|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through April 15, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion:
Policemen... What did they know?:
Archive through April 15, 1999
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 22 November 1998 - 06:01 pm |        | This is an old subject and one that appears in other guises within Casebook Conference, (e.g. Suspects, Kosminski and Tumblety), but I’d just like to raise it as a specific topic here because it does relate to various suspects. What weight do the views of senior policemen carry in the search for Jack The Ripper? You see for me, a humble but interested amateur the answer is very little.
From Macnaghton’s Memoranda to Abberline’s comments on the arrest of Chapman/Klosowski; Anderson’s autobiography; Littlechild’s letter and Swanson’s marginalia, they all expressed a view and they have all persuaded researchers that they had found the killer. But what are any of these assertions worth?
I have listed the above examples chronologically. Macnaghton was writing in 1894, fairly close to the murders. However he did not join the case until 1889 and his notes show a number of errors. Either his memory was faulty (he boasted of not keeping a diary) or he shows signs of having been misinformed. All the other accusations were made years afterwards. Abberline made his comments in 1903. Anderson was writing in 1910. Swanson’s comments on Anderson’s text must have been made after this date, possibly a lot later. Littlechild’s letter to Sims was written in 1913.
These are all the ramblings of old men, originating anything from fifteen to twenty five years (maybe more) after the Autumn of Terror. Memories fade and become selective. Interpretations of roles and events change accordingly. Personal agendas change too.
My conclusions are as follows:-
1). If the police ever identified JTR his name would have ben released to the public and we would all know it by now UNLESS he had proved to be somebody like Clarence or Gull, in which case there would have been an Establishment cover up. But nobody takes them seriously as suspects now - do they?
2). The names these officers wrote down were all suspects at some point – along with hundreds of others. When reminiscing these came to mind as some of the more plausible suspects, but nothing more. In reality they knew nothing more than we do today.
3). If we modern day sleuths wish to investigate the case from the Police angle, we should start by scrutinising their methods of 1888, apply some more modern techniques where possible, and then start again by looking for the right type and class of suspect, rather than relying on the names they left us.
I’m new to this forum. Comments please from you Conference regulars… |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 08:39 am | | Hi, Viper:
I entirely agree about the inadequacy of the police notations about the identity of Jack the Ripper, and have said as much on these boards previously. These are after all jottings made years after the fact by the men who did NOT in the Autumn of Terror catch Jack the Ripper. Indeed, some of the policemen had little or no connection with the case in 1888. The jottings and remembrances are in fact contradictory, e.g., the mistake of thinking that Druitt was a doctor. At best, a lot of what we have from the police is anecdotal--and yet whole theories and whole books are written on the basis of these impressions left by police officials.
What we are left with from the police is an inadequate body of names which may or may not have basis. For example, much is made in the Macnaghten memoranda of the fact that Druitt was "sexually insane" and that his family had "information" that he was the killer. Yet today Druitt is largely discounted as a suspect. He was off playing cricket at the time, it seems.
Even the leading detective on the case has left us with some contradictory remarks. Inspector Abberline remarked when George Chapman (Severin Klosowski) was charged and hanged in 1903 for the murders by poisoning of his wives that the Ripper had at last been caught. Yet most Ripperologists discount Chapman: the MO was wrong, he was too young at the time of the murders in autumn 1888, he had been only a few months in the East End, and possibly did not at the time speak English. Also credited to Abberline is the remark that the Ripper was upper class, that one should look for the Ripper in the higher echelons of society not at the bottom. Yet after his retirement in an interview in the Pall Mall Gazette he was quoted as saying, "You can state most emphatically that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago."
What we really need from the police is a solid theory and a solid casebook that would name a suspect with solid evidence. This is just what we do NOT have.
Chris George |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 08:53 am | | | Thanks, Chris. Just as a X-reference you and others might also want to see my comments under "Suspects, Tumblety". |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 23 November 1998 - 02:31 pm | | Hi, Viper! Nice nickname, by the way!
Since I seem to follow the names of posters I know (no, not keeping tabs, Chris...yet!), I wandered in. Interesting area, fraught with peril though as Chris outlined.
For the record, my opinon of the police during the August-November 1888 timeframe is that they did an exceptional job. No, they didn't catch the murderer but I think anyone would be unfair to say they had no role in driving him off the streets (literally into Kelly's room) and then finally far, far away. From what little we see, they followed all the obvious leads and clues we could think of, they formulated theories (insanity and asylums, medical knowledge, slaughterers) seeking a pool of suspects, instituted procedures (and seemed to have varied them, at least in numbers of men on the streets, which would throw off the calculations of a murderer who watched them for patterns). I give them a lot of respect and credit for all this.
Unfortunately, I think you and Chris are right about the summations, though I don't know the policemen well enough to be quite as pejoritive. But even here, give Abberline credit for still using his brain! Only in one area (medical knowledge) did Klosowski/Chapman fit the previous bills.
Viper, if you have read or are planning to research in this area I'd be thrilled to hear what you come up with. Hopefully you at least live in England where you stand a better chance of seeing source materials, etc. Any info on the specifics of how the police operated in those months of 1888 would be invaluable. Another area that, as Chris well knows, fascinates me is the investigation -- or possibly lack thereof -- regarding the infamous Central News Agency letter and postcard (that gave the murderer the name, Jack the Ripper) and the Lusk letter (of accompanying portion of a human kidney fame).
If I can help, let me know. I'm not a talented researcher...not even a poor one! But guidance I can certainly follow. And if you pursue this interesting and valuable line of thought, you will need help...I think!
See ya later,
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 05 December 1998 - 08:46 am | | Though not policemen, the doctors and medical examiners might fit under this topic and so I'll post my little piece here.
There seems to be a point reached when someone is reading about these murders where something interests you so much that it stays with you. Here and now, we come to places like the Casebook and talk and listen. We read many books...the lucky can go directly to 1888-era source files. Something about this murderer "touches" you, you are caught by him in a way.
I think something similar happened to the men working on the case in 1888. I'll use only two examples, one of which I can no longer find the source in Sugden/Begg where I think I remember reading it.
1) I think it was Phillips, but it may be Brown or another doctor, who was so 'impressed' (my term) by the condition of the bodies that they formed the professional opinion that someone with anatomical/surgical skills committed the crime. There was a telling phrase added though which said something to the effect that a professional surgeon would talk 45 minutes to perform the procedure "properly" that the murderer did in less than 15 minutes. What struck those doctors, as it also strikes me, is the almost clinical/professional detachment of the mutilations. The general impression of the mutilations (disregarding momentarily the nature of the "incisions" used by the murderer's knife) is one of cleanliness (lack of blood), order (the relatively careful placement of viscera away from the site of the abdominal incision), purpose (the idea that the murderer knew which organs he wanted and chose the most efficient way available to get them). There may be other features that resemble a professional surgeon. But technically, none of the mutilations were done "properly." It is an impression which caused several medical professionals to form the opinion the murderer had skills in surgery or anatomy. Another impression, which is my own and doesn't necessarily dismiss the professionals' opinon, is one of detachment, impersonal interest in the victim as a cadaver rather than a woman or a symbol, and curiosity -- as opposed to uncontrolled rage and the type of attack better shown in the Tabram murder (outside the traditional scope of JtR).
2) Bond disagreed with the impression that the murderer possessed surgical/anatomical skills -- it isn't what impressed (my term again) him. However, Bond testified that Kelly's body was found "quite naked." He is technically wrong -- she wore a chemise. But he certainly formed the impression that I also formed, and what I think the murderer wanted his witness-pursuers to form. The chemise covered nothing of Kelly. She was arranged so that her mutilated body was clearly exposed in the humiliating aspect of nakedness, legs opened to further emphasize the exposure of her "private" parts, and her hand draped into the cavity left behind from the mutilations. An impression, in this case easily proven to be technically inaccurate, but -- I think -- the correct impression the murderer was trying to make. Bond's impression was so strong that he wrote it into his report, maybe testified to it. The idea of cruelly exposing Kelly's mutilated body offends me -- how much more would it offend a licensed, caring medical practioner? Enough, obviously, to cause him to overlook the pointless wearing of the chemise.
Maybe in both cases technically wrong impressions became opinions testified to in court. Whatever you think of the "validity" of the impressions, the judgements/opinons, and testimony of the medical examiners -- that initial impression each man "saw" is still seen today, and may be one of the aspects of this case that touched us and caused us to follow this case, both here (via the electronic age Internet) and now (110 years after it was all over). You can justifiably debate either side of the opinons formed by the experts I cite -- but I think it a little more difficult to argue away the "impressions" they formed of what the murderer left behind.
Yaz |
Author: Jeff D
Thursday, 24 December 1998 - 03:26 pm | | Hello Everybody !
Just a little something which I thought I'd throw out. You guys are probably going to crucify me for this, but the more I learn of this subject, the more that I think the so-called main character in the piece, the crusading detective, one Frederick Geo. Abberline, looks to me like one of the most incompetent, bungling policemen on the ground at the whole time of the investigation.
He just doesn't seem to have had a real clue, or grasp of what was actually going on during those weeks of terror. Abberline himself, seemed to want to consider just about anyone, and everyone as suspect, and those who should have been considered suspect, weren't given a second thought.
Just as a brief example, even if you look at Geo.Hutchinson's statement. Abberline just took it at face value, believed it totally true, didn't consider at all that Hutchinson himself may have more to contribute to the investgation than describing Mr. Astrakan-Coller & Cuff's, and eventually, years later while grasping at the thinnest of straws, accuses a cowardly wife poisoner as the most likely Jack The Ripper.
OK, it's easy to take pot-shots at the police, especially 110 years after an investigation, but I can't help but think that if we did have a true investigative minded, sharp-witted detective on the job, we might not be here discussing these murders today.
Before you guys think I'm way off base, I do take into account such things as were missed in the Yorkshire Ripper case, by modern police. For example, a traceable £5 note, a distinctive bootprint that he was asked about while actually wearing the very boots, the fact that his car licence number was recorded 40-times by police, in the area during the murder period, with an eventual fluke that enabled his ultimate capture, so I don't really just wish to take a shot at the police of the time.
I do have the greatest of respect for the police and in 1888 I know they were working under extreme pressure, by the national press, and under a microscope by the highest offices in the land, but as I've said, Abberline just hasn't appeared to me, to make any real significant contribution, or to have had any kind of grasp on the entire case. What d'you think ?
As Ever
Jeff D |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 24 December 1998 - 05:10 pm | | Hey, Jeff,
The police (and Abberline) processed unknown hundreds of suspects alone. Include witnesses, relatives and friends of the victims, theories to be checked out, plus the ordinary business of policing Whitechapel... they did a lot of work, mostly under Abberline. And after all, the Ripper was literally driven from the streets, first into Kelly's room and then into oblivion.
Yaz |
Author: Jeff D
Saturday, 26 December 1998 - 07:04 am | | Exactly !
He he !
Merry Christmas Yaz,... & All !
Jeff D |
Author: 98vicshe
Wednesday, 06 January 1999 - 11:17 am | | Hi Viper!
I have read your views and I agree fully. However I also have my own views regarding what the police knew. I, after reading the Jack the Ripper case book for the first time, think that the police were trying a major cover up. A scam to try and pursuade people that they had not mucked up. Possibly there was someone working on the inside. What do you think?
From Tail-spin |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 06 January 1999 - 09:00 pm | | Thanks "98vicshee, Tail-spin" (and welcome).
It’s good to know that somebody out there agrees with some of my views! On that score, you ask my opinion so I’m going to take this opportunity to mouth off. This is in no small part because others are posting controversial theories at the moment. I’d appreciate it if you or anybody else gave me the benefit of your objections. The Viper bites from time to time, but he expects to meet the odd mongoose!
Before going any further I think you should read the comments on the ‘Suspects’ board, especially for Tumblety in November /early December and in the last ten days for Kosminski. The respondents, Messrs. Evans and Begg have both written books with a leaning towards those suspects respectively. Therefore you must attach appropriate weight to their comments: both of them are far more knowledgeable than me. Don’t read the rest of this without checking them out...
Where Kosminski is concerned the reasons should be self-apparent from the postings and I shall say nothing more. In the case of Tumblety, promoted by Inspector John Littlechild in his letter to George Sims in 1913, my main reason for doubting him is not necessarily clear, so please let me explain now.
The crux as I see it is a management issue. Littlechild may have been nominally one of the five joint heads on the case, but his prime responsibility lay elsewhere. Whilst his Special Branch was active in the East End and would undoubtedly have given input to the case, I would still question his detailed envelopment.
Consider a modern and topical scenario, the preparation of a medium sized corporation’s I.T. systems for Year 2000, (if you prefer it could be implementation of Euro currency transactions)… It is essential that the business gets this right, so a number of senior personnel must be involved in the project. The project’s steering committee may consist of half a dozen senior managers. All will have input, and in meetings all they will bang the table to get what they want (i.e. a working system on 1/1/2000). But only a couple of those managers are actually ‘on the hook’ to deliver. It is they who will be familiar to with the case minutiae. The others will at best view the project by its objectives, contributing resources where necessary. Everybody has the same goal, but the detailed knowledge rests with the managers at the core. They will be in possession of facts which the others won’t have. Relating this back to the Ripper investigation, I view Swanson and Anderson as ‘core’ managers and Littlechild as one of the outer group. As a result, his level of familiarity with the case would not be the same as theirs. He would only be familiar with those issues, (here suspects) which he had cause to remember, particularly after 25 years.
Comparisons like this are always risky, so I’d love to hear some comments on this by you or anybody else.
In general I don’t think that the police did at all a bad job. They were faced with a phenomenon which even though not new was relatively so, and one which they did not understand. We could and should be critical of their efforts and look to fill the gaps in their investigation, such as scene of crime evidence. But in the context of 1888, the officers on the ground seemed to do as well as one could have expected. It is possible to argue that they made the killer's job harder and drove him off the streets after the 'Double Event'. In my view, however, they were not well led by the unpopular, militaristic Warren or by the pompous, absentee Anderson. One needs to consider them, and their successors (such as MacNaghten) in the context of the times. Victorian Britain was in no way a meritocracy. Who you knew was far more important than what you knew. At senior level in almost every walk of life amateurs were preferred to professionals and promotion from the ranks usually met with the 'glass ceiling'.
Concerning the point which you made specifically. Cover-up theories divide into two basic groups, balls-up vs. conspiracy. Some authors have favoured conspiracy in the past. These writers have usually promoted one or more influential suspects and suggested that the Establishment made sure that the truth was suppressed. Generally speaking these writers have not been convincing; their works have fallen down in the face of follow-up research. By and large the more responsible writers who claim cover-up have favoured the ‘balls-up’ theory, but they too are usually promoting a suspect.
What was really the best path? If the senior officers really knew who JTR was, did it look better for them just to drop hints; to make surreptitious, unsupported claims; to keep quiet completely, or to go public and make the findings known?
My view is that if they really knew they would have gone public. For a start the case was too big, too public for them to keep it quiet. In addition they had been held up to ridicule by press and public alike, not always fairly, and under these circumstances I believe that most people would choose to redress the balance. It doesn’t make much sense to go half-way, claim to have solved one of the highest profile criminal cases ever and then refuse to offer names and evidence.
Do I flatter myself, or does somebody want to comment? Regards, V |
Author: 98vicshe
Thursday, 07 January 1999 - 11:28 am | | Dear V.
I must congratulate you on totally ripping my theories to shred. Although this may seem cruel in some way I must say it is very refreshing to find someone who I can actually listen to and debate with.
I really think your ideas are based on fact and knowledge, unlike mine which were just spare of the moment comments. I really like that, a person who talks when they know what it is they are talking about! I think I must go and do a bit of reasearch before talking to you again, but don't get to relaxed I WILL be back, as they say. Happy Regards, S.
PS. What country do you live in? And why do you find Jack the Ripper an interesting topic? |
Author: 98jamsuf
Friday, 08 January 1999 - 03:37 am | | To Viper
Before I start I must tell you that I accidently typed S instead of TS yesterday so don't get confused. I have a friend "Bob Marley" who has been reading our conversations and has decided that he is Jack the Ripper. He is very old and said that he is really sorry that he killed all those women, I think he has gone crazy! I asked him what his method of killing was and he said he sang them to death, bang goes our conspiracy theory!
On that note I have done a bit of research into Scotland Yard's records of Jack and have come up with a surprising NOTHING conclusive. They have a list of suspicions as long as my arm, an eternal list of so called reports of sightings and yet nothing conclusive or enough for any kind of conviction.
I best go now Bob has started singing!
Bye from TS and Bob. |
Author: Tailspin
Thursday, 28 January 1999 - 03:12 am | | Hay Viper,
Why don't you reply or e-mail me? I have some interesting facts that I discovered in a recent essay I had to write. If you wnt to know more, contact me!!! I will give you my friends e-mail bacause my whole computer has crashed!!!!
kay12@Hotmail.com
Tailspin (98vicshe).
PS Please put my name as a subject. |
Author: STU
Thursday, 28 January 1999 - 11:07 am | | HI everyone - Stu here.
I'm one of TS friends from university! Quite comical consedering what has happened recently!! Anyway, I haven't got much to say yet except I got 86% in my ripper studies whilst Tailspin got 88%!!! Just beat me.
Have to go
Stu!!
:¬) |
Author: Tailspin
Friday, 29 January 1999 - 03:11 am | | Stu what you up to? I "ripped" your studies to shreds! I was really happy when I had found that you and me had the two top essays but I think I will have to incease the difference between the marks!!!! See you later.
TS |
Author: STU
Saturday, 30 January 1999 - 06:54 am | | THANX for 'ripping' my essay TS!! I'm really grateful! Yeah right!
Anyway, on the 'only one killer' page. A kid callee Doh!(?) thinks that there was a copper who was in 'on it'.
Whta do you make of it?
Bye
Stu
t
a
i
l
s
p
i
n
i
s
a
girl |
Author: Tailspin
Monday, 01 February 1999 - 03:25 am | | Hi,
I think that there is and alsways has been enough evidence that the police were and are (?) hiding something. There is nothing to suggest, that I know of, to suggest what this something is, but I also know that it could be anything. A large something could include names such as Tumblety or a small something could include a fact or a piece of evidence. The questions are: why hide them? what was hidden? and who hid them?
Luv TS
PS I'm tired so my spelling's a bit rough.
PSS Hiya Stu. |
Author: Mark Eubanks
Wednesday, 14 April 1999 - 10:33 am | | To Whom It May Concern,
Has Anyone Ever Considered The Fact That Jack The Ripper May Have Been A Police Officer? If You Think About It It Would Have Made Sense. In One Case The Police Arrived Just As The Blood Of The Victim Was Flowing Into The Drain...Could Jack The Ripper Been On The Force And Known How Long The Police Would Take To Arrive At The Scene? And If He Was A Police Officer It Would Have Been Alot Easier For Him To Get Away With It Because He Could Commit The Crime And Escape With Enough Time To Get Back To The Scene To Investigate And Question Whitnesses.Please Tell Me What You Think About This. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Wednesday, 14 April 1999 - 06:30 pm | | Mark
You are not the first to come up with the idea that Jack may have been on the force but there is really little in the way of evidence even circumstantial evidence that would suggest Jack was a Policeman.
'Police arriving as the blood was still flowing' you might be describing Strides murder here, but in only one case were the Police to be the first on the scene, and that was with the murder of Eddowes.
Ordinary citizens were the ones to discover the bodies of the other victims, and in no case was the same beat Policeman on the scene of any two of the murdered women. The beat Policemen who arrived at the scene's were in all cases different.
And which force would you have him as a member of ? because Eddowes was murdered within the jurisdiction of the City Police while the others were found in Metropolitan jurisdiction.
In no case was a Policeman the last to be seen with a victim or even seen within the vicinity of the body.
The beat of a Policeman was not regulated as like clockwork, they walked slow and took varying amounts of time to cover there beats.
Also they did not wear watches as a rule, so they were never sure just how long it took them to cover their beats.
Also some were known to walk there beat in reverse in order to outwhit the fiend. So anyone relying on knowing the beat of a specific Constable was playing a 'crap-shoot' if they thought they would know exactly when or where a Policeman might be at any given time.
Having said all that, Jack still could have been on the force, but the point I'm making is that it would be an uphill struggle to come up with any evidence that would point to this being a fruitfull line of enquiry.
On the face of it I have to say that Jack was no more a Policeman, than a midwife, or an actor, or a poet, or a Prince, or any other of those 'fringe' suspects that get aired every now and then.
But by all means Mark, research your idea if you think it will bare fruit.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 15 April 1999 - 10:01 am | | Hi all,
It is indeed unlikely that Jack was a policeman, or even dressed up as one. I can't honestly believe that a police officer would accompany a prostitute to some obvious dark corner, even assuming she would take him. I can't believe she would solicit an officer, and what would she do if he approached her?
In any case, it would make it very risky for Jack. If a real policeman, he would have to account for his hours. No or at least little possibility of stalking his victims. If dressed up as one, then even more risky, he could be called to assistance at any time, and then the game were up.
Further we have to consider the inevitable blood splashes. I could imagine that a Ripper bobby would not feel all that inconspicuous, having to stroll his beat with bloodstained hands hidden deep in his pockets.
Of course, with so many other Jack things, you never know.
Best regards
Bob |
|
|
|
|
