|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1902
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 6:58 am: |       |
Richard,
I agree on these things but unfortunately that was how it worked at the time, for different reasons.
You can't expect a ten year old to write a dissertation. It's the same with the police force in 1888.
Not only were their experience in these types of crimes practically zero (which in turn leads to bad decisions and confused errors), but the police departments also suffered from political interference -- let's not forget that the police force at the time bore more signs of a military organization than it is today, where people like Robert Anderson etc. had a completely different type of authority than the officials have today.
Wiping out the Goulston Street grafitti and the mess with the blood hounds, for example, would probably not happen today and not under those circumstances.
We must remember that the 1888 police force's knowledge about and respect for physical evidence (like in the sloppy handling of Nichols's body on the crime scene) was a result of the fact that they simply would NOT know what to do with them. They had no technical means to analyse blood etc. But later on they DID learn that it is important to study the body untouched on the crime scene. But you must learn to walk before you can run.
I have myself tore my hair out with the root in my own hundred year old cases here at home because of this, but I am afraid we have to accept that for what it is. For us, who are spoiled with methods to chemically analyse clothing, blood, tissue etc, the handling of evidence a hundred years back may seem horrendous, but not really if you take in consideration their low level of technical development.
Eddowes was probably released from the cell that early because of a standard routine that was commonly used, and let's not forget that she herself demanded to be released as soon as possible. They couldn't really keep all drunk, disordelery and loitering women in cells for several days just to keep them safe anyway -- it would lead to an impossible situation; there would simply be no room for them so therefore it would be necessary to have some form of standard routine for this. Eddowes partly put herself in the dangerous position she was, when she instead could have headed home directly. We can't blame the police for the personal decisions of a drunken woman. The police cells was not used as safety shelters for prostitutes; the mentality was different than it is today, and there really was no social considerations on these matters from either the police or the authorities. We can't look at their conduct with our modern social glasses.
And I certainly don't agree with you regarding the "sloppy interrogation of witnesses". To me the interrogations seem rather extensive and thorough for its time. You probably think otherwise, because they didn't nail Barnett at the spot, but those things happen also today, and if the person interviewed don't confess or you don't have physical evidence to build the charges upon, you would simply have to let the man go. It is the same today. You can't keep a man in custody unless you have satisfactory evidence backing it up.
If you really had knowledge of the historical context these matters wouldn't come as such a great surprise to you. The police at the time made a lot of stupid errors and decisions, but for their time I would say their efforts were rather advanced in many ways. They had to deal with a handful of spectacular murders that to their nature were totally over the heads of the police authorities and in such moments you make a lot of mistakes -- it would be wrong not to acknowledge that, and to call them "a bunch of Blue Bottles" is unfair and incorrect. Because they certainly were not. Considering the circumstances, I'd say they were as effective as can be expected, if not more.
After all, they were not the ones indulging in wacko "39" and grave-spitting theories in order to build a case.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on July 27, 2004)
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 982
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 8:12 am: | |
Hi Glenn,
Sorry to disagree with your description of 'Wacko ''39 theory, and Grave -spitting, its a pity that they did not spot a sequence in murder dates, they may have been more alert to the 9th november.
Did not the police in new york pinpoint the exact date that their Zodiac killer would stike?
And as for the grave -spitting it is a great pity if such an occurance happened that the two young ladies did not report it immedietly to the authoritys, for if told to them as it was reported to have happened, they would have only two people to interview ie;; the already grilled Joseph Barnett and the priest in attendance Father Columban.
Regards Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1904
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 9:08 am: | |
Hi Richard,
I am sorry, but when you refer to the Zodiak killer you once again make the mistake to judge the 1888 police force with our modern standards. The Zodiak killings happened in the 1960s and 70s (when, I would say, the experience and knowledge regarding serial killers had seriously improved), not in 1888!
Secondly:
The police didn't acknowledge a number sequence, because a) they were not used to these types of murders without motives; b) because there really isn't a proven number sequence beyond doubt -- it could just as well be a coincidence. And as far as the sequence of 39 is concerned, such a connection doesen't exist, except for maybe in your own head. The police have to concern themselves with facts, not fantasies.
As far as the grave-spitting... I fail to see how a corroborated account of the grave spitting incident would be enough to hold Barnett in custody for murder.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert Clack
Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 279
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
Hi all
Personally speaking, I think the police (Metropolitan) did a very good job, considering the lack of experience they had in dealing with these types of crimes. Also after Annie Chapman, there was a three week gap to Stride and Eddowes. Stride a doubtful (in my opinion) Ripper victim and Eddowes murdered in different Police Force's jurisdiction. Then we had about a six week wait till Mary Kelly. And she was murdered in doors. So they must have been doing something right.
Anyway back to the topic of this thread, my top five are:
1 Lewis Carroll
2 Prince Albert Victor
3 Francis Tumblety
4 Jill the Ripper
5 Neill Cream
All the best
Rob |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 978
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 4:46 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,yes Catherine as a suffering alcoholic and destitute woman would indeed have put herself in harms way for the reasons you point out but hey-if it had been Lord Randolph Churchill or any of his Hurrah Henry pals out "slumming It " would they have been treated so carelessly at 1am if a serial killer of males was out on the hunt in the vicinity of the murders?I very much doubt it.
Anyway most of the police at the time probably were doing their very best and certainly we know Abberline to have been devoted to his work and there were no doubt others just as conscientious
-but I do wonder about those on duty around Mitre Square and whoever was on the beat when Emma Smith was attacked/murdered.Some very contradictory reports of that nights goings on by one or two of the gangs that roamed Whitechapel.
Parts of Whitechapel at certain times were obviously very rough and possibly some of the police were not all that up front about it dont you think?
Natalie |
Howard Brown
Police Constable
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 5:04 pm: | |
Five worst?...Hmm..1.Lewis Carroll
2.Dr. Gull
3.Jill The Ripper
4.Michael Ostrog
5.Are there any worse than these?
|
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 476
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 5:19 pm: | |
You bet, Howard.
Not mentioning any names,
--John (professional "diary" reader)  |
Howard Brown
Police Constable
Username: Howard
Post Number: 2
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 6:28 pm: | |
Okay,I get it !.....1. Anne Frank
2. Howard Hughes
3. The Mad Housewife...
4. Bill Maudlin [ WW2 Diarist...]
5. You couldn't mean my main man,Pete
Wood's idee fixe, could you? |
John V. Omlor
Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 477
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 9:20 pm: | |
Could and Wood.
--John (speaking of fiction...)
|
Howard Brown
Police Constable
Username: Howard
Post Number: 3
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 9:42 pm: | |
Now how did I guess that? 
Even Woodrow has problems with the latest offering,that suggests Sir Jim as the Austin Ripper....what next?  |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 140
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 27, 2004 - 10:39 pm: | |
Hi Glenn & Richard,
I think the concept of dates is at best a tenuous link. Let's remember that only after the crimes had ceased did the police state that JtR had only five victims. At the actual height of the crimes there were other murders which might have thrown the police off the trail of any date theory. Even today we cannot agree on who were JtR victims, one inclusion or exclusion can ruin any numerical theory.
As far as grave spitting goes, it is an interesting piece of evidence. It of course would not be admissible in court as the account we have of it is hearsay. I don't think we should discount it, nor should we lend too much weight to it. I am willing to believe that it actually happened, I am less willing to believe that it meant Barnett killed Mary. Let's be honest, we don't really know the state of their relationship at the time of her death. All we know is that they had fought and he was no longer staying there. All the other details regarding rent payment come from Barnett who we should expect to paint himself in a good light. I don't wish to invent a reason for Barnett spitting as we would end up discussing my made up theory, suffice to say there could be any number of reasons for Barnett to spit on MJK's grave, one of them might be that he killed her, many others could be far more mundane.
Scotty. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1909
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 7:38 am: | |
Hi Scott,
"At the actual height of the crimes there were other murders which might have thrown the police off the trail of any date theory. Even today we cannot agree on who were JtR victims, one inclusion or exclusion can ruin any numerical theory."
Exactly. Well put.
As far as the grave spitting incident is concerned, I can't say I am willing to take it a bit serious.
We don't know if the incident really happened;
and if it happened we can't be sure of what it means:
we can't even be sure of that Barnett was the one doing the grave spitting.
I personally think it's a ridiculous piece of evidence and totally worthless, completely built on hearsay.
Now, people... don't turn this into another Barnett/grave spitting thread. Please people!
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Scott Suttar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 146
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 28, 2004 - 11:09 pm: | |
Ok here's my top five.
I've kept them to the confines of realistic suspects named on the casebook.
5. Dr Cream. Totally different MO and though I believe MO's can evolve I don't think he is our man.
4. The Lodger. Purely on the basis that if you can't put a name to suspect then how can they really be a suspect.
3. Sickert. Originally drawn in to suspicion by the royal conspiracy and now standing on his own. Art inspired by crime is not evidence of crime itself.
2. The Royal Conspiracy / Prince Albert Victor. I don't see the Prince as a killer and court circulars point to him having an alibi for some of the murders. It is possible that someone in power was having some troublesome pests exterminated and I love a good conspiracy theory, but to my mind, in particular the Kelly murder and subsequect mutilations point to a different style of killing.
1. Lewis Carroll. Quite possibly the most ridiculous ripper theory ever, based entirely on anagrams within his writings.
So there they are.
Scotty. |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 170
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 7:43 pm: | |
This seems to be a weekend of following up on stuff..
Further to the discussion Chris G. and I had on the 'ashes in the grate' issue, I find some supporting statements printed in The Daily Telegraph.
On Saturday, Nov. 10th, we read..
" The Central News states, upon what is described as indisputable authority, that no portion of the murdered woman's body was taken away by the murderer"
Then on Monday, Nov. 12th, we read..
"A somewhat important investigation was made on Saturday in the room in Miller's-Court in which the crime was perpetrated. There was reason to believe that the murderer had burnt something before leaving the place after the deed, and accordingly the ashes and other matter in the grate were carefully preserved. On Saturday afternoon Dr. Phillips and Dr. Macdonald, M.P., the coroner for the district, visited Miller's-Court, and after the refuse had been passed through a sieve it was subjected to the closest scrutiny by the medical gentlemen. Nothing, however, was found which is likely to afford any assistance or clue to the police."
also..
"...every portion of the body was fully accounted for, and at the conclusion of the investigation the various portions were sewn together and placed in the coffin."
and then..
"..A most minute search has been conducted by the police and medical gentlemen in the room where the crime was perpetrated, but practically nothing in the nature of a clue has been obtained.....whilst the ashes, which have been carefully sifted, reveal no traces of burnt human flesh."
So we have conflicting details, on the one hand we are assured no portion of the body was missing, yet there are hints that they were indeed looking for some piece of her anatomy in the ashes.
Finally, on Tuesday, Nov. 13th, they admit..
"..We are enabled to state, on good authority, that notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the bodily organs was missing."
The sifting of the ashes is then strongly linked to the search for a missing organ, and we know from Dr. Bond's summary that the organ was her heart.
So, as I surmised previously, the search conducted by medical men was soley for medical evidence concerning the stated missing organ.
Regards, Jon
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 59
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 8:37 am: | |
1) James Maybrick
2) George Hutchinson
3) Francis Tumblety
4) Kosminski
5) Joe Barnett
I think its probably safe to discount the theories that Sooty or Howdy Doody were the Ripper as well... |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1015
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2004 - 4:23 pm: | |
Hi Simon,
The first four I applaud, number [5] now i would argue his guilt till the cows came home
Love the idea of Barnett , or hate it, one thing is noticable , he will not go away.
He is without doubt the number one suspect to date, of course that does not make him guilty, but who else gets the media attention, on these boards, with exceptíon from Maybreck, or mayby Sickert.
Richard. |
Shelley Wiltshire
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 73
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 2:11 pm: | |
Hello everyone,
To be honest i have more than 5 top worst suspects, but hey,ho here's the first five:
1. Jill the Ripper (anyone suggesting a woman seriously needs some outside help!)
2. Prince Eddy
3.Francis Tumblety
4. Ostrog
5.Dr Cream
Wish i could have mentioned some others.
Regards
Shelley
Criminology Student (Advanced) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 442
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 7:51 am: | |
Ever wonder why parole boards do the crazy little things they do? (No, of course not. Dumb question!) RP
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 760
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 3:11 pm: | |
RJ,
you've lost me!
To answer your question - no of course not!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 5:49 pm: | |
Whatho all,
The Dave Clerk Five. However their music was murder.
Cheers, Mark |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2856
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 6:19 pm: | |
Hi Mark
As a matter of fact, I've always wondered about "Bits and Pieces"......
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2025
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 6:42 pm: | |
Richard,
I think you've misunderstood a thing or two.
The fact that a suspect attracts "media attention" and attention on the Boards, doesen't make him more credible as a Ripper candidate.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
David Lewis
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 9:47 am: | |
My top 5 worst suspects:
Lewis Carroll. Ridiculous.
Joseph Sickert. Two books. No evidence
William Booth. See number 1
Royal Conspiracies: Nope, they just don't work
Montague John Druitt. Admittedly, this is hindsight, but really...
|
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 254
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 22, 2004 - 4:04 pm: | |
Whatho David,
Of course you are right about William Booth. He came from Nottingham and as everyone knows, we Nottinghamians are the most law abiding and trustworthy people you could hope to meet.
Cheers, Mark (what, no Robin Hood smiley?) |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 56
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 6:09 am: | |
Hi all,
My worst 5 suspects ever:
1.) Lewis Carroll. Well, if it comes down to anagrams, half the 19th century writers and poets could be suspected. Ridiculous is putting it in a nice way.
2.) Thomas Neill Cream. How a man can be in a prison in 1 country and slaughtering women in another is somewhat beyond me.
3.) Alexander Pedachenko. Suspects who don't have any evidence of their existence aren't exactly suspects.
4.) Jill the Ripper. The name says it all. No comment!
5.) The Royal Conspiracy. *Sigh* somewhere in almost every unsolved mystery, there has to be some famous person or people involved in it. Certainly makes an interesting movie or novel, but when it comes to hard facts, this theory falls short at every turn.
There are of course many others that aren't so well known as these, but as far as the suspect page on this site goes, there is my "Worst suspects" list.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2445
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 6:17 am: | |
For once we seem to be in total agreement, Adam, whether you like it or not.
All of those five could easily fit my list as well.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 57
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 6:27 am: | |
Glenn,
"For once we seem to be in total agreement, Adam, whether you like it or not.
All of those five could easily fit my list as well."
Oh you don't know how happy I am to know that we fully agree on something, Glenn. I thought for a moment when I read that that I may have fatigue creeping up on me.
Thanks, you've made my day!
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2446
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 6:44 am: | |
You see, Adam,
You should never despair -- miracles do happen. 
I am not the poor sod you think I am, my only problem may be that I have been around here too long...
Seriously, those choices of yours were extremely well chosen. There are others of course, but nevertheless.
A Merry Christmas to you, Adam. Hope you have a nice holiday.
All the best
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1197
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 1:30 pm: | |
Hi,
The worst suspects are.
The Duke of clarence,
James Maybreck,
Kosminsky, or mad Jew of similar mode.
Tumblety.
A host of others fit the bill , but they are so tonque in cheek to be not worthy of mention.
There are three main contenders that are known to us, of course it to be realistic is proberly none of these three.
Barnett.
Sickert.
Druitt.
These are strictly in order of merit according to my ratings.
Thats my twopence worth.
Regards Richard. |
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Police Constable
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 5
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 2:23 pm: | |
Hi Richard,
I am not sure that I understand your rating. The Duke of Clarence or Maybrick, yes, there are good reasons to discard them. But why do you add Kosminski in this list (he is one of the most 'respected' suspect).
Thank you
Olivier |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2462
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 2:32 pm: | |
I can partly agree on that, Olivier (although Kosminski has his problems), and even more strange is the mentioning of Sickert among the credible ones.
But as Richard says, that is his twopence worth and he is entitled to his opinion. We all have our preferences.
All the best and a Happy Christmas
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1199
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 2:40 pm: | |
Hi Oliver,
I dismiss Kosminsky, or man of similar mode , simply that such a sad character in my opinion would not have had the fortune to commit such atrocities and escape the net, nor would such a man have had the finance to be intoxicated[ note Berner street] or would have a sailor like appearence as seen by Lawande, nor would prostitutes such as Mjk, Be associating with such a person, infact no witness reliable or not describes a person like Kosminsky who was simply the lowest of the low.
Richard. |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 149
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:20 pm: | |
My worst five.. (since we're aksing)...
Lewis Carrol (for the same points you mention, Adam)
Duke of Clarence (for obvious reasons)
James Maybrick (leave the poor guy to rest in peace)
Neill Cream (obvious)
George Chapman (No poisoner is gonna change his MO)
Oh! Can I add a sixth? Barnett
Bestest,
Lyn
P.S. My seventh would be Jill the Ripper
(Message edited by lindsey on December 23, 2004) |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 150
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:23 pm: | |
Oh! and my eigth! (Forgive me!)
Gull
Bestest,
Lyn |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 61
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:04 pm: | |
Hi all,
Richard:
WHOA! I can't believe you put Tumblety and Kosminski in the "Worst" group! They are 2 of the most major suspects!
I agree with you on Kosminski, though. He was very rarely violent, and spent 3 decades just hearing voices in his head and mumbling incoherently. I have to agree with a description of him at the time, as a 'harmless lunatic'. Not someone you would consider the Ripper to be.
But for Tumblety, he would be my second suspect, next to George Chapman.
I agree on James Maybrick as well, as a "Worst" suspect. He did indeed Poll #1 on the suspects poll on this site, but I'll bet 90% of that is because of the diary, which Mike Barrett admitted 10 years ago that he forged. I really don't know why it's still even a hot topic. It's forged !
Anyway, an interesting list just the same, Richard.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 937
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 10:16 pm: | |
Adam,
You said the magic word.
You'll be sorry.
Wait for it,
--John  |
Nina Thomas
Inspector
Username: Nina
Post Number: 182
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 10:40 pm: | |
My five worse suspects in no specific order.
Royal Conspiracy
Prince Albert Victor
Lewis Carrol
Jill The Ripper
Walter Sickert
Nina |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 2:55 am: | |
Adam,
You really don't know anything about Kosminski. The level of discourse on these boards is very dull lately. Doesnt anyone have anything to say? Really...
Rob |
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Police Constable
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 6
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 6:20 am: | |
Richard, Adam,
In fact, nobody knows how Kosminski was in 1888. The description which is generally given dates from his entrance at the asylum.
By the way, my worst suspect is not exactly a suspect but a theory. This theory can be found in the dissertations (by Dr Walker). It states that
Barnett is Jack the ripper (why not), his accomplice is Ostrog! and Barnett is the author of the Maybrick diary (the latter is forged by the true Jack the ripper)! Isn't it curious?
My other worst suspect is Leopold II, King of Belgians (mentioned in the A-Z): the sole piece of evidence against him is that, supposedly, he was a lover of women.
And finally, Lewis Caroll
But I think that almost all traditional suspects are not very credible (two exceptions: Kosminski and Druitt).
All the best,
Olivier |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 66
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 7:21 am: | |
Hi all,
John, you wrote:
"You said the magic word.
You'll be sorry. "
Oh, I wouldn't be too concerned, John. I've copped quite a bit of flak on here already, considering the length of time I've been here, but I've been fortunate enough to resolve much of that in the last couple of days. Still, I'm at the ready to cop it again, which it appears that I just have...
Robert, you wrote:
"You really don't know anything about Kosminski. The level of discourse on these boards is very dull lately. Doesnt anyone have anything to say? Really..."
Robert, you say nobody has anything to say these days, yet all you leave is a 3-lined post which does no more than accuse me of knowing nothing of Kosminski? Interesting.
By the way, if you don't believe what I am telling you, I'd advise you to check his asylum records.
Once again, Kosminski is a victim of the famous Macnaghten Memorandum, like Druitt. Fortunately Ostrog has been largely discounted, to a degree at least. In 28 years at an asylum, almost half of his life, the only violence Kosminski displayed was when he threatened someone with a chair. He ate from the gutter, and mumbled to himself. His age largely discounts him from descriptions given by the witnesses.
Not someone that can really be reconciled with a knife-wielding, women-slaughtering madman, is it?
Olivier, you wrote:
"My other worst suspect is Leopold II, King of Belgians (mentioned in the A-Z): the sole piece of evidence against him is that, supposedly, he was a lover of women."
Oh, that really is a pathetic theory. Same thing with Randolph Churchill. Like the Royal Conspiracy, some person or people that are famous or reknowned almost always have to be linked to famous mysteries. It just happens that way.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 396
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 10:29 am: | |
I believe Jack the Ripper was most probably a local man, probably someone without a girlfriend or wife, who kept to himself, was rather inwardly directed, had a fantasy world of his own and killed (and especially mutilated) for reasons that may not even have been known to himself.
Here’s my list:
1. the Royal Conspiracy & Dr. William Gull/Prince Albert Victor
2. Michael Ostrog
3. Walter Sickert
4. Francis Tumblety
5. Severin Klosowski/George Chapman
All the best,
Frank |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 534
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 25, 2004 - 5:45 pm: | |
Hi Adam,
I can safely say Leopold II was not the Ripper unless some information regarding one of the latter's victims being heir to African territories worth millions of pounds in natural resources turns up. Leopold II was a creep and an opportunist. With the assistance of Sir Henry Stanley he took over the future Belgium Congo (now three hugh interior states) and turned it into a slave labor camp. The revelations of what was going on there (in 1904) by Edmund Morrell and the ill-fated Roger Casement led to a scandal that forced Leopold to drop his control over his own private colony. In the 1890s Leopold had also shown interest in Chinese territory and the Philippines, which (mercifully for the Chinese and Filippinos) never
happened. A good book on "dear Leopold" is Neal Ascherson's THE KING INCORPORATED (London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1963).
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Dr. Orloff
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 4:58 am: | |
adam,
i agree with you on kosminski being a "harmless lunatic" in 1891, but how was his behaviour in 1888? we do not know...
my top 5:
- Lewis Carroll
- Prince Eddy
- James Kenneth Stephen
- Walter Sickert
- Robert Donston Stephenson
greetings from Warsaw... |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 6:48 am: | |
I don't disagree at all with Adam's choices.
Others I might propose would include:
HRH The Duke of Clarence
Sir William Gull
Lord Randolph Churchill
D'Onston Stephenson
J K Stephen
Dr Barnardo.
Not replacements, you understand, just other contenders based on the same criteria.
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 508
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 2:12 pm: | |
Always very interesting to see Mr. Bloomfield's posts...
My two cents.
There's a certain type of criminal who is a buffoon. This 'type' was more common 100 years ago then nowadays, largely, I think, because compulsory education and mass media and improved social condiditons have tended to make people bland and ordinary. But there have been many examples of the 'crank' criminal in history, among them Neill Cream, Renwick Williams, Ostrog, Neville Heath, etc. etc. Far too many to even began to delve itnto. I see no good reason to think the Ripper couldn't be an outwardly ridiculous figure. In fact, I rather think he probably was. But modern psychology rushes in, even where fools fear to tread. Just as a 'phenomenon' it's intersting to see how completely the idea of "criminal profiling" has taken a hold in popular culture. The Polish Jews and the local men are somehow thought of as more "scientific" opinon, espectially compared to cranks like Tumblety or D'Onston or Klosowski. This is pretty sloppy thinking in my book, particularly since we have a only very imperfect idea of what sort of men these fellows were.
Opinions are a great time saver. But that's not necessarily a good thing.
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 78
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 5:52 am: | |
Hi all,
Jeffrey, thanks for the info on Leopold II. A very interesting read.
Dr. Orloff, you wrote:
"i agree with you on kosminski being a "harmless lunatic" in 1891, but how was his behaviour in 1888? we do not know..."
Well, apparently first signs of mental instability/insanity in him appeared in 1885, so by 1888 it's safe to assume it was well set in. If he was an insane "harmless lunatic" in early 1891, then I personally wouldn't think he would have been a murderer & mutilator less than 3 years before, in the later half of 1888. In 28 years in an asylum, he only ever had 1 recorded case of minor violence, and the rest of the time was mostly just described as "reticent and incoherent."
Aside from the problem with his mental status at the time for him being a viable suspect, he was also much younger than the average witness description of the Ripper.
Finally, he came to light, like Druitt and somewhat Ostrog, thanks to the infamous Macnaghten memorandum. As I've said before, there were numerous errors in the descriptions of all 3 suspects, and Kosminski is no exception. The MM memorandum, which brought to light 2 major suspects in the case, and Ostrog as another possible one, has been proven wrong time and again, yet it was written just 6 years after the murders. How can a case for any suspect be built off it? In my opinion, it can't, and I entirely disbelieve that either Druitt, Kosminski and especially Ostrog were the Ripper.
Phil, you wrote:
"HRH The Duke of Clarence
Sir William Gull
Lord Randolph Churchill
D'Onston Stephenson
J K Stephen
Dr Barnardo.
Not replacements, you understand, just other contenders based on the same criteria."
Oh, of course. But I think Victor, Gull and Stephen can all be filed under The Royal Conspiracy. Barnardo and Churchill are classic examples of relatively famous/well known people being dragged into unsolved mysteries. As for D'Onston Stephenson, I wouldn't entirely dismiss him, he is an interesting character, but I don't rate him very highly either. Good choice with your list, though.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Police Constable
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 7
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 8:50 am: | |
Adam,
The strongest element against Kosminski is not the Macnaghten Memorenda but Anderson's statements (confirmed by Swanson). Anderson asserted that the only person to ever have a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified him but refused to swear against him. Of course, the interpretation of this assertion is debatable but, since it is confirmed by Swanson, it is a strong element. It is difficult to imagine, in my opinion at least, that these two police officials were senile.
Olivier |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 82
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:42 am: | |
Olivier,
You wrote:
"The strongest element against Kosminski is not the Macnaghten Memorenda but Anderson's statements (confirmed by Swanson). Anderson asserted that the only person to ever have a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified him but refused to swear against him. Of course, the interpretation of this assertion is debatable but, since it is confirmed by Swanson, it is a strong element. It is difficult to imagine, in my opinion at least, that these two police officials were senile."
The only way in which Swanson confirmed it was by writing one tentative line - "Kosminski was the suspect." - Well, that is the only line of overall importance in it anyway.
The only witness that could have identified him, and then refused to testify against him because he was a fellow Jew, or so it goes, is either Israel Schwartz or Joseph Lawende, most likely the latter. But why wasn't this witness named, if indeed the suspect was?
And if Kosminski was the Ripper, and contemporary police believed it, why was he able to wander the streets for almost another 3 years before being put into an asylum? He had been showing signs of insanity since 1885, and surely he would not have been allowed to continue to roam the streets for another 3 years (Which, I might add, had no more canonical Ripper murders in them between 1889 - 1891, unless you count Alice McKenzie & Frances Coles, but not too many people do) if he was a major Ripper suspect. Even if there was no proof against him, he could be removed as a threat.
Swanson and Anderson may have agreed, but that doesn't prove that Kosminski was the Ripper. Police opinion was divided. Macnaghten suspected Druitt, Abberline/Neil suspected Chapman/Klosowski, and so the list goes on. It's not a huge revelation that Kosminski had support for him as a suspect from 2 police officers.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2520
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 7:37 am: | |
Adam,
Just a question...
"Swanson and Anderson may have agreed, but that doesn't prove that Kosminski was the Ripper. Police opinion was divided. Macnaghten suspected Druitt, Abberline/Neil suspected Chapman/Klosowski, and so the list goes on. It's not a huge revelation that Kosminski had support for him as a suspect from 2 police officers."
If you acknowledge that the police opinions were divided, why do you so strongly take Abberline's words for it regarding Chapman, although he apparently only threw it to the papers in order to give them something (he has himself never confirmed this in his own writing, and he also said that he actually didn't know who the killer was more than in 1888).
My BIG point is:
Not that I find Kosminski especially credible (I agree with many of your objections, especially the three year period of running around in the streets), but why should Abberline's words be more credible, seen in the light of your own arguments above? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
After all, the man with the best overlook on the case was Swanson, not Abberline. Swanson not only worked close with Abberline, he also was the link between Abberline and Anderson. Every piece of paper and all reports had to go through Swanson, so he probably knew more about the over-all information about the case than Abberline did. Abberline certainly didn't have access to all the internal information as Chief Inspector.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 27, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Adam
As I have said repeatedly, MM is NOT inaccurate in the point he is making, and the memorandum must be read in that light. It was not written as a biography of any of the three men, and thus should not be read in that way.
Why should the memorandum be described as "infamous". As has been argued here recently, it is one of the key documents for letting us into the detailed thinking of senior policemen at the time. Read in the correct way - ie from the perspective that it was written - MM's words become a treasure trove of information and insight from a priveleged source.
Thank heaven he wrote it say I, as with Swanson's marginalia. we would be MUCH poorer without either. And as someone who was reading JtR books BEFORE Cullen published his work, I can vouch for how much the memorandum changed thinking and opened up the subject in a more mature and sophisticated way.
Phil
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
