Will we ever know?

[Dan Norder]

For example....what if Joe Fleming, while under no suspicion for any crime but merely an inmate in an insane asylum confides to his doctor in one visit that he killed Kelly and made it look like "Jack done it."

Would those doctors notes, if they existed, impact the perceptions about Millers Court?

That'd be like saying, "Hey, what if pigs could fly? Would that impact the perceptions about whether the Lusk kidney could have been taken from a pig instead of a human?"

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I suspect Abberline would have a bone to pick with you about calling his gut feelings a "pet theory".
If we assume Abberline knew every name on any suspect list then we can assume Abberline didnt consider any of the names useful.

Klosowski was his pet theory - at least for a while.
And he delivered it in retrospect, long after the events.
The idea came to him after the capture and execution of KLosowski. Klosowski was NEVER a contemporary suspect as far as we know. And why would he be in 1888?

No to mention that Abberline's excuses for suggesting Klosowski are faulty, lame and unprofessional at best.

I have a bone to pick with Abberline myself, and needless to say I don't have the same misguided over-exaggerated respect for thim that others seem to have. He may have been a hard worker with a good local knowledge but I fail to be impressed by his analytical and criminological skills.

All the best

[DVV]

Hi,

Druitt was Macnaghten's favourite suspect. I feel that what ever information Macnaghten knew he learned from Monro. So, it is likely that Druitt was also Monro's prefered suspect.

I think Anderson and Swanson believed they knew who Jack the Ripper was. I believe a man was identified, as the Ripper, by a witness. However, I do not believe that the witness who came forward was believed by everyone who worked the case.

Hi Brad,
there is nothing to indicate that Monro had a favourite suspect.
And if Kosminski's guiltiness was an "ascertained fact", as Anderson put it, he would have been publicly supported by several other police officials.
But he was not. Even Swanson kept silent...

Amitiés,
David

[Justin]

Klosowski was his pet theory - at least for a while.
And he delivered it in retrospect, long after the events.
The idea came to him after the capture and execution of KLosowski. Klosowski was NEVER a contemporary suspect as far as we know. And why would he be in 1888?

No to mention that Abberline's excuses for suggesting Klosowski are faulty, lame and unprofessional at best.

I have a bone to pick with Abberline myself, and needless to say I don't have the same misguided over-exaggerated respect for thim that others seem to have. He may have been a hard worker with a good local knowledge but I fail to be impressed by his analytical and criminological skills.

All the best

What could he have done better, Glenn?

This is not a shot at you - I'm curious to hear thoughts on this.

[Graham]

Lawende saw a man with Eddowes, but afterwards stated that he doubted if he would recognise him again. However, the police must have had some faith in Lawende, because he was hauled in once, maybe twice, over the next few years to have a look at suspects of later murders. As far as we know, he recognised no-one. However, there is also a tradition that he did recognise as a fellow Jew the man he saw with Eddowes in Mitre Square, but declined to identify him. I honestly think that this is the nearest the police ever got to actually identifying the Whitechapel Murderer. Everything else is really just conjecture. Any and every policeman at the time and later may have had his pet theory, but it was just that - a theory. Given the Victorian taste for mystery and intrigue, many senior coppers must have dined out on their asserting that they 'knew' who the Ripper was. They didn't.

But please keep up the discussion. I'm just an old cynic in this matter.

Cheers,

Graham

[DVV]

Hello Graham,
Lawende did recognise someone, as far as we can know: William Grant Grainger.
Amitiés,
David

[Graham]

Hello Graham,
Lawende did recognise someone, as far as we can know: William Grant Grainger.
Amitiés,
David

David,

Can you please give me absolute, supported proof of that? And, if so, where it can be found in the Ripper literature?

Graham

[DVV]

Hi Graham,
I'm afraid absolute proof does not belong to the case...What is known is that a witness was called to identify Grainger, that he did recognise him, and that this witness was certainly Lawende. You can find extracts from press reports in the archives boards 2006-7 (suspects: Grainger, and fascinating data were found out by Chris Scott, and I remember the exotic "Hawaiian Gazette") - it was very interesting. Of course, as pointed out recently by Nathalie Severn (can't remember the thread, but it was not about Grainger), this identification, almost 7 years later, has little value.
Still it's worth to remember, don't you think?
I opened a thread on Grainger weeks ago, but unfortunately everybody ignored it...sniff...

Amitiés,
David

ps: give me some minutes, I open the archives boards and I come back, provided my connection still work!

[DVV]

Hi again Graham,
sorry the thread was in the archives 2003-6.
As for your question, the relevant extract from the press is that one (quote it from Sugden):

"There is one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer with a woman a few minutes before that woman's dissected body was found in the street. That person is stated to have identified Grainger as the man he then saw. But obviously identification after so cursory a glance, and after the lapse of so long an interval, could not be reliable"
Pall Mall Gazette, 7 May 1895
Interesting, no? "Dissected body" clearly indicates Lawende more than Schwartz.

Amitiés,
David
David

[Graham]

Hi again Graham,
sorry the thread was in the archives 2003-6.
As for your question, the relevant extract from the press is that one (quote it from Sugden):

"There is one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer with a woman a few minutes before that woman's dissected body was found in the street. That person is stated to have identified Grainger as the man he then saw. But obviously identification after so cursory a glance, and after the lapse of so long an interval, could not be reliable"
Pall Mall Gazette, 7 May 1895
Interesting, no? "Dissected body" clearly indicates Lawende more than Schwartz.

Amitiés,
David
David

David,

The police did believe that Lawende saw the man who (probably) killed Eddowes, but nowhere in the literature is 'the man' identified as Grainger.
Lawende said that he probably could not recognise 'the man' again. Lawende gave quite a good description of the man he saw; do we have any knowledge of Grainger's appearance?

There is no evidence whatsoever that the man seen by Lawende was Grainger. I cannot find any written evidence that Lawende identified Grainger.

Sorry.

Graham

[DVV]

Good morning Graham,
and sorry too, but I can't see your logic here.

What do you call "ripper literature"?
I ingenuously believe our main sources to be mainly official documents and contemporary press reports.
May be you exclude the Pall Mall Gazette from the frame? - But if so, why?
You wrote, in a previous post: "as far as we know, he [Lawende] recognized no-one".
And so (since I believe we are here also to "refresh" each other memories - no arrogance at all from me, I swear, and I know I regularly make mistakes) I mentionned Grainger, since he is said by a contemporary press report to have been recognized by Lawende.
The reliability of the article of 7 May 1995 is not in question here, that's not the problem, but indeniably, that's a written source, and, subsequently, an evidence, flimsy or not, that Lawende did recognize (or only thought he recognized) Grainger as the 30 Sept 1888's man.

As to Grainger appearance...if you have a photo, just post it...
I personnally have not, but I suppose he looked more or less like the man seen with Eddowes some minutes before her murder...

Amitiés,
David

[Dan Norder]

I cannot find any written evidence that Lawende identified Grainger.

The written evidence was just provided to you before you wrote that. You even quoted it in your response.

[downonwhores]

Grainger

Hi Dan,

Great work by the way. Anyway, where did the Graiger source come up? I haven't seen it mentioned in print. Maybe my books are out of date?

[Dan Norder]

I'm not sure which author first discovered that news report and when, but it's been known about for a while. The incident is mentioned in Sugden's Complete History, Begg/Fido/Skinner's A-Z, Evans/Rumbelow's Scotland Yard Investigates and a number of other books.

He's certainly not missing from Ripper literature, but for whatever reason he tends to get ignored. Even for what little we know about him he seems to be a better suspect than the vast majority of the people who have been named as suspects over the years, in my opinion.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Dan!

Grainger?! I think I'll have to read more about him, where-ever the info can be found!

As you may have noticed, my favourite suspect for Jack the Ripper is a perfect no-one. That is; a person, that could move anywhere, without being noticed! And whom none of us has ever thought about!

All the best
Jukka