Witnesses are no use in JtR case

[Stewart P Evans]

What?

I am trying to say that we all have to make our own minds up from a very limited selection of evidence. I am sure there are lots of Ripperologists who disagreed with the Tumblety as Ripper scenario. That doesn't mean you weren't entitled to put that hypothesis forward. All suspect-based books have to deal in the realm of supposition and conjecture because there is no evidence which implicates anybody in the crimes themselves.
Just as you were entitled to fill in the blanks and put forward the name of Tumblety, those who suspect Hutchinson are entitled to do the same, are we not? At least George Hutchinson was in a place and time germane to a Ripper murder (on his own evidence and that of Sarah Lewis).
The whole field of Ripperology is full of blanks. It was not a criticism of you Stewart. I read your book and found it very interesting. It was an example however of people taking evidence and building a case around a suspect for whom there is no direct evidence.

Let's get this old chestnut into context shall we?

I have been reading about, and later researching, the Whitechapel crimes for fifty years. Over those years, obviously, I have had 'preferred' suspects and have changed or modified my views many times, especially as new evidence emerged. Amongst my own 'preferred' suspects have been Druitt and Kosminski. An open mind, I have found, has always been the best way forward.

Thus I had more than thirty years of Ripper research and reading before I ever chanced upon the name of Tumblety. It is now eighteen years since I 'discovered' Tumblety. I remain convinced that we shall never know the identity of 'Jack the Ripper'.

So, imagine, here I am in 1993, an avid 'Ripperologist' with over thirty years of interest in the subject, when I chance upon a letter written by an ex-chief inspector of the Special Branch who was at Scotland Yard from 1883 to 1893. And in this letter he names a 'very likely' Ripper suspect who I had never heard of before, and he names the journalist(s) believed responsible for the 'Jack the Ripper' letter.

What do I do, do I give the name of this 'new' suspect to some author or other, do I merely get it quickly into print for everyone to research, or do I research it and write a book myself? I chose the latter option, despite the fact I had never envisaged writing a book about the subject. I was not naive enough to think that everyone in Ripperworld would agree that Tumblety was the Ripper, or even likely to be the Ripper.

If I had had a choice I would certainly preferred to write a reference work on the Ripper (which I didn't think I was capable of anyway) but given my material I obviously could write a suspect book and one that was based on a genuine contemporary suspect and not a fantasy suspect like most of the others. And it was not a suspect thought up by me, but one named by a contemporary police official.

You are repeating what I have said for many years, a suspect book must, of its nature, contain suppostition and conjecture; hypothesis and opinion. No hard evidence exists against any suspect. That said my book presented many new facts and was strongly based on the official files and factual reports. Also I had met Phil Sugden before I wrote the book and depended on his sage advice.

I don't know why you make the comment about 'being entitled' to put forward Tumblety's name. Anyone can (and they often do) put forward any name as Jack the Ripper. But in my case I was publishing a valid suspect's name put forward by a man in a position to know. I can't fully agree that people can justify the naming of a suspect 'plucked out of a hat' as it were, with not a jot of justification for naming that person as a murder suspect.

But, as is obvious, anyone writing a suspect-based book is obliged to be selective and look at anything they feel is relevant in building a hypothetical case against a suspect. But what has that to do with what I have been arguing on this thread? Hutchinson as a suspect is a modern interpretation and he does not appear as a serious contemporary suspect, but as a witness.

[Stewart P Evans]

Profiling

...
Again, I am not telling you about it. I am expressing my thoughts, and giving examples of why I think that way. Experienced police officers such as yourself obviously have more experience of real crime than me. I wouldn't presume to say otherwise. I would, however, take issue with the argument against placing modern interpretations on things...psychological profiling and the historical study of crime can bring a lot of wisdom which we can then take back with us in time so to speak to reassess things. Of course the Police force now will have much more experience of serial killers, why shouldn't we use that experience to throw light on previous crimes where they did not have the benefit of that knowledge?
...

I have to respond to this one.

Most experienced police officers of my acquaintance, and many others, have no time for 'psycho-babble' and criminal 'profiling'. As is well known, I don't. And it has to be difficult to apply modern 'profiling' methods to an unknown Victorian killer about whom we have very little information other than the results of his murders, and even there we are not certain with reagard to his actual victims.

But I have discussed this with several psychologists, criminal psychiatrists and others involved in these aspects. Indeed, the ex-chief of the FBI Child Abduction and Serial Murder Unit at Quantico spent a weekend here with me and we discussed the subject at great length, especially in relation to the Whitechapel murders.

I'm afraid, in my opinion, you set too much store in the value of such 'profiling'.

[Heinrich]

Profiling is more of an art than a science although it is based largely on statistical analysis gathered from a data base over the years, working on a type of actuary table. As a rule, a good profiler is right on the mark when it comes to advising police what to look for in a suspect and this can aid investigation.
If the canonical five were not victims of the same criminal, then such profiling would be of much less reliability. It would be safer to confine oneself to one murder at a time, in the case of Mary Jane Kelly for example, where the profile would clearly identify Joseph Barnett.

[babybird67]

Let's get this old chestnut into context shall we?

I have been reading about, and later researching, the Whitechapel crimes for fifty years. Over those years, obviously, I have had 'preferred' suspects and have changed or modified my views many times, especially as new evidence emerged. Amongst my own 'preferred' suspects have been Druitt and Kosminski. An open mind, I have found, has always been the best way forward.

What chestnut are you talking about Stewart? I really don't comprehend your point. At the time you wrote your book about Tumblety you presumably were as convinced as you could be by the evidence that he was the best suspect available, or you wouldn't have put your book out there suggesting so. Tumblety remains unconvincing as a suspect to many people, nevertheless, and as you yourself state, different suspects appear more convincing to you at different times. I don't understand what the problem is. If you reserve the right to be convinced by different suspects/evidence at different periods of your research, why are you so surprised and/or indignant when I would like the same freedom of choice?

What do I do, do I give the name of this 'new' suspect to some author or other, do I merely get it quickly into print for everyone to research, or do I research it and write a book myself? I chose the latter option, despite the fact I had never envisaged writing a book about the subject. I was not naive enough to think that everyone in Ripperworld would agree that Tumblety was the Ripper, or even likely to be the Ripper.

Good for you! I have no criticism of your choice to write a book on it. I read your book and found it interesting, but, like many I am sure, remain unconvinced that the Ripper was Tumblety. My point is, why do you go on the offensive when others suggest Hutchinson as a viable candidate when there is the same amount of factual evidence to suggest that either man was the Ripper?

If I had had a choice I would certainly preferred to write a reference work on the Ripper (which I didn't think I was capable of anyway) but given my material I obviously could write a suspect book and one that was based on a genuine contemporary suspect and not a fantasy suspect like most of the others. And it was not a suspect thought up by me, but one named by a contemporary police official.

If you're arguing that any suspect not named in incomplete Police files is a fantasy suspect then I have to disagree. At least Hutchinson can be placed in a time and place crucially germane to a Ripper murder. That makes his suspecthood real and convincing to me.

You are repeating what I have said for many years, a suspect book must, of its nature, contain suppostition and conjecture; hypothesis and opinion. No hard evidence exists against any suspect.

So why are you taking particular exception to Hutchinson? Some of us are interested in his as a suspect. If you are not, that's fine. But why berate those of us that are, as if we don't have the right to be? I wouldn't dream of berating you for believing Druitt a viable candidate, even though I feel sorry for the man whose only link to the murders appears to me to be his untimely death!

I don't know why you make the comment about 'being entitled' to put forward Tumblety's name. Anyone can (and they often do) put forward any name as Jack the Ripper. But in my case I was publishing a valid suspect's name put forward by a man in a position to know. I can't fully agree that people can justify the naming of a suspect 'plucked out of a hat' as it were, with not a jot of justification for naming that person as a murder suspect.

Hutchinson wasn't plucked out of a hat. He was there on the night of Kelly's murder shortly before the medical evidence suggests she died. That is compelling information. Much more compelling than someone committing suicide just after Kelly's murder. I use the word entitled because you have yourself written suspect books yet are taking umbrage at anybody else wishing to suggest it might have been Hutchinson.

But, as is obvious, anyone writing a suspect-based book is obliged to be selective and look at anything they feel is relevant in building a hypothetical case against a suspect. But what has that to do with what I have been arguing on this thread? Hutchinson as a suspect is a modern interpretation and he does not appear as a serious contemporary suspect, but as a witness.

I disagree with the opinion that because he was overlooked as a suspect at the time he should automatically be ruled out as a suspect forever. We already know the Police did not have a clue as to the identity of the Ripper and I can see very little rhyme or reason to some of the contemporary suggestions that were forthcoming, Druitt being a prime example. The Police were not infallible. They did not know who the Ripper was, despite their lists of suspects etc. I think it would be foolish NOT to keep an open mind and be prepared to rule people in to the investigation that weren't considered viable suspects at the time.

As for profiling, again, you're entitled to your opinion, but I find some of the instances of notable behaviour of serial killers, such as injecting themselves into investigations, to be pretty convincing. We're learned from history that some of them do it. It would be closing our minds to deny it couldn't have happened in this case.

Your attitude to profiling doesn't seem to be shared by all the Police either.

There is no question that psychological profiling of offenders has made a significant contribution to policing and it is because of this that the Metropolitan Police Service invested significant funding in the Interactive Offender Profiling System to try and develop the use of this capability and apply it to volume crime types such as burglary.

Maxine de Brunner

Commander, Serious Acquisitive Crime, Metropolitan Police Service

[Wickerman]

What chestnut are you talking about Stewart? I really don't comprehend your point.

Which seems to be your 'escape clause' for everything you write.
Isn't it about time you showed a little respect for someone who's forgotten more about this case than you are ever likely to know.

Patient to a fault...Jon

[babybird67]

Which seems to be your 'escape clause' for everything you write.
Isn't it about time you showed a little respect for someone who's forgotten more about this case than you are ever likely to know.

Patient to a fault...Jon

Point to me a line where I have shown any disrespect Jon...unlike your posts which are full of ridicule and disrespect all the time.

And by the way you have many faults, but I wouldn't count patience as one of them.

[Stewart P Evans]

Old Chestnut

What chestnut are you talking about Stewart? I really don't comprehend your point. At the time you wrote your book about Tumblety you presumably were as convinced as you could be by the evidence that he was the best suspect available, or you wouldn't have put your book out there suggesting so. Tumblety remains unconvincing as a suspect to many people, nevertheless, and as you yourself state, different suspects appear more convincing to you at different times. I don't understand what the problem is. If you reserve the right to be convinced by different suspects/evidence at different periods of your research, why are you so surprised and/or indignant when I would like the same freedom of choice?
....

I am going to respond to this post of yours, but no more.

The 'Old Chestnut' of which I speak is the tendency of any who get into a debate with me raising what they see as a weakness in my objectivity in proposing Tumblety as the Ripper in my first book. There was, actually, no need to raise Tumblety, but you are apparently doing so in order to address or weaken my arguments. You may or may not have noticed that since writing my first book, a suspect based book for the reasons I have given, I have written several more, all of which support no particular suspect theory and are more reference works than anything else. In fact I have not pursued Tumblety research to any real degree since writing the book, leaving to others with greater interest, and probably greater talent, than I.

I must leave my book, with all its faults, to speak for itself as regards Tumblety, but I did state, publicly, at the time that there was no evidence to prove that he was the Ripper, but that he was, at least, a genuine contemporary suspect who had been missed by Ripperologists for a hundred years.

[Stewart P Evans]

Well thank you...

...
Good for you! I have no criticism of your choice to write a book on it. I read your book and found it interesting, but, like many I am sure, remain unconvinced that the Ripper was Tumblety. My point is, why do you go on the offensive when others suggest Hutchinson as a viable candidate when there is the same amount of factual evidence to suggest that either man was the Ripper?
...

Well thank you for that, I am pleased to hear that you have no criticism of my 'choice' of subjects upon which to write. And thank you for the kind words about my book. Have no dispute with anyone who is 'unconvinced that the Ripper was Tumblety' as there is no evidence to prove that he was. Indeed, I am unconvinced that any of the known suspects was 'Jack the Ripper'.

I don't 'go on the offensive when others suggest Hutchinson as a viable candidate', in fact if I did I should never be off the boards and that would be an immense waste of time. I do sometimes 'go on the offensive' when my name is raised in debates and I notice that some posters are acting in a high-handed, self-important, self-righteous and often aggressive manner. And, to top all that, are making invalid or mistaken arguments.

The mere fact that recorded contemporary sources tell us that Tumblety was a police suspect at the time, whereas the official sources show Hutchinson as merely a witness (as witness his witness statement) makes Tumblety, in my opinion, a more viable 'candidate' for a book. Indeed, by the definitions given in the 1996 edition of The Jack the Ripper A-Z Tumblety is shown as 'Suspect', whereas Hutchinson is shown as 'Informant'.

In the A-Z authors' note on terms 'Suspect' is described as 'Suspect (if unmodified by any adjective): One who was suspected at the time of the murders or shortly afterwards by responsible people in a position to know what they were talking about.' Informant is described as 'Informant: Someone from whom anybody - police, press, or a modern theorist - received relevant information.' In view of books since written Hutchinson would now be described as a 'Non-contemporaneously alleged suspect'.

[Stewart P Evans]

Did I say that?

...
So why are you taking particular exception to Hutchinson? Some of us are interested in his as a suspect. If you are not, that's fine. But why berate those of us that are, as if we don't have the right to be? I wouldn't dream of berating you for believing Druitt a viable candidate, even though I feel sorry for the man whose only link to the murders appears to me to be his untimely death!
...

I am not 'taking a particular exception to Hutchinson'. Did I say that, have I ever said that? And I have never described him as a 'fantasy suspect', I reserve that accolade for such 'suspects' as 'Jill the Ripper', 'Pedachenko', the conspiracies (Royal and Masonic), Maybrick and the other dross that plagues Ripperology.

I am also not 'berating those of you who are'. What I am berating is the overwhelming know it all, dismissive of others, arrogant, self-righteous and pompous attitude of certain people who support the idea of Hutchinson as a suspect. Certain people who reach certain conclusions based on sometimes dubious theorising and contentious claims founded on biased reasoning and dodgy modern, very arguable, modern 'profiling'. That is a different thing entirely. Please think about what you are saying before posting.

As for Druitt, well he was named in 1894 by the second in command of the CID at Scotland Yard as a suspect. I think that I would rather take his word on that point rather than yours. And I am sure there are those on these boards who would find your know it all, out of hand dismissal of Druitt, whom they still see as a viable suspect, rather offensive. In fact it is a prime example of your dismissive attitude to anyone who does not believe what you believe. Have you been brainwashed?

[Stewart P Evans]

McCarthy...

...
Hutchinson wasn't plucked out of a hat. He was there on the night of Kelly's murder shortly before the medical evidence suggests she died. That is compelling information. Much more compelling than someone committing suicide just after Kelly's murder. I use the word entitled because you have yourself written suspect books yet are taking umbrage at anybody else wishing to suggest it might have been Hutchinson.
...

McCarthy was there on the night of Kelly's death, and so were many others. The medical evidence as to the time of her death is inconclusive and umconvincing (an argument into which I am not going to enter here). It is not compelling at all. You and a few others may find it 'compelling' so good on you, you are all entitled to your own opinion. I have not written suspect books, I wrote one suspect book, and that back in 1995. Please, please, please, do stop saying that I am taking 'umbrage at anybody else wishing to suggest it might have been Hutchinson'. Actually some of them claim it was Hutchinson. I have no problem with anyone claiming Hutchinson was a likely Ripper, what I have a problem with is some of their dubious claims stated as fact and their attitude.

[Stewart P Evans]

Not said...

...
I disagree with the opinion that because he was overlooked as a suspect at the time he should automatically be ruled out as a suspect forever. We already know the Police did not have a clue as to the identity of the Ripper and I can see very little rhyme or reason to some of the contemporary suggestions that were forthcoming, Druitt being a prime example. The Police were not infallible. They did not know who the Ripper was, despite their lists of suspects etc. I think it would be foolish NOT to keep an open mind and be prepared to rule people in to the investigation that weren't considered viable suspects at the time.
...

I have not said that Hutchinson 'should automatically be ruled out as a suspect forever'. Do stop putting words into my mouth. I have disagreed with some of the dubious interpretation of the contemporary records stated by 'Hutchinson as the Ripper' supporters and with their abysmal know-it-all attitude. No, the police did not know the identity of the Ripper, I have never said differently to that. I have also never said that the police were infallible. But I am sure that they would have benefited from the expertise of the collective 'pro-Hutchinsonites' here, who could certainly teach then a thing or two (or so they would have us believe). I have also never told anyone one to rule out any suspect they have chosen. It's up to them who they choose and I am sure they would take no notice of me. What I have done, though, is to state my opinion for what it's worth (not much, I should think, in your view).

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

...
As for profiling, again, you're entitled to your opinion, but I find some of the instances of notable behaviour of serial killers, such as injecting themselves into investigations, to be pretty convincing. We're learned from history that some of them do it. It would be closing our minds to deny it couldn't have happened in this case.
Your attitude to profiling doesn't seem to be shared by all the Police either.
Maxine de Brunner
Commander, Serious Acquisitive Crime, Metropolitan Police Service

Yes, I am entitled to my opinion, and that opinion, in this case, is informed opinion, not opinion arrived at merely by reading self-serving essays and books.

You appear to have been very influenced by a certain poster on the Hutchinson threads who seems to view modern criminal profiling as the be all and end all of scientific detection and the answer to all problems; to view profiling as the infallible aid to police investigation. Please get real.

There is a lengthy essay by a leading New Scotland Yard Detective Chief Inspector who investigates murders and his conclusion on profiling was 'you might as well toss a coin'. Do not believe all you read, it is often dictated by political correctness.

[Jonathan H]

To BabyBird67

'The Lodger: The Arrest and Escape of Jack the Ripper' by Stewart P. Evans and Paul Gainey (aka 'Jack the Ripper: First American serial Killer') is one of the great books on this subject.

An absolute pleasure to read, and absorb, and then reread.

As an high school history teacher I use choice bits from this book, along with the documentary on youtube showing interviews with Evans and Gainey (and Eric Barton) and it inspires the students, every time, to see the revelation a single, forgotten primary source can have to an historical subject.

Since no academic historian had ever written on the case, Tumblety was not ever found in the US newspapers before 1993.

By 'academic' I mean a person with relatively unlimited time and resources to spend years on researching this subject. Whereas almost all the great true crime writers -- Cullen, Rumbelow, Evans, Begg, Palmer, Fido, et al -- have been, to varying degrees, constrained by both time and resources.

It means that, inevitably, the Evans-Gainey book has been superseded by other sources which have been found since.

On the other hand, the central thesis of the book; that Dr. Tumblety was the chief suspect of the 1888 police investigation remains just as compelling -- in fact more so if you add the work of R. J. Palmer into the mix.

Could Hutchinson have been the fiend? Sure.

It is just that there is no hard evidence for such a theory. By 'evidence' I mean contemporaneous sources which would show him to be a likely suspect, or at least considered a suspicious character, or explain why police at that time missed him?

Whereas Montague John Druitt remains the leading suspect to be Jack the Ripper.

His family 'believed', and so did his M.P., and several other people (unidentified), and a police chief. All members of the so-called 'better classes' like Druitt -- who was inconveniently long dead and could not defend himself -- and yet they still all believed.

Can we ever be absolutely certain? Of course not.

But this is as good as it gets.

When the Druitt story surfaced in 1891, it was so hot the reporter for 'The Bristol Times and Mirror' admitted he was suppressing details for fear of a libel action, presumably by the family.

Newspapers which repeated the story, in Feb 1891, removed the 'son of a surgeon' detail for fear of a libel action.

If you understand that act of removal then all the later glaring details about the 'Drowned Doctor' not only make sense as fiction rather than 'errors' -- they would have to be fictitious?

In 1898, the Druitt story surfaced again from Macnaghten via Major Griffiths. The threat of libel was neutralized by changing the surgeon's son into a middle-aged surgeon. That the date of suicide was kept from the 1891 story, that the murderer killed himself on the same night as the final murder, was because Mac had discovered it was not true and thus to keep this detail was quite safe: eg. not libellous for it did not match the real Druitt.

Yet, Macnaghten and/or Griffiths judged that it was still too hot to write that the family 'suspected' their member of being the Ripper. Therefore it was agreed to change 'family' into 'friends'.

So, Druitt was fictionalised to avoid an ugly law suit and to protect the family.

This fictionalising allowed Macnaghten to do something else rather cheeky. He redacted Druitt into the 1888 investigation and thus had Scotland Yard take credit for nearly catching him.

Stewart Evans, the discoverer of the Litttlechild Letter, does not get enough credit for discovering vital material by George Sims, much of which is in 'the Lodger'.

What these sources showed was that Druitt was further fictionalised by Mac during the Edwardian years, becoming more like Tumblety.

The narrow focus on the official version of the Macnaghten 'memo' has obscured that in five out of six sources which Macnaghten either wrote or manipulated, he is consistent in his belief that Druitt was the fiend: (1.) the unofficial version of his 'Report' which was (2.) projected to the public via Major Griffiths, and even more so by (3.) Sims with extra details (ones which were not true about the real Druitt) and then confirmed by his (4.) 1913 comments upon retirement, 'That Remarkable Man ...', and (5.) his memoirs of 1914 which withdrew the fictional elements -- including the bit of cheek about the police hunting him in 1888.

I am simply trying to explain why I think Druitt is the strongest suspect, and Hutchinson is a very weak one -- based on what we have.

[Stewart P Evans]

Thank you...

Thank you for the very kind words Jonathan. The proverbial cheque (check) will be in the post.

As regards the Sims material I have to say that my very dear friend Keith Skinner discovered most of that before I did. I was responsible for discovering only a couple of the Sims items, i.e. the 1907 Lloyd's Weekly News article 'My Criminal Museum' (in which Keith assisted) and the Pearson's Weekly 1915 piece. Keith very often doesn't get the credit he so richly deserves.

[Stewart P Evans]

An apology...

On re-reading my preceding posts I should just like to apologise for some of my bad grammar, literals and typos. These are, in the main, the result of a slight loss of vision caused by a red mist that sometimes engulfs me (one of my many faults I'm afraid).