|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 101
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 2:52 am: | 
|
Hi all,
Olivier, you wrote:
"It is possible that Levy knew Kosminski by sight. This idea is proposed by Paul Begg and Scott Nelson. OK! it is pure speculation. But it is proven that Joseph Levy knew Martin Kosminski (which perhaps is unrelated with Aaron). Scott Nelson has also written a dissertation about the acquaintances of Joseph Levy with Kosminski's family."
It is indeed an interesting theory, but I wouldn't really believe in it. Let's assume for a moment that Levy knew Kosminski. Well, if he saw Kosminski standing talking to a woman outside the entrance to Mitre Square, and then left Harris and Lawende, then Levy must have known that Kosminski was the Ripper. Or else he was afraid of him for some reason. If he just knew Kosminski as an acquaintance or someone he saw occasionally, then why would he run away? Kosminski (if it was him) was not assaulting Eddowes or anything. Infact, she was leaning on him (drunk?).
So, there is 3 possible outcomes here:
1.) Levy did not know Kosminski himself, and ran off for some other reason.
2.) Levy did know Kosminski, but did not know he was the killer, and ran off for some other reason.
3.) Levy did know Kosminski, and knew he was the killer. Which could potentially have made him an accessory to murder, if Kosminski was caught, Levy had seen him and knew, and did not report it or say something. Trouble for him!
Of course, it could also be reasoned that Levy knew Kosminski and thought he saw him with Cathy, but due to the dark mis-recognized the man as Kosminski.
There are a few possibilities, but I tend to believe that Levy had nothing to do with it, and just ran away for some other reason.
"It is exactly what I say: Kosminski was a suspect (an important suspect for MacNaghten, the main suspect for Anderson and we do not know excactly what for Swanson but probably a strong suspect)."
Well, in reality, all of the police officers suspected different people. There was no really consistent suspect amongst their ranks. MacNaghten especially made numerous mistakes, and so I tend to disregard the most part of what he says.
Glenn, you wrote:
"After all, it was Swanson's job to keep all the files together and collect all the documentation. If Abberline didn't give Swanson all the stuff he picked up, I believe he would have found himself in trouble."
Quite true. And there was some quarreling within the police force during this time regarding the murders, but I don't believe it directly involved Abberline. However, as I said before, Swanson was never definite...he basically only identified Anderson's suspect, though from that he was clearly a leading suspect in Swanson's mind.
But let me throw a spanner in the works now....
What if Swanson mistaked Kosminski for Klosowski?
They were about the same age, in the same area, and have extremely similar sounding names. Both start with "K" and both end with "Ski". And police officers sometimes did get the names mis-spelt later on. For example, Arthur Neil spelt Klosowski "Kloskovski". What do you make of that thought train?
"Abberline had no auhtority that would give him access to documentation in the case that lay OUTSIDE his own investigation. Abberline was not the only one receiving tips regarding suspects etc. and Abberline hadn't necessarily any access to the papers that came FROM Anderson TO Swanson. So in fact, Swanson knew more about all the aspects of the case, since every piece of paper from every direction came his way. Swanson was the ONLY ONE with an OVER-ALL VIEW of the case (while Abberline only had control over things he himself directed). It is really quite simple."
I see, a very good point.
I agree then that Swanson had the best knowledge of everything that was going on within the case.
But surely, if there was some important document or clue that needed to be followed up, Swanson would have either passed the information on to Abberline, or else Abberline would have requested it.
And, as I mentioned above, Swanson only identified Kosminski as the suspect. He may have had the best overview of the case, but what if his memory of suspects and documents became distorted over time? What if, as I said above, he forgot the name and tried to get it as accurate to what he could remember?
Then again, Kosminski was mentioned in Mcnaghten's memorandum, but not as the main suspect. And like the others, there is numerous mistakes within it. For example, he said Kosminski died shortly after being put in the asylum, when infact he lived for another 28 years until 1919, a full 25 years after the memorandum was written.
IMHO, almost the whole case against Kosminski is a mixture of bad memories, distorted facts and circumstantial evidence.
Phil, you wrote:
"Abberline had his nose to the ground. Swanson had perspective. it is likely that Swanson and later MM would have access to a wider range of information (political, private, Fenian, intelligence) than Abberline. That's what he was employed for.
It is important to understand the structure and organisation of the police operation, and argue consistently - not just grasp at straws to support a particular contention."
That's true Phil.
Each and every officer had his own field to work in, and Swanson indeed did have a bigger overview than people like Abberline. But Abberline would have been the one picking up a lot of little extra bits and pieces, being the one investigating the case on the ground. Read my responses to Glenn above to get a full overview on my thoughts of the operation between Swanson/Anderson/Abberline.
Swanson certainly knew more, I don't deny it, but Abberline would have any extras that happened to come along, and is still a very reliable source.
And Kitty, please stop taking every oppurtunity you can to deliberately annoy members. It's not getting you anywhere good, and you've already proven just how little you know or are willing to share. Unless you've got something productive to say, then don't say anything at all.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2631
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 9:45 am: |
|
Hi Adam,
Hmmm... well, yes an interetsing though.
But Klosowski wasn't subjected to a witness identification, nor did die in an asylum...?
Could Swanson have been that wrong...?
"And, as I mentioned above, Swanson only identified Kosminski as the suspect. He may have had the best overview of the case, but what if his memory of suspects and documents became distorted over time? What if, as I said above, he forgot the name and tried to get it as accurate to what he could remember?"
That is of course a possibility, but Swanson seems rather sure of himself and self-cofident, if you ask me. I mean -- in addition -- he wasn't really forced to write the marginalia, it was most likely a spur of the moment thing. I find it hard to believe he would have been struggling with himself here. He seems rather sure, from what I can interpret.
"I agree then that Swanson had the best knowledge of everything that was going on within the case."
Good. At least one of them (but more than Abberline and the other Detective Inspectors on the ground).
"But Abberline would have been the one picking up a lot of little extra bits and pieces, being the one investigating the case on the ground."
Yes, but i believe either Swanson, Arnold or Anderson should be informed about those bits and pieces as well. Abberline had probably the obligation to report everything. And as I said, there were a lot of other papers and information coming from other directions (not to mention about certain suspects) that doesen't necessarily might have reached Abberline, since he had no real access to files that didn't concern his specific areas of jurisdiction.
"Then again, Kosminski was mentioned in Mcnaghten's memorandum, but not as the main suspect. And like the others, there is numerous mistakes within it. For example, he said Kosminski died shortly after being put in the asylum, when infact he lived for another 28 years until 1919, a full 25 years after the memorandum was written."
Oh yes, I agree.
Though, Macnaghten didn't really have that a great insight in the case compared to many of the others, I believe. Unfortunately the memorandum seems to be a result of this and other confusions.
And it's true. Macnaghten favoured Druitt.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 125
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Sincerely the best advice I or anyone could give on the matter re Police activity is to check and double check the facts on microfilm. There are a huge amount of unpublished papers. Noone has a better idea than the files themselves. |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 700
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
Glenn
Expert or not your description of the organisation of the police investigation is pretty much on the nail (no matter what certain people who incoherently disagree while spelling everybody's name wrong and giving them all the wrong ranks might believe). The timeline was as follows:
August 16th - Monro writes to the Home Office resigning his position as Assistant Commissioner in charge of the CID
August 30th - Monro leaves office
August 31st - Anderson takes office as Assistant Commissioner in charge of the CID. Polly Nichols murder. Anderson sends Abberline to J Division to co-ordinate the inquiry.
September 2nd - Monro is given an appointment at the Home Office. The exact nature is never disclosed, but it is essentially to retain control over Section D, the Secret Irish Department (forerunner to the Special Branch). During September and early October he may have been advising the Home Secretary on matters relating to the crimes, although this is only ever hinted at in the files, not confirmed.
September 7th - Sir Charles Warren returns from a holiday in the South of France. Anderson has told him that he has been advised by doctors to take a two month sick leave. Sir Charles has asked him to wait for his return and to take only one month.
September 8th - Anderson goes on sick leave, travels to Switzerland. Annie Chapman murder. Inspector West of H Division requests that Abberline be appointed to co-ordinate this murder in addition to the Nichols murder due to the likelihood of their being by the same hand. This request is granted.
September 15th - Warren appoints Chief Inspector Swanson to take total charge of the investigation, reporting directly to himself, the Home Secretary and Cheif Constable Williamson.
September 30th - Double event. Anderson is telegraphed ordering him to return immediately. He leaves Switzerland and returns to London via Paris where he stays for a number of days.
October 6th - Anderson takes personal control of the investigation. Swanson is appointed Desk Officer in charge.
October - unspecified date - Anderson begins to meet regularly with Monro, with whom he has previously worked closely in the Secret Irish Department, to seek his advice.
As you correctly state, Superintendent Arnold was the commanding officer of H Division and thus the murders of Annie Chapman, Liz Stride and Mary Kelly were within his jurisdiction and as the ranking officer on these investigations he would have had to be consulted on any important matter by Abberline. The Superintendent of J Division would likewise have been consulted on any matter regarding the Polly Nichols investigation.
Incidentally, yes I have studied the microfilms of the files many times, and in fact have recently ordered my own copy. Expensive, but well worth it in the long run to save making repeated trips to Kew. If anyone else is interested in their own copy there is an order form on the National Archive website, although you will need a microfilm reader which can also be pretty expensive.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Kitty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kitty
Post Number: 129
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 1:35 pm: |
|
Good list from Alan, though incomplete. (It's still a shame about the pointless personal comments!) There is so much more to all the Police Organisation, than Glenn's remarks. Still, blunder if you want, it's all the same to me, I was just putting you on guard against mistakes.
It's a complex matter. The only real way to do it is to look at the Microfilm at the PRO. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 243
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Adam, have you read Martin Fido's ideas about "David Cohen"? He deals with some of the discrepencies about Kosminski that you so rightly point out.
Mags
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 701
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Oh but Kitty, I thought Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner James Monroe were collating reports including those by Superintenant Swansen. Thanks for the warning, but I'll keep my own council rather than trusting someone who can't even get such basic facts correct. That way I'll know that any mistakes I do make will be my own.
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2636
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Alan,
Thanks a lot.
A good timeline there, by the way -- a timeline is indeed a great way of displaying the course of events.
Thanks for the tip about the ordering of the copies (yes, I assume that lays beyond my budget, I am afraid).
And where the heck is Kew anyway...?
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 702
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Kew is in West London, just south of the river close to where the M4 motorway ends. The National Archive building is about quarter of a mile from the Royal Botanical Gardens.
(Message edited by ash on January 01, 2005)
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise."
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2637
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Aha.
Thanks, Alan.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 110
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 6:01 am: |
|
Hi all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"But Klosowski wasn't subjected to a witness identification, nor did die in an asylum...?
Could Swanson have been that wrong...?"
That's very true. I was just noting the closeness in the names, it's not out of the question that Kosminski was mistaken for Klosowski. And we don't know whether he was put in a line up or not, because as I mentioned before, his records are almost a blank for a 6 or 7 year period. And he did travel to America not too long after the murders - a couple of years. But that's true, to our knowledge he was not in a line-up or in an asylum. Certainly not the latter anyway.
"That is of course a possibility, but Swanson seems rather sure of himself and self-cofident, if you ask me. I mean -- in addition -- he wasn't really forced to write the marginalia, it was most likely a spur of the moment thing. I find it hard to believe he would have been struggling with himself here. He seems rather sure, from what I can interpret."
He sure does.
But as a police officer, it was always his job to be sure of himself. It would be no good to have police officers saying "I think.." "Maybe.." "I don't remember exactly..." "I can't be sure"..etc, the list goes on. Macnaghten, for example, was just as sure of himself, yet much of his information was wrong.
"Yes, but i believe either Swanson, Arnold or Anderson should be informed about those bits and pieces as well. Abberline had probably the obligation to report everything. And as I said, there were a lot of other papers and information coming from other directions (not to mention about certain suspects) that doesen't necessarily might have reached Abberline, since he had no real access to files that didn't concern his specific areas of jurisdiction."
OK, good point. So we agree that Swanson most likely had the best knowledge overall of the case, since he was in charge of passing around all the papers, reports and files. But Swanson makes no real mention of these papers. He doesn't really endorse Kosminski as a suspect, only identifies him. What if he was just reading Anderson's story, recognised what he was talking about, and just added in a little note for other reference? Everyone does it - you scribble little notes in books, etc to keep things in your mind while reading.
"Though, Macnaghten didn't really have that a great insight in the case compared to many of the others, I believe. Unfortunately the memorandum seems to be a result of this and other confusions.
And it's true. Macnaghten favoured Druitt."
No, he didn't. And he was a year late to the case as well. It's also interesting to note that though he joined the force in 1889, it took him until 1894 to write his memorandum. I know this was because of Thomas Cutbush, etc, but surely he would have made some note of this as well before 1894. He had clearly muddled details by then.
Maria, you wrote:
"Adam, have you read Martin Fido's ideas about "David Cohen"? He deals with some of the discrepencies about Kosminski that you so rightly point out."
I'm afraid I haven't, Maria. I only started buying Ripper books once my interest escalated a few months ago, so I have a lot of catching up to do. But thanks for the reference, it sounds interesting.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1371
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 6:38 am: |
|
Hi Adam,
Well Macnaghten claimed to have been taken up with destroying all evidence on Druitt in the time span you refer to in the post above.
For me this is honestly one of the most difficult parts of the case.
In an early local newspaper report[cant remember whether it was a Bristol local paper or Dorset one but believe it is somewhere on this site] there is a small news item about the identity of JtR having been discovered.The item refers to "bloodstained clothing being foun d in his room"-and ,to me what is of crucial importance
that "he is the son of a surgeon"
-which Druitt was.
Well if for example Macnaghten knew of these clothes being found and got rid of this evidence privately[he refers to "some private information I received"]then its understandable that though he could not be certain that Druitt was the ripper that he himself had access to circumstantial evidence that would have led him to believe that.
But we would need more than this to be sure and somehow I dont think there could have been much more than possibly this and some worried family members or friends suspicions.If there was surely others would have let the cat out of the bag before now?
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3728
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 7:32 am: |
|
Hi Adam
You can read a piece by Martin Fido on the Dissertations section.
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1378
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 7:52 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
Happy New Year to you and all the readers!
Sorry for not making myself clear - I simply meant that, in my opinion, the ripper was unlikely to have attacked several women in the late 1880s and then, with no apparent physical or mental condition that would have prevented him from continuing, either in Whitechapel or elsewhere, just decided to retire from the game and keep his nose clean for the rest of his natural.
I agree with you that:
...the thumb-nail sketches we have of D'Onston, Tumblety, Kosminski, Cutbush, Klosowski, etc., do not necessarily portray the actual person with accuracy.
But it's only what people thought they knew - or think they know - about these characters that made them suspects in the first place. Without this assumed knowledge there would be even less to tie any one of the long list of suspects to the crimes. If the police at the time had a more accurate picture of any of the suspects than we have today, it didn't help them tie the right knot, did it? Opinion was as fatally divided then, between those in the very best position to know precisely why someone was suspected, as it is today between the most respected researchers in the field.
Love,
Caz
X |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 249
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 8:30 am: |
|
Nat, I think you're right that knowing how much to rely on MM is tricky. However, I don't believe he would ever have deliberately destroyed evidence that had already been collected in the case. My take on the "private evidence" is that it wasn't direct physical evidence and came after Druitt's death and therefore MM decided that since the murderer was dead there was no point in re-hashing everything. This is a far cry from getting rid of actual physical evidence.
I think MM was a very prideful old coot and stubbornly relied on his memory, leading us down the garden path,perhaps, but out of personal vanity rather than deliberately.
Mags
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1375
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
Hi Caz,Maria et al-and Happy New Year to You too!
That is how I see these snippets of information.They give a glimpse of what made them suspects in the first place.
Quite right Maria.I cant see Macnaghten actually as "making it up as he went along" which is how I think I phrased it the other day,but rather out of vanity and or saving face whatever he has misled us somewhat.Clearly Druitt was a suspect- as early I think as Jan or Feb 1889 when Albert Bachert is said to have been told that this suspect had been found drowned.Clearly he did have some information on him that may have contributed to his becoming his no.one suspect
but he certainly seems to have had no actual direct evidence.
The other thread has set me off now on another tack-----all these military men with South African connections----I wonder did something happen out there---just thinking about the connections.
Natalie |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 116
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
Hi all,
Natalie, you wrote:
"In an early local newspaper report[cant remember whether it was a Bristol local paper or Dorset one but believe it is somewhere on this site] there is a small news item about the identity of JtR having been discovered.The item refers to "bloodstained clothing being foun d in his room"-and ,to me what is of crucial importance
that "he is the son of a surgeon"
-which Druitt was."
Yes, Druitt was, but so were many others I'm sure. And I'm not sure what the reference to bloodstained clothing is. In any case, it is a newspaper report, I wouldn't trust those. Only when they are the only source of information should they be used, they are untrustworthy as a research basis otherwise.
"But we would need more than this to be sure and somehow I dont think there could have been much more than possibly this and some worried family members or friends suspicions.If there was surely others would have let the cat out of the bag before now?
Natalie "
Yes, I'm sure we would have found something out about it by now after all these decades, we have with many other suspects. Macnaghten already gave false information, and the newspaper reports can't be trusted. I wouldn't trust that whole story too much, if it's based just on that.
Robert, you wrote:
"You can read a piece by Martin Fido on the Dissertations section."
Thanks for the tip. I don't believe I've seen that dissertation before. I'll check it out!
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 3:53 am: |
|
I note that where Kitty has been shown to be factually wrong above, she has not come back either to defend her position, or to apologise.
Just thought I would point this out as it somewhat undermines her claims to speaking with authority. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Kitty - Alan had shown you to be wrong and inaccurate on several counts. And you then say it's HIm who's in the wrong!!
And on the question of personal comments:
Still, blunder if you want, it's all the same to me, I was just putting you on guard against mistakes...
What are the underlined words but, in context, a "personal comment"!!
Alan had also given evidence of his thorough knowledge of the PRO material. How can you then say:
It's a complex matter. The only real way to do it is to look at the Microfilm at the PRO.
Your arrogance is unbelievable, woman!! |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 259
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
Nat- The bloody clothing (found stuffed up a chimney) belonged to Cutbush. Druitt was the son of a surgeon. So, a point to each of them ;-)
Mags
|
Avril Ford
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 10:03 pm: |
|
Concerning the Royal Conspriracy i thought it was Lord Randoph Churchill whom commited the murders. |
Avril
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
John
I thought it was common knowledge that members of the aristocracy often frequented the east end on a daily basis. If not to pick up prostitutes or see shows then just to see how the other half lived. |
AmateurSleuth
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 11:53 pm: |
|
The worst Top 5 suspects, in my opinion are:
1. Joseph Merrick (Elephant Man)
2. Ape
3. Werewolf
4. Vampire (Dracula)
5. Devil |
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 919
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Curious you should think an animal (excluding Mr Diddles) or mythical beings are more likely to have been JTR than a young man who was known to be living in the district at the time, absolutely ludicrous though that possibility may be. Are you sure this wasn't just a post to say "It wasn't Merrick"?
For me, it is 1) Lewis Carroll / 2) Sir William Gull / 3) Dr Thomas Barnardo / 4) Thomas Neill Cream / 5) Prince Edward Albert Victor - though that doesn't mean there aren't dozens of others who are just as daft.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 920
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
I will also say it's been huge fun reading the little trip down Memory Lane above too.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Ape????
Hiya Philip,
Mr Diddles is a good suspect.
Bad suspects include those with proper alibis
here we include people like Albert Victor, Cream, (Ostrog? Sickert?)
maybe we addd on people like the elephant man and Gull.
Of course i have to put both Williams and Maybrick on the list of worst supects, near the top - for obvious reasons!
Jenni
"Are you hanging up a stocking on your wall?"
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 671
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Hi Philip,
There are so many bad candidates that a list of five is way too short. I haven't studied Barnardo enough to comment on him but I agree with all of your others as well as the ones Jenni adds.
Stan |
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 923
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 8:33 pm: |
|
Stan - that's a very good point, because I didn't even CONSIDER Maybrick and Sickert who would also be around the lower regions of the 5.
PHILIP
PS : Yes, and Uncle Jack...
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 672
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 9:20 pm: |
|
I'd put anyone in their mid-40s or older on the list.
Stan |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1056
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 10:06 pm: |
|
I *love* the theory that it was an ape, for the obvious literary origins if nothing else. But I'm weird that way. I remember an absolute moment of glee when I was reading some old bit of Ripper-themed pulp fiction (can't remember at all what it was now) when Jack was attacking some woman and a trained ape suddenly, without warning or foreshadowing, jumped out of a cupboard and started biting him! I mean, totally out nowhere, it was amazing!
Frankly, I'm not sure "some random ape trained in the use of a razor who takes it upon himself to go kill women" is outlandish enough to even make it into the top 5 worst suspects, with so many to choose from. If we are going for the ones that are utterly silly bits of fantasy that were actually mentioned by someone somewhere as a real possibility, "aliens from another planet before they figured out cattle mutilations in non metropolitan areas were safer" would make a good replacement for the ape spot.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3299
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
just want to repeat an ape???????
i never heard that one before!
"Does a 'ton up' on his sleigh? Do the fairies keep him sober for a day?"
|
Christopher J Morley
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cjmorley
Post Number: 51
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Jennifer, look in the index for the casebook under Ape, it's one of the suspects in my new E-Book Jack The Ripper A suspect guide. |
AmateurSleuth
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 11:48 pm: |
|
I would like to amend my list - instead of Ape put Ventriloquist's Dummy. Read this:
Jack The Ripper 'Was Ventriloquist's Dummy'
Rated 2.5 out of 5 (from 21 ratings)Rated 2.5 out of 5 (from 21 ratings)Rated 2.5 out of 5 (from 21 ratings)Rated 2.5 out of 5 (from 21 ratings)Rated 2.5 out of 5 (from 21 ratings) Written by Captain Dopey
Someone who just looks like a ventriloquist's dummy
The infamous Victorian murderer Jack the Ripper was in fact a ventriloquist’s dummy, it was claimed yesterday. Dr. Archie Mysteron, a forensic psychologist and part-time historian, yesterday revealed evidence which, he alleges, shows beyond doubt that the killer had ‘ventriloquian tendencies’. “The murderer needed a disguise in order to escape capture; what better camouflage than an actual dummy? No one would suspect a harmless piece of wood”, he declared. Speaking before an audience of criminologists and voice-throwers at the Fiftieth Annual Convention of Criminologists and Voice-Throwers in London, he proffered the additional view that the dummy was controlled by none other than the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Gladstone. “Gladstone, as every schoolboy knows, was famous for his bag, and the assassin would need a good, strong bag in which to keep his dreadful instruments. This would also explain why not a single cheap, useless bag was ever found at any of the crime scenes”.
Chief Inspector Ronald Suspicion of the Metropolitan Police, who was a member of the audience, suggested a reserved endorsement of Dr. Mysteron’s position: “Records kept at the time show that my Victorian colleagues did indeed suspect the Prime Minister. Since such a prominent person would need an accomplice he could trust I see no reason why a dummy should not have been employed during the execution of these foul deeds. And they’re cheaper to feed”.
Dr. Mysteron’s evidence includes a remarkable recording made on an early phonograph on which someone is heard to utter, “Now, Little Jimmy, we’re going out on to the streets tonight and I don’t want to hear a squeak out of you while I’m a-murdering-o. Got that?” A second voice is then heard to state, “Gorl grite. GI’ll ge quiet”. This is followed by the sound of a glass of water being drunk whilst the second person recites Tennyson’s ‘Ode To A Knuckleduster’. Chief Ronald Suspicion: “Drinking a glass of water at the same time as a mannequin articulates is a common Ventrilonian practice, and Mr. Gladstone was known to be particularly fond of Tennyson. Combine the two, and you have a good prime facie case in favour of the ‘malevolent mannequin’ hypothesis“
Further backing was given to the theory by Mr. G. Risly-Macabre of the London Back Streets Society For Sneaking In A Stealthy Fashion: “I suppose he’s right. I often do that myself”, he said.
The Commander Of Old Massacres at Scotland Yard was unavailable for comment, but a spokesperson asked if we’d been taking drugs.
Email this story
Print this page
Rate this story:
Discuss this story in The Forum |
AmateurSleuth
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
That's where I got it from Christoper J Morley.
Thanks. |
AmateurSleuth
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Hi George:
I think your list is fab too. I was just horsing around and had no intention for it to be serious. |
AmateurSleuth
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 11:21 pm: |
|
Seriously though, my list of 5 worst suspects is as follows:
1. Prince Albert Victor
2. Thomas Neil Cream
3. Mary Kelly (Some people have proposed this)
4. Lewis Carroll
5. William Withey Gull |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page