just finished Rob House's book.

[Beowulf]

[Well, I have NOT finished reading House's book, but I find in it some information that astonished me when I read it:

"Cox was a City detective...as a shadower of criminals...conducted undercover surveillance on a suspect "Not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes".

"..Cox claimed to have conducted undercover surveillance on a suspect "who was insane, was apparently Jewish and was later committed to an asylum. The article may well be a firsthand account of the surveilance of Kozminksi...."While the Whitechapel murders were being perpetrated his place of business was in a certain street, and after the last murder I was on duty in this street for nearly three months...there were several other officers with me...the opinion of them was that the man they were watching had something to do with the crimes...never once did we allow him to quit our sight...It is indeed very strange that as soon as this madman was put under observation, the mysterious crimes ceased""

"The police were conducting inquiries into the Batty Street laundry incident, in which the police were carrying out surveillance on a suspect who was "living on the premises" of a ladies tailor's workshop, ..and now we have Cox saying that the suspect under City Police surveillance "Occupied several shops in the East End...George Sims referred to Kozminski as the "sole occupant of certain premises in Whitechapel after night-fall...this and the statement made by Cox may suggest that Kozminski was living "on the premises" of his brother Isaac's tailoring workshop at 74 Greenfield Street during the Ripper murders...Isaac had a large separate workshop in his backyard..."

I've always thought that the murderer had to be a working man, as the murders were committed on the weekend, but this information made me realize that if Kozminski were the ripper, he then had to WAIT for the weekend to commit the crimes, as the building was occupied during the week by the working tailors. He had to wait for the workers to be done and leave the premises for the weekend.

He then could come and go to a private setting with his bloody clothing and his 'trophies'.

There was no one there to see him enter, he could be up all hours without suspicion and sleep the day away afterwards, (as I imagine a night of bloody work would exhaust one, especially if he had been drinking besides).

Interesting bit of information there, that there WAS a lodging in which a man did come and go, and WAS observed and WAS a strong suspect by the police to possibly be and very likely be JTR.

[DVV]

Hi Neil

Stewart has never presented Tumblety as Jack and claimed case closed. He found a letter from a major mover at the time, researched it, and presented a case as to who Dr T was and why Littlechild named him.

True, I know.

and he stated clearly his frustrations of being labelled as the 'Tumblety man' when, in reality, his views are Jack would never be named.

He was labelled as the "Tumblety man" only by those who haven't read the book, but only its title, I guess.

Bon dimanche

[Monty]

I like suspect therories....yeah, weird.

Stewart has never presented Tumblety as Jack and claimed case closed. He found a letter from a major mover at the time, researched it, and presented a case as to who Dr T was and why Littlechild named him.
.
I've been lucky enough to have met Stewart a few times, spoke on the phone a few times more, and Tumblety rarely cropped up. In fact I can only recall it did once, and he stated clearly his frustrations of being labelled as the 'Tumblety man' when, in reality, his views are Jack would never be named.

And if you take a look at Stewarts posts throughout this and How's site, you will find the odd one where he accepts valid arguements against Tumblety as well as expressing the view that NO suspect has a strong enough case to be labelled as Jack the Ripper.

Monty

[DVV]

While perhaps the minority of jaded web forum posters have grown to hate theories and suspects, clearly the large majority of Ripper readers have not.
Tom Wescott

Excellent observation, Tom.

But of course Rob's book and yours (when published) do not belong to the same category as Maybrick, Sickert, etc, and do interest "forum posters".
It's not often that a ripper book conquer both ripperologists and the "large majority", but which kind of study can achieve this, if not a suspect-based one ?
The challenge is to make viable suspects such as Kosminski or Le Grand as famous as Maybrick.

In other terms, it's to make big money without being stoned to death on boards, and that's all I wish to you both. People should spare some money for Fleming, however.

[The Good Michael]

Nell,

Interesting idea.

Mike

[Carrotty Nell]

The problem is that he erred when suggesting Kosminski had died.

One thing which occurred to me in this connection. The first date upon which Swanson is known to have claimed that his suspect had died was 1895. This date does in fact correspond to when something important had happened to Aaron Kosminski - namely, being transferred from Colney Hatch to Leavesden. Is it possible that Swanson was given erroneous information in 1895 to the effect that AK had died?

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm glad to hear that, Grave. While perhaps the minority of jaded web forum posters have grown to hate theories and suspects, clearly the large majority of Ripper readers have not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Grave Maurice]

True. If any of us were lucky enough to discover a previously unknown document that named a new suspect, we'd be over the moon and probably couldn't wait to publish it. I'm one of those who enjoys suspect theories. They add a very interesting sidelight to the subject.

[Tom_Wescott]

When Dan Farson discovered MacNaghten's notes, he naturally wanted to believe that the case had been solved. I can't help wondering if the same applies to Stewart Evans, as much as I respect him - in the excitement of finding the Littlechild letter, did he overestimate its importance?

That's a loaded question. As someone very much interested in the Ripper case, I'm not sure that the importance of a new suspect named by someone in Littlechild's position COULD be overestimated. Putting myself in Stewart's shoes, back in 1995, how could he not get excited? A new suspect who was said to have a uterus collection and who generated an enormous amount of press in the states for being a Ripper suspect? That's juicy stuff. He then gave Tumblety to the world to pick apart, which they did, and he's not such a good suspect any more, but that has no bearing on Stewart, because as I see it, Tumblety ceased to be 'his' once the book was published.

Also, the Tumblety research opened up many new lines of inquiry and insight in the investigation. I still don't understand how with all the print in the U.S., the U.K. papers kept him hushed up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

To Fleetwood Mac

Yes, that is one way of looking at Macnaghten and 'Kosminski', that the latter thought he was some sort of potential suspect.

On the other hand, in the one document by Mac under his name for the public he judges the Polish Jew suspect to be unworthy of mentioning to even debunk (the same with Ostrog, and contemporary research proving the latter had an alibi has caught up with Mac's 1914 dismissal of him).

To AndrewL

I agree, up to a point.

I would just add that Druitt is not 'our' choice, so to speak, but the choice of his own family, an MP, the people he told, and a police chief.

All are, arguably, primary sources with a bias against picking 'one of us', and a fiend so embarrassingly dead and unknown to police -- for years.

I would also add that a very strong argument can be mounted that Tumblety was the key police suspect of 1888, not 'Kosminski' and certainly not Druitt.

[lynn cates]

mundane

Hello Andrew.

"Are we all looking for exciting, melodramatic master criminals as possible Jacks when the mundane, sordid truth is staring us in the face?"

I find that highly likely. And it will be VERY mundane, I should think.

Cheers.
LC

[Stephen Thomas]

Are we all looking for exciting, melodramatic master criminals as possible Jacks when the mundane, sordid truth is staring us in the face?

Well, not all but certainly some.

[AndrewL]

I think that Pontius2000 makes a very important point. Many of us have a suspect that we subconsciously want to have been the Ripper, which skews our attitude towards the evidence. For that reason, I believe that some Ripperologists downplay the case against Kosminski because the notion of a poor anonymous Polish Jew is just not a very exciting solution.

I plead guilty to this. My preferred suspect is Druitt because, to me, he is psychologically the most interesting of the major candidates. A middle-class barrister with aristocratic connections and private demons - that's the sort of character you can imagine great crime novels being written about. Also, crucially, we have two photographs of him - since no image of Kosminski is known to exist, he just seems anonymous by comparison.

But as much as I want Druitt to be the Ripper, I have to admit that I think the evidence against Kosminski is objectively stronger.

When Dan Farson discovered MacNaghten's notes, he naturally wanted to believe that the case had been solved. I can't help wondering if the same applies to Stewart Evans, as much as I respect him - in the excitement of finding the Littlechild letter, did he overestimate its importance?

Are we all looking for exciting, melodramatic master criminals as possible Jacks when the mundane, sordid truth is staring us in the face?

[Pontius2000]

I think Swanson's notes is the document that lends most weight.

The problem is that he erred when suggesting Kosminski had died.

So, you're left with two choices:

1) Do you discount the whole thing based on that error?
2) Do you attempt to seperate what what is correct from the error?

I personally would go with 2, and would seperate the meat of the notes (very unlikely to be incorrect) from what is peripheral (more likely to be incorrect).

To me, the meat is that someone was identified was Jack. That is the point of the notes.

Then you're left with what is peripheral and therefore more open to error, and you're left with an interesting question:

1) Was Swanson in error when he said the man was dead? or
2) Was the man dead and he was in error when he said it was Kosminski?

It's also that when he was finally committed insane that they knew he would never be released and just sort of assumed that he died soon after. or maybe that his family was so ashamed and wanted to distance themselves from him that after he went from one asylum to another, the original informant told that police that he was dead.

[mariab]

Wow, that was a quick one, Lynn, ;-)
You're quicker than my boss (when he's on) in answering, which is OUT THERE.