Packer and Schwartz

[S.Brett]

Just to stress that people suffering Schizophrenia are often described as appearing Drunk

Yours Jeff

Rob House described in Prime Suspect a man, Andrew Goldstein, that something is entering you...it is there again and then, it is not...

Perhaps it is possible if something is entering you that it changes the way you walk...

It seems that it can happen suddenly.

[Jeff Leahy]

That is a good point, but at one time I wondered if the "half-tipsy" man was not drunk at all but only walked with a limp.
(Partly because my Person-of-interest in these crimes was said to have an awkward gait)
Could Schwartz mistake a genuine limp, for a stagger?
Probably not.

Just to stress that people suffering Schizophrenia are often described as appearing Drunk

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

That is a good point, but at one time I wondered if the "half-tipsy" man was not drunk at all but only walked with a limp.
(Partly because my Person-of-interest in these crimes was said to have an awkward gait)
Could Schwartz mistake a genuine limp, for a stagger?
Probably not.

Ahh... awkward gait... Thimbleby, Leather Apron, Mrs.Fiddymont, Mrs. Kennedy and Sarah Lewis and Co.?

"John Thimbleby, coppersmith in Hanbury's brewery, went to the Commercial-street-station at one o'clock yesterday to say that at six o'clock that morning a man attracted his particular attention before he heard of the murder. He was hurrying from Hanbury-street, below where the murder took place, into Brick-lane. He was walking, almost running, and had a peculiar gait, his knees not bending when he walked. (This is a peculiarity of "Leather Apron's" gait). He was dressed in a dark stiff hat and cutaway coat, reaching to his knees. His face was clean shaven, and he seemed about 30 years old. Thimbleby says he can identify him."

There was a man with a stiff knee or not? James? Please help me...

The Berner Street Mystery it is really difficult to assess. A man, drunk, coming from a pub in Back Church Lane entering, via Sander Street, the Berner Street, looking for a fight and met Liz Stride standing in the entrance to the Dutfields Yard... is one of the scenarios... but where is the man seen by PC Smith?

Yesterday I have posted a video that showed many men wearing hats and caps. Here another link:

http://www.jack-the-ripper.org/common-lodging-houses.htm

Two young men with a cap with peak in Berner Street at the same time?

And why not, Jon, a man, not drunk but walked with a limp.

Karsten.

[Wickerman]

Thanks!

PC Smith: "the couple appeared sober"

Schwartz (Star): "he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated"... "The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her"...

Within 15 minutes the man is half-tipsy and partially intoxicated. Is it possible?

That is a good point, but at one time I wondered if the "half-tipsy" man was not drunk at all but only walked with a limp.
(Partly because my Person-of-interest in these crimes was said to have an awkward gait)
Could Schwartz mistake a genuine limp, for a stagger?
Probably not.

[S.Brett]

Hi Jeff,

I think it makes sense to read the book. There is a Kindle Edition...

"Thats why MacNAughten makes lots of errors about Druit being a Doctor..."

Lots of errors! I offer, (you offer/we offer) many explanations for specific things in our theories. Perhaps Jonathan has explanations for Druitt being a doctor and the other errors.

Letīs be fair.

Yours Karsten.

[Jeff Leahy]

It is important for me to understand the reasons why Macnaghten thought that Druitt might be the Ripper. I see no reason why Macnaghten would have been a better policeman if he would have said that Kosminski is the Ripper instead of Kosminski is a "strong suspect". Each explanation, each opinion may be helpful.

Karsten.

Hi Karsten

Well unless Jonathon actually has added some new information I'm unaware of...and that seems improbable..MacNaughten is quite clear that 'From Private info' he believes the ripper to be a drowned doctor

My understanding is that the MP Farquharsen is the most probable source of the Private info... Not that we ever know what the info is...

My guess is that MacNAughten had already come across the Private info before writing the Memo in 1894 in reply to the Sun ascertion that Cutbush was the ripper...

Thats why MacNAughten makes lots of errors about Druit being a Doctor... because he's not working from a file but just a theory told to him about the drown man mind giving way and killing himself... Probably in a Gentlemans club where this sort of gossip might be discussed...MacANughten wasn't that discreet...

That said MacNaughten is a good copper and he gets his hands on the kozminski file which outlines the case by Cox unto March 1889.

MacNaughten sees that the case against Kozminski isn't that strong no firm proof apart from the City PC... So MacNAughten does the obvious and sticks to his preffered theory..

Perhaps he had already put his theory to Swanson or Anderson at some point and they had pooh poohed it...think about what Anderson says in 1892

'There, there is my answer to people with fads and theories'

But in terms of your question the fact that MAcNaughten suggests he's a 'Strong Suspect'.... Anderson suspect... suggests that he didn't have the info about the later ID or Kozminski going into Colneyt Hatch which he never once mentions... Presumably because Anderson kept it secret to protect the kozminski family... and this would make more sense if he had given his world to a lady..Matilda..following the Crawford letter

Monroe 'A Hot Potato'

Yours Jeff

[S.Brett]

To Karsten

Almost certainly.

It is a compelling inference, as with many accepting that Israel Schwartz was Anderson's witness who refused to testify, or that Aaron Kosminski lies behind "Kosminski", as the real person was most certainly not "on the prowl" for a "few weeks" and then had his time in Whitechapel "cut short" by removal to an asylum, and so on.

The strength of the argument lies in the accumulation of data as argued in my book. It is up to the individual reader to decide if is it compelling -- or not.

If not compelling then it must be just another coincidence that, unknown for 124 years, Montague Druitt was related, by a marriage, to a very close friend of both Sir Melville Macnaghten and of George Sims.

Is it likely that these two canny gents did not know this.

I find that untenable.

It would mean that the 'Drowned Doctor' disguise, which protected not only the surviving Druitts but also the distinguished family of their very close friend, was just an incredibly fortuitous coincidence.

Rightly or wrongly, I regard this as also untenable.

I argue that this previously unknown link, between Montie and Mac and Sims is the private motive -- the missing piece of the jigsaw -- that led the police chief and the famous writer to partially conceal the Ripper's identity from everybody, including Mac's colleagues at Scotland Yard; the killer was long dead but he still posed a threat to the living in terms of reputations and scandal.

In his memoir, Mac tried to be more honest about Druitt but it was too little and too late to undercut Sims'down-market rip-off of Stevenson's "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" -- the disguise that consolidated the Top Hat Toff iconic image that lasts to this day.

Thank you Jonathan!

That is what I have expected from you and your book.

@Jeff & Jonathan:

It is important for me to understand the reasons why Macnaghten thought that Druitt might be the Ripper. I see no reason why Macnaghten would have been a better policeman if he would have said that Kosminski is the Ripper instead of Kosminski is a "strong suspect". Each explanation, each opinion may be helpful.

We already were discussing the same issue on JTRForums.

Live and let live! I think we can live side by side "in peace". Letīs just try it.

@Jonathan:

Do you have an opinion on Packer and Schwartz? What happened in Berner Street?

Karsten.

[Jeff Leahy]

There are no sources that prove Aaron Kosminski went into an asylum in March 1889, or was subjected to a witness identification, positive or otherwise, by police in a hospital near a beach.

I'm just looking at the sources...and i intend to include the Swanson Marginalia.

So it simply becomes a no brainer that Swanson and Anderson are talking about the same person...your the only one who can not see it because of your obsession with MacNaughten as a super cop, its laughable

It is all a matter of opinion. It becomes then a question of the merit of the argument.

Well yes I agree. And the Merit to the argument is the source's back what I'm arguing, once you actually listen to what Cox says...and what MacNaughten says...Asylum (A Private asylum) March 1889

We could go on, as it is quite a list of theories and not facts, but I know you have already stopped reading ...
The fair-minded Karsten will understand what I am getting at.

I'd rather we didn't go on Jonathan your usaul style is to go off to teacher claiming the horrible man has been beastly to you in an attempt to get me ban from the boards, at which point i simply change to another platform

And as always your still ignoring the basic credibility of Druit as a suspect..

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

Steady on, Jeffrey, you are once more hurling yourself off a cliff without knowing it.

By that exacting standard of fact there are, eh, none that prove Sir Robert Anderson thought Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. He never committed the suspect's name in any known extant source.

Which is why the David Cohen is just as viable, if not more so.

There are no sources that prove Aaron Kosminski went into an asylum in March 1889, or was subjected to a witness identification, positive or otherwise, by police in a hospital near a beach.

It is all a matter of opinion. It becomes then a question of the merit of the argument.

We could go on, as it is quite a list of theories and not facts, but I know you have already stopped reading ...

The fair-minded Karsten will understand what I am getting at.

[Jeff Leahy]

To Karsten

Almost certainly.

It is a compelling inference, as with many accepting that Israel Schwartz was Anderson's witness who refused to testify, or that Aaron Kosminski lies behind "Kosminski", as the real person was most certainly not "on the prowl" for a "few weeks" and then had his time in Whitechapel "cut short" by removal to an asylum, and so on.

The strength of the argument lies in the accumulation of data as argued in my book. It is up to the individual reader to decide if is it compelling -- or not.

If not compelling then it must be just another coincidence that, unknown for 124 years, Montague Druitt was related, by a marriage, to a very close friend of both Sir Melville Macnaghten and of George Sims.

Is it likely that these two canny gents did not know this.

I find that untenable.

It would mean that the 'Drowned Doctor' disguise, which protected not only the surviving Druitts but also the distinguished family of their very close friend, was just an incredibly fortuitous coincidence.

Rightly or wrongly, I regard this as also untenable.

I argue that this previously unknown link, between Montie and Mac and Sims is the private motive -- the missing piece of the jigsaw -- that led the police chief and the famous writer to partially conceal the Ripper's identity from everybody, including Mac's colleagues at Scotland Yard; the killer was long dead but he still posed a threat to the living in terms of reputations and scandal.

In his memoir, Mac tried to be more honest about Druitt but it was too little and too late to undercut Sims'down-market rip-off of Stevenson's "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" -- the disguise that consolidated the Top Hat Toff iconic image that lasts to this day.

In other words its your opinion not fact

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jonathon

I notice you fail to address any criticism for your theory as always

You are behind the times, as usual.

No, i simply wouldn't entertain such a scurrilous rag of a book, as I can pretty much guess at what mis-information it contains

The identification of Macnaghten's likely source of private information has been discovered:

Discovered by you? That must have kept photoshop busy

You seem to have forgotten, as usual, that you think Anderson and Swanson were involved in a conspiracy against Macnaghten.

I dont believe in Conspiracy theories as you well know. However there is on record some suggestion that Anderson wanted MacNAughten Transferred and some suggestion that there was criticism by Anderson by MacNAughten

Thats why you like to blacken his character is it not?

Frankly I have no personal opinion about any of these policeman but I have no reason to believe any of them would have lied...there is no need for any of them to have told anything other than the truth from their perspective

How that works, when he can be shown to know more about the Ripper than both of them put together ...

Know he can't be shown to do anything of the kind...its all in your futile imagination because in the MM Macnaughten clearly sates and (I believe still is) when about Ostrog he clearly states he IS ALIVE...so Macnaughten knows didly squat after March 1889

What he has however is the original file on Kozminski which clearly contain more information than he puts into a brief Memo...this he slowly releases to Sims over a period of time..

Anderson of course forms his theory in 1892, 'A maniac revealing in blood'

Which again you ignore, as you ignore the fact that Anderson almost certainly wrote his book TLSOMOL while referencing notes, which by all accounts he collected in large numbers and probably kept a diary

William Hardcourt of course was Home Secretary when Anderson was dealing with yet fanien troubles before the ripper murders, by the time MacNaughten wrote his report he was infact the Chancellor of the Excheckor, but frankly its all a red herring as when giving the interview he didn't have his notes infront of him did he...

Anyway if you don't mind some of us here are trying to get at the facts rather than invent case solved theories..

Yours Jeff

[Jonathan H]

To Karsten

Almost certainly.

It is a compelling inference, as with many accepting that Israel Schwartz was Anderson's witness who refused to testify, or that Aaron Kosminski lies behind "Kosminski", as the real person was most certainly not "on the prowl" for a "few weeks" and then had his time in Whitechapel "cut short" by removal to an asylum, and so on.

The strength of the argument lies in the accumulation of data as argued in my book. It is up to the individual reader to decide if is it compelling -- or not.

If not compelling then it must be just another coincidence that, unknown for 124 years, Montague Druitt was related, by a marriage, to a very close friend of both Sir Melville Macnaghten and of George Sims.

Is it likely that these two canny gents did not know this.

I find that untenable.

It would mean that the 'Drowned Doctor' disguise, which protected not only the surviving Druitts but also the distinguished family of their very close friend, was just an incredibly fortuitous coincidence.

Rightly or wrongly, I regard this as also untenable.

I argue that this previously unknown link, between Montie and Mac and Sims is the private motive -- the missing piece of the jigsaw -- that led the police chief and the famous writer to partially conceal the Ripper's identity from everybody, including Mac's colleagues at Scotland Yard; the killer was long dead but he still posed a threat to the living in terms of reputations and scandal.

In his memoir, Mac tried to be more honest about Druitt but it was too little and too late to undercut Sims'down-market rip-off of Stevenson's "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" -- the disguise that consolidated the Top Hat Toff iconic image that lasts to this day.

[S.Brett]

The identification of Macnaghten's likely source of private information has been discovered

Hello Jonathan,

I have not yet managed to read your book.

But in your book you state: was almost certainly (the source)

has been discovered and almost certainly ?

Without reading the book is the source almost certainly or has been discovered?

Kind regards,

Karsten.

[Jonathan H]

You are behind the times, as usual.

The identification of Macnaghten's likely source of private information has been discovered:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper--Case-Solved-1891-Hainsworth-ebook/dp/B017DZQS82/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1446894570&sr=1-1&keywords=Jack+the+Ripper+Case+Solved%2C+1891

You seem to have forgotten, as usual, that you think Anderson and Swanson were involved in a conspiracy against Macnaghten.

How that works, when he can be shown to know more about the Ripper than both of them put together ...

[Jeff Leahy]

To Lynn

I am sorry to see that the last gasp of the Polish Jewish suspect has been reduced to this -- a street map.

From the dizzying heights of last year's DNA slam dunk, to the desperation of ... he lived nearby.

Unlike Druit, who went to Canon Street and could have found easy pickings far closer at Elephant and Castle..

In fact has Druit ever been connected to Whitechapel?

The fact remains that for all your MacNaugten super cop blustering...All you actually have is 'Private Info' which Macnaughten didn't have enough confidence to share with us..

But then thats probably because his only contribution to the case was to write a Home Office memo

Yours Jeff