Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and

[lynn cates]

all attention

Hello Tom. Well, I, for one did not ignore it.

Wish I knew which Irish extremist was alluded to, though.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Spiro,

Of course I have read your book and recall vividly the part about the 'extremist' and private detective agency...but like you said, I took this to mean that he was suspected for the murders as a whole and not just the Kelly murder as some were suggesting. And I thought perhaps the subsequent research that I had missed had identified the author. At the time I first saw this quite a long time ago, I suggested Le Grand as an explanation for the private detective agency. Not surprisingly, this was completely ignored or pushed aside. However, as he was involved with the Parnell commission, in fact headed a detective agency, was an actual Ripper suspect, and was known to Macnaghten, this shouldn't be too hard of a sell.

Lech,

I read your alternative explanation but I'm afraid I don't find it convincing at all, particularly in light of the more direct comments offered by Spiro above to the existence of an 'extremist' suspect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

Just in case you missed it, I suggested that the entry in the Metropolitan Police’s Index for General Crime was in direct response to the allegation made on 14th December 1888 that Mr Broderick had committed ‘Contempt of Court’ in a speech in which he jokingly referred to Jack the Ripper while also discussing the Parnell Commission. That will explain why this file was in the Met’s ‘General’ section and not in the Special Branch ledgers.

Given that the Parnell Commission was sitting from September 1888 to November 1889, while some of the Ripper Murders were being committed (depending which you wish to count as Ripper Murders), some will try to make a case that this was not a coincidence. Also the brutality that accompanied the Phoenix Park murders of 1882, will invite in some minds a comparison to the Ripper Murders.

This is not perhaps the same as suggesting that ‘a serial killer could not be born of the then current Irish/Anglo troubles?’
It is one thing to suggest that the killings were part of a Fenian conspiracy to undermine the authority of the British Government in the eyes of the struggling masses. If this were their aim then they failed abjectly. I can’t think of any other instance of terror being waged in such a fashion. It is frankly a ludicrous theory.

The other thing is to suggest the killer could have been a disgruntled and deranged Irishman who acted alone, yet used the ‘troubles’ as some sort of twisted justification for his actions.
I suppose there is a chance of this being the case.
It is similar to a hypothetical twisted justification for a culprit like Kosminsky, who in a similarly deranged fashion may have been seeking vengeance against gentile society for his experiences in Russia.

[auspirograph]

Metropolitan Police Crime Index

Thanks, Stewart. But who did the suggesting? The police or someone to the police? And do we assume this had to do with Kelly specifically?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

It is not known with certainty who the information for the Metropolitan Police Crime Index, 'Whitechapel murder Suggested complicity of Irish Party' - that Stewart has kindly made available - came from. I drew some conclusions with the Special Commission active during the Whitechapel murders but it is more involved than that because the nature of that information would have naturally transferred to Special Branch to investigate. The outcome of those inquiries is also not known beyond what Lindsay Clutterbuck has summed up as it:

"…does enable an outline to be constructed of an intriguing story involving an extreme Irish nationalist who is suspected of being 'Jack the Ripper', an alleged plot to assassinate the Secretary for Ireland, Balfour, and the activities of a private detective agency."

Regarding Kelly specifically, it is not now an assumption that this information is linked and instrumental to the time of her death as I have made the proof available in my book. There is also no reason to suspect, as speculated, that she was in any way associated with any of this. I'd also like to emphasize that as the Crime Index entries can be conclusively dated to her murder, it does not ensure it refers to her murder alone but reflects, in my view, on the series as a whole event.

This is evidence of a parallel and internal police investigation whose surviving primary sources supplement and contradict the 1910 touted 'facts' of Anderson and the generally known Scotland Yard reports on which we speculate. Macnaghten however, to some extent, supports these inquiries with his internal Balfour report on Jack the Ripper.

Is it really so hard to consider the now plausible possibility, based on this evidence, and to strongly assert that a serial killer could not be born of the then current Irish/Anglo troubles?

I thought you had read the book, if not, it occurs in chapter 7.

[Tom_Wescott]

Honest and reliable?
He gave a name to the police that is at variance with that which he called himself in every single other known recorded instance when he was dealing with anyone else - and we have around 100 plus instances to choose from in his well recorded life.
there is also a glaring discrepancy between what PC Mizen claimed Charles Lechmere told him and what Charles Lechmere claims he told PC Mizen.
But let's pass by these as they quite innocent explanations are available to us for these things.

That's quite an admission, Lech. I'm shocked as well as impressed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

Honest and reliable?
He gave a name to the police that is at variance with that which he called himself in every single other known recorded instance when he was dealing with anyone else - and we have around 100 plus instances to choose from in his well recorded life.
there is also a glaring discrepancy between what PC Mizen claimed Charles Lechmere told him and what Charles Lechmere claims he told PC Mizen.
But let's pass by these as they quite innocent explanations are available to us for these things.

[Fisherman]

It is speculated that Hutchinson was an honest, reliable witness.
We KNOW, however, that Charles Lechmere aka Cross was an honest, reliable witness.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

We? Schizophrenic, Tom?

Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

It is speculated that Hutchinson was alone with one of the victims.
we KNOW, however, that Lechmere WAS alone with one of the victims.

It is speculated that Hutchinson used a false name.
We KNOW, however, that Lechmere did this.

It is speculated that Hutchinson lied to the police.
We KNOW, however, that the inquest recordings clearly suggest that Lechmere did precisely this.

It is speculated that Hutchinson will have walked the streets where the victims were found.
We KNOW, however, that Lechmere had both professional and social reasons to do so.

It is speculated that Hutchinson was an honest, reliable witness.
We KNOW, however, that Charles Lechmere aka Cross was an honest, reliable witness.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

So it is. And of course I have never intimated that I am not interested in 'material relating to the murders and the ones involved in the case' as I think you imply.

But, in case there is any misunderstanding here, let me be quite plain: I have no interest in engaging with you (or anybody else) in a silly, disingenuous suspect comparison 'debate'. I don't waste my time with nonsense.

Really, don't you have better things to do than attempt to initiate yet another (yawn...) acrimonious suspect debacle?

So then, Sally, I take it you can explain to me how it can be, ehrm, "nonsense" to compare suspects? My understanding is that this is what Ripperology has done for 125 years.

But of course, you may find it silly that Lechmere should be the best practical bid for the killers role. Not that it changes things - they are what they are.

I don´t expect any deabte on that matter, by the way - it´s well beyond debating.

The best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

I know, Jon.

But the police had him down as "Lawende", and not so surprisingly, that turned out to be his real name. Since "Keyler" appeared on the police report, we should go with that too, rather than a press report. Calling the Keylers the "Gallaghers" makes as much sense as calling Lawende "Lewin"

Both McWilliam and Swanson misspelled Lawende's name in their subsequent reports. In fact, Swanson misspelled it two different ways in two different reports.

[Sally]

Whether you are interested in material relating to the murders and the ones involved in the case or not is your very own affair, Sally. Since you post out here, however, I thought that this was so.

The best,
Fisherman

So it is. And of course I have never intimated that I am not interested in 'material relating to the murders and the ones involved in the case' as I think you imply.

But, in case there is any misunderstanding here, let me be quite plain: I have no interest in engaging with you (or anybody else) in a silly, disingenuous suspect comparison 'debate'. I don't waste my time with nonsense.

Really, don't you have better things to do than attempt to initiate yet another (yawn...) acrimonious suspect debacle?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman -

I referred to Crossmere only in response to a question from another poster. I'm not remotely interested in your Crossmere/Hutchinson comparison; and I seriously doubt whether anybody else (apart from you, apparently) is either.

We've been through all of this before - I see little value in going over it all again. Unless you have new evidence, of course?

Whether you are interested in material relating to the murders and the ones involved in the case or not is your very own affair, Sally. Since you post out here, however, I thought that this was so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Fisherman -

I referred to Crossmere only in response to a question from another poster. I'm not remotely interested in your Crossmere/Hutchinson comparison; and I seriously doubt whether anybody else (apart from you, apparently) is either.

We've been through all of this before - I see little value in going over it all again. Unless you have new evidence, of course?

[Sally]

Sally - the case you put for giving extra credence to the police suspects is based on conjecture - equally it could be said that as there was no unanimity and instead contradiction amongst policemen and as they made glaring errors when describing these suspects and as they conformed to ill judged late 19th century stereotypes as to the culprits potential characteristics - the 'police suspects' are less than valuable as indicators of who may have done it.

Ah yes, Ed – but I didn’t say that ‘Police’ suspects should be given ‘extra credence’, did I?

I said – again, in case you missed it there – that we cannot safely dismiss contemporary suspects without knowing the grounds for contemporary suspicion against them. And as I said, you may be right – if we knew what that suspicion was we may be in a position to dismiss it – but we don’t, so we’re not. There it is. Whether there was ‘contradiction’ amongst the police at the time or not is irrelevant; that first principle remains true.

That is not to say that I have a personal leaning towards any of them; but I can’t agree that they can be lumped together and considered as ‘less than valuable’ without our being in possession of the full facts.

[Fisherman]

That is all obviously the case Fisherman which is why speculation comes in varieties.

Sally - the case you put for giving extra credence to the police suspects is based on conjecture - equally it could be said that as there was no unanimity and instead contradiction amongst policemen and as they made glaring errors when describing these suspects and as they conformed to ill judged late 19th century stereotypes as to the culprits potential characteristics - the 'police suspects' are less than valuable as indicators of who may have done it.

All very true, Edward! And yes, of course all suspects have become suspects grounded on speculation, nobody opposes that. But one can do a healthy exercise comparing the degree of speculation inbetween Lechmere and other suspects. Let´s try, for example, George Hutchinson:

In Hutchinsons case, it is suggested that he was the killer, masquerading under a false name and lying to the police after having come forward to save his skin.

But let´s see what a comparison with Lechmere gives!

It is speculated that Hutchinson was alone with one of the victims.
we KNOW, however, that Lechmere WAS alone with one of the victims.

It is speculated that Hutchinson used a false name.
We KNOW, however, that Lechmere did this.

It is speculated that Hutchinson lied to the police.
We KNOW, however, that the inquest recordings clearly suggest that Lechmere did precisely this.

It is speculated that Hutchinson will have walked the streets where the victims were found.
We KNOW, however, that Lechmere had both professional and social reasons to do so.

So this is where some speculations are beginning to look very wobbly and unsubstantiated, whereas others remain on firm ground. And this is why we, though we cannot speak of binding evidence, actually CAN speak of hard facts in some cases, but not in others.

And this is also why we should not lean back and satisfy ourselves with the police suspects. Druitt, Kosminsky, Le Grand, Tumblety - they could not all have done it, so the police were at least 75 per cent wrong. And with every suspect we add, that percentage number grows. And as long as no connection whatsoever can be made inbetween any of these celebrated suspects and the victims in terms of timing or geography, it´s way better to look to suspects where this can be had - in combination with false names and clear implications of lying to the police.
That´s as good as it will get.

The best,
Fisherman