Did Jack only kill 3?

[PaulB]

Trevor,
Fine. You can suggest that. Other people can suggest something else. The point is that none of you know. Your suggestion is no more likely to be right than anyone else's. However, you still miss the point, which is that no matter how the information was received, those men nevertheless considered the evidence against those named men to be sufficient to elevate them to a level higher than the run of the mill suspects picked up because they behaved strangely or because their landlady named them.

[Debra A]

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.

Exactly. So, those Victorian senior police officials were also in the unique position of being able to review and evaluate all the information brought to them from whatever source or go back to information gathered at a later date, anytime?

[Debra A]

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

What case?
You'd be better off resting your bod for the hour long fisticuffs in the York back alley, at this rate.

[PaulB]

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

Which isn't answering Debs point to you.

Apart from which, as far as I am aware nobody is expecting you or anyone else to believe anything. What is being stated is that a man was positively identified by an eye witness is what you are being told by a reasonably credible sources who were contemporary with the events they describe, had first hand information about them, and may possibly have been participants. Furthermore, these men also apparently believed that that suspect was Jack the Ripper - but, to come back to Deb's point, we don't know why.

And the suspect wasn't 'left to his own devices', but was kept under 24-hour surveillance.

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly. So, those Victorian senior police officials were also in the unique position of being able to review and evaluate all the information brought to them from whatever source or go back to information gathered at a later date, anytime?

But you cannot disprove that the information which led to personal opinions did not orginally come to them via anyone of the two sources I quoted or someone stopping MM in the street and saying XYZ are likely suspects. There has to be evidence when are you going to understand. Opinions count for nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Dont forget the public were not on the side of the police and so the police were desparate to show some progress. Hence the reasons for MM preparing the MM.

It doesnt matter what was written before its what was written later and later shows the police did not have a clue end of story

[DVV]

David, George Hutchinson is a witness. A witness who in short time was not believed. That doesnt make him a suspect for anything but Perjury, Mischief or Fraud. Since we only know that someone was seen watching the court we can only say that person would be of interest in the case, not that it was George Hutchinson nor that the person was a partner with anyone in any crime. Only George Hutchinson says George Hutchinson was there, as in Israels case.

Mike R

Not exactly Mike, the man seen by Sarah Lewis has to be a suspect, whatever you may think of current Hutch theories.

[DVV]

Back to the question "Did JtR only kill 3 ?" : I don't want to argue here about that, it's done in various victims threads but in my opinion there is no doubt that all C5 have been killed the same individual (in fact JtR most probably killed more than 5). You can't exclude MJK who has been ripped open like that of Chapman. And unless one wants to split hair and believe in several coincidences, it's pretty clear that the double event did occur.

[Debra A]

But you cannot disprove that the information which led to personal opinions did not orginally come to them via anyone of the two sources I quoted or someone stopping MM in the street and saying XYZ are likely suspects. There has to be evidence when are you going to understand. Opinions count for nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Dont forget the public were not on the side of the police and so the police were desparate to show some progress. Hence the reasons for MM preparing the MM.

It doesnt matter what was written before its what was written later and later shows the police did not have a clue end of story

The same way you cannot prove their information did come that way. You have no idea of their sources and neither do I.

Evidence for what? I understand perfectly that I am not the one trying to fool myself or members of the (paying) public that I am actually conducting a 21st century re-investigation of the case or have solved it in any way!- so I have no need to produce 'evidence' of anything for me to still find the views of the senior police officials and their preferred suspects relevant, important and interesting. End of story.

[PaulB]

But you cannot disprove that the information which led to personal opinions did not orginally come to them via anyone of the two sources I quoted or someone stopping MM in the street and saying XYZ are likely suspects. There has to be evidence when are you going to understand. Opinions count for nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Dont forget the public were not on the side of the police and so the police were desparate to show some progress. Hence the reasons for MM preparing the MM.

It doesnt matter what was written before its what was written later and later shows the police did not have a clue end of story

Opinions actually count for a great deal, Trevor, when they are based on experience and knowledge and training. My central heating repairman's opinion about my bad back may count for nothing, but an osteopath's opinion certainly does count for a lot.

Anyway, even if the information did come from one of the two sources you mention, what difference does it make? Macnaghten still thought Druitt was the murderer. He presumably had a reason or reasons for doing so, we don't know what that reason was. Which brings us back to the point Debra made.

I'd add, too, that what you seem incapable of understanding is that the Macnaghten Memoranda is the evidence. And it may be the only evidence you'll ever have. Period. So you have to do the very best you can with the available source material. There is nowhere else you can turn.

And whether or not the police were desperate to show progress or not, an internal memorandum was not ever going to reassure the public, and especially not a memorandum that was designed and intended to refute allegations that Cutbush was the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Paul Begg:

"Macnaghten still thought Druitt was the murderer. He presumably had a reason or reasons for doing so"

One must imagine so, yes. But one must also weigh in that Macnaghten too stated in that memorandum that " no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one", so whatever it was he relied upon, it was not something tangible enough to hold up in court. Not by a long way.

There are three levels involved in the blame game. Suspicion is the lowest level, and confirmation the highest. But inbetween these levels, we have the so called police solution, where the police believe that they have a bagged case that cannot be proven. And the fact that the police were still looking for the Ripper as late as in 1895 tells me that no such police solution had been agreed upon, since it would have had the police using their resources for better purposes than digging around in a case where they were already satisfied that the killer had been ID:d.

Abberline, to my mind, would surely have been right in 1903, when he adamantly stated that the police knew no more about the killer at that date than they had done fifteen years earlier. And, in fact, this to some extent speaks in favour of all the top suspects like Druitt and Kosminsky NOT being guilty. For all the efforts of the police would certainly have been applied in order to dig up something, anything that could strengthen their suspicions against these men - whatever they were grounded on in the first place, anxious relatives or uncertain witness identifications. But to no avail, it would seem!

The best,
Fisherman

[Iain Wilson]

There has to be evidence when are you going to understand. Opinions count for nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Although Macnaghten is saying "...and in my opinion I believe these three to be more likely suspects than Cutbush..." he does qualify why he believes this (the "private information" about Druit, the circumstantial case against Kosminski and Ostrog's bad character and lack of an alibi). This is not him sticking a finger in the air and saying "I think these guys are more likely...so there!"

He's making an informed, professional opinion, presumably backed up by files, witness testimony etc that was available back in 1888 and which may have been lost to the ravages of time.

My point is this: just because we don't have access to MM's evidence doesn't mean that there wasn't any and that his three suspects are pure conjecture whose names are on file because they were mentioned once in passing.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil,

Yes, I was just having a little fun. As for Kozminski, you ask what I think of him? I think he's unique among the 3 MM suspects in that he's the only one who seems to be on the list because of the evidential case against, and not Mac's own strange bias. Mac thought a doctor was the Ripper, and mistakenly believed both Druitt and Ostrog were doctors, but knew that Koz was not...yet included him anyway. Why? Because there was some evidence of guilt. Not PROOF clearly, or else Mac wouldn't have bothered with a 'list' of more than one and wouldn't have been seemingly more persuaded by Druitt. As for contemporary police suspects, I'd have to put Koz towards the top of the list, and clearly that does not reflect any personal biases of my own.

Personally, I think each police suspect either reflects the personal bias of the handful of officers behind him, or in some cases might just be a public smokescreen.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Opinions actually count for a great deal, Trevor, when they are based on experience and knowledge and training. My central heating repairman's opinion about my bad back may count for nothing, but an osteopath's opinion certainly does count for a lot.

Anyway, even if the information did come from one of the two sources you mention, what difference does it make? Macnaghten still thought Druitt was the murderer. He presumably had a reason or reasons for doing so, we don't know what that reason was. Which brings us back to the point Debra made.

I'd add, too, that what you seem incapable of understanding is that the Macnaghten Memoranda is the evidence. And it may be the only evidence you'll ever have. Period. So you have to do the very best you can with the available source material. There is nowhere else you can turn.

And whether or not the police were desperate to show progress or not, an internal memorandum was not ever going to reassure the public, and especially not a memorandum that was designed and intended to refute allegations that Cutbush was the Ripper.

The MM is unreliable and unsafe so you cannot rely on that as being gospel.

If MM thought Druitt were the murderer why did he not just refer to him why mention the others, by doing so he was weakening the case against the others mentioned who now have been elevated to prime suspect status, in fact more so that Druitt in most people eyes.

If those other names in The MM are the best he could come up based on 6 years investiagtive work by the police, and bearing in mind he does not give any reasons why he names them as "likley" Where did he pluck those names from ?

I am sure he didnt have different people personally give him information over a 6 year period.

If there ever was anyhting specific about Kosminski and Druitt and Ostrogg it would have been recorded and filed and would have contained enough detail for MM to expand on those likley suspects in 1894 he wrote the MM.

The writing of The MM was to negate what the papers were saying about Cutbush. Surely if he was suggesting there were other preferred suspects why not disclose what those grounds were that would have been the ideal opportunity to row Cutbush out of it which was his intention.

Does that not show to you the fact that the police did not have a real clue. I think you need to take a step back and re asses all the facts surrounding this case right through till 1895 because clearly you are focusing solely on the MM and the marginalia and those two issues are clouding your judgement.

You still hide behind these beliefs that these officers must have known more than they disclosed. Its a cop out its like the old chestnut of lost stolen or destroyed files. I am afraid that excuse cuts no ice with me and is wearing thin now.

If there was nothing there in the first instance it couldnt have gone missing or been stolen or destroyed.

[PaulB]

Paul Begg:

"Macnaghten still thought Druitt was the murderer. He presumably had a reason or reasons for doing so"

One must imagine so, yes. But one must also weigh in that Macnaghten too stated in that memorandum that " no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one", so whatever it was he relied upon, it was not something tangible enough to hold up in court. Not by a long way.

There are three levels involved in the blame game. Suspicion is the lowest level, and confirmation the highest. But inbetween these levels, we have the so called police solution, where the police believe that they have a bagged case that cannot be proven. And the fact that the police were still looking for the Ripper as late as in 1895 tells me that no such police solution had been agreed upon, since it would have had the police using their resources for better purposes than digging around in a case where they were already satisfied that the killer had been ID:d.

Abberline, to my mind, would surely have been right in 1903, when he adamantly stated that the police knew no more about the killer at that date than they had done fifteen years earlier. And, in fact, this to some extent speaks in favour of all the top suspects like Druitt and Kosminsky NOT being guilty. For all the efforts of the police would certainly have been applied in order to dig up something, anything that could strengthen their suspicions against these men - whatever they were grounded on in the first place, anxious relatives or uncertain witness identifications. But to no avail, it would seem!

The best,
Fisherman

Whether or not there was “proof” doesn’t alter the fact that Macnaghten believed Druitt was the murderer and he continued to do so for well over a decade, and the absence of proof doesn’t mean the evidence on which Macnaghten based his belief wasn’t good evidence.

The absence of proof explains why the police continued to investigate, and quite rightly too!

And it is questionable whether the police really would have devoted resources to dig something up that would strengthen their suspicions about a dead man or a man incarcerated in a secure mental institution? Or, for that matter, a man who proved to be in an asylum in France or who had fled to America and died?

[Trevor Marriott]

Although Macnaghten is saying "...and in my opinion I believe these three to be more likely suspects than Cutbush..." he does qualify why he believes this (the "private information" about Druit, the circumstantial case against Kosminski and Ostrog's bad character and lack of an alibi). This is not him sticking a finger in the air and saying "I think these guys are more likely...so there!"

He's making an informed, professional opinion, presumably backed up by files, witness testimony etc that was available back in 1888 and which may have been lost to the ravages of time.

My point is this: just because we don't have access to MM's evidence doesn't mean that there wasn't any and that his three suspects are pure conjecture whose names are on file because they were mentioned once in passing.

The police were naive in 1888 and people are giving them to much credit that is clearly evident by the fact that they thought they could obtain a picture of the killer by photogrpahing a victims eyes.

By the fact that someone committed suicide shortly after the death of mary and therfore their mindset was that, that person could have been the killer.

Or that Bloodhounds could be used to folow a scent many hours after the criminal had left the scene of the crime when half of Whitechapel had been marchging around Millers court.

By the fact that they went out on a limb sugesting the killer lived and worked in Whitechapel

By publishing samples of handwriting

By not stopping to think that could a killer really kill an mutilate someone remove a uterus and a kidney all in 5 minutes.

God knows how their thought processes worked as far as assesing the viabilty of suspects worked, and now the likes of Anderson and Swanson and MM have been put on a pedestal as people we should belive without question.