Can we definitively conclude that Alice McKenzie was not killed by the Ripper?

[Fiver]

Without knowing what specific circumstances would account for such an action, you can't say it didn't happen.

Simple logic says it didn't happen. The police would have gone from reviled to praised if they had caught the Ripper. It would have made careers. If the police had proof of the Ripper's identity, it would have been stupid and illogical for them to not reveal the Ripper's identity.

[Scott Nelson]

If the police had proof of the Ripper's identity, it would have been stupid and illogical for them to not reveal the Ripper's identity.

They didn't have proof. They had strong suspicions, but they couldn't follow through once the suspect had been permanently confined.

[Fiver]

Ive always wondered about the coincidental timing of these crimes and the gathering of double agents and spies and anarchists in town during the Parnell Commission hearings. Interesting coincidence.

Wouldnt it be a dynamite movie if the actual truth is that one of the dangerous anarchists in town at that time, someone perhaps on the Government payroll to provide information, is the guy that did some of these? Does the government risk exposing the fact that it was not uncommon to provide funds to groups and individuals who had causes contrary to the governments own. To groups and individuals that had bombed train stations....plotted to blow up the Queen.....

That reads like the plot of an especially bad thriller. No sane government would fund terrorism against itself. If a lone insane and highly stupid individual suggested it, they would be removed unless they could find other insane and highly stupid people to support a ludicrous plan that would probably blow up in their faces.

Back in the real world, the purpose of getting informants within terrorist organizations is to prevent those organizations from killing people. This means cutting deals with unsavory people. If an informant was discovered to be a serial killer, that would be an opportunity. They could publicly produce the evidence, which gives them credit for taking down a monster and gives the government an excuse to hunt down other members of the terrorist organization as possible accomplices to the murders. It also discredits the organization the government was trying to take down, leading to that organization losing funding and recruits.

The killer would be unlikely to reveal he was a government informant, that would make his own organization actively want to silence him. It could also be dismissed by the government as the ravings of a madman. Or you could avoid any chance of the killer talking by having them killed resisting arrest.

If for some unfathomable reason the government want to make themselves look like bumbling failures but still get rid of the killer, they just leak evidence of his serial killings to the organization he belongs to. Unless that organization is composed entirely of idiots, they will then eliminate the serial killer in their ranks.

[Fiver]

They didn't have proof. They had strong suspicions, but they couldn't follow through once the suspect had been permanently confined.

If they didn't have proof, then they didn't know who the Ripper was. And how would a suspect being confined prevent the police from continuing to seek evidence against a suspect?

[Scott Nelson]

There would have been no point. They couldn't have touched the suspect.

[Trevor Marriott]

There would have been no point. They couldn't have touched the suspect.

Detected crime no proceedings !!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Fiver,

That reads like the plot of an especially bad thriller. No sane government would fund terrorism against itself. If a lone insane and highly stupid individual suggested it, they would be removed unless they could find other insane and highly stupid people to support a ludicrous plan that would probably blow up in their faces.

Actually its just the truth. The National Defense directors and Central Intelligence men had recorded payments to Double Spies and informants from the "enemy" ranks. Some of the most Senior men assigned to the Ripper cases had personally overseen operations and operatives that were from "terrorist" groups. How do you think Gen Millen gets mentioned as a possible Ripper suspect? And did you know General Millen received money from HMG? Wre you aware how much moeny was paid to known terrorist affiliates to testify at the Parnell Commission? Are you aware that one witness was paid 5,000L to do so? Do you have any idea how much money that was then?

Thats how these organizations operate, they buy, they spy, they torture and trade with the enemy for intel or political gain. Iran/Contra. CIA funding drug Cartel members as informants, so they can get the big headline busts. Which for the most part, are just flies on the giant burro that the drug trade is. Cash for hostages, cash that they know will be used to buy bombs that will be used against them.

We live in Bizarro Land. So dont be surprised if you see things that defy logic or ethical reason. Thats just us, being us.

[Michael W Richards]

Detected crime no proceedings !!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Are you aware Trevor that the entire interview with Lee Harvey Oswald conducted by local police, FBI, CIA and others was not recorded in any form. No record of what was said by whom, what was discovered, what remained unclear, how Oswald responded.....nada. And as a former officer of the law yourself, would keeping detailed records of an interrogation of a suspect believed to have just assassinated the President of the United States been mandated?

The fact that there was no trial of any sort on record does not mean that someone could not have been held without a trial and institutionalized. I think its critical that we all bear in mind that the most Senior Men assigned to these cases were from National Defense and Intelligence. You are not so naive that you cant envision secretive National agencies just bypassing laws to effect what they perceive as Justice.

[Fiver]

Hi Michael,

No, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. The police had to allow the suspect to be confined without a trial due to a lack of incriminating evidence, his diagnosed insanity and family pressure on police. I think it was best thought that only a few senior police officials should be 'in the know.'

Wait, you're buying into the Royal Conspiracy nonsense?

[jmenges]

Let’s try not to stray too off topic. You can use 20th century examples of murder conspiracies and investigations as long as you prove its relevance, and meaningfully circle back to, this threads topic. I don’t want to see other subjects (like the Kennedy assassination) hijacking the thread and debated here. Thanks

JM

[Fiver]

Hi Michael,

No, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. The police had to allow the suspect to be confined without a trial due to a lack of incriminating evidence, his diagnosed insanity and family pressure on police. I think it was best thought that only a few senior police officials should be 'in the know.'

A group of people acting to suppress evidence and imprison someone without trial is by definition a conspiracy.

None of the hundreds of Ripper suspects were confined by their family. Of the handful who were institutionalized, none came from a family important enough to influence a police coverup.

And if a family suspected one of their kin was the Ripper, then telling any police, let alone senior police, would have been pointless, counterproductive, and stupid.

[Trevor Marriott]

Are you aware Trevor that the entire interview with Lee Harvey Oswald conducted by local police, FBI, CIA and others was not recorded in any form. No record of what was said by whom, what was discovered, what remained unclear, how Oswald responded.....nada. And as a former officer of the law yourself, would keeping detailed records of an interrogation of a suspect believed to have just assassinated the President of the United States been mandated?

The fact that there was no trial of any sort on record does not mean that someone could not have been held without a trial and institutionalized. I think its critical that we all bear in mind that the most Senior Men assigned to these cases were from National Defense and Intelligence. You are not so naive that you cant envision secretive National agencies just bypassing laws to effect what they perceive as Justice.

The UK criminal justice system is totally different to the USA

The police can institutionalize a suspect after arrest if that suspect is deemed to be suffering from a mental illness and unfit to be interviewed of course that would not simply be on the say-so of the police, they would have the prisoner assessed by mental health experts. I think you will find that the police in 1888 had similar powers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Paddy Goose]

Good morning Trevor,

The police can institutionalize a suspect after arrest...

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In the "Polish Jew" theory the subject was certified insane and put in asylum before an arrest occurred. He could not be charged or questioned by police.

[Trevor Marriott]

Good morning Trevor,



In the "Polish Jew" theory the subject was certified insane and put in asylum before an arrest occurred. He could not be charged or questioned by police.

Hi Paddy

You are correct that is another option for the police if they find a lunatic wandering in a public place they can take him to a place of safety without arrest or a charge being preferred against him.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Scott Nelson]

A group of people acting to suppress evidence and imprison someone without trial is by definition a conspiracy.

As has been mentioned numerous times in the case of Kosminski, evidence wasn't suppressed - it just wasn't sufficient to justify an arrest, especially after the witness backed down. Kosminski was never imprisoned.