime suspect based on the little known about him. Try looking at it in a different light. The saying "cant see the wood for the trees comes to mind."


.

[Garry Wroe]

Oh yes, we are in disagreement … As I understand your theory …

Hence your first mistake, Jonathan. I don’t have a Druitt theory.

… Macnaghten was looking for a man who killed himself just after the Kelly murder and found Druitt. Hence Druitt must be the Ripper.

If you’d care to re-read the relevant post, Jonathan, you’ll find that I suggested this scenario as a plausible alternative to the one proposed by Paul. I have no idea whether it is true, and even less inclination to pursue it.

I believe that what really happened is that Druitt …

And there you go. You believe. The problem is, you haven’t presented a shred of evidence that might substantiate these opinions.

If you wish to debate Druitt, Jonathan, I would suggest that you do so on an appropriate thread rather than on one that was established to debate the plausibility of Kosminski’s Ripper candidature.

[Jonathan H]

To Trevor

My interpretation of the surviving bits and pieces led me to a provisional conclusion.

I believe that other interpretations are possible.

No, I do not believe that Druitt has an alibi for any of the five murders attributed to him. Others have disputed this, very unconvincingly.

I think Druitt was sacked from his school for being 'absented' at night, which we see echoed in Sims and in Mac's memoirs.

I think that Druitt confessed his crimes to a priest, after Kelly. That this clergyman my have been a family member too. Before they could make an assessment as to whether he was compos -- whether it was all a tragic delusion -- he topped himself before being sectioned. At his digs, the brother found blood-stained clothes and interpreted these to be physical evidence of Montie's homicidal madness.

The family closed ranks, of course, but the story leaked in 1891.

Macnaghten had an entirely private meeting with MP Farquharson, and then William Druitt. We see a veiled version of all this in Sims. It was entirely unofficial, and unrecorded.

Until the Cutbush story broke in 1894 and Macnaghten felt torn by competing pressures -- and tried to square the circle.

When the tale resurfaced in 1898, for the public, it was sufficiently fictionalised to protect the family.

But Montie may not have been the killer at all.

[Roy Corduroy]

Trevor you addressed this to Jonathan -

I know you are very passionate about Druits viability...

Correct me if i am wrong but were his movements at the time of some of the murders checked out by researchers and it was found that it was almost impossible for him to have commited some of the murders and be where he was known to be later on ?

And yes here on Casebook there have been vociferous arguments about that very point. Could Druitt have killed Annie Chapman and still made his morning cricket match at Blackheath? And since this has become a "suspect smorgasbord" type of thread it is a relevant point. What do we know. Well, we know you Trevor, could not find the sailing records that placed 'Feigenbaum' in the port of London in Fall of 1888, although it was not for lack of trying, thank you. And we know that Aaron Kosminski apparently was, as said, a resident of the East End. Or at least the City. He may have been living with Mr. Cohen where he walked the dog.

Roy

[Tom_Wescott]

What makes a good suspect? The Phil Carter Criteria

The burden of proof is on those proving he had something to do with the East End, and the murders. People are presumed innocent until such burden of proof is shown. No evidence of being a potential murderer, no evidence of attempted murder. No evidence of woman-hating. No tangible evidence against any of the MM3. Ergo no proof. Waste bin.

Hi Phil. Not wanting to start anything ugly, but I couldn’t pass commenting here. If the above is the criteria that a proposed suspect should meet, then I’m left wondering why you are so fast to cast Le Grand down with the Robert Manns and Neil Creams (and apparently the Druitts, Kozminskis, and Tumbletys). In Le Grand we have a man with an excellent knowledge of the East End, evidence of potential murder, proof of attempted murder, proof of woman-hating, literally every point you mention that a suspect should have. On top of that, he was a police suspect before Feb 1892, which is another criteria you’ve imposed. But you can’t seem to understand why I have an interest in following up on this suspect. To discredit Le Grand, you say ‘Well, he’s not in the Memoranda’, but it’s clear that if he WERE one of the Macnaghten 3, you’d somehow see that as proof that he wasn’t a good suspect. I hope you can understand why this might cause confusion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

Point taken. The Le Grande "problem" isn't essentially the same as the MM3. Surely all "suspects" should be assessed on the merit of the source material the name evolves from?

I personally discredit Le Grande because he too was not known to have actually killed anyone, his violence is more thug-like behaviour than that of a multi-murdering woman slasher. He hasn't as far as I am aware, attacked and cut up any woman with a knife, he does not match any witness sighting as a suspect at any of the C5 murder scenes as given to us in witness statements, and the only place one can viably place him in conjunction with the murders of the C5, is one that to me, and others, involves a money making scheme of sorts in Berner Street. This fits nicely in with his attempted extortion letter to a lady which he was sent down for. (amongst other minor offences, compared with somebody mutilating and murdering a woman).

I can understand why you wish to follow this "suspect" Tom, but at present, as I said, do not see a reliable connection to Le Grande being any more than a violent, money making street thug. I have repeatedly encouraged you to present more viable linking evidence, as you know. I also have a problem with anyone locked up at the time he was, yet the "Ripper" investigation carried on afterwards, and comments on the supposed killer for 20 years afterwards from many major players in the police either do not mention him, or say they had no idea who the killer was anyway.

As far as the MM3... let us, for one second, imagine that amongst the "many homocidal maniacs" MM mentioned, he looked at Le Grande in this light as well. Well now, given the criteria of what MM produced as "more likely then Cutbush", we have a man who was only convicted of walking a dog off it's leash, a thief, and a man with no known criminal record at all.
Err, do excuse me for being a little slow on the uptake... but given Le Grande's criminal record.. he would, and should, be head and shoulders above those three as a suspect. You don't have to be a policeman to work that one out.
So the obvious question, if one is to believe the word of MM.. is why he (Le Grande) wasn't listed at all? As I see it, either the conclusion was that Le Grande was not the type of criminal MM thought of as a possibility, or, equally likely, MM was basing his evaluation on unrealistic suspects, for reasons nobody knows and we can only try to guess at.
Whatever the answer.. it doesn't do the Memoranda any favours does it? It also casts doubt on the reliability of it's author's opinions. That to me is a logical conclusion.

I reiterate, the above quote you gave of mine refers to the viability of the "suspects" named in the MM3. Only Kosminski is known to have been local.. but his only known crime is for walking a dog without a leash!

kindly

Phil