Did Jack only kill 3?

[Monty]

Hello Mark,

You missed the 'lol'. As explained, meant ironic and deflectionary- it included the remark about 'hacks'. IF it was meant seriously I'd have said so. It wasnt. Poor form to assume it was and believe that it was when 'lol'- laughs out loud- is clearly used,
'As indeed' indicated my agreement.

I don't 'expect' anything of you Mark. But it should be noted that Debs responded as she saw fit.

As regards 'poor form'- Im not perfect, but as to things being 'below me' I won't condone nor join in the oft used tactic of ganging up on individuals, which in some individuals cases, is repetitive. Whether THAT is below some people is for them and their concience. Note I will not inform you what I believe is 'beneath' you. That WOULD be poor form, old chap.

Best wishes

Phil

Please Phil, don't make me laugh.

Whenever Trevors ideas are challenged, you are there defending his 'honour'.

Whenever Simon starts commenting on others opinion, you and Lynn are there, making your own belittling comments.

Pot and kettle.

Monty

[mariab]

Whenever Trevors ideas are challenged, you are there defending his 'honour'.

Now who's the female?

Whenever Simon starts commenting on others opinion, you and Lynn are there, making your own belittling comments.

Monty, I've NEVER ever witnessed Lynn making any belittling comment in the 2 years I've been here.

[Monty]

Maria,

Now who's the female?

Dunno, you tell me.

Monty, I've NEVER ever witnessed Lynn making any belittling comment in the 2 years I've been here.

Note my use of the word 'your'. Bit of a clear giveaway that I was referring to Phil. Otherwise I would have placed a 'both' in there.


Monty

[Fisherman]

Phil:

"... what is your take on Kosminski? Killer or just a poor, feeble minded Polish Jew? Or a written patsy perhaps along with Druitt and the unfortunate Ostrog?"

Ostrog? An unfortunate?

Sorry, couldn´t resist that one - carry on, gentlemen and -women!

Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

I KNOW you're not a Feigenbaumist (or a bigamist, lol), more than Trevor Marriott is supposedly "sexist“. As you say in the UK, “storm in a teapot“.
As for Lynn's/Simon's and your idea about for C1, C2, and JI, Trevor's organ harvesting theory and the giant rat/tampon scenario, please let me withold a comment, though I'm the one of the very few who's considering the value in Trevor's and your efforts pertaining to the availability of the SB ledgers and have even signed Trevor's petition. In fact, I find it completely unfortunate that he's participating in the York conf with the organs thing instead of SB again.
(And of course I'm a great admiror of Lynn's vast/impressive knowledge, his research on the Victorian anarchists, would VERY much like to work with him researching possible Okhrana involvement on the Berner Street murder, and consider Lynn as a real friend.)

Thank you for your comments I have to tell you that as far as The SB ledgers are concerned I have now played my final card in a final attempt to get full access. As soon as the results of that are known I will let you know.

[Debra A]

I doubt James was all that far from the truth.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

And that is worth looking into. The same as the information provided by all the other coppers who were actually there and who named a suspect. Why did they name who they did?

[Phil Carter]

Phil:

"... what is your take on Kosminski? Killer or just a poor, feeble minded Polish Jew? Or a written patsy perhaps along with Druitt and the unfortunate Ostrog?"

Ostrog? An unfortunate?

Sorry, couldn´t resist that one - carry on, gentlemen and -women!

Fisherman

Hello Christer,

God Morran! Yes, very good. Lol

Ostrog was a rather unfortunate choice for dear Sir MM.
In this layman's view, his inclusion rather devalues the Memorandae.
He wasnt exactly a suspected murderer of women in 1888 and MM not knowing in 1894 that Ostrog was in a French prison 6 years previously is a bit of a faux pas.

Still, could have been worse. The famous Swedish confidence trickster twins, Lin and Norr Kjöping who worked with the evil Sandy Fjord, the boat merchant.
Lol

best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

Fish cracked me up with his “unfortunate“ pun.

He wasnt exactly a suspected murderer of women in 1888 and MM not knowing in 1894 that Ostrog was in a French prison 6 years previously is a bit of a faux pas.

As a matter of fact, Ostrog was briefly suspected as a candidate for the Ripper. He was even advertized in The London Police Gazette in November 1888, as a fugitive (while being incarcerated in France – pre Interpol's red notice, lol). In addition to this, Macnaghten corresponded with the Banstead Hospital superintendent about Ostrog's case on May 7, 1891. We don't know if Macnaghten might have known about Ostrog's French incarceration in 1891. The letter in question is no longer at the LMA in London (I've looked everywhere relevant), but I'm having a hope that Philip Sugden might still have a copy or transcript of the entire document. (He quotes part of it in the Preface of the revised edition of his book, p. XVIII.)

[Trevor Marriott]

And that is worth looking into. The same as the information provided by all the other coppers who were actually there and who named a suspect. Why did they name who they did?

They were trying to be helpful as is the case today. names are fed into an investigation by police officers and members of the public and are then investigated by those directly conducting the investigation.

Clearly any names names suggested by officers were looked at by officers conducting the investigation at the time and in later years as we know as far forward as 1895 the ripper was still being sought.

There was nothing to connect any of these suggested by those officers at the time nor since. (Tumblety, Chapman and lets not forget Obrien, Magrath and Churchill) Do you not think that there would be more recorded against any of these if there was any real suspicion.

If we are going to treat some of these lesser know names as real live suspects there has to be more than an off the cuff remarks by officers regarding their own personal opinions and suspicions, or the one line entries in SB ledgers, for us make them live and viable suspects 124 years later.

It is difficult to make people outside of the police system know how information was gathered and recorded. Let me give you and others an examples of how information was recorded then and is still the case today and how misleading some of this can be to researchers today.

In 1888 Mrs Smith stops Pc Plod in the street and tells him about a suspicious lodger she has who she thinks could be JTR. She gives the officer the details of his name etc. The officer then goes back to the station and the mans name is recorded as being a suspect for JTR. The police investigate the man and find he is totally innocent. End of story except that the entry recorded against him as being a likley suspect still remains and is never erased.

Second example the police in 1888 receive a malicious letter in which it names a person who could be JTR, again that persons details would be recorded as at the time of receipt the police would not know it was a malicious letter. Again after investigation that person was eliminated but the name again would still remain on file.

So 124 years later these names surface again and some reserachers take up the gauntlet and go down the road that leads to nowhere because there was nothing in 1888 and nothing 124 years later against these persons. But instead of letting them drift into oblivion they keep them alive.

As I said before this suspect list really needs to be completley revised on the basis that for anyone to be regarded as a suspect there must be something other than an opinion from a police officer to raise that suspicion. Because all of the names on the suspect list could not have been killers.

The reality is that suspicions or no suspicions the police did not have a clue as to the identity of the killer or killers. This is borne out by the long list of quotes from senior officers in later years stating that fact.

You asked the question "Why did the officers name who they did" I hope this post has helped you and others to understand why and how

[PaulB]

Trevor,
I think you'll find that every serious researcher understands how people came and come to be suspected of crimes and how and why their names remain in the records. What you are not appreciating is that certain suspects are elevated above others because somebody actually believed them to be the murderer. What elevates some suspects even further than that is that they appear to have been suspected by very well-informed people, such as senior policemen in a position to know the facts. That's what makes Druitt, Kosminski, Ostrog, and possibly even Tumblety, far more important as suspects than Obrien, Magrath and Churchill, or anyone else who was a mere suspect.

Now, it's quite possible that Anderson, Macnaghten, Littlechild, and any other informed source, may have had very bad reasons for believing what they did about Druitt et al. Or maybe their reasons were very soundly based. The point is that we don’t know. That's the point Debs is making - why did those men elevate those particular suspects.

[Fisherman]

Phil Carter:

"Ostrog was a rather unfortunate choice for dear Sir MM.
In this layman's view, his inclusion rather devalues the Memorandae."

Ostrog was unfortunate in many ways, I´d say. And I agree that one must weigh in his status when assessing the memoranda. Then again, whenever I read "I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely...", I always tend to hear an "off hand" inserted in it.

Not the thread for it, though!

The best,
Fisherman

[Debra A]

Trevor:
I don't believe that anyone has tried to suggest that a name in the Special Branch ledgers means someone was a genuine police suspect, or anything else other than a suspicious person reported as such. We aren't as green as we are cabbage looking on here, we get it, police work isn't rocket science is it?!
You seem to see genuine interest and curiosity as a researcher advancing that name as a suspect when they really aren't. (Like with the McGrath episode!! Where Chris Phillips trounced you with his research expertise and knowledge)

Information is gathered and recorded, obviously, but your two scenarios don't explain anything at all. You are saying senior police officers would not know who had been reported as a suspicious person and checked out and eliminated from the investigation? We are talking about the suspicions of some Senior Police Officers and you think they should carry no weight at all? But yet you advocate taking seriously the word of an American lawyer miles away from the investigation, who claimed his client was JTR...after his clients death to boot! These are the sorts of confessions that are ten a penny in the US press and were proved time and again to be worthless fabrications by publicity seekers!

[Debra A]

Trevor,
I think you'll find that every serious researcher understands how people came and come to be suspected of crimes and how and why their names remain in the records. What you are not appreciating is that certain suspects are elevated above others because somebody actually believed them to be the murderer. What elevates some suspects even further than that is that they appear to have been suspected by very well-informed people, such as senior policemen in a position to know the facts. That's what makes Druitt, Kosminski, Ostrog, and possibly even Tumblety, far more important as suspects than Obrien, Magrath and Churchill, or anyone else who was a mere suspect.

Now, it's quite possible that Anderson, Macnaghten, Littlechild, and any other informed source, may have had very bad reasons for believing what they did about Druitt et al. Or maybe their reasons were very soundly based. The point is that we don’t know. That's the point Debs is making - why did those men elevate those particular suspects.

Thanks Paul. Our posts crossed as I was trying to explain my view again to Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
I think you'll find that every serious researcher understands how people came and come to be suspected of crimes and how and why their names remain in the records. What you are not appreciating is that certain suspects are elevated above others because somebody actually believed them to be the murderer. What elevates some suspects even further than that is that they appear to have been suspected by very well-informed people, such as senior policemen in a position to know the facts. That's what makes Druitt, Kosminski, Ostrog, and possibly even Tumblety, far more important as suspects than Obrien, Magrath and Churchill, or anyone else who was a mere suspect.

Now, it's quite possible that Anderson, Macnaghten, Littlechild, and any other informed source, may have had very bad reasons for believing what they did about Druitt et al. Or maybe their reasons were very soundly based. The point is that we don’t know. That's the point Debs is making - why did those men elevate those particular suspects.

I would suggest that those senior officers were doing nothing more than furnishing details of what had been passed along the chain of command to them. Almost none of them had any investigative experience for a start. They were not privvy to anything others were not.

After all information doesnt go straight to the top it is gathered by those working directly on the ground and passed along.

How many times in modern day murders do we see a senior police officer giving an interview where he says "We are doing this etc" when in fact he himself is doing nothhing other than sitting at a desk reviewing what those below him are bringing to him.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor:
I don't believe that anyone has tried to suggest that a name in the Special Branch ledgers means someone was a genuine police suspect, or anything else other than a suspicious person reported as such. We aren't as green as we are cabbage looking on here, we get it, police work isn't rocket science is it?!
You seem to see genuine interest and curiosity as a researcher advancing that name as a suspect when they really aren't. (Like with the McGrath episode!! Where Chris Phillips trounced you with his research expertise and knowledge)

Information is gathered and recorded, obviously, but your two scenarios don't explain anything at all. You are saying senior police officers would not know who had been reported as a suspicious person and checked out and eliminated from the investigation? We are talking about the suspicions of some Senior Police Officers and you think they should carry no weight at all? But yet you advocate taking seriously the word of an American lawyer miles away from the investigation, who claimed his client was JTR...after his clients death to boot! These are the sorts of confessions that are ten a penny in the US press and were proved time and again to be worthless fabrications by publicity seekers!

Yet all these years later we are expected to beleive that JTr was identified at a seaside home and then taken back to his brother home and left to his own devices with no corroboration. I rest my case