The "Canonical Group" defines the Ripper...but accurately?

[Malcolm X]

Broadshoulders about 5ft 5'' to 5ft 7''...........respectable dress, average moustache............long coat

Blotchy face about 5ft 5''............scruffy dress and a large carotty moustache..........long coat

a moustache wont grow that quickly ( i think) it takes me 2 weeks to grow a small moustache ....and clothing tells us little, because a smart killer wont dress, or might not dress the same all the time.

50 to 60% out both sightings... so these 2 suspects could be the same! .... but these 2 dont match Eddowes, more importantly Broadshoulders doesn't match Eddowes...............BUT, did the Ripper quickly shoot home and change................oh God...what a mess; because he could quite easily couldn't he!

[Malcolm X]

it's therefore not a huge stretch of imagination to say that BS, Lawende and Blotchy face are all the same person....but the Lawende suspect was of medium build, well shrug...who knows!

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Out of those suspects, I think the Broadshouldered Man killed Stride and Lawende's man was the Ripper. Blotchy was likely just a drinking pal of MJK's and Pipeman left the scene with Schwartz, if I'm not mistaken.

[Nothing to see]

Hi NTS,

I wouldnt expect that everyone would agree with my suggestion, or even my justifications for the suggestion, but you do know that including Liz Stride means you have to add a subjective explanation for the lack of wounds... and either the Ripper hiding in a yard that was stated as empty, or suddenly appearing from the street through the gates... cutting, and leaving. Cause he probably wasnt Broadshouldered Man, based on his entrance.

Annie Chapman is by far the easiest victim to attribute to the killer known as Jack, she is the quintessential victim, and the signal she sends, based on the murder preceding hers, is that a new iteration of the Whitechapel Murderer thought to be active since the spring in stabbings/robberies, had been revealed. The fellow that killed her isnt one of a possible gang, hes a loner with some skill with a knife, and some knowledge of a womans internal organs. The uterus is extracted cleanly and efficiently.

The point of that is that Liz is killed very simply in between 2 kills that do have suggestions of a connection to Jack, and they are kills that are far from simple to understand.

There is no need to dumb him down by adding a victim that is purely and simply a murder victim...inferring he got caught with his pants down by a cart and horse which had been noisily approaching for minutes. There is not much escalation in terms of evident damage on Kate to that of Annie...he wasnt pissed off cause he got interrupted with Liz, he was just doing what he normally does and adding facial wounds.

Best regards NTS

This damn website! I just spent 10minutes replying to you and it logged me off. OK, digest version. Jack was disorganised, an opportunist. 'Witnesses' who saw different occurrences in Berner St:

-Matthew Packer, self aggrandising liar.

-James Brown, getting his supper. Didn't know if the woman he saw was wearing flowers.

- Fanny Mortimer, professional busybody who fingered Leon Goldstein was wasn't Jack.

- Isreal Schwartz, who saw a mugging. Ah, BS man. What about clay pipe man?

I don't see Jack melodramatically hiding behind the gates to the yard.

He only needs a few minutes. Sidles over. Off they go. And yes, I believe he was disturbed. I don't see Jack doing a recce of this area beforehand. He was a risk taker and so far it had worked for him. This time, no. That's why he went postal on Eddowes.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

I submit to you NTS based on the Senior Medical opinion onsite in Dutfields Yard at 1:16am.....when Leon Goldstein passes by the gates, in Fannys words...after "looking up at the club", Liz is either lying there or being killed at that moment. Thats 12:55am.

Goldstein cannot turn his head 90 degrees to "look up" to see the club when he walks by the gates....the club wall is where Lizs head almost touched, he would have to look on a backward
angle over his right shoulder...which puts him walking past the gates, looking slightly over his shoulder towards the 2nd floor window that was open with song coming out...and questionably seeing behind the gate where Liz is killed...within a minute of the LATEST estimate of her fatal cut by Blackwell. If she is cut "perhaps 20 minutes before his arrival, no more than half an hour".....which was his estimate not mine, Liz is cut between 12:46....when BSM is left alone with Liz and only they two are there....or as late as 12:56...one minute after Goldstein walks by.

So as you see......If BSM was her killer....which to me seems around 90%, and he is also Jack....he is either killing Liz or just finished killing Liz when Goldstein walks "hurriedly" by. 4-5 minutes before Diemshutz arrives.

That is based on Blackwells estimates, and Fannys sighting.

So youre clear that these arent just my positions, they are officially submitted ones.

Best regards


editted to add.........Anyone who takes Goldsteins pass by lightly should remember the timing here.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Exactly why I think if Stride was a Ripper victim, then he would've been disturbed whilst cutting her neck, which could explain the differences between the throat wounds. But that's just a theory of my own and even I don't buy into it.

[perrymason]

Exactly why I think if Stride was a Ripper victim, then he would've been disturbed whilst cutting her neck, which could explain the differences between the throat wounds. But that's just a theory of my own and even I don't buy into it.

Hi M & P,

It would seem by the statements of Blackwell, that if the killer was interrupted at all...it was perhaps 4 minutes before Diemshutz and cart arrives. And thats assuming the latest time of Blackwells estimated 10 minute cut window.

So.....who interrupts him?

As I suggested on my last post, Goldsteins pass by the gates is a minute before that "window" ends. Which would suggest that he, not Diemshutz, would have to be the "interruption" that causes the killer to bolt before doing what "Jack" does to women he kills.

All well and good except for the fact that we cannot assume Broadshouldered Man had left by then, and his entrance alone almost rules him out as the "cunning" killer, we dont know where he and Liz went after the Pipeman and Schwartz leave...Fanny doesnt see anyone outside the gates but Goldstein at 12:55.

The most reasonable and logical answer to this dilemma is that once Schwartz and Pipeman leave, BSM and Liz enter the yard, perhaps not voluntarily on Lizs part. Its almost certain he used her scarf to choke her to some degree.

Little innocuous Goldstein, who comes into the police station Tuesday night with a translator, believed to be Wess of the Arbeter Fraint news letter, may well be a pivotal witness based on the timing.

He is also a Club Member,.....Schwartz may well be as well, so is Eagle, and Kozebrodski, and The Diemshutz's....and of course Wess.

Its no wonder to me that with the vast majority of evidence offered by witnesses regarding Liz Stride coming from club members..... that the yard that is often busy after meetings Saturday night was claimed to be empty, and that an altercation with the deceased was said to have happened outside the gates.

In my opinion, These are the "men that will not be blamed for nothing".

Best regards.

[mariab]

The problem with the C5 is not how many they are, but the canon in itself. No unsolved criminal case this old should have any canon at all. You can't have a canon in a 120 year old murder case with so much missing information and where the killer is unidentified.
We can argue until kinfdom come how many victims that should be included in the canon, but that is not the issue. The issue is that each and everyone of the murders should be evaluated independently and not with any canon in mind.

As for Macnaghten - since you refer to him in connection with the C5 - yes, the same Macnaghten whose memoranda is littered with errors and strange conclusions. The same Macnaghten who called Druitt a 'doctor' and who points out Ostrog as one of the main suspects; the same Ostrog who possibly wasn't even in England during the Ripper murders and whom there is no shred of evidence that he ever was even violent.
You've got to be joking. Macnaghten has to be one of the worst 'expert' references to quote.

As for us being 'cold case' detectives: the opinion that the police knew better than us because they 'were there' has to be one of the most erronous statements one can make. It makes no difference if they were there and had access to all the infiormation if they were inexperienced in handling these types of cases and didn't know how to accurately analyse the information they had.
let's remember that cold case investigatorts generally are more succesful in solving and analysing old cases than the police who did the original investigation. That is why there is such a thing as cold cases in the first place.

All the best

assumed “infaillibility“ by contemporary police
I completely agree with Mr. Andersson re. cold case: Automatically assuming that contemporary police knew better than us because they were there is not going to cut it. I've always wondered about the crucial information that is left out in the questioning of "witnesses" such as Barnett and Hutchinson, whom I both believe should be consider as strong suspects. Has information been left out of the reports which have survived (i.e., was more information included in separate reports, which have not survived?), or was the questioning not done in depth? (Due to the fact that they thought that Barnett had an alibi, and with the time of death of Mary Kelly not being clear, and due to the fact that they were almost relieved to get a description for a “Jewish looking“ suspect.)
I think that Macnaghten should be dismissed as a source of information, particularly re. Druitt and Ostrog.
(I'm a new member, and I apologize for expressing my views in a fashion which might appear a bit confrontational!! )
Maria

[Tom_Wescott]

I think that Macnaghten should be dismissed as a source of information, particularly re. Druitt and Ostrog.

I would disagree with this. I just think his memoranda has to be read in the correct way and taken for what it is - one man writing his thoughts which reflect his personal biases. In short, here's my thoughts. Mac thought that the Ripper showed medical skill, which must therefore be a primary reason why his vote goes to Druitt as the most likely Ripper, alongside Druitt's having committed suicide right after the Miller's Court murder. Of course we all know Druitt wasn't a doctor and didn't commit suicide right after Kelly's murder, but Mac didn't know that. And what can we infer from that? That he was not in contact with any member of Druitt's family (or else he would have known his age and profession). Therefore, whatever information he had that Druitt was suspected by his family was hearsay and probably inaccurate. So, we can safely dismiss Druitt as the Ripper, because we can be comfortable in concluding Mac would have done so had he known the truth.

Mac also erroneously thought Ostrog was a doctor (although, to be fair, Ostrog did occassionally pass himself off as a doctor). He also mistakenly thought Ostrog habitually abused women and carried knives around with him. Ostrog is probably only listed because he was a 'doctor' who had fallen under suspicion.

This brings us to Kosminski. Mac was not laboring under the impression that Koz was a doctor, which is probably why he was rather quick to dismiss him. So why include him in the first place? I suggest it was because Mac was aware of other evidence that made a decent (but not compelling) case against Koz, such as a witness identification. In short, Kosminski was the ONLY suspect of the three who made it onto Mac's short list based on his own merits and not because Mac thought he was a doctor, or something of that kind.

For these reasons I would suggest the Macnaghten memoranda to be in some ways a corroboration of the Swanson Marginalia.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[protohistorian]

perceived value vs true value

With regard to the value of Mac's grouping, there is a dichotomy between the perceived and the real value and accordingly, a strong variation in potential worth.

In large measure the perceived value goes something like this. This is the grouping of a man being held accountable for solving the crimes, high up in the police service, ostensibly well informed, and contemporary to the crimes culturally. It therefore stands to reason his opinion is of some value to the modern scholar of these crimes.
The problem lies in the actual value to modern scholars.Was Mac held accountable for a solution? Yes, but being held accountable for a solution does not guarantee due diligence in finding one. Even if we assume a best case scenario of extreme diligence (forgoing other duties to hunt a killer of poor prostitutes), we are still left with a rather large gap between a factual solution vs. a politically expedient one. Was Mac high up in the administration, yes, but so high he may not have been in contact with the on the ground reality of the investigation. Was Mac well informed? Interpretations vary. If we look at his opinion of Druitt for example the facts could be interpreted as "no" because of the errors, however they could also be interpreted as yes but he was confused or misguided. Either way one cannot escape he was positioned so far away from the crimes vertically that his is by no means a street view of our crimes, and so the questioned of his informed nature is shaky at best.
On to being a contemporary and it's relative value to us. Being a LVP gentleman of education and experience, he naturally had a worldview that was complete with LVP bias. Since we do not fully understand what that might entail, we must treat the opinion with caution in this regard.
So it appears to me that the perceived value is far greater than the actual value, unless of course one is searching for a potentially ill informed, possibly politically motivated, and certainly culturally biased opinion, in which case it is in fact gold (and the very best of luck to you!). Dave

[protohistorian]

and lets not forget

We should also keep in mind what happens when you try and classify complex items with few criteria.For example, dogs are pets, have hair and bark. Cats are pets, have hair, and therefore bark. Dave

[mariab]

Macnaghten

You are absolutely right, Mr. Wescott. I should not have dismissed Macnaghten's memoranda as an important source of information, since it is, after all, one of the few primary sources of information left to us, even if his conclusions are, for some part, erroneous. In awareness of police investigations of today, it's a schock for us to know that Macnaghten probably didn't even try to contact Druitt's family to obtain more accurate information about his suspect! (This is why I've always been unconvinced, if I might say, about the questioning of key-witnesses such as Barnett and Hutchison by the police! And now most of the important information is lost.)
Re. Ostrog and Kosminski, I think that Macnaghten's instincts as a detective were very appropriate. Ostrog might have appeared as a dangerous person at the time, he was released at the right time to be a suspect for the murders, and he had fooled a lot of people into believing he was a doctor. For Kosminski, I assume Macnaghten had information or evidence pertaining to the so-called mentally disturbed Jewish suspect. I have to confess I've never read Macnaghten's memoranda directly, I've only read about them in the literature and I don't even know if they exist as a text in their entirety (!), plus I don't have Fido's book here in Paris, so no way to freshen up on what he says about Macnaghten and the Polish Jew suspect (who ends up in probably being Kaminsky rather than Kosminski). Therefore I apologize for so hastily dismissing Macnaghten!
By the way, re. the Ripper needing to have had medical skill to commit the mutilations, what is your opinion of this, Mr. Wescott?
Thanks for correcting me and kind regards,
Maria

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria. I understood where you were coming from, which is to say 'Why are these guys still major suspects when there never was any evidence against them?' I've felt (and feel) the same frustration, except in the case of Kosminski. Regarding the Ripper's medical skill, I think it's fair to say that whoever the Ripper was, he was mature (i.e. over 25) and was skilled with a knife, probably educated in anatomy, but I see nothing there to suggest he must have been a doctor or medical student.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

interrogating the suspects

Tom, my sentiments exactly re. being marginally skilled with a knife vs. real medical skills. And by the way, I consider earlier victims such as Millwood related to the case. No way that someone would suddenly, out of the blue become an experienced killer committing such mutilations as in the later victims. (Unless he wasn't a local, but I suspect that he was.) For some reason I can't stop suspecting Barnett, even if we have no documentation that his job (when he had one) required filetting fish besides being a porter. Even his physical appearance matches the description of the man seen last with Eddowes. It totally frustrates me that the police completely ate up his story, and now we hardly have any info left about his interrogation (and also for Hutchinson). In an investigation of today he would have been the immediate prime suspect. What would I'd not given to have been able to interrogate the suspects, have them thoroughly investigated/followed, having followed the vigilantes committee around...! I even wonder if there might be any information left re. interrogations at the Scotland Yard Archives (maybe those which are supposed to become available in 2029)?
On the other side, I'm sure that if someone's willing to do some additional searching than Fido in the different City archives, we might end up with a bit more information on Kaminsky/Cohen. But, wait a minute, are you to tell me that you consider Kosminski as a possible suspect? Was he not a bit too disorganized for that?
Kind regards,
Maria

[Hunter]

Barnett was interrogated for 4 hours as to his whereabouts and association with Kelly. It was standard procedure ( as it is today) to suspect associates. This was done for every murder. Indeed, we find Sadler the prime suspect in the Coles murder as far as the police were concerned and his alibi for the other previous murders checked out as well.

Men resembling Hutchinson's description were being brought in for weeks after the Kelly murder.

Macnaghten was not involved in the initial investigations of the canonical 5. By the time he came along victim associates or relatives, people resembling witness descriptions and such, had long been investigated and eliminated. He was left with people that fit a profile - perceived lunatics, men with so-called anatomical knowledge and suicides - along with what he thought were family suspicions in the cases of Druitt and possibly Kosminsky. He never mentioned any ID. I believe he would have if he had known of any as he metioned everything else - however erroneous his conclusions were.

He followed the contemporary stereotypical beliefs of the type of person who would commit such atrocities in order to counter the theory promulgated in the press at the time that Cutbush was Jack the Ripper.

We now know that serial killers are not usually suicidal or lunatics in the literal sense...or even epileptics for that matter... and self abuse, solitary vices... whatever one wants to call it... speaks for itself.