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

[mklhawley]

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

Great to see you posting Tom,

Just a side note. It seems Irish Party stuff and Ripper stuff do come together. Here's the thread on Big Red McDermott. Very little known connections with this guy and the Ripper murders, but quite the discovery. Why would this 'artist' even draw this, if he hadn't seen this somewhere?

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4859

Sincerely,
Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Great to see you posting Tom,

Just a side note. It seems Irish Party stuff and Ripper stuff do come together. Here's the thread on Big Red McDermott. Very little known connections with this guy and the Ripper murders, but quite the discovery. Why would this 'artist' even draw this, if he hadn't seen this somewhere?

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4859

Sincerely,
Mike

Hi Mike, it's always good to see you. Yes, I'm quite familiar with the McDermott drawing. Very interesting, but on its own means nothing. I'll be curious to see what other researchers make of it though.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

description

Hello Mike, Tom. Just saw this.

Although I don't think "Red" Jim had any part to play in killing "MJK," it is no secret that his description matches "Blotchy Man" and Frank Millen matches "Astrakhan Man."

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

I couldn't help but notice that Debs posted a photo of a Thomas Brennan in that thread Mike linked to. Looks a lot like the Red Jim drawing, only a little older and a little more jowly.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

He also looks like Tumblety - dare say it.
Linking such scraps together is the very stuff of conspiracy theories.

[mklhawley]

He also looks like Tumblety - dare say it.
Linking such scraps together is the very stuff of conspiracy theories.

Hey, we finally agree on something. I've never been a conspiracy person. Just wanted to say hi to Tom.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Hey, we finally agree on something. I've never been a conspiracy person. Just wanted to say hi to Tom.

Mike

Very kind of you, Mike. I look forward to seeing more of your work in Ripperologist.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sally]

Hi Stewart,

Apologies for the late reply.

You are generous with your praise, I'm sure you could have done a better job.

Irrelevant. Besides, it wasn’t meant as a criticism; however I might criticise Paley’s conclusions. It’s simply that there was/is more to unearth regarding Barnett; and with each new discovery, the picture changes. That was what I meant by ‘as far as it went’.

It is obvious that some will be more speculative than others, depending on the choice of 'suspect' and the material available. Aren't most suspects 'imagined'? Do you count Cross/Lechmere as an 'imagined' suspect? As well as contra arguments for innocence there will often be unknown variables and facts at work.

Yes, most suspects are imagined. And yes, of course I count Crossmere as an imagined suspect; the case against him is purely speculative and I’ve said so at length.*

And you are right, of course; of course there will be unknown variables and facts at work - that's what makes guessing so easy to do.

I can't agree that 'seeking to recommence their former relationship' is merely guesswork, it's an informed opinion. The break was obviously acrimonious yet here he was just over a week later seeing her in her room. From past experience I should say it's quite common for a paramour to seek to reconcile a relationship after a short break, especially if feelings were genuine.

Well, on the other hand, later records demonstrate that he was in a relationship with a woman called Louisa - from 1888 onwards according to both of them in the 1911 census, for example (other records also suggest a long-term relationship) The possibility that he had already begun a relationship with her when he left Kelly is obvious. The fact that he was seeing her in her room may signify many things. It may signify, for example, that he was simply looking out for her. He cannot have been unaware of the difficulties she would face without his support.

All this shouldn't need saying when we are agreed that we are in the realms of speculation. Thus it is pointless to say that 'there no foundation for the idea that he ventured to her room at some point in the night' as it is a hypothesis. When building a case for any given scenario various points have to be suggested 'without foundation'. Had there been any evidence that he had left the lodgings during the night I am sure he would have been under arrest.

Fair enough, although it that case I think you’d have to say that anybody is fair game and any scenario can be imagined and pushed along by its proponents without any more than a cursory nod to the facts.

Not for me - too little of the facts and too much fantasy. I guess that’s why I’d never write a suspect book!

You obviously do not understand the nature of domestic murders, which may arise out of the most unlikely and petty circumstances if you are saying that the scenario we have with Barnett is bordering on fantasy.

What I meant is that there is no foundation for the propositions regarding Barnett. They are purely speculative. The whole case against Barnett (as with Crossmere and others besides) relies on a series of guesses/assumptions being correct. It’s fiction. Entertaining enough, but fiction nonetheless unless it can be proven otherwise.

You do not know that it would have been 'impossible to keep one's coming and goings undetected', prostitutes were often able to smuggle men into their beds for the night without the deputy knowing. And, I'll say again, we don't know the arrangements of the New Street lodging house. You do not know that somebody would 'have noted his movements' - throughout the night. He would need only one to say that he had been in bed to corroborate his story. But to say that the person would need to have been awake all night to know he was there the whole time. Merely seeing him go to bed and seeing him in the morning would be enough for some. According to him he played cards until 12.30 am and then went to bed. The murder was committed much later than that.

Well, anything is possible, isn’t it? As I think you said earlier in this thread, we no longer have the official police records pertaining to Barnett’s interrogation; so there is much that we don’t know. I take it that since he was released by the police they were satisfied that he was innocent of any involvement in Kelly’s death. Unless they were incompetent - one of the assumptions necessary to make the case against Barnett stick - that’s it.

I recognise that in suspect hunting, speculation has necessarily to be the name of the game - and because we know so little about many of these suspects, it’s easy to fill in the gaps with imagined guilt. I think that the more we know about ‘suspects’ the better we’ll be able to see how they fit into the mould. In most cases, I suspect that these people would turn out to be ordinary men who were unfortunate to become entangled in the events of the day.




* Sorry, Team Lechmere, no offence.

[Lechmere]

I hope I'm at least in the squad if not in the team - but no offence taken Sally.
I would suggest that for every suspect, without exception, the case for guilt is based purely on speculation. This includes the so-called 'police suspects' which are based on older speculation (ha! but that is also speculation).
When discussing the pros and cons of suspects the 'speculation' criticism is in some respects irrelevant - but I would accept that speculation comes in degrees. It can be wild, baseless, supported by surrounding evidence, and so on.

[Ben]

Phonetics Ben, accents, pronunciation, we see the same variances with other personal names. Even Lawende is read as Lamende, Lawrence and Lewin - but you know this.

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"

[Sally]

Ed -

I hope I'm at least in the squad if not in the team - but no offence taken Sally.

There’s a squad now???

I think you probably are the team, Ed.

I would suggest that for every suspect, without exception, the case for guilt is based purely on speculation. This includes the so-called 'police suspects' which are based on older speculation (ha! but that is also speculation).

Hmm. Certainly we can probably say that about modern suspects, I think; because we can see what the speculation is. I’m not sure we can say that about ‘police’ suspects; since we don’t know (can’t, in most cases, know) on what their suspicions were based. You may be quite right of course – and if we did know what the basis of contemporary suspicion was, we may in fact find it to be slight and wanting; but how can we know for sure?

The police were there, on the ground, at the time. It is beyond dispute that they knew more than we ever will about many of those involved in the case; whether they be suspects or witnesses – or even (Heaven forfend…) witnesses turned suspect. I think the only circumstance in which it would be safe to dismiss contemporary opinion would be where modern research has discovered details that were evidently unknown to police at the time and which disproves their suspicions. Not impossible, considering the wealth of material available to modern researchers.

When discussing the pros and cons of suspects the 'speculation' criticism is in some respects irrelevant - but I would accept that speculation comes in degrees. It can be wild, baseless, supported by surrounding evidence, and so on.

Ah yes, but much of what you see as degrees of speculation amounts to personal opinion for the most part. I might, for example (and do, in fact) consider the case against Barnett to be almost baseless; but clearly that opinion is not unanimous, otherwise he wouldn’t have been the subject of suspect books. To some he obviously looks like a strong candidate – I’ve had several discussions on this forum in the past with posters who obviously want him to be Kelly’s murderer and will brook no contradiction.

One person’s wild and baseless speculation appears to be another person’s culprit. I mean, do people really think that Sickert/Van Gogh was the Ripper? Apparently they do.

The bottom line is that unless you have hard facts at your disposal; it’s all speculation – and it’s personal conviction that gives that speculation so many degrees of plausibility.

[Fisherman]

... of course I count Crossmere as an imagined suspect; the case against him is purely speculative.

The bottom line is that unless you have hard facts at your disposal; it’s all speculation

Hard fact: Lechmere was found standing alone by the side of a freshly killed victim.
Hard fact: Lechmere´s road to work took him through the very district where most victims were found.
Hard fact: The two remaining victims were connected to his old neighbourhood, where his mother still lived together with his daughter.
Hard fact: Lechmere called himself Cross when speaking to the police on the murder night - a name that he is not known to have used on any other occasion.
Hard fact: The inquest recordings reveal that the PC that he spoke to claims to have been told something that was not true by Lechmere - something, further, that would have constituted a perfect ruse to get past the police on the murder night if true.
Hard fact: Nichols´ killer had apparently pulled her clothes down, so as to hide the abdominal damage.
Hard fact: Lechmere´s family was engaged in the cat´s meat business, providing an excellent opportunity for him to learn about butchering and develop an interest for abdominal cavities.

These are all hard facts, Sally. All of them. And there is nothing comparable relating to any other suspect in the Whitechapel killings.
Of course, if you are looking for hard facts like a confession letter signed Lechmere (yes, he would likely have signed it "Lecherme" and not "Cross") or a bloody knife with nigh on ten different DNA traces on it, all relating the weapon to the Whitechapel killings, then I´m afraid I can´t accomodate you on those points.
But it matters little - there is enough in the Lechmere bid to have anybody with an ability to make logical deductions realize that he is a red hot bid for the killers role. Not least those with a background in policing will know - but not necessarily speak of or admit - this.

It also deserves to be pointed out that much as the police in 1888 was in a better position than we are to find out things about the people involved in the investigation (just like you say), we are in a better position today to evaluate a man like Lechmere in many a way, and against a much more detailed background than the one the police would have aquired back then. His name staying a secret to them says it all - they did not have access to the material we have access to. If they had had that, then they would have followed up on it, and Lechmere would not have been a footnote in the margin of the investigation - he would likely have been it´s centre.
That last phrase, of course, is speculation and conjecture, Sally - but it´s grounded in hard facts as per the above. Whereas your mumbling about a "purely speculative" case is more along the true lines of the thread - black magic and all that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

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.

[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

[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.