Needle in a haystack

[Lewis C]

Hi RD,

The man that Macnaghten said was unlikely to be the Ripper, Thomas Cutbush, was British, not American.

Before the Swanson marginalia was known, Martin Fido concluded that Anderson's suspect was the same man that Macnaghten was calling Kosminski. That being the case, I doubt that Swanson's mentioning of Kosminski was a random choice.

However, I'll agree that I'm uneasy with Anderson saying "The case has been solved, but I won't say who did it." If the solution of the case isn't accessible to the public, then for the public, the case hasn't been solved. The case may have been solved in Anderson's mind, and Swanson's mind, but even the police as a whole weren't on board. Macnaghten knew about Kosminski, but thought that Druitt was a better suspect. Abberline thought that Chapman was the best suspect. Littlefield's suspect was Tumblety.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

The man that Macnaghten said was unlikely to be the Ripper, Thomas Cutbush, was British, not American.

Before the Swanson marginalia was known, Martin Fido concluded that Anderson's suspect was the same man that Macnaghten was calling Kosminski. That being the case, I doubt that Swanson's mentioning of Kosminski was a random choice.

However, I'll agree that I'm uneasy with Anderson saying "The case has been solved, but I won't say who did it." If the solution of the case isn't accessible to the public, then for the public, the case hasn't been solved. The case may have been solved in Anderson's mind, and Swanson's mind, but even the police as a whole weren't on board. Macnaghten knew about Kosminski, but thought that Druitt was a better suspect. Abberline thought that Chapman was the best suspect. Littlefield's suspect was Tumblety.

Ah yes, a school boy blunder from me.

A rookie mistake as it were.

I have been informed via DM of my error by another forum member, and am very grateful for being corrected.

Having thought about it, I did know though Cutbush was English, but for some reason I often get his nationality mixed up with Tumblety.
I'm not sure why, but I've made that same mistake more than once before.

Of course, if Tumblety isn't American either, then it's clear I haven't got a clue! Haha!

[Lewis C]

Ah yes, a school boy blunder from me.

A rookie mistake as it were.

I have been informed via DM of my error by another forum member, and am very grateful for being corrected.

Having thought about it, I did know though Cutbush was English, but for some reason I often get his nationality mixed up with Tumblety.
I'm not sure why, but I've made that same mistake more than once before.

Of course, if Tumblety isn't American either, then it's clear I haven't got a clue! Haha!

I'm fine with calling Tumblety an American. He was born in Ireland, but moved to the US as a young child, and lived there most of his life.

[The Rookie Detective]

I'm fine with calling Tumblety an American. He was born in Ireland, but moved to the US as a young child, and lived there most of his life.

Always thought he was born state-side!

Haha!


I do know stuff...


honestly...



haha!


*sips some tea.

[Scott Nelson]

Anderson - Ultimately failed in his task to catch the Ripper, but when given an opportunity to have his say through his memoirs, opted for ambiguity over honesty. He portrays a man who knew it all, but belittles the case by basically saying that despite knowing the killer, it really wasn't worth the time of day actually bothering to name the killer because the public wouldn't be interested and it wouldn't serve any purpose after all that time.
But by taking this stance, what he's really doing is trying to cover for the fact that he didn't have a clue who the Ripper was. A man in such a high ranking role would never admit to losing or failing miserably.

If you read Anderson carefully, he is saying that they did catch the Ripper, but for legal reasons they couldn't charge him. I think it's because they lacked hard evidence coupled with threats from the suspect's family, possible religious strife and a failed identification proceeding.

[seanr]

Anderson is claiming that if Alice M'Kenzie's murder was by someone else on account of it not appearing to be the work of a sexual maniac in the opinion of the investigating Chief Commissioner, and if the British police had the same powers as the French police (which seems to be a reference to the Judge of Instruction system of the time, and certainly is a call for increased Police powers), then he would have been brought to justice.

However, what ever evidence Anderson believed he had was never tested in a court of law, seemingly not even brought before a Prosecutor to be evaluated.

The Police of the era seemed more than capable of building a case against a suspect using means which would not be used today (for example, the collapse Eva Flitterman's witness evidence in the Leon Beron murder trial and the consideration of bringing perjury charges, after it emerged Detective Sergeant Brogdon had fed the information as to what to say - as just one example). I doubt they would have need excess powers to produce novel evidence if they wanted to build such a case.

Anderson's confidence in the reliability of the evidence he claimed to have, may well be misplaced or even exagerrated.

[The Rookie Detective]

Anderson is claiming that if Alice M'Kenzie's murder was by someone else on account of it not appearing to be the work of a sexual maniac in the opinion of the investigating Chief Commissioner, and if the British police had the same powers as the French police (which seems to be a reference to the Judge of Instruction system of the time, and certainly is a call for increased Police powers), then he would have been brought to justice.

However, what ever evidence Anderson believed he had was never tested in a court of law, seemingly not even brought before a Prosecutor to be evaluated.

The Police of the era seemed more than capable of building a case against a suspect using means which would not be used today (for example, the collapse Eva Flitterman's witness evidence in the Leon Beron murder trial and the consideration of bringing perjury charges, after it emerged Detective Sergeant Brogdon had fed the information as to what to say - as just one example). I doubt they would have need excess powers to produce novel evidence if they wanted to build such a case.

Anderson's confidence in the reliability of the evidence he claimed to have, may well be misplaced or even exagerrated.

Excellent post, and I agree with your assessment here.

[John Wheat]

The MM is unsound. The Police didn't have a clue who the Ripper was. I'm not saying they were totally incompetent but it was a failure that they didn't properly investigate Bury. With what is known about serial killers today I'm sure a modern Police force would have investigated Bury. If the Police at the time did investigate Bury properly we might know who the Ripper was.

[The Rookie Detective]

The MM is unsound. The Police didn't have a clue who the Ripper was. I'm not saying they were totally incompetent but it was a failure that they didn't properly investigate Bury. With what is known about serial killers today I'm sure a modern Police force would have investigated Bury. If the Police at the time did investigate Bury properly we might know who the Ripper was.

Great Post John

I think the police and other relevant authorities lack of understanding of what a serial killer is/was, is one of the many components that go into explaining why the Ripper was never caught.

I have always considered Bury as one of the top 5 Ripper suspects. That may sound not high in the suspect list, but considering there are literally over 100 viable and potential persons of interest/suspects in the case, then Bury's consistently (and relatively) high position in my personal rankings, goes a long way into illustrating just how much I believe you may be on the right track.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I think we've drifted off the subject of the thread slightly, as we always do!

[John Wheat]

Great Post John

I think the police and other relevant authorities lack of understanding of what a serial killer is/was, is one of the many components that go into explaining why the Ripper was never caught.

I have always considered Bury as one of the top 5 Ripper suspects. That may sound not high in the suspect list, but considering there are literally over 100 viable and potential persons of interest/suspects in the case, then Bury's consistently (and relatively) high position in my personal rankings, goes a long way into illustrating just how much I believe you may be on the right track.

Thanks RD

Bury for me remains the best suspect for various reasons which I won't go into now so as not to highjack the thread.

Cheers John